This topic is locked from further discussion.

Posted by banishedsoul1 (294 posts) -

When you buy a game on steam you have to download it then install then update and run it on your hardware. With onlive you can play almost in a instant No downloads no updates no need to worry about hardware.

Onlive runs the game for you so its a much better deal then buying a game on steam. the hardware treadmill is over with onlive.

#1 Posted by banishedsoul1 (294 posts) -

When you buy a game on steam you have to download it then install then update and run it on your hardware. With onlive you can play almost in a instant No downloads no updates no need to worry about hardware.

Onlive runs the game for you so its a much better deal then buying a game on steam. the hardware treadmill is over with onlive.

#2 Posted by CL60 (16906 posts) -

Oh dis gon' be gud.

#3 Posted by SexyToad (2739 posts) -

Okay. But what if I say I prefer steam?

#4 Posted by Bell_End (1208 posts) -

do you mean like steam when you boil a kettle and stuff

#5 Posted by dcgc (878 posts) -

That may be true, but Onlive requires the user to have a very good Internet connection. Also, some games still suffer from lag like Action and Fighting games. So for me, it still isn't a viable solution.

PS: If you think Onlive is good, wait until you try Gaikai.

#6 Posted by iAmJohn (6091 posts) -

When I buy a game on Steam, it lives on my hard drive and I can play it whenever I want as opposed to whenever I have a really good internet connection. Also, because I know my system and what it can handle, I'm pretty much guaranteed better performance than if I was to rely on my internet connection and having to deal with latency, not to mention that the game will probably look way nicer on account of not being streamed.

Also, your thread isn't a question so much as two sentences barely arguing for OnLive.

#7 Posted by IBurningStar (2145 posts) -
@Bell_End said:

do you mean like steam when you boil a kettle and stuff

This has to be it. It is the only way this makes sense.
#8 Edited by Klei (1768 posts) -

I really don't like the idea of playing a stream. I just really don't. Steam all the way for me. At least I can play in offline mode.

#9 Posted by AlisterCat (5397 posts) -

No. With British internet, I tried playing a game on OnLive and it was below HD and even below SD video resolution. Compression was bad. Even with an extremely good internet connection I can't imagine it being as good as a local installation.

#10 Posted by BaneFireLord (2878 posts) -

I think Steam is far superior: larger library, not 100% dependent on an always-on internet connection (Offline Mode), supports mods and the best damn sales ever. 
FIGHT ME, ONLIVE BOY!

#11 Posted by Ravenlight (8033 posts) -
#12 Posted by The_Drizzle (624 posts) -

OP your fucking avatar man, not cool

#13 Posted by GrantHeaslip (1346 posts) -

I just don't get how it won't feel laggy. Between sending the input to their servers, the PC rendering the frames, the video frames encoding, and the video being sent back to you (and the regular display latency), there has to be enough latency to make it feel like it's behind.

That's not to mention issues with internet connection congestion, which many have to deal with if they share their connection, or live in an over-provisioned area.

#14 Posted by CheapPoison (708 posts) -

I hope this never takes off.. I'd really hate to rely on an outside source for all that.

Which is steam you also kinda do... but that is just pushing it to far for me.

#15 Posted by Sackmanjones (4609 posts) -
@IBurningStar
@Bell_End said:

do you mean like steam when you boil a kettle and stuff

This has to be it. It is the only way this makes sense.
Steam gives me warmth in cold winters

Steam > onlive

Or and for computer steam..

Steam > steam > onlive
#16 Posted by Dagbiker (6898 posts) -

Half of this guys posts are about onlive being better the steam or steam just plain suckin. Look at his forum history.

#17 Posted by Bollard (5022 posts) -
#18 Posted by DeadVillager (77 posts) -
#19 Posted by Beforet (2884 posts) -

I prefer solar powered, personally.

#20 Posted by Marz (5608 posts) -

there's this thing called latency and streaming a video of you playing a game is no bueno for games that require precision.

#21 Posted by The_Laughing_Man (13629 posts) -

Ive used onlive. The delay is not super big but after a wile its annoying. 

#22 Posted by Grilledcheez (3919 posts) -

Onlive was ok when I tried it, but I would still rather have the games on my computer.

#23 Posted by upwarDBound (654 posts) -

If the infrastructure required to be able to smoothly run the games in high resolution on a consistent basis was there, Onlive would have my interest. As it is I'd rather know what my game experience is going to be like with a locally installed game.

#24 Posted by crusader8463 (14305 posts) -

No.

#25 Posted by banishedsoul1 (294 posts) -

@The_Drizzle said:

OP your fucking avatar man, not cool

whats wrong with jeff the killer?

#26 Posted by Galiant (2163 posts) -

Good for you. I'll stick to Steam, thanks.

#27 Posted by Skytylz (4015 posts) -

@Dagbiker said:

Half of this guys posts are about onlive being better the steam or steam just plain suckin. Look at his forum history.

Think he's on the onlive payroll?

#28 Posted by Cloudenvy (5890 posts) -

Now if playing only didn't look like a fullscreened Youtube video, that'd be great.

#29 Posted by JoeyRavn (4885 posts) -

@banishedsoul1 said:

When you buy a game on steam you have to download it then install then update and run it on your hardware. With onlive you can play almost in a instant No downloads no updates no need to worry about hardware.

Onlive runs the game for you so its a much better deal then buying a game on steam. the hardware treadmill is over with onlive.

The logic is flawless. I sincerely don't know how to counter these arguments.

Onlive > Consoles > PC > Coding the game yourself.

#30 Posted by banishedsoul1 (294 posts) -

Steam feels almost like a religion to many gamers. I know steam has done many things right and thats why they are popular. But they are becoming apple cult like and wont touch anything else. So when i ask anything about steam i get lots of hate. I think Onlive could be better as a service because it gives you more. It could save you 100s on hardware while you need to keep a up to date pc to run games.

#31 Posted by wewantsthering (1459 posts) -

Than*

#32 Posted by PsEG (3489 posts) -

@Dagbiker said:

Half of this guys posts are about onlive being better the steam or steam just plain suckin. Look at his forum history.

This doesn't actually appear to be the case, eyeballing his post history. However, this topic comes off as more of a strange advertisement for OnLive and its advantages over Steam than an actual comparison or argument. For that reason, I don't see anything to discuss here, and I think it's best to lock this topic down before it devolves into further flamebaiting.

@Ravenlight said:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge's_Law_of_Headlines

Also, I didn't know this existed, and it is amazing.

Moderator