Yes, the company fails while in bankruptcy and they blame their horrible customers for not having the same vision and insight they do. Losers. The reality is that people were already invested in PC gaming on Steam, they didn't trust OnLive to be able to deliver and the pricing scheme of OnLive provided little advantage over other possibilities. Lastly, they set themselves up for trying to hit a moving target. 1080p is no longer the top notch in PC gaming. Now high-end PC gaming is going to much higher resolutions. But none of that matters. If gamers were could just see the glory of OnLive a little more clearer...
OnLive Streaming Service Shuts Down, Sells What's Left to Sony
- Thread starter Steven Bogos
- Start date
And thus was nobody surprised, seriously. This service was only ever known as "Gaikai's crappy little brother". No one ever really knew about it, they were horrible at making themselves well known, and well... Yeah, after Gaikai was being bought by Sony a couple years back, I am guessing people just forgot all together about OnLive's existence.
Um it's not a misconception, it's true they just shut down and sold what's left to Sony.
Called it long ago, can't rightly remember the reasons why I said it would fail, yeah it was so off the radar I couldn't even bother remembering the legit reasons why the service sucked arse and would fail.
Assuming of course your nt connection had the bandwidth.. and there wasn't a laggy serverFogHornG36 said:
In all honesty I don't think anyone expected them to succeed. Those of us who know ho the internet and games work know that even client heavy games suffer serious network lag. And thats when all that's being sent back and forth is positional and state data. As opposed that plus rendering instructions and sound data.
The fact that few people thought the company was dead basically means they couldn't have had much of a user base to begin with.
Seriously. It sounds good on paper but paper is a very flimsy thing.
What's going to happen to the people who gave them money?
I think I gave them a buck a few years ago to get Deus Ex HR. Of course, I never got around to playing it and haven't even started OnLive in years, and I have the Director's Cut on Steam now and a machine wholly capable of playing it, so I'm not really broken up about it. But still.
I kind of liked their big flashy presentation most of all. Made me think of the bygone days from the early "multimedia" era ? you wouldn't get something like that on Steam, because why overload the system with an overly flashy interface? Looks like even that's gone at the moment.
I think I gave them a buck a few years ago to get Deus Ex HR. Of course, I never got around to playing it and haven't even started OnLive in years, and I have the Director's Cut on Steam now and a machine wholly capable of playing it, so I'm not really broken up about it. But still.
I kind of liked their big flashy presentation most of all. Made me think of the bygone days from the early "multimedia" era ? you wouldn't get something like that on Steam, because why overload the system with an overly flashy interface? Looks like even that's gone at the moment.
i am sad to see it go if only that i can no longer point to it and explain: " Is this really what you want gaming to become?"
streaming gaming doesnt work and it wont until we find a way to break the speed of light. good luck on that. the data simply are physically incapable of traveling fast enough.
1. have a server in every city, no matter how small.
2. break the speed of light.
Well, you should not just buy a 50 dollar box because you would have a far worse experience. for one - the input lag as already explained. for two - streaming only works with compressed video, so your visuals will look akin to youtube - far worse than the actual game. For three - why the fuck would you want bluetooth conntroller?
and no, it wouldnt be all good. while 10 gig connection would definatelly mean the compression problem could be removed, all other problems - such as physically impossible to transmit data fast enough due to speed of light limitations - would still exist.
streaming gaming doesnt work and it wont until we find a way to break the speed of light. good luck on that. the data simply are physically incapable of traveling fast enough.
To be fair, last time i visited their site you had two options: Rent a game or subscribe to a package, very much like netflix. They did not tell you you bought a game. that being said, yep, full download for me as well.Hairless Mammoth said:
Yes, it was and not its not. Not unless you can find a way to transmit data at speeds faster than the speed of light. because even if we assume fiber optics (light transfer), a very long straight cable and aboslutely no delays from any hops it has to go through, the mere distance from server makes input lag unplayable. so theres only two ways to fix this:WeepingAngels said:
1. have a server in every city, no matter how small.
2. break the speed of light.
Well, you should not just buy a 50 dollar box because you would have a far worse experience. for one - the input lag as already explained. for two - streaming only works with compressed video, so your visuals will look akin to youtube - far worse than the actual game. For three - why the fuck would you want bluetooth conntroller?
Game streaming isnt revolutionary. the idea and attempts to do it were around for decades. its just that its the first company that tried to do it as a service rather than stremaing games you own elsewhere.karloss01 said:
and no, it wouldnt be all good. while 10 gig connection would definatelly mean the compression problem could be removed, all other problems - such as physically impossible to transmit data fast enough due to speed of light limitations - would still exist.
