Console killer' OnLive to launch in June

daz said:
It's not so much about the bandwidth, it's about the latency.
Click to expand...

They're connected though. A high average amount of bandwidth is probably due to high fibre penetration, which means that latency inevitably will be very low, assuming of course that OnLive chooses the right spots for their servers.
 
Until they sort out download caps in the UK, I don’t see this taking off. Not even the big boys at Steam/Valve can handle the server load when a popular new game gets released and people struggle to play the game as so many people are hammering the servers for the first few hours. So I can imagine how bad the lag would be if a company such as SquareEnix released a new Final Fantasy on that platform and everyone wanted to play it at the same time.
Great idea but way too far ahead for its time.
 
Last edited:
for 1 million reasons
IT WONT WORK
when cod 7 is released can you imagine midnight on that i think not. 8 million swarming to a service were u download video of a game while you play it
 
Christ if i even hover my mouse over 'save iamge' my ISP freaks and limits bandwidth, a online gaming service coming in at the same time as isps doing everything they can to cull peoples usage is not going to work out well.
 
Macky said:
It's a fantastic idea however it will only work semi-decently in a country like USA. Not UK as the internet is not reliable enough here. Also I dislike subscription. :(
Click to expand...

I think we actually have better broadband speeds than the US, and it is generally cheaper too.
 
Ultimately it'll get slammed in reviews (for poor response times and compression quality I imagine, and I bet users get annoyed when the servers go down as they inevitably will from time to time), when new games are released on the service, the system will be swamped and the experience won't be very good at all. Very few will end up buying it, the company will shut down and it'll be useless as a niche product for the few who buy it as the servers will no longer be maintained.

Console killer it ain't.
 
JUMPURS said:
That's only big cities, we have 50MB cable here too, and you don't need to live in a big city.

Heres a study for you to show how bad it is.
http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/20090826/cwa/
Click to expand...

Yeah but then you have to remember that America is a pretty large, geographically speaking, country with a lot of poor areas. A lot of people basically live in the sticks out there with little money to afford fast broadband, and since Americans subscribe fairly heavily to capitalism, there's (likely, at any rate, this is actually a huge assumption on my part) little in the way of government spending to help get faster connections to those smaller, poorer areas - and since it'd cost a lot, and the people wouldn't have a lot to pay for the connections, there's absolutely no business incentive to do so.
 
Lightnix said:
Yeah but then you have to remember that America is a pretty large, geographically speaking, country with a lot of poor areas. A lot of people basically live in the sticks out there with little money to afford fast broadband, and since Americans subscribe fairly heavily to capitalism, there's (likely, at any rate, this is actually a huge assumption on my part) little in the way of government spending to help get faster connections to those smaller, poorer areas - and since it'd cost a lot, and the people wouldn't have a lot to pay for the connections, there's absolutely no business incentive to do so.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily, but what you have to remember is that there are areas in the states, like in Texas where the land where peoples houses are is 5 acres. That's not a farm or ranch, that's just 'a yard'. These people can afford broadband at high speeds (hell many get the horrible satelite connection) but because of the large distances, it just doesn't work well for DSL, and cable is a huge no go.

It isn't because people are poor, but because with the distances needed to be covered, it just isn't technically feasible.
 
Memphis said:
They have proved it works on certainly a small scale, however even on a reasonably fast connection in the States there was lag that made an FPS difficult to play.

The tech is absolutely fine. Unfortunately the world's network infrastructure isn't.

It'll have a niche market, but I doubt it'll be enough to keep it alive for too long.
Click to expand...

niche market in video games = a certain DEATH
 
Possibly something that will actually come into action when the worlds network infrastructure gets upgraded to the point where gigabytes of data can be transferred instantly. Otherwise for now, there's only going to be a select few people on super high speed connections that have the ability to use it. Supposedly been under production for 8 years.
 
Semple said:
Possibly something that will actually come into action when the worlds network infrastructure gets upgraded to the point where gigabytes of data can be transferred instantly. Otherwise for now, there's only going to be a select few people on super high speed connections that have the ability to use it. Supposedly been under production for 8 years.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I think this kind of thing will be the future, but not for a good while.
 
Heard about this a while back and I was skeptical about it then too. It's a good idea I think, just unable to be implemented properly with the networks that we have at the moment. Some people could have an excellent gaming experience, while others could have an un-enjoyable lag fest. Also, I'd be interested to see what kind of prices the subscriptions and game rentals are when the service is released in the summer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom