ONLIVE to kill console and computer gaming?

[teisjm]

Well, seeing how much Ubisofts dreaded DRM is currently hated , i don't think a service that only works online is gonna be killing anything any time soon.

As for teh PC thing you mention... Wouldn't you think, that they'd include the option to play with mouse/keyboard?

And as for killing, it'll still have to battle the systems, and it has some weak points, the people are already invested in their systems, fanboys emotionally as well.
The companies still have shitloads of money and inhouse developers to make sure theres games exclusively on their consoles.

I like having consoles under my TV, if i hadn't, my tv-table would look empty and hollow.

Also, the consoles could use this technology themselves, to run games beyond theyr capabillity.

 

[coldfrog]

Cloud computing isn't a new idea... the application of real-time gaming is I guess. You'd need one heck of a network infrastructure to pull off real-time current-gen graphics processing, though.

It wouldn't kill Sony or Microsoft's gaming platforms, they'd just offer similar services.

This would certainly injure "piracy" pretty bad I imagine if everyone went to this model and dropped the "conventional" models. Though that's unlikely.

It's really the old "rent vs own" idea. Renting is more expensive in the long run (for continuing use items), but more accesible up-front; owning is less expensive in the long run, with greater up-front costs.

Different strokes for different folks.

Basically this exact thing. People who rent games a lot will love this, and not only that, it has the exceptional advantage of not needing to upgrade to the newest console when it comes about. Of course, you probably won't be able to go back and play old games (maybe a few classics and big name titles) but renters tend not to care about that.

Also, have you looked at things like GameFly? Is GameFly still around? Yes? Well, this will likely do well too. Now, if GameFly had started doing this themselves it would be a guarantee because they've already got the background and the knowledge, it should be easy to pull together the capital for the infrastructure. I'm not sure who's backing it, but as long as they can take the inevitable losses at the start of this, I think it'll last.

I, personally, won't use it though. I like the tactile feelings of a fresh box filled with disc-y glee, and I don't feel the urge to play a million different games. I prefer to focus on one for a while. I wish them the best of luck.

 

[Weaver]

IF on live works it will be great for people with unlimited bandwidth and without roommates who download stuff/use the internet as well.

With this service you're internet usage is going to fucking sky rocket.
Furthermore, if anyone ELSE uses your connection to download things you're game is going to be rendered unplayable.

Sure sounds like we have a winner here.

 

[The Unworthy Gentleman]

This just sounds like Steam and any other form of game purchase-download service out their except the only difference is you need a thing to plug in somewhere and a 10 quid subscription. I just don't understand how this is different and how it poses as a threat to the current way games are played and sold.

 

[rddj623]

There will always be people like me out there who prefer to actually hold something in there hands. I still like buying cd's rather than digitally downloading them, etc. Games will be the same way. I don't think I would even consider buying onlive.

 

[Treblaine]

Internet download caps and Latency issues say No.

No to mention the likely onerous subscription fees to keep this network running, with even MANAGEABLE latency. I mean look at how much WoW costs per month, and that isn't even rending anything, it's just running simple collision code.

I mean the very fact that we have heard NOTHING about the pricing of On-Live shows only one thing: it will be so expensive they want to keep it secret as long as possible. And this is at the same time as consoles have become incredibly well priced, I can pick up a decent condition PS3 for £170, and Xbox 360 for as little as £100.

Edit: OK 10-quid / $15 per month is not "terrible" but seriously, in just one year that adds up to 120-quid / $180 but how much is a games console now? Seriously, an Xbox 360 easily goes for 120-quid / $180 and not much more and you have a PS3 but ON TOP OF THAT you have to pay for the games that you rent and "buy", that is "buy" in quotation marks as I can still play Dreamcast games but if OnLive goes down, that's it, rental removed, game gone. Steam has a back up to allow your purchased games to function FOREVER no matter what happens company finances wise. God this is looking worse and worse, death of console gaming? More like death of brain cells.


Another problem with HD-gaming on On-live is how incredibly NARROW that definition is: 720p and 30fps ONLY

Well what about the hundreds of 60fps titles like Burnout, Call of Duty and entire genres like Hack n' Slash, and Fighting games, driving games, On-Live just can't handle 60fps. And I play ALL my PC games in 60fps.
Then what about how more and more games are now coming in 1080p resolution, like GT5, Wipeout HD and the upcoming Perfect Dark remake.

And as an avid PC gamer I expect to and regularly play all my games in 1080p+ resolution and 60 frames per second, everything from Batman Arkham Asylum to Modern Warfare 2, on PC it is 1080p60 all the way and I know that OnLive just cannot offer anything close to that. And preview code has shown that beyond the resolution, the in-game graphics aren't that amazing on server side computing (according to reviews of preview code) as clearly they are skimping on processing power to save money only end up with graphics worse than the PC it is streaming to.

