man, fuck OnLive and fuck the dude who invented it!!. this motherfucker basically enter into the gaming community out of nowhere, and basically tells us to change our conventional way of gaming that we have known for the last 20+ years. i have no problem with innovation in technology, i even encourage it, but this whole thing sounds fuckin redicolous. the fact that you need to have online connection just to play a single player game at all times, considering the fact that most of us do not have reliable internet connection, the idea is fucking stupid. not to even mention about the lag, and the inevitable extinction of physical media if this thing takes off. if you ask me, this motherfuckin douche is in it for the money, and i think if his plan succeeds, it will destroy the gameing industry, rather than innovate it. 37 Comments
man, fuck OnLive and fuck the dude who invented it!!. this motherfucker basically enter into the gaming community out of nowhere, and basically tells us to change our conventional way of gaming that we have known for the last 20+ years. i have no problem with innovation in technology, i even encourage it, but this whole thing sounds fuckin redicolous. the fact that you need to have online connection just to play a single player game at all times, considering the fact that most of us do not have reliable internet connection, the idea is fucking stupid. not to even mention about the lag, and the inevitable extinction of physical media if this thing takes off. if you ask me, this motherfuckin douche is in it for the money, and i think if his plan succeeds, it will destroy the gameing industry, rather than innovate it.
Its like when trains were invented, everyone thought they were crazy going at like, 7 miles per hour, but now we drive cars going 70 miles per hour, we get used to it. If it gets off the ground and they get all the kinks out of it, I think it could all work out, but I doubt it would ever remove the physical copy market, so people without internet connections would be fine.
"*sigh* Do we really need another topic on this?Plus, paragraphs and periods are your friend. Also perhaps better justification for your stance than "this motherfuckin douche". "
dude, if you don't have any constructive comments on the topic at hand, i suggest you not comment at all. thank you.
they're not trying to change the whole face of gaming, they're providing one alternative. Until the whole world has decent broadband connections nothing like this is going to become the norm, it's just going to be one alternative way to access some content.
I think it's an awesome concept, but I doubt it will change gaming industry quite yet, internet connections just aren't up to it yet and it would take quite a lot of server power to run lets say 100 million instances of Crysis at the same time, so I wouldn't worry yet. IF it ever strikes through properly so that it leaves conventional gaming bite the dust, then it's likely that you already have an uber fast internet yourself and other forms of entertainment have moved online as well.
It's a matter of how well its supported post-launch. If it's well supported b developers and gamers like us, then yes, it has the potential to destroy several industries. Digital distribution will take off eventually. Services like Steam, PSN, Xbox LIVE, and so on, are very powerful tools for the comsumer. You don't have to get in to OnLive when it releases,but their isn't anthing wrong with anothe way for people to experience gaming.
"this motherfucker basically enter into the gaming community out of nowhere "
in a article i saw about it one of them was working at eidos.. but i forget what he did, and the other did the email on tv thing a while ago when AOL started. so one of them was in the gaming community.
It is evil, yes. If this were the norm it would give gamers even less ownership over content than downloadable games, slow the progress of graphics technology, and push independent developers out. Let's not forget, OnLive is not just a set top box designed to replace consoles, but also a browser bases application designed to replace gaming PCs.
It's also dumb though. The infrastructure in most countries does not support a service like this. Streaming 40+ hours of 720p content per weak as well as a gamers other usual internet activities is way above the caps of many ISPs. Those ISPs that do not have caps would not be happy about the increase in new "power users". Aside from that, many people do not have access to a fast enough connection. Stability and consistency is another issue. This is not like streaming a video that can download enough content at the start to have a buffer and then potentially download faster than the video is played back, this is real-time and so any line issues or contention (either locally or on the ISPs network) has the potential to cause problems.
The entire concept, while technically impressive, is naive. I don't see it as a threat yet, but it is a threat to be weary of in the future.
"*sigh* Do we really need another topic on this?Plus, paragraphs and periods are your friend. Also perhaps better justification for your stance than "this motherfuckin douche". "
dude, if you don't have any constructive comments on the topic at hand, i suggest you not comment at all. thank you. "
I feel my comment was constructive. It was just a thought with suggestions to improve your argument on why "OnLive=Evil."
"It is evil, yes. If this were the norm it would give gamers even less ownership over content than downloadable games, slow the progress of graphics technology, and push independent developers out. Let's not forget, OnLive is not just a set top box designed to replace consoles, but also a browser bases application designed to replace gaming PCs.It's also dumb though. The infrastructure in most countries does not support a service like this. Streaming 40+ hours of 720p content per weak as well as a gamers other usual internet activities is way above the caps of many ISPs. Those ISPs that do not have caps would not be happy about the increase in new "power users". Aside from that, many people do not have access to a fast enough connection. Stability and consistency is another issue. This is not like streaming a video that can download enough content at the start to have a buffer and then potentially download faster than the video is played back, this is real-time and so any line issues or contention (either locally or on the ISPs network) has the potential to cause problems.The entire concept, while technically impressive, is naive. I don't see it as a threat yet, but it is a threat to be weary of in the future."
wow, you just listed every possible problems that can occure with this technology. i could have not said it any better. kudos.
It most likely won't succeed in general anyway..and no one is saying this is going to just come in and change everything if it even does. It will be an option that people have if they feel like using it. Get the fuck over it and stop acting like a child.
In twenty or thirty years, cloud-based gaming will have taken over, and I believe it will be better. However, we have a while to wait before connection speeds are up to par and broadband availability becomes more expanded.
"It most likely won't succeed in general anyway..and no one is saying this is going to just come in and change everything if it even does. It will be an option that people have if they feel like using it. Get the fuck over it and stop acting like a child."
well, i suggest you listen to the 3/24/09 podcast, where Jeff and the guys talk about it. i suggest you listened to specifically what Jeff had to say. and i don't think im acting like a child for speaking my mind.
The only thing I can see this being decent for is PC's I mean not everyone can afford a High end PC some can only afford one console if theyre lucky. If this thing was set at a decent amount of money at least for the PC market then it should be fine. It will let people who can't afford to upgrade their computer every so often to just be able to play some games on their machine with the rest fo the people who can, PROVIDED of couse that these OnLive games are compatable with retail copies of online games, and not make it's own platform market.
Then again, I don't thing it's trying to compete with Microsoft Sony or Nintendo, I think it's something that can carve it's own Niche market out of. People who are curious to try it, a core demographic of people who are into techy stuff, and like I said a different alternative to people who can't afford/ don't want to buy a console just so they can play one or two games.
I wouldn't disconcern it quite yet until it's full intent on what it's trying to accomplish. I also don't know if this is something that will put into place anytime soon, but will see.
Also the point on it will alienate indie publishers? how so? There's always ways indie can find ways for them to make a OnLive Version. If they can somehow get thier games onto PSN, XBLA, WiiWare and Steam, I'm positive they will have something put inplace to accompany Indie developers.
"*sigh* Do we really need another topic on this?Plus, paragraphs and periods are your friend. Also perhaps better justification for your stance than "this motherfuckin douche". "
dude, if you don't have any constructive comments on the topic at hand, i suggest you not comment at all. thank you. "
Hey, if this works out and I can really play Crysis the way its supposed to be played on any TV or laptop with no lag or problems, then rock on Live! (see what i did there?)
So how do they handle making games just for that platform. Basically it has to be multiplatform games right? I mean to get an exclusive title onto their system, how will they develope it. If they got this new GPU server like thing wherever it is. they would have to get each developer that hardware. And if it is supposed to be even more sophisticated then todays hardware, then the developers are going to have to learn a completely new system.
Thats why i say it would have to be multiplatform titles. And probably mostly PC games. Even though lets say Mirrors Edge was made for all consoles, The PC version will probably be what they use. I dont see Sony or Microsoft lend any of there titles to this service. Of course everything has a price but it doesnt seem likely since this service could be dangerous to both Sony and Microsoft.
If OnLive works as advertised, I welcome it with open arms. If not, I'll stick to the old-fashioned way for the time being. Either way, the gaming industry will thrive.
So how do they handle making games just for that platform. Basically it has to be multiplatform games right? I mean to get an exclusive title onto their system, how will they develope it. If they got this new GPU server like thing wherever it is. they would have to get each developer that hardware. And if it is supposed to be even more sophisticated then todays hardware, then the developers are going to have to learn a completely new system.
Thats why i say it would have to be multiplatform titles. And probably mostly PC games. Even though lets say Mirrors Edge was made for all consoles, The PC version will probably be what they use. I dont see Sony or Microsoft lend any of there titles to this service. Of course everything has a price but it doesnt seem likely since this service could be dangerous to both Sony and Microsoft.
The tech itself is nothing new ... it's just a new concept. So i'm pretty sure the big 3 already have similar systems in testing phase ... and once they get them out there OnLive can say good night.
Remember that when you cross-post your blogs to the forums, the same rules apply to them as do regular forum threads...and there is already discussion about OnLive going on in Jeff's monster article/thread thing.
37 Comments