Onlive - A friend to PC gaming?

[ph0b0s123]

I disagree. At least now. Even with my internet connection shown here [http://speedtest.net/result/1678931138.png], the service is not fast enough to run games (I tired homefront and trine) at anywhere near acceptable clairty. If they upped their bandwidth and allowed for higher resolution transfer, I would use it but not as it is now. As for mobile devices, I cannot try it due to having a WP7, but I just don't see the point. If you want to play a PC game, go play a PC game, don't play it on your phone.

When we all have blisteringly quick internets then it might be a plan.

Until then i'll stick with the PC. If only companies would release more demos, then i might think of buying more games. Have been stung too many times will duff titles that got hyped up before release.

Love that people are taking about how the service compares to plying on their local PC, when that was not the point of the thread. The thread was to say that this service has just potentially made mobile users (a large market), PC gamers. That's to my mind a good thing. No one is saying that it is a replacement for your local gaming rigs.

 

[ph0b0s123]

Extra revenue towards PC games is only a temporary upside, Onlive is not intended to be limited to PC games they are just the easiest to interface with servers right now, but the ultimate goal is all games on all platforms.
And cloud games are the farthest things from a PC gaming experience, they have no flexibility, no advanced options, no mods, no community content,... they are the ultimate police state games.
If games go cloud only we are simply fucked and anyone getting pissy over missing stuff ... tough luck chum, the game is not limited to demanding PC gamers anymore it is now available and bought by all audiences, you are the meaningless minority that will at best the best of boycots show a negligible drop in sales.

So no it's not a friend to PC gaming, cloud gaming is the biggest friend to portability and convenience for all platforms, and on a more scary thought they are an even bigger friend to corporations.

I agree with your sentiment that play via on-live is not the full PC game experience. Never said it was, just that the revenue goes to PC gaming.

The idea it is temporary those is doubtful. It does not matter how much on-live want to do it. You really think they are going to get licensing and technological support from Nintendo, Sony or Microsoft to run their console games across their service. I won't be holding my breath on that one.

 

[Wolfram23]

OnLive seems fine for mobile gaming, but definitely has nothing on a decent desktop. Still, would be nice if you were, say, going on a vacation and wanted to get a little Skyrim in or something.

 

[ph0b0s123]

-snip- but definitely has nothing on a decent desktop. -snip-

Not the point of the thread....

 

[Lillowh]

I disagree. At least now. Even with my internet connection shown here [http://speedtest.net/result/1678931138.png], the service is not fast enough to run games (I tired homefront and trine) at anywhere near acceptable clairty. If they upped their bandwidth and allowed for higher resolution transfer, I would use it but not as it is now. As for mobile devices, I cannot try it due to having a WP7, but I just don't see the point. If you want to play a PC game, go play a PC game, don't play it on your phone.

When we all have blisteringly quick internets then it might be a plan.

Until then i'll stick with the PC. If only companies would release more demos, then i might think of buying more games. Have been stung too many times will duff titles that got hyped up before release.

Love that people are taking about how the service compares to plying on their local PC, when that was not the point of the thread. The thread was to say that this service has just potentially made mobile users (a large market), PC gamers. That's to my mind a good thing. No one is saying that it is a replacement for your local gaming rigs.

Love that many times people do not read the full content of a post before using it as an example of people not fully reading the original post, and in fact does have something to do with the thread. I only said the first part of my post (the part regarding my experience with onlive on my PC) to give some context about my use and experience with the service. If you had continued reading, you would had seen that I proceeded to talk about the mobile device aspect of the service and my opinion on it. I apologize for going off on you like this, and hope it does not burn any bridges, but this is just a major pet peeve of mine, you see.

OT: I will say that I don't think the service isn't a bad idea for things like mobile gaming on a laptop, especially since powerful laptops can get expensive. Like I said though, I don't see the point of using it with a phone. Seems like one of the most pointless things you can do for multiple reasons (controls, screen size, etc).

 

[ph0b0s123]

I disagree. At least now. Even with my internet connection shown here [http://speedtest.net/result/1678931138.png], the service is not fast enough to run games (I tired homefront and trine) at anywhere near acceptable clairty. If they upped their bandwidth and allowed for higher resolution transfer, I would use it but not as it is now. As for mobile devices, I cannot try it due to having a WP7, but I just don't see the point. If you want to play a PC game, go play a PC game, don't play it on your phone.

When we all have blisteringly quick internets then it might be a plan.

Until then i'll stick with the PC. If only companies would release more demos, then i might think of buying more games. Have been stung too many times will duff titles that got hyped up before release.

Love that people are taking about how the service compares to plying on their local PC, when that was not the point of the thread. The thread was to say that this service has just potentially made mobile users (a large market), PC gamers. That's to my mind a good thing. No one is saying that it is a replacement for your local gaming rigs.

Love that many times people do not read the full content of a post before using it as an example of people not fully reading the original post, and in fact does have something to do with the thread. I only said the first part of my post (the part regarding my experience with onlive on my PC) to give some context about my use and experience with the service. If you had continued reading, you would had seen that I proceeded to talk about the mobile device aspect of the service and my opinion on it. I apologize for going off on you like this, and hope it does not burn any bridges, but this is just a major pet peeve of mine, you see.

OT: I will say that I don't think the service isn't a bad idea for things like mobile gaming on a laptop, especially since powerful laptops can get expensive. Like I said though, I don't see the point of using it with a phone. Seems like one of the most pointless things you can do for multiple reasons (controls, screen size, etc).

Again all of this is not the point of the thread. That the service is good bad or indifferent on mobiles, I crap about as I will never use it. It is just that all those mobile users using the service are contributing financially to PC gaming, that was the point of the thread.

 

[boag]

Up until now I have been down on Onlive as a service, with the idea that it is a replacement or competitor to PC gaming. It is only today, with the launch of Onlive apps for Android and IOS, that I realized that Onlive, may be PC gamings biggest friend.

Why, because in on move Onlive has just added all mobile users to the ranks of PC gamers. Why, because any money they spend on Onlive goes towards PC game revenue. It's not console versions of the games they are running on that system. PC gaming just got a much much bigger potential user base. If Onlive is successful on mobile it will drive more PC game development.

The only down side might be that developers embrace the service so much that they develop controls that only work well on touch screens.

So yeah, Onlive - a big friend to PC gaming.

Edit: From the comments, people do realise that On-live's service is based on allowing users with dumb clients to remote desktop into powerful PC's to play PC games. I.e anyone who uses On-live on anything but a PC, has effectively become a PC gamer and is contributing to PC game sales.

Im still waiting for fiber to be fully implemented in the area I live in, so that I can consider the service, Onlive has been a very revolutionary service and I applaud it for changing the way of PC gaming.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Onlive means you don't even own your own data anymore.

Not a chance in hell.

 

[ph0b0s123]

Up until now I have been down on Onlive as a service, with the idea that it is a replacement or competitor to PC gaming. It is only today, with the launch of Onlive apps for Android and IOS, that I realized that Onlive, may be PC gamings biggest friend.

Why, because in on move Onlive has just added all mobile users to the ranks of PC gamers. Why, because any money they spend on Onlive goes towards PC game revenue. It's not console versions of the games they are running on that system. PC gaming just got a much much bigger potential user base. If Onlive is successful on mobile it will drive more PC game development.

The only down side might be that developers embrace the service so much that they develop controls that only work well on touch screens.

So yeah, Onlive - a big friend to PC gaming.

Edit: From the comments, people do realise that On-live's service is based on allowing users with dumb clients to remote desktop into powerful PC's to play PC games. I.e anyone who uses On-live on anything but a PC, has effectively become a PC gamer and is contributing to PC game sales.

Im still waiting for fiber to be fully implemented in the area I live in, so that I can consider the service, Onlive has been a very revolutionary service and I applaud it for changing the way of PC gaming.

I don't want it to change the way of PC gaming, just to bring in extra money so devs have more reasons to keep developing PC games. Quite happy with my local PC gaming experience thanks.

 

[ph0b0s123]

Onlive means you don't even own your own data anymore.

Not a chance in hell.

Again the point of the thread was not to discuss how good or bad On-live is as a service, but the impact of the extra revenue it may bring to PC gaming...

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Onlive means you don't even own your own data anymore.

Not a chance in hell.

Again the point of the thread was not to discuss how good or bad On-live is as a service, but the impact of the extra revenue it may bring to PC gaming...

But it won't.

What it will do is bring extra revenue to Onlive. Which will be then used for PC Cloud games. Which will be unmoddable due to the Cloud, and thus reduced to "bang-em-out-cheap", like the consoles have had for years.

What you're looking at is a revenue stream without looking where it's heading. And that extra money will be there to alter PC gaming to fit console/mobile gaming.

That's never been a good thing.

 

[ph0b0s123]

Onlive means you don't even own your own data anymore.

Not a chance in hell.

Again the point of the thread was not to discuss how good or bad On-live is as a service, but the impact of the extra revenue it may bring to PC gaming...

But it won't.

What it will do is bring extra revenue to Onlive. Which will be then used for PC Cloud games. Which will be unmoddable due to the Cloud, and thus reduced to "bang-em-out-cheap", like the consoles have had for years.

What you're looking at is a revenue stream without looking where it's heading. And that extra money will be there to alter PC gaming to fit console/mobile gaming.

That's never been a good thing.

Well they are not running 'PC Cloud games' at the moment, they are running the same games we are on our PC's, just without giving the users access to the options screens. They are buying PC game licenses (the same ones we buy with our high street / digital purchases), for all the games on their service.

That may change in the future, but at the moment all On-live purchases for games on their services are PC games sales.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

just without giving the users access to the options screens.

And that's what's gonna kill it.

Once you require perpetual acquiescence to use something, you're holding the game to ransom.

That's not, and never has, been how the PC games work. Watch what happens if Steam is offline for more than 5 minutes.

Unless they offer the games for less than you could get them, people won't use the system unless they have cash to burn.

 

[ph0b0s123]

just without giving the users access to the options screens.

And that's what's gonna kill it.

Once you require perpetual acquiescence to use something, you're holding the game to ransom.

That's not, and never has, been how the PC games work. Watch what happens if Steam is offline for more than 5 minutes.

Unless they offer the games for less than you could get them, people won't use the system unless they have cash to burn.

I would not expect PC gamers to use it as the services does not compare with the experience of having the PC game locally. That does not mean I don't welcome them converting the money from mobile users, who obviously don't have access to local PC gaming, into money for PC gaming. That to me is excellent news and the point of this thread.

 

[Da Orky Man]

Well yeah.

If you've got a godly enough internet connection.

That is where I'm going to leave this. It's crazy, like some of you people think we're all downloading at 3MBPS or something...

I'm agreeing with this guy. We don't all have the internet connection to play any decently modern games streamed online. Hell, some nights i;m lucky to break 300kbps.

 

[ph0b0s123]

just without giving the users access to the options screens.

And that's what's gonna kill it.

Once you require perpetual acquiescence to use something, you're holding the game to ransom.

That's not, and never has, been how the PC games work. Watch what happens if Steam is offline for more than 5 minutes.

Unless they offer the games for less than you could get them, people won't use the system unless they have cash to burn.

Not only that, but they could actually hold actual games for ransom. Imagine games being released on services like that and either their licensing running out, company that did them going out of business or the maker of the game suddenly deciding it's "contra-productive" to their image, say RockStar decides to pull Manhunt or something.
The game(s) would be gone forever, as noone would be in posession of the software anymore. Like movies being in the cinema and suddenly stopping to play and never being shown anywhere again.

That is all true and is why if you have a PC you should get game to play locally. Mobile users cannot do that with PC games, so this is the only choice. Again this thread is not about On-live replacing how PC owners currently buy there games, but about On-live increasing the money coming into PC gaming, by including mobile and Google TV users (announced today).

 

[Iron Lightning]

On-live is good for PC gaming as long as it never becomes popular nor gross any even slightly significant market share (let's say 5% at the very most.) If they don't do that then developers and publishers would start designing games for On-live which would fuck the whole thing over as other posters have pointed out.

I do not believe that we should take that risk and I think that supporting On-live in any way is therefore a terrible idea.

 

[Warforger]

Well yeah.

If you've got a godly enough internet connection.

That is where I'm going to leave this. It's crazy, like some of you people think we're all downloading at 3MBPS or something...

Did you use it? Because even for poor connections it ran pretty smoothly IIRC.