OnLive now FREE and WORKS in the UK!

kEn_sct said:
this whole idea is epic fail... responce time is the key in most games, well the ones i like. games even worrie about the latency of there mouse! now if you mouse signals have got to travel even a mile before a computer processes the information... ofcource its guna be a laggy peice of crap. if your using fiber optic the dta has to be processed 10 times before it gets displaced on you screen, your coumputer, modem, exchange, their modem, their computer, back to their modem, echange again, your modem again, then your computer again then finaly your monitor. also fiberoptics has to have a signal booster every 25miles (i think cba looking it up) which further increases latency. a ping of over 5ms input lag you be unaceptable imo

only games i can see this working for a turn based games, point click etc. basically not shooting games
Click to expand...

You haven't actually tried it, have you?
 
Just tried playing the F.E.A.R 2 demo and it's dreadful, there's a tiny amount of latency between your movements and the movement on screen which completely ruins the game. It's the kind of service that's ideal for games where constantly quick reactions aren't necessary e.g. RTS/Puzzle games but for anything else it's pointless.
 
I think this tech is amazing, and has great potential, I had a play with a few trials earlier this morning, yes there is a bit of lag and video quality could be better but I think that will improve with more local servers and faster BB speeds, this may not take off right now but there is definitely potential for it, I actually like the idea of systems and services existing completely online like this, give it another ten years and I think you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference between a game running natively or remotely, services like these could be part of cable boxes, or as an extra feature in future games consoles etc, although this is another topic I think 'dummy' terminals could play a big part in the future as broadband improves.
 
Last edited:
ic1male said:
Yes but are we? I've already mentioned they have a roaming system in place for US users to play games overseas. Is there any way of tracing the traffic?
Click to expand...

I'm sure you could see the destination IP using wireshark or something similar. But think about it, why on earth would they stealth-setup local servers without telling anyone? That's the kind of thing you make sure you do a press release about, get as many people as possible interested.
 
Last edited:
I'm worried about this to be honest. Yes it might be an amazing bit of technology but what you're doing is renting games and like Steam i'd hazard a guess that you're at the mercy of OnLive and your internet connection. If i'd be buying a game I want to own a physical copy that I can sell off once i'm done with it.
 
buchtis said:
Yes it might be an amazing bit of technology but what you're doing is renting games and like Steam i'd hazard a guess that you're at the mercy of OnLive and your internet connection.
Click to expand...

It's exactly that. I would have argued that's why it won't succeed but you only need to look at Steam to realise that people are accepting cloud-based systems. This will take off but not for quite a few years in my opinion.
 
Just as rubbish as I thought it would be.

Terrible quality, bad input lag and lag in general, just bad.

Great potential though, but a good few years too early I think.

EDIT: Just had a bit more of a play and for me this service will be fantastic for testing online play of new games before purchase as the 30 min trial allows you to play online. Good stuff!
 
Last edited:
its a great way to test games :)

however, the image quality is atrocious.

on pc most people can run 1:1 no compression at 60fps on full settings the quality is pristine. its the reason i use pc for the crispest textures and monitor clarity.

it will take quite some internet bandwidth and stability to convince me to buy into all of this. if my games looked like blueray quality id still not be happy as that has visible compression on a monitor and banding on certain color ranges its just too limited visually due to the original render resolution also.

lets face it, with steam and a good net connection your downloading a game for a few hours and then playing for a few weeks and own it on the device or any other future device. in future games will DL even faster too, with all the power at the edge its the best solution. Steam could easily copy the video wall idea with some propitiatory video stream sessions for games so you can watch others play live without booting the game you just watch their multicast streams.

onlive just doesnt do it for me. i cant quite understand why its is being pushed? if millions of people buy into this then the gfx level will never really increase as fast as it can with individual machines. if its to help people with low specs? well even an old pc is capable of looking nicer than a console, soon even phones.

if it simply comes down to impatience from waiting a few hours to DL a title, or a complete non interest in graphics or sound let alone the most responsive controls then i can see it taking off. its the sort of thing that should be installed in hotel rooms for people to pay a few £ when their bored

we already have a better solution.

maybe one day with full fibre optic connections <1ms response (actually about impossible) we can compute share across server,pc,mac,linux,360,ps3,wii and the visual quality can increase on top of the already good main system graphics in real time

as far as i can tell its a gaming monopoly where you are held by the short and curlies over a subscription with no guarantee of quality

imagine how good ps4 and xbox 720 will be looking in 1080p over this service?
 
Last edited:
phill1978 said:
as far as i can tell its a gaming monopoly where you are held by the short and curlies over a subscription with no guarantee of quality
Click to expand...

But this is the whole point! It's not for us, it's not for the console makers. It's for the publishers / developers who :

1. Hate giving MS and Sony a big chunk of cash for every game sold
2. Are convinced piracy is destroying their sales
3. Want to completely abolish the second-hand market

It makes massive sense for them, and it's to them that they'll be marketing this.

The masses will be sold on the basis that they can play their games anywhere on just about anything, have thier saves always available, and have new content instantly on hand as soon as it's published. Give 'em enough time and new TVs will be coming out with the reciever hardware integrated, all you'll have to do is buy a controller.

I don't think it's going to affect PC games at all, to be honest.
 
phill1978 said:
onlive just doesnt do it for me. i cant quite understand why its is being pushed? if its to help people with low specs? well even an old pc is capable of looking nicer than a console, soon even phones.
Click to expand...

My laptop with its 8600M GT can't beat the Xbox 360 or PS3 in most stuff. It can equal the early titles but can't beat them. And it can't even run the latest stuff without turning all the eye candy off. OnLive is geared towards people without expensive GPUs that want to run the latest games. Plus you can run it on an iPad!

Then there's the box you can plug into your TV. If you can't afford a console then it's the next best thing as you get the box free with new game purchases. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom