I'd always prefer to own the content myself rather than permanent "rental". The problems with latency and the fact that you won't get internet everywhere you go are problems too. I do like the idea of having a super small device that plays all my games though...
I agree with Wolverine. I'd much rather download the game than have to rely on my fragile internet connection to play games. Besides, I don't like this "sign up for a subscription based service and pay for a stream of a game" instead of just going on the Playstation Store and paying 10 bucks to have Flower on my ps3 at all times. It seems like kind of a ripoff to pay for just streaming a game and a subscription fee. But still, I'm glad things like this and Steam exist. It gets people thinking in differently.
Nah, count me out. I'd rather pay for a box so that I can play anytime I want, regardless of my internet connection, and I don't get any latency at all. I am connected 24/7, but that doesn't mean that I always will be, or think that this idea is appealing. Physical media, physical games and consoles feel more rewarding than some streaming stuff. It feels good to know what you have and being able to see and feel it at the same time. Don't get me wrong, I love downloadable games, but I would never want my discs to go away and have it all be downloadable or streaming stuff.
Because, when OnLive ceases to live, I will still be able to play on a NES (granted that the hardware hasn't broke), Snes, PS1, PS2, PS3, Xbox 360 and so forth . When Steam dies, will I be able to play those games I have bought? I have no idea. That's really the scary thing, if you are like, that you like to keep your console and your games. And right now, downloable games cost about as much as retail product, if not even more, atleast if you compare towards Steam, and then you get even less control of your copy that you purchased. Many think about the positives about digital distribution, but there is a huge backside to it all. It's all digital, none of it is in your control, if the service dies, so does your games. And you still bought the at the same price as a physical disc.
I think when people start to realize that, thats when stuff like OnLive is going to be sketchy for some people. I know some who totally don't care about keeping their games forever and such, but still, there are people like me. And what happens if OnLive is launched, and it's not a huge success, and still has some subscribers, what happens if they decide to terminate the service? Refunds? Or will your investments be lost forever?
does no one remember the Phantom?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if the device has to send the inputs to a server, and then the server has to process those inputs and send what results on screen back to you, wouldn't there be a delay in between when you press a button and when something actually happens on the screen? Assuming the latency is around 80ms as stated in the article, I can't see it working very well. 80ms may not seem like a lot, but I bet it'd be really noticeable when playing any type of action game. While online multiplayer games do have to send data back and forth, the game files are stored locally and everything on screen is processed on your own computer/console, so when you press a button on the controller, the game responds instantly.
wait, what? so i can play Crysis at its full graphical potential with this thing? sign me up holmes. us graphic whores can be even more whorier now. but wouldn't this service piss off console companies and retail fucks? this service is gonna get sabotaged to death.
Reminde me of when purchsed Spore from EA online, and i had to pay an extra $5 just to allow myself to download the game beyond the 6 months of the purchase date, but only up to 3 years. And i can only download "my" game up to three times? They're essentially saying "this game is not owned by you." Yet, if i would not been too lazy to drive to Fry's or Gamestop, i woulda had payed less, and been able to do what i pleased with the product. Even used it for a coaster for the rest of my years, if i wished to do so.
But that does not mean this concept isn't worth the effort- Figure the cost of your gaming rig, or your consoles, if this service settles with just a monthly fee of <$20 a month, it's probably well worth the try, assuming there will be games you wish to play over it. Then again, it's all about the games.
Seen articles about it in the past. But I don't think it will ever become standard. Maybe a kind of Steam-like service for people with weaker systems, but not an actual standardised way of doing things. That would mean a company making games would either thave to spend money to have this third party offer their cloud computing to their customers, or spend money to make a service like it for themselves, which would perhaps make it require a MMORPG-like overhead on a LARGER scale, and have to pass the cost to the consumer in some way because of that, probably with the use of subscriptions. It's an alternative, not a thing to become standard. But I could see it used effectively for some new MMORPG that would offer better visuals than any system could handle for example, only made psossible thanks to this cloud computing tech.
Edit: Here's another reason why it wouldn't work in practice. Think Guitar Hero on this thing (I don't even play that, but it's an awesome example). Even a mere milisecond delay, which will be impossible to achieve in practice, would fuck your game up in a big way. It won't catch on as anything but a service for a very particular audience, one that surprisingly enough has access to uber connections, particular game tastes, yet doesn't have the hardware for them and on top of that is willing to pay subscriptions. Who fits that description?
Even with 80ms latency levels you'd still notice it a lot, because normal games have your render the game and your position and aiming on your computer so your movement and aiming is obviously 1:1 perfect all the time, unless you CPU chugs etc. With your display being completely over the net, you're not aiming 1:1 but rather what you see and where you are aiming is delayed visually, which is very bad. This basically cuts the speed of your mouse out completely, and now you're on even ground with everyone else at a slow latency level of aiming. This concept of gaming on the net was talked about a while ago with an example of an MMO with above Crysis level graphics being playable over the exact same method.
"Think Guitar Hero on this thing (I don't even play that, but it's an awesome example). Even a mere milisecond delay, which will be impossible to achieve in practice, would fuck your game up in a big way."You do realize what a millisecond is, right? 'Cause one thousandth of second ain't gonna fuck your game up.
You can see that technology already.
Maybe you wrote that in December cos you read this in August:
If I can buy this thing for £50 then play as much Crisis as I want for £30 then I'll get it. I can see this thing being a ridiculas amount of money to either buy or rent games. Think of it. They're going to basicaly single out a super powerful rig to run a game for each person, that would be expensive especialy with all the matainence.
"Al3xand3r said:um actually it will specially in any fast paced game."Think Guitar Hero on this thing (I don't even play that, but it's an awesome example). Even a mere milisecond delay, which will be impossible to achieve in practice, would fuck your game up in a big way."You do realize what a millisecond is, right? 'Cause one thousandth of second ain't gonna fuck your game up."
Milliseconds mean every thing in fast video games, fps, rythem games...ect milliseconds is the difference between a win and a lose.
I will be watching the results of the system and the comments of first adopters of this system with extreme interest. I couldn't say myself yet if I would be prepared to have no physical copy or even a copy of a game stored to my hard drive (since I already use Steam a fair bit). But the potential in this is that I would no longer have to buy a high-end PC and upgrade it regularly to be able to play games at their best and if that saving equates the cost of using this new service then it may very well be worth it.
Also it would encourage me to play more titles that I might never normally buy, but if I can just rent them easily this way then I might just do that.
Obviously if you don't have fast broadband then this isn't going to work for you as I know is the case for much of America atm. But in much of Europe and also Korea and Japan internet speeds are often pretty high and I could see this working for me in the UK potentially.