Another problem is the compression, I don't care what anyone says, there is no way you can compress ANY image at 720p that that few points of data without losing quality. That means blurrier, more washed out, shit really and couldn't REALLY be considered 720p there is literally only enough data there for some 480p image (and they type you'd get over a crappy composite video input).

Combined with all the lack of controls of graphics controls (some prefer v-lock, others prefer higher frame-rate), it is the LAST thing I bloody well want.

 

[Eggsnham]

Console gaming, possibly.

Computer Gaming, I doubt it. The computer has Mouse and Keyboard which, even though I will be flamed for saying this, Is ten thousand times better then a controller. Even though you may need to pay extra for upgrades of a computer, I would still use that then a damned controller.

This is all opinion of course, but I personally feel more of a natural connection with a controller. Probably because I was raised using a controller as my primary source of controlling shit.

Well same here, its just that I have found using a mouse is a lot better, at least in RTS and FPS games. Now for Third person shooters i cant think of using anything like that, I could only use a controller for them type of games, same with fighting and racing.

I like controllers with everything except RTS. RTS just doesn't feel good with a controller.

 

[sailor_960]

No I wasn't comparing an ipod to Onlive. I was comparing a new medium (in this case the ipod) for experiencing entertainment (in this case movies) to the tired and true method that is in place(here represented by movie theaters). Thanks for the constructive criticism though.

 

[Stormz]

I doubt it will, but I would never use something like that. They could shut down games at anytime and you'd never be able to play them again. Think I'll stick to actually owning a game instead of just having a rental that they can take away at any time.

So I refuse to ever use something that forces me to be online, ever.

 

[Lightslei]

Users will pay a $14.95 (£9.99) subscription fee each month, plus the cost of either buying or renting each game

Or I'll just buy a console once and not worry about a monthly charge.

This = Going to flop.

internet service. you forget about that?

Nope.

I don't like multiplayer games that much in the first place so I tend to play single player consoles, thus things like XBOX Live don't bother me.

 

[TelHybrid]

Horrible idea.

Digital distribution is the work of the devil. Streaming is even worse.

If this catches on I and any other true gamers will be finding another hobby.

Edit: Or just play old games

 

[Orcus The Ultimate]

console maybe, but for the rest i have to say "Bullpoop !"

 

[The Heik]

http://uk.videogames.games.yahoo.com/blog/article/9173/

well well well looks like consoles and computers wont be needed to play games anymore, check out the link above.

what are your thoughts on this? sorry if its old news =)

Totally not gonna be the death of consoles. They're just making the consoles built into the screen itself, which would mean that both the screen and the console would be underpowered. Also, this means that we can't choose our consoles and TVs separately, so if you want one screen but need another console you can't have both.

Anyway not everyone has online fast enough to deal with it (me included), and considering the AC2 server crash that left thousands hung out to dry, this gimmick is going to fail right out.

 

[Treblaine]

Users will pay a $14.95 (£9.99) subscription fee each month, plus the cost of either buying or renting each game

Or I'll just buy a console once and not worry about a monthly charge.

This = Going to flop.

internet service. you forget about that?

I'm not going to pay for a "walled garden" and that's all a paid-for service can offer.

I think what I and most consumers want is a streamlined, simple and responsive service that is FREE like Steam or PSN or Wii's Network. And WHY would I want to be locked into one service when the whole point of the internet is I can visit and shop all over the place for the most choice and best price thanks to competition.

Steam wins because it lets me connect to and follow my friends even as they are using entirely third-party and user-administrated servers. Sometimes a good service, less is more, less intrusion, less control, less no bloody monthly fees. I get enough monthly bills at the moment and my overdraft can only be pushed so far.

XBL Gold Membership is a special case, a strange rather low-rate annual fee it is nothing but a blatant subsidy cost to cover hardware expenditures as the 360 launched it had very high specs for it's price (also repairing/replacing RROD consoles ain't cheap).

 

[Anticitizen_Two]

It will not, because:

1) It is being introduced halfway through a console generation and therefore very few people are really looking for a new console.
2} You have to pay by the month.

 

[Pingieking]

Internet download caps and Latency issues say No.
*Lots of stuff*

This, basically.
OnLive will work well for people who have sub-par PCs and possibly console owners. For anyone with a PC capable of running a new game on medium settings, this will be a quality downgrade.

I think it sucks because anything related to gaming that requires internet connections at all times automatically sucks.

 

[TK421]

Console gaming, possibly.

Computer Gaming, I doubt it. The computer has Mouse and Keyboard which, even though I will be flamed for saying this, Is ten thousand times better then a controller. Even though you may need to pay extra for upgrades of a computer, I would still use that then a damned controller.

I agree that the mouse and keyboard are superior. Also I think the "ONLIVE" idea is stupid.