OnLive
Concept »
OnLive was a cloud gaming service offering video game streaming through a user's computer, smartphone, or TV.
OnLive: Is the Cloud more than Vapor?
Edited By TobyD81
While it may be true that the annual Game Developers Conference isn't typically geared toward gamers, there's been no shortage of bombshells at this year's event. In particular, I've been most impressed by the announcement of the OnLive cloud-based gaming service. It's been covered obsessively by the major gaming sites already, but this was big enough that I'd like to toss my two cents into the pool.
Beginning with the promise of being able to play any PC game on your TV through a universally compatible box, OnLive first sounded like the Phantom 2. Not that Phantom 2 - this Phantom, version 2. But OnLive leaps much further ahead by putting all of the game-running horsepower in the ephemeral cloud, providing the gamer with a disc-free, all-download service that promises to run either on their own microconsole, or practically any PC or Mac that your Mom bought within the last couple years. The server does the work, and you have the fun as a video stream of your game is shuttled down the pipe.
In short, this means nothing less than changing everything about how games are currently produced, marketed, distributed, supported, and consumed. Imagine if, as a gamer, you never had to think about things like storage space on your hard drive, or upgrading your hardware. Development times and budgets can be made smaller while the games can be made bigger and better. Bugs can be squashed quickly and discreetly without the gamer having to download a patch. Post-release downloadable content like new player characters or levels can be made standard as part of the game experience, rather than offered as a userbase-splitting paid download. Piracy will be hamstrung. Digital Rights Management will be irrelevant. And retail outlets could be removed from the picture.
It's no secret that there's a lot of simmering animosity between publishers and platform holders, and the brick-and-mortar stores that are loath to give up their cut of the action. Should OnLive be widely adopted, it would leave these stores with no games to sell. What's the need, when the service could potentially run on any device that's sufficiently quick at decompressing the video stream, and has some way of attaching a controller? Even the microconsole version wouldn't have to be sold at retail if it's leased from a local office; did you actually buy your DVR? Used game sales would dry up, and the game makers would enjoy the profit.
But that physical product has, until now, always meant real consumer ownership. Having the disc or the cartridge in your hand and the hardware that runs it means that you can play that game indefinitely. It's yours. But in the Cloud, nothing is ever yours. It's all server-side, and if you're not connected, you're cut off. To me, this is the greatest risk of the all-download future: that without a physical record of the work, there is a risk that it could be lost permanently. For one, it's risky for the consumer: if the service ends after some time, what happens to all of the content that you've paid for? Will it be migrated to a newer service? Or will you get nothing more than a politely-worded email thanking you for your years of patronage? Even pressing a disc with all of your games might not be enough: if you've spent so much time on a disc-free platform, there's no guarantee that you'll even own anything capable of playing that backup.
Second, it's risky for the legacy of the video game medium. If some truly innovative games were released to OnLive (which they surely will) I would want those games to be preserved. Video games still haven't shown a real commitment to making themselves available to future generations. Preserving an old game is more complicated than preserving music, movies, books, or art. Until now, classic games have gotten re-released for current platforms, while more lesser-known titles have been guarded over by a dedicated collector niche. But without physical copies, download-only games stand the greatest risk of being lost to future generations. It's one thing if I can't play Braid, but it's quite another if nobody can.
In all, I think OnLive is ambitious and holds great promise. It's the video game fulfillment of current trends in computing, and it will happen, sooner or later, whether it's this specific service that does it, or if it's another very similar one. There are plenty of technical hurdles in the way, but I'm looking forward to seeing it when it works.
While it may be true that the annual Game Developers Conference isn't typically geared toward gamers, there's been no shortage of bombshells at this year's event. In particular, I've been most impressed by the announcement of the OnLive cloud-based gaming service. It's been covered obsessively by the major gaming sites already, but this was big enough that I'd like to toss my two cents into the pool.
Beginning with the promise of being able to play any PC game on your TV through a universally compatible box, OnLive first sounded like the Phantom 2. Not that Phantom 2 - this Phantom, version 2. But OnLive leaps much further ahead by putting all of the game-running horsepower in the ephemeral cloud, providing the gamer with a disc-free, all-download service that promises to run either on their own microconsole, or practically any PC or Mac that your Mom bought within the last couple years. The server does the work, and you have the fun as a video stream of your game is shuttled down the pipe.
In short, this means nothing less than changing everything about how games are currently produced, marketed, distributed, supported, and consumed. Imagine if, as a gamer, you never had to think about things like storage space on your hard drive, or upgrading your hardware. Development times and budgets can be made smaller while the games can be made bigger and better. Bugs can be squashed quickly and discreetly without the gamer having to download a patch. Post-release downloadable content like new player characters or levels can be made standard as part of the game experience, rather than offered as a userbase-splitting paid download. Piracy will be hamstrung. Digital Rights Management will be irrelevant. And retail outlets could be removed from the picture.
It's no secret that there's a lot of simmering animosity between publishers and platform holders, and the brick-and-mortar stores that are loath to give up their cut of the action. Should OnLive be widely adopted, it would leave these stores with no games to sell. What's the need, when the service could potentially run on any device that's sufficiently quick at decompressing the video stream, and has some way of attaching a controller? Even the microconsole version wouldn't have to be sold at retail if it's leased from a local office; did you actually buy your DVR? Used game sales would dry up, and the game makers would enjoy the profit.
