What's wrong with Steam? The fact that you can't sell your games? That is a PC issue, not a Steam issue.Stormz said:
OnLive - The future of Gaming
- Thread starter Sampler
- Start date
Recommended Videos
It's akin to you-must-be-online-to-play-single-player DRM. (There is an offline mode, but if you go without being connected to the internet for like two hours, Steam will freak out because it's afraid there is an update it isn't getting.)Assassin Xaero said:
I don't see OnLive kicking off in Ireland for the next few years. The average download speed is less than kb/s and most ISPs have a download limit of around 10 - 40 GB a month.
Since when? They has the server blocked at my college and I never had a problem with playing in offline mode all the time.Kopikatsu said:
I picked it up on Steam, myself, but not because I wanted to. I did so because I went to Best Buy, looked at the PC copy on the shelf, and saw "Games for Windows Live" on the cover. "Fuck that shit," I said, so I went home and begrudgingly bought the Steam version.IzisviAziria said:
Even the hard copies on the bloody shelves aren't really hard copies on the shelves--they're content and registration codes for other online distribution services. It's a horrible pain in the ass, too, because most of them are crap and don't work. Case in point, I got Fallout 3 GOTY edition a while back, hard copy, Games for Windows; damn thing just doesn't run. It doesn't even give me an error message or anything, it just quits to desktop as soon as I hit "start" from the launcher. I get Fallout 3 on Steam? It works fine.
Fuckin' publishers are gonna drag us into this nonsense kicking and screaming.
As for OnLive, I don't buy it's going to take off. Nobody's internet connection is ever going to be stable enough for this to be viable, not because transfer speeds won't be quick enough--but because most ISPs are going to continue offering horrible, unreliable service for the next hundred years.
It did say only fully-updated games would work, so there may have been an update, but how it would know is beyond me.Kopikatsu said:
The only thing I know (and want to know) about OnLive are that I have to skip that awful "What is OnLive?" ad for every third youtube video I watch.
Go away OnLive, nobody loves you really.
I'll stick with good old-fashioned hard copies thank you very much.
Go away OnLive, nobody loves you really.
I'll stick with good old-fashioned hard copies thank you very much.
Go see an optometrist because you were seeing words that aren't there... specifically 'Live'.NickCaligo42 said:
Skyrim on PC uses Steam/Steamworks not GFWL.
I find your optimism heartwarming yet amusing... like a puppy attacking it's own tail.Sampler said:
For a lot of people their access to communications infrastructure is shit and will remain shit until it reaches crisis point - ie, more profitable for communications companies to actually improve things instead of gouging the consumer on the grounds of resource scarcity.
The future of console gaming, maybe, but I think I'm going to go with the future of casual gaming.
Speaking as a person who tested OnLive before it went live, and I've tested it from time to time since it's launch, I'm impressed, but as others have stated, it isn't suitable for PC, because you can't use mods, atleast not yet, and upwards of 10% of america still has no internet, and America still is a pretty sucky country when it comes to internet connection and speed compared to most of europe, and with a program like OnLive, a reasonably fast and steady connection is a must. And I also hardly doubt it's going to be picked up by people who play competetively.
But sure, give it a shot, but the future of gaming? I hardly doubt it.
not to think about people who has download limits on their connections, I don't have any numbers on how much data a normal play session would typically send, but playing a game just 5 hours a day, isn't going to be cheap.
Speaking as a person who tested OnLive before it went live, and I've tested it from time to time since it's launch, I'm impressed, but as others have stated, it isn't suitable for PC, because you can't use mods, atleast not yet, and upwards of 10% of america still has no internet, and America still is a pretty sucky country when it comes to internet connection and speed compared to most of europe, and with a program like OnLive, a reasonably fast and steady connection is a must. And I also hardly doubt it's going to be picked up by people who play competetively.
But sure, give it a shot, but the future of gaming? I hardly doubt it.
not to think about people who has download limits on their connections, I don't have any numbers on how much data a normal play session would typically send, but playing a game just 5 hours a day, isn't going to be cheap.
All these things and lag, in singleplayer even.
We need more than higher bandwidth in the future if this scheme is going to work properly. Latency needs to be cut.
Even then I question the economics of moving all the hardware to a central server. Fast consumer hardware is so cheap because the masses are buying. If the market for consumer hardware collapses and only big streaming companies are buying, they'll be paying fortunes for their hardware again like in the good old days. The end consumer will end up paying more.
We need more than higher bandwidth in the future if this scheme is going to work properly. Latency needs to be cut.
Even then I question the economics of moving all the hardware to a central server. Fast consumer hardware is so cheap because the masses are buying. If the market for consumer hardware collapses and only big streaming companies are buying, they'll be paying fortunes for their hardware again like in the good old days. The end consumer will end up paying more.
And if you think people were pissed off about always on DRM in Assassin's Creed, wait until they realise this is always on DRM for every game they own.Sampler said:
My experiences with one game give me a perfect experience with which to judge the entirety of the system.
Maybe in the UK, but not in the states. We're seeing caps instated. Limits decreased.
I'd judge the final product by the rumours before it's even announced, too. Brilliant strategy.
Red Rings and Yellow Lights aren't system-wide outages.
I'm curious as to how this system won't be hacked. Seriously, enlighten me.
And people in rural areas. And people without internet.
My internet has only gotten worse over the years. Additionally, there is little incentive for an American company to actually improve their service. It costs a lot to do that and will eat into those financial statements that are the lifeblood of an American corporation.
In the same sense that a prostitute loves that guy over there. You see him? He's with all the other guys with money.Sampler said:
Publishers go to whoever can get them money, if there's a good market for something then they'll sell to them. Thing is that Microsoft and Sony bring in fuck loads of money compared to OnLive and they do it almost instantly with a small trail off, which is what publishers really want. OnLive brings in money the same way you can fill your cup up with the drips from taps, you'll get it eventually but you won't be as satisfied as if you had just turned the tap on.
Realistically speaking people are going to continue buying from Microsoft and Sony for their consoles, they plug them in and play and they seem far cheaper. OnLive may be cheaper in the first place but people soon realise that they have to pay that subscription each month if they want their games, granted they get them all but they still have to make sure that payment is kept. On top of that, they have to keep up the broadband payment which rules out people not on an unlimited plan and even then it's sketchy that they'll get the game the quality they would want.
To put it bluntly OnLive simply just doesn't cut it. It has great potential but to put all your eggs in that basket is a poor decision. Microsoft and Sony will maintain control over this for generations, the future may not definitely be hard-copies but it sure as shit won't be OnLive, whatever benefits you may say it has.
I've said it dozens of times on this site. Being forced to have your games linked to an account. What if your hacked? or banned? You lose 100s of dollars of games that you supposedly owned. You don't own your steam games and you never will. Our ISPs here in Canada are also greedy ass holes so our internet is terrible. We can't afford to download a 10GB game from the internet.Assassin Xaero said: