On-Live, What are your thoughts about it?

Utnac · 18 Aug 2012 at 15:49

Sleepery said:
RPS are reporting that it's been bought out now, with most of the staff being rehired, so someone's prepared to bet on it. I don't think the infrastructure is up to snuff in the British Isles yet though, needs another 10 years.

RPS are pretty behind on this, Joystick and Engadget have much Better articles quoting multiple former employees, no links cos I'm on my phone.

Omaeka · 18 Aug 2012 at 15:54

Played Batman Arkham Asylum a few years ago on my Laptop with the free trial, it was pretty cool, obviously looked great to me as I was used to **** consoles at that point. My only grief was that it felt a tad unresponsive.

Of course, if you actually own a powerful PC its completely useless, but it could be good for those who don't.

Kenai · 18 Aug 2012 at 15:56

Utnac said:
Everyone thought Steam was garbage in 2004, and now you get these maniacs who won't buy a game anywhere else so just give it time
I'd say.

Of course it will be getting the time to develop which will be tricky.

Valve didn't go bankrupt in 2005 though

Glaucus · 18 Aug 2012 at 17:15

It's the future, but it and Internet infrastructure is not ready yet.

Utnac · 18 Aug 2012 at 19:35

Kenai said:
Valve didn't go bankrupt in 2005 though

Likely would have done though if they'd been a start up and steam as it was in 2004 was their sole moneymaker.

RedStarRiot · 18 Aug 2012 at 19:35

Glaucus said:
It's the future, but it and Internet infrastructure is not ready yet.

I think it's another generation away. It's not just the infastructure but also the general public are not ready. They are still clinging on to physical media when it comes to games.

almoststew1990 · 18 Aug 2012 at 22:21

I tried it on 50mbps virgin network about a year and a half ago, and whilst I could game in HD, It was at equivilent of medium settings (as a guess- playing DiRT 2) and also didnt look very good anyway as my monitor displayed it at 720p scaled to 768p. It also seemed to my brain to be a video, not me playing the game- hard to explain really lol. I guess the graphical disadvantages aren't such a big deal for console gamers who are used to scaled games and not ultra settings (I might have been actually playing the xbox version for all I know), but coming from PC gaming it was a noticable difference and enough to put me off. There was also slight lag, so maybe the infrastructure was not up to the task.

nitram100 · 18 Aug 2012 at 23:21

I play it occasionaly on my xperia play, must say it is really fun playing Dirt 3 on a mobile phone and the lag is not that bad if you have a good connection.

Cutshaw · 18 Aug 2012 at 23:38

I understand it's merits but it's not for me. As people have already said, they don't have ninja deathbox machines, or can make use it from a mobile or at work(tsk tsk). But I'm altogether too fussy and I like my pc corner in the man-cave.

I could make use of it in a pinch but it's not something that would replace my big box of lad-lego under my desk.

V4NT0M · 18 Aug 2012 at 23:49

Its a good idea but it doesn't work too well, quality is pretty bad.

MeMeMeMe · 19 Aug 2012 at 03:37

FrenchTart said:
I'm afraid you're completely wrong. Bandwidth is *not* the issue. This has been discussed to death in the previous thread(s) and all of our testing using the actual service has shown that bandwidth really is not the limiting factor.

You quoted my response, and reacted against it, withoiut reading the rerason for it.

I completely agree that the technical limitations behind a system like Onlive are not bandwidth.

The quote I said was why it was commercially problematic at the moment. When even a low-intensive game like Fishdom used a third of our family's bandwidth in just a day, bandwidth IS a problem - but a commercial one, not a technical one. When ISPs have infinite caps, a system like this will be much more feasible. But if you want to be gaming every day using it, you need a much better ISP.