If OnLive works as promised, do you really think it could replace the home console?

[Valiance]

In the UK, boardband speeds are woefully low (8 Mbps is the typical for an area), so I doubt OnLive will really work here for a few years yet. Assuming OnLive actually works. Which is questionnable.

They said they're gonna focus on the north american market first.

If it's only like 20 dollars a month, hell, it might replace most people's computers.

No need to upgrade hardware? Hell, I'd do it. >.>

I signed up for the beta to see if it really works, you know?

 

[KamachoMcSagget]

probably not. exclusive council games would probably keep people playing theirs, such as Resistance and Halo, and it probably cant replace the wii because of the wii remote. aaaaaaaalso, i dont know how much a subscription to it would cost.

 

[Quadtrix]

As far as I know, America doesn't have a download limit.

 

[Quadtrix]

Has anything been said as to whether or not the OnLive microconsole will support wireless? I have an Ethernet cable that can reach to where I want to put it, but just barely.

 

[Nmil-ek]

Why would it replace home consoles? Never heard of it but from whta iv gathered in this thread it only applies to the online capacity of new gen consoles. If I pop on my PS3 or any other its generaly because i want to play singleplayer stuff and get away from assholes online.

 

[Quadtrix]

You play single player games with OnLive as well. It's not limited to online play. Don't know where you got that idea from.

 

[Lios]

It won't replace it, that's for sure. Steam is here, yet people still buy games retail.

I'm still skeptical that Onlive will stay around for longer than a month at least.

 

[Bluntknife]

As far as I know, America doesn't have a download limit.

It's not the country its the service provider.
And they don't usauly advertise that they have one, you have to ask about it.

 

[Quadtrix]

Wouldn't that be illegal?

 

[Jumplion]

Wait, is OnLive going to be available worldwide or just America?

If it's the latter, then hell no for reasons that should be obvious.

 

[antibonk]

Not really. Last thing I really want is yet another monthly bill.

As far as I know, America doesn't have a download limit.

It's not the country its the service provider.
And they don't usauly advertise that they have one, you have to ask about it.

Some ISP's here in the US have caps. I think Comcast has a 200gig/month cap, and I think AT&T is looking at doing so as well.

 

[Jandau]

Onlive will mean lower quality. It is unavoidable. Even a 10ms ping is still more than you'd get by playing off your own disc. Compression is bound to look inferior to standard visuals. And don't get me started on the ownership and dependance on internet connection.

The only saving grace that might give Onlive a chance in hell is if they are cheap enough. If the price is low enough, people will be willing to endure the downsides to save money. Personally, I wouldn't even consider it unless it was around 25% of retail prices...

 

[sms_117b]

Virgin XXL package takes it up to 50Mbs, I'm on 10, and can see no difference whatsover between it and 20Mbs

 

[Altorin]

Not really. Last thing I really want is yet another monthly bill.

As far as I know, America doesn't have a download limit.

It's not the country its the service provider.
And they don't usauly advertise that they have one, you have to ask about it.

Some ISP's here in the US have caps. I think Comcast has a 200gig/month cap, and I think AT&T is looking at doing so as well.

shaw has a standard 60gig cap

it sucks.

 

[Bob_F_It]

OnLive has a total dependancy on the internet, which will have some major issues. We all get those days when the internet just completely dies, and those will become days when our games are no longer available.
While I can trust that OnLive will have fully arsed server speeds, the consumers' end will still affect lag. And there'd better be servers in most countries, because the speed of light dictates that there is always lag over large distances e.g. the Atlantic.

 

[Quadtrix]

Hmm, what are some of the things that affect how much speed you get from your ISP, besides distance from the closest server?

 

[oldMcDouche]

nope. i'd rather have the disc spinning in the console in front of me.

 

[Laughing Man]

Hmm, what are some of the things that affect how much speed you get from your ISP, besides distance from the closest server?

Depends on what kind of connection you have but generally.

Distance from exchange and contention ratio are two big factors as are the medium via which the data is transferred.

The further away you are from your primary exchange the higher the signal to noise ratio is and the more likely you are to get faults in the data that is exchanged at that point your ISP will generally lower your connection speed to improve the reliability of the data being sent.

Contention ratio is simply how many other people in your area share your connection line, most will cap it at 50/1 the package I use has a contention ratio of 20/1 so I am not having to fight with as many people for the bandwidth.

For a wider range of aspects check out this

http://www.pcurtis.com/network-adsl.htm

 

[Quadtrix]

Thanks, but I really couldn't understand much of what that article talked about.

 

[GonzoGamer]

If it really turns out to be Xmas, Easter, and Halloween all rolled into one, sure why not?
IF!

On paper it sounds like a good idea to me. I might get one when the next gen hits; beats trying to figure out which machine is most likely to go haywire.

In a perfect world OnLive will eradicate Gamestop, end the system wars, and bring all games to those who couldn't afford it all. However, this isn't a perfect world and I'm betting that the service will be quite expensive rendering the benefits worthless in the long run.

We'll see.