Something went wrong. Try again later
    Follow

    OnLive

    Concept »

    OnLive was a cloud gaming service offering video game streaming through a user's computer, smartphone, or TV.

    OnLive's Console Hits This December, New Pricing Structure Revealed

    • 109 results
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    Avatar image for marrec
    marrec

    258

    Forum Posts

    1

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 2

    #51  Edited By marrec
    @Branthog said:
    " OnLive is a tremendous idea that will flounder for years, like virtual reality, except you'll actually be able to own it.  I see too many problems. The bandwidth involved, the degradation in quality as has already been seen, the lack of depth and breadth in their library, etc. I'd love to see it blow up and become the greatest thing ever. I just don't see it. Not this iteration, at least. And probably not even this decade. "
    They've been able to keep this thing tredding water while still keeping promises like removing the monthy subscription fee and released this TV-Top unit.... I wouldn't be surprised if it just skids along for a few years until broadband penetration reaches critical-mass and/or the tech is improved a bit.  
     
    It wouldn't take much for this to become the next little black box to go along with Boxee/Roku.
    Avatar image for vampire_chibi
    vampire_chibi

    544

    Forum Posts

    47

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 3

    #52  Edited By vampire_chibi

    Wish that i could connect my steam account to this.. = c

    Avatar image for bunting1243
    BUNTING1243

    25

    Forum Posts

    0

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 0

    #53  Edited By BUNTING1243
    @Max_Antrax:  
    wawaWAANNNNN
    Avatar image for mistermouse
    MisterMouse

    3608

    Forum Posts

    272

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 5

    User Lists: 5

    #54  Edited By MisterMouse

    This could catch on but probably wont.

    Avatar image for xyzygy
    xyzygy

    10595

    Forum Posts

    5

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 2

    #55  Edited By xyzygy

    If anyone is interested, IGN reviewed the hardware and gave it an 8. Pretty impressive.

    Avatar image for branthog
    Branthog

    5777

    Forum Posts

    1014

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 2

    User Lists: 0

    #56  Edited By Branthog
    @marrec said:
    " @Branthog said:
    " OnLive is a tremendous idea that will flounder for years, like virtual reality, except you'll actually be able to own it.  I see too many problems. The bandwidth involved, the degradation in quality as has already been seen, the lack of depth and breadth in their library, etc. I'd love to see it blow up and become the greatest thing ever. I just don't see it. Not this iteration, at least. And probably not even this decade. "
    They've been able to keep this thing tredding water while still keeping promises like removing the monthy subscription fee and released this TV-Top unit.... I wouldn't be surprised if it just skids along for a few years until broadband penetration reaches critical-mass and/or the tech is improved a bit.   It wouldn't take much for this to become the next little black box to go along with Boxee/Roku. "
    I think that's only part of the concern. Their biggest issue is going to be developers, who already have relationships with console makers - if they're not already directly owned by console makers. The existing names in the business will adopt this or buy the company out and adopt it, long before they'll just give up their interface domination and start going through OnLive. They have a hard enough time dealing with Steam and these hurdles make those look like stepping stones.
    Avatar image for deactivated-5ba16609964d9
    deactivated-5ba16609964d9

    3361

    Forum Posts

    28

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 20

    Should I burn my 360 and my game library as soon as this thing is released ?

    Avatar image for fooflighter737
    fooflighter737

    194

    Forum Posts

    13

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 2

    #58  Edited By fooflighter737

    Definitely suffers from massive input lag, this was on a 15 down and 1.5 up connection...
    degredation in quality due to the compression was also very noticeable...
    looks about 1/2 the quality of an xbox game running in 720p, you can see artifacting and compression of textures big time...
    I had a beta account and canceled it after a week...no thanks

    Avatar image for olivaw
    Olivaw

    1309

    Forum Posts

    6

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 0

    #59  Edited By Olivaw

    I like what Onlive is doing, and I appreciate that they are changing their pricing structure constantly to try and give the customer the best value, but I just don't know if it's for me yet.

    Avatar image for marrec
    marrec

    258

    Forum Posts

    1

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 2

    #60  Edited By marrec
    @Branthog said:
    " @marrec said:
    " @Branthog said:
    " OnLive is a tremendous idea that will flounder for years, like virtual reality, except you'll actually be able to own it.  I see too many problems. The bandwidth involved, the degradation in quality as has already been seen, the lack of depth and breadth in their library, etc. I'd love to see it blow up and become the greatest thing ever. I just don't see it. Not this iteration, at least. And probably not even this decade. "
    They've been able to keep this thing tredding water while still keeping promises like removing the monthy subscription fee and released this TV-Top unit.... I wouldn't be surprised if it just skids along for a few years until broadband penetration reaches critical-mass and/or the tech is improved a bit.   It wouldn't take much for this to become the next little black box to go along with Boxee/Roku. "
    I think that's only part of the concern. Their biggest issue is going to be developers, who already have relationships with console makers - if they're not already directly owned by console makers. The existing names in the business will adopt this or buy the company out and adopt it, long before they'll just give up their interface domination and start going through OnLive. They have a hard enough time dealing with Steam and these hurdles make those look like stepping stones. "
    So maybe it is just Middleware and the box gets shoved into TVs or EA buys it and makes it exclusively play COD: BLOPS and Tony Hawk Shred, I'd still consider that a success for the company. I see big things for the tech at the very least, it's quite impressive and works very well. The fact that they can sell this for 99$ is kinda remarkable. 
     
    You are right though, the software will be very important. If by this time next year Assassin's Creed II is the game that is in every press shot they might have some problems to work out.
    Avatar image for nemodat
    NemoDat

    69

    Forum Posts

    60

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 1

    User Lists: 4

    #61  Edited By NemoDat
    @Xeridae:
    This was my question too.  Who out there is going to prefer Onlive to buying a PC or console.  Presumably they are going after people who can't afford either a console or a PC, and that doesn't seem to be the market they are after.  If the flat monthly fee was $15 and included all new releases for free under that plan, then I can see this being a viable service.
    Avatar image for branthog
    Branthog

    5777

    Forum Posts

    1014

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 2

    User Lists: 0

    #62  Edited By Branthog
    @marrec said:
    " @Branthog said: 
    I think that's only part of the concern. Their biggest issue is going to be developers, who already have relationships with console makers - if they're not already directly owned by console makers. The existing names in the business will adopt this or buy the company out and adopt it, long before they'll just give up their interface domination and start going through OnLive. They have a hard enough time dealing with Steam and these hurdles make those look like stepping stones. "
    So maybe it is just Middleware and the box gets shoved into TVs or EA buys it and makes it exclusively play COD: BLOPS and Tony Hawk Shred, I'd still consider that a success for the company. I see big things for the tech at the very least, it's quite impressive and works very well. The fact that they can sell this for 99$ is kinda remarkable.  You are right though, the software will be very important. If by this time next year Assassin's Creed II is the game that is in every press shot they might have some problems to work out. "
    At $99, I'm tempted to get one, even though I don't even particularly care for or believe in it. What would really sell me on it was if they had just a ridiculous back catalog. Perhaps one that goes back generations of consoles. Of course, I still don't really want to RENT games. I like OWNING them (even if only as far as owning them through Steam). 
     
    But yeah, at $99, I mean . . . it's certainly worth dicking around with.
    Avatar image for ninjastail
    ninjastail

    23

    Forum Posts

    0

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 4

    #63  Edited By ninjastail

    Lag is noticeable NO MATTER what others tell you (especially those PR guys at onlive).  
    I don't think anyone who play PC/consoles and are used to them would be able to stand the onlive lag. Total amount of lag is going to be 50+ ms at best (it always takes about 25 ms to send data and another 25ish to receive +other small issues and u get to 80 average), this would work best in countries like Korea... no matter how expensive and good your connection is you won't be able to get smooth gameplay on this device for at least 5 more years. 

    Avatar image for andheez
    Andheez

    648

    Forum Posts

    0

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 8

    #64  Edited By Andheez

    Im not going to buy it or anything but this could be the future.

    Avatar image for meteora
    meteora

    5844

    Forum Posts

    17

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 1

    User Lists: 3

    #65  Edited By meteora

    I'll see how it turns out.

    Avatar image for diamond
    Diamond

    8678

    Forum Posts

    533

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 4

    #66  Edited By Diamond
    @marrec said:
    I see big things for the tech at the very least, it's quite impressive and works very well. The fact that they can sell this for 99$ is kinda remarkable.
    It's a video decompressor and not a lot else.  I wouldn't be surprised if they're going to make a substantial profit on each of these microconsoles sold.
     
    What's impressive about it?  I don't get how anyone could be particularly impressed with it.  In fact the entire idea is so completely backwards (literally backwards, in that this is how computers were usually used more than 3 decades ago) that it strikes me as a drastic deevolution.  It's like making a modern computer with vacuum tubes.
     
    As usual I could see this as a fine service for people who really didn't care about games.  Those who cared so little they didn't even bother to buy a Xbox 360, for example.  Again, the problem continues that they're charging too much to really reach that market.
     
    Everything OnLive does can be done better with a console or cheap PC.  You may save a hundred or two off the initial price, but you're immediately locked into OnLive's pricing structure, paying your bandwidth fees, and you're still not getting an equivalent experience.
     
    If services like OnLive do eventually catch on it'll just mean less consumer rights than ever, stagnation in the evolution of gaming tech, and standards for quality bottoming out.  It's painful to imagine a world where no one has private data storage, no one can alter data without permission, no one has any legal rights to those things they purchase...
    Avatar image for bones8677
    Bones8677

    3539

    Forum Posts

    567

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 1

    User Lists: 11

    #67  Edited By Bones8677

    Now if only OnLive and Steam teamed up?!

    Avatar image for soviut
    Soviut

    168

    Forum Posts

    0

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 0

    #68  Edited By Soviut

    While the technology is impressive, what will impress me more is if OnLive actually gets some exclusive content.  The whole reason I buy each console is to play the games exclusive to it, not games I could already play on other platforms I already own.

    Avatar image for halberdierv2
    halberdierv2

    2001

    Forum Posts

    56084

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 4

    User Lists: 11

    #69  Edited By halberdierv2

    hmm.... maybe.
    @RecSpec said:

    " So how long until this gets absorbed into Xbox Live Gold? "

    NEVER.
    Avatar image for bouncedk
    BounceDK

    169

    Forum Posts

    4

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 0

    #70  Edited By BounceDK

    Onlive is still a joke. Pass.

    Avatar image for sneakybadger
    Sneakybadger

    233

    Forum Posts

    133

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 2

    Avatar image for cosmicqueso
    CosmicQueso

    582

    Forum Posts

    2

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 14

    #72  Edited By CosmicQueso

    100 bones with a full game d/l?  Yeah, I'll give 'er a whirl.  Why not.  I spent $100 on much worse in gaming I'm sure.

    Avatar image for marrec
    marrec

    258

    Forum Posts

    1

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 2

    #73  Edited By marrec
    @Diamond said:

    " @marrec said:

    I see big things for the tech at the very least, it's quite impressive and works very well. The fact that they can sell this for 99$ is kinda remarkable.
    It's a video decompressor and not a lot else.  I wouldn't be surprised if they're going to make a substantial profit on each of these microconsoles sold.
     
    What's impressive about it?  I don't get how anyone could be particularly impressed with it.  In fact the entire idea is so completely backwards (literally backwards, in that this is how computers were usually used more than 3 decades ago) that it strikes me as a drastic deevolution.  It's like making a modern computer with vacuum tubes.
     
    As usual I could see this as a fine service for people who really didn't care about games.  Those who cared so little they didn't even bother to buy a Xbox 360, for example.  Again, the problem continues that they're charging too much to really reach that market.
     
    Everything OnLive does can be done better with a console or cheap PC.  You may save a hundred or two off the initial price, but you're immediately locked into OnLive's pricing structure, paying your bandwidth fees, and you're still not getting an equivalent experience.
     
    If services like OnLive do eventually catch on it'll just mean less consumer rights than ever, stagnation in the evolution of gaming tech, and standards for quality bottoming out.  It's painful to imagine a world where no one has private data storage, no one can alter data without permission, no one has any legal rights to those things they purchase... "
    It's a video decompressor with 1080p support, 3D support, bluetooth, all the drivers pre-loaded for Mouse and Keyboard control, and all this at 60fps (Depending on your Bandwidth). It's impressive that it actually works, that the server can render Batman: Arkham Asylum in 1080p and stream it to your TV. That means, theoretically, a higher picture quality than Batman: AA on your 360 or PS3. 
     
    Sure, a 500 dollar machine can run high-end games with decent picture quality on your TV... but this is a 99$ box that can hide behind a Kinect camera.  
     
    The prices are a little higher than actual PC gamers are used to playing yes, but if the service catches on with enough customer adoption then you can expect prices to drop. Also, if you buy the box, you get a game for free... so the box is really only 49.99.  
     
    Edit: It also impresses me that they were actually able to launch the box. Especially after the rocky start.
    Avatar image for ptys
    ptys

    2290

    Forum Posts

    3

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 14

    #74  Edited By ptys

    I think this generation has made me realise, I only want one box for all my gaming. I hope this turns into a success so it'll put more pressure on the big boys to get their shit together.

    Avatar image for authenticm
    AuthenticM

    4404

    Forum Posts

    12323

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 1

    User Lists: 2

    #75  Edited By AuthenticM

    I've got a question: 
     
    does it come with chicken wings?

    Avatar image for diamond
    Diamond

    8678

    Forum Posts

    533

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 4

    #76  Edited By Diamond
    @marrec said:
    It's a video decompressor with 1080p support, 3D support, bluetooth, all the drivers pre-loaded for Mouse and Keyboard control, and all this at 60fps (Depending on your Bandwidth). It's impressive that it actually works, that the server can render Batman: Arkham Asylum in 1080p and stream it to your TV. That means, theoretically, a higher picture quality than Batman: AA on your 360 or PS3.  Sure, a 500 dollar machine can run high-end games with decent picture quality on your TV... but this is a 99$ box that can hide behind a Kinect camera.   The prices are a little higher than actual PC gamers are used to playing yes, but if the service catches on with enough customer adoption then you can expect prices to drop. Also, if you buy the box, you get a game for free... so the box is really only 49.99.   Edit: It also impresses me that they were actually able to launch the box. Especially after the rocky start. "
    And the only part of that which is even slightly costly is the video decompressor.  And if you are to believe what OnLive themselves have been saying they can build it for less than $2.
     
    In theory you could run games that look 10x better than Crysis on the highest end PC too, but that's not gonna happen either (at least not until the future).
     
    Why should prices ever drop?  This is a service where customers have NO ALTERNATIVE.  There is no comparable example in gaming today.
     
    You can evaluate the value of a game like that if you want, but is there anything on OnLive that can't be bought for significantly less than $50 on another platform today?
     
    But anyways I'm sure they have a large initial pile of investment capital and loans.  Of course they'll be able to get the microconsole out.  Even with zero sales they'd probably be able to stay afloat for 3 years.
    Avatar image for kyle
    Kyle

    2383

    Forum Posts

    6307

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 12

    #77  Edited By Kyle

    Well OnLive is still dumb, but that's at least a totally reasonable price for that set-top box.

    Avatar image for marrec
    marrec

    258

    Forum Posts

    1

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 2

    #78  Edited By marrec
    @Diamond: None of that changes the fact that it's the cheapest way to get quality looking PC games on your TV. Hell, it's among the cheapest ways to get any games on your TV. You are correct though, there is no comparable market for customers to go to... which is why it's needed. 
     
    So lets review, you can spend 99 dollars for a plug and play device that will stream high end PC gaming to your TV with little noticeable lag. Or you can spend about 500-600 bucks and build yourself a nice media-center PC with gaming capability and get about the same result, while admittedly being better for something like Black Ops or it's like... I'm not sure why I'd pay 600 bucks to play a PC version of Fallout: NV on my TV (assuming it something that would be provided on the service). 
     
    Just like Consoles have a reason to exist and an audience, so too does OnLive. Will I ever use it? Hells to the no, I'm Gaming Master Race all the way and I can't get by without dual monitors and sitting 18-24 inches from my screen... but I have a feeling that there are quite a few people out there who will welcome a device like this into their homes with open arms. Don't worry @Diamond, we will still be able to build our ridiculously over powered PCs that produce gorgeous screen-shots and run games at 90fps; OnLive and PC gaming can exist in the same marketplace. 
     
    But, it won't really matter unless OnLive gets some software support will it?
    Avatar image for xeridae
    Xeridae

    48

    Forum Posts

    1

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 1

    #79  Edited By Xeridae
    @marrec said:

    " @Diamond: None of that changes the fact that it's the cheapest way to get quality looking PC games on your TV. Hell, it's among the cheapest ways to get any games on your TV. You are correct though, there is no comparable market for customers to go to... which is why it's needed.  So lets review, you can spend 99 dollars for a plug and play device that will stream high end PC gaming to your TV with little noticeable lag. Or you can spend about 500-600 bucks and build yourself a nice media-center PC with gaming capability and get about the same result, while admittedly being better for something like Black Ops or it's like... I'm not sure why I'd pay 600 bucks to play a PC version of Fallout: NV on my TV (assuming it something that would be provided on the service).  Just like Consoles have a reason to exist and an audience, so too does OnLive. Will I ever use it? Hells to the no, I'm Gaming Master Race all the way and I can't get by without dual monitors and sitting 18-24 inches from my screen... but I have a feeling that there are quite a few people out there who will welcome a device like this into their homes with open arms. Don't worry @Diamond, we will still be able to build our ridiculously over powered PCs that produce gorgeous screen-shots and run games at 90fps; OnLive and PC gaming can exist in the same marketplace.  But, it won't really matter unless OnLive gets some software support will it? "

    It's not that simple or easy. Most people will see serious compression issues as your internet connection struggles to stream games in real time and in HD. You get what you pay for with this which is more like 480p.
     
    Netflix is a great example of what I am talking about. Unless you have a screaming fast internet connection it compresses the hell out of the video and it looks like shit 89% of the time.
     
    If you can afford to pay 60 bucks for a game then why not save your money for a console at the very least and get the quality you deserve?
    Avatar image for diamond
    Diamond

    8678

    Forum Posts

    533

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 4

    #80  Edited By Diamond
    @marrec said:
    @Diamond: None of that changes the fact that it's the cheapest way to get quality looking PC games on your TV. Hell, it's among the cheapest ways to get any games on your TV. You are correct though, there is no comparable market for customers to go to... which is why it's needed.  So lets review, you can spend 99 dollars for a plug and play device that will stream high end PC gaming to your TV with little noticeable lag. Or you can spend about 500-600 bucks and build yourself a nice media-center PC with gaming capability and get about the same result, while admittedly being better for something like Black Ops or it's like... I'm not sure why I'd pay 600 bucks to play a PC version of Fallout: NV on my TV (assuming it something that would be provided on the service).  Just like Consoles have a reason to exist and an audience, so too does OnLive. Will I ever use it? Hells to the no, I'm Gaming Master Race all the way and I can't get by without dual monitors and sitting 18-24 inches from my screen... but I have a feeling that there are quite a few people out there who will welcome a device like this into their homes with open arms. Don't worry @Diamond, we will still be able to build our ridiculously over powered PCs that produce gorgeous screen-shots and run games at 90fps; OnLive and PC gaming can exist in the same marketplace.  But, it won't really matter unless OnLive gets some software support will it? "
    That's why there's the Xbox 360 and Playstation 3.  That's one reason why they're successful.  But to really distinguish itself OnLive should be cheaper.  I don't think it has a reason to exist unless it can really provide something that gives it some advantage over other platforms.
     
    I personally have zero confidence that PC or console gaming will necessarily be around in 20 years.  I suspect they will, but I wouldn't bet my life on it.
     
    Anyways, the bigger problem I have with OnLive is I don't feel they provide a quality product.  I believe they've lied to potential customers and fooled a handful of people and a lot of people are going to get badly burned.  It's going to be one of the worst burns in gaming history because when OnLive shuts down, those people will lose their games forever.  Not even Virtual Boy did that.
    Avatar image for x19
    X19

    2370

    Forum Posts

    39

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 3

    #81  Edited By X19
    @fwylo: You sick bastard lol you steal the first place then delete your comment. 
    Avatar image for marrec
    marrec

    258

    Forum Posts

    1

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 2

    #82  Edited By marrec
    @Diamond: I feel the product couldn't be better polished and simpler to enjoy, personally. I'm starting to think that a lot of your vitriol toward OnLive is based on you not ever actually owning anything that you play. I get that, it sucks, but I am going to take the wait and see approach to see how they deal with pricing... so far they've had some pretty good sales, so paying less for a game you don't actually own isn't too bad. It's not that different than Steam in many regards. 
     
    @Xeridae: When I used it on my PC it was pretty damn good, being able to compare to instances of Batman: AA side by side was pretty handy and ya, you could see some compression and I could pump OnLives Batman up to the max, but it played really well with no noticeable lag. The quality is WAY above 480p. Granted, that's on my connection, I have FiOS so the bandwidth isn't really an issue I suppose. I have said from the beginning that Broadband penetration is really key for OnLive's success. That and software of course. 
     
    Edit: I haven't tried the Box yet, obviously, but the impressions that Gizmodo have written up seem to cast quite a favorable light on it.
    Avatar image for xeridae
    Xeridae

    48

    Forum Posts

    1

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 1

    #83  Edited By Xeridae
    @marrec said:
    " @Diamond: I feel the product couldn't be better polished and simpler to enjoy, personally. I'm starting to think that a lot of your vitriol toward OnLive is based on you not ever actually owning anything that you play. I get that, it sucks, but I am going to take the wait and see approach to see how they deal with pricing... so far they've had some pretty good sales, so paying less for a game you don't actually own isn't too bad. It's not that different than Steam in many regards. 
     
    @Xeridae: When I used it on my PC it was pretty damn good, being able to compare to instances of Batman: AA side by side was pretty handy and ya, you could see some compression and I could pump OnLives Batman up to the max, but it played really well with no noticeable lag. The quality is WAY above 480p. Granted, that's on my connection, I have FiOS so the bandwidth isn't really an issue I suppose. I have said from the beginning that Broadband penetration is really key for OnLive's success. That and software of course.  Edit: I haven't tried the Box yet, obviously, but the impressions that Gizmodo have written up seem to cast quite a favorable light on it. "
    I think you have the perfect set up for it though. Think about what it would be like on a big tv screen though and not a monitor. I mean the smaller the screen the better quality the image is going to be no matter what.
    Avatar image for diamond
    Diamond

    8678

    Forum Posts

    533

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 4

    #84  Edited By Diamond
    @marrec:  Well not owning games is definitely a component.  Not owning the hardware is a big component too.  Personally I'm on Comcast and it's expensive and I can only stream 720p with a fair amount of compression on OnLive and there's a lot of latency too.  I play more hours of games a month than Comcast would allow if I was using OnLive for that matter too.  I have a decent gaming PC that runs everything that's on OnLive far better than the OnLive version, and if I can pay for broadband in the future I'll still be able to build a gaming PC or at least play on consoles.
     
    It just seems like a product that will in no way ever be for me, and it's very hard for me to understand what anyone sees in it.
    Avatar image for marrec
    marrec

    258

    Forum Posts

    1

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 2

    #85  Edited By marrec
    @Xeridae: Well I have a nice big monitor, two of em, side by side. Batman will only go up to a certain Resolution with OnLive and it's not 1080p. (Can't remember the exact Resolution) but it did look pretty good even side-by-side my maxed out Batman. On a 40" 1080p TV it'd probably look about as good as the 360 version, with a bit of noticeable compression. That's all conjecture of course until I can actually get my hands on it and test it. 
     
    @Diamond: My PC will never be replaced by OnLive or anything like it, I've been a PC gamer all my life. That said I can see the appeal of something like this, with it's impulse buy entry level and customer interface that any simpleton can understand. OnLive isn't for me either, but I sure love the idea of it, just like I loved the idea of Netflix streaming 3 years ago or so.
     
    And OnLive is working really closely with ISPs to fudge bandwidth caps for it's service. Some of the caps wouldn't last too long if you play 20-40 hours a week and they understand that.
    Avatar image for diamond
    Diamond

    8678

    Forum Posts

    533

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 4

    #86  Edited By Diamond
    @marrec:  Well I am willing to play the wait and see too if they're ever able to place OnLive better in the entry level gamer price range and if they can work out deals with companies like Verizon and Comcast (which I highly doubt unless OnLive becomes a massive success and can pay the difference).
    Avatar image for marrec
    marrec

    258

    Forum Posts

    1

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 2

    #87  Edited By marrec
    @Diamond: Well... I hate to say this part, but I wouldn't be too surprised to see OnLive bought out by Comcast/Verizon and offered exclusively to their customers for an additional fee. *shrug*
    Avatar image for set
    Set

    172

    Forum Posts

    8

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 0

    #88  Edited By Set

    That actually looks pretty cool but I don't think I'll need it.

    Avatar image for zohar
    Zohar

    135

    Forum Posts

    133

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 1

    #89  Edited By Zohar

    I downloaded the PC client and loaded up Borderlands.  I was really expecting it to be utter crap, but it actually works.  There was noticeable lag on my wireless connection (and they do state up-front that it works best on wired connections) but other than that it actually damn well worked!  Within 5 seconds of choosing to play the free trial of Borderlands I was in the main menu.  There was no installation process, no waiting, just clicked play and I was in.
     
    Now I didn't try messing with the video quality or anything, but I was very pleased with how it all worked.  I'm actually quite impressed with this thing.  The only thing right now that holds it back is the lag, but honestly, even that wasn't very bad.  Considering I was playing a fully featured triple A PC game instantly with NO download or install process, a small amount of lag is easy to forgive.

    Avatar image for teh_destroyer
    teh_destroyer

    3700

    Forum Posts

    0

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 1

    User Lists: 2

    #90  Edited By teh_destroyer
    @Theavsfan said:
    " @fwylo said:
    "
    No Caption Provided
    "
    "
    Avatar image for seriouslynow
    SeriouslyNow

    8504

    Forum Posts

    0

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 1

    #91  Edited By SeriouslyNow
    @