But that physical product has, until now, always meant real consumer ownership. Having the disc or the cartridge in your hand and the hardware that runs it means that you can play that game indefinitely. It's yours. But in the Cloud, nothing is ever yours. It's all server-side, and if you're not connected, you're cut off. To me, this is the greatest risk of the all-download future: that without a physical record of the work, there is a risk that it could be lost permanently. For one, it's risky for the consumer: if the service ends after some time, what happens to all of the content that you've paid for? Will it be migrated to a newer service? Or will you get nothing more than a politely-worded email thanking you for your years of patronage? Even pressing a disc with all of your games might not be enough: if you've spent so much time on a disc-free platform, there's no guarantee that you'll even own anything capable of playing that backup.
Second, it's risky for the legacy of the video game medium. If some truly innovative games were released to OnLive (which they surely will) I would want those games to be preserved. Video games still haven't shown a real commitment to making themselves available to future generations. Preserving an old game is more complicated than preserving music, movies, books, or art. Until now, classic games have gotten re-released for current platforms, while more lesser-known titles have been guarded over by a dedicated collector niche. But without physical copies, download-only games stand the greatest risk of being lost to future generations. It's one thing if I can't play Braid, but it's quite another if nobody can.
In all, I think OnLive is ambitious and holds great promise. It's the video game fulfillment of current trends in computing, and it will happen, sooner or later, whether it's this specific service that does it, or if it's another very similar one. There are plenty of technical hurdles in the way, but I'm looking forward to seeing it when it works.
The whole thing reeks of broken promises and possibly a scam. You won't get the Hi-Def they're promising you at the quality of service you'd expect. Expect either 1 of the following:
1) Standard Def content at 30fps, variable quality in service.
2) Hahahaha, suckers there was a market crash in Aug 2009, we knew about it all along with our buddies in Wall Street. Oh you want your money back? Too late.
In short, this means nothing less than changing everything about how games are currently produced, marketed, distributed, supported, and consumed. Imagine if, as a gamer, you never had to think about things like storage space on your hard drive, or upgrading your hardware. Development times and budgets can be made smaller while the games can be made bigger and better. Bugs can be squashed quickly and discreetly without the gamer having to download a patch. Post-release downloadable content like new player characters or levels can be made standard as part of the game experience, rather than offered as a userbase-splitting paid download. Piracy will be hamstrung. Digital Rights Management will be irrelevant. And retail outlets could be removed from the picture.Are you high? You seem to think that this OnLive thing is going to work picture-fucking perfect. As if there aren't going to be drawbacks or problems.
Think it through a little more deeply. What do video game designers want? Do they want OnLive to own their games & decide who plays their game based on interest? Fucking no way! They want their game sprawled out across the free market in any number of platforms. Immediacy & big sales right on lunch is how a video game studio thrives.
What will happen with OnLive is they will be setup with the "hasBeen" games. After the markets, the consoles, & all other areas have made their money & the price drop is coming for the used product, THEN they will offer the game to OnLive services because nobody will give two shits about it then. The game developers, the console developers, the PC gamer rigs, & the retailers will get their money first.
Plus, I think your crazy if you really believe these PC games over the Internet are going to work. How many times have you been using your Internet service through ComCast or AT&T only to find it won't fucking work & it takes somebody a long time to come out & fix it? All the time! It's not reliable enough. Plus, as you said, people like to OWN the merchandise & they can play it whenever they please without a monthly platform.
TobyD81 said:
Second, it's risky for the legacy of the video game medium. If some truly innovative games were released to OnLive (which they surely will) I would want those games to be preserved. Video games still haven't shown a real commitment to making themselves available to future generations. Preserving an old game is more complicated than preserving music, movies, books, or art. Until now, classic games have gotten re-released for current platforms, while more lesser-known titles have been guarded over by a dedicated collector niche. But without physical copies, download-only games stand the greatest risk of being lost to future generations. It's one thing if I can't play Braid, but it's quite another if nobody can.
Fuck Braid. If someone can sell a game for $10 for the game & people line up to buy it, why would they want to get a small pie slice over a long period of time on a game rental when they can get all the money they need at once? They need the cash right away for fuel for new games...they don't seem to have long term capital. Plus, the gamer glut would ensure nobody would give two shits about a game like Braid after they tried it once or twice & moved on to another game.
I think all this cloud shit, paying a monthly fee for gaming, is all a bunch of hype. Another thing is: a developer/publisher won't give permission to OnLive without upfront capital & for the game developer, there isn't much incentive to promote there game on a rental system. Hell I don't even like the current rental system for actual products now. For one, I don't play games that much to justify a monthly fee such as gamefly. It's ridiculous. This is why people own games so they don't have to pay for something they're not using, which is stupid. Let's say you don't have next month to play any games, so you cancel your OnLive system, but then in the middle of the month, you find you have time to play, oh but now you have to resubscribe. Or then you have to track hourly or daily fees or always bean counting to play a fucking game. Who wants to think about costs all the time?
Please Log In to post.
This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:
Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.Comment and Save
Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.
Log in to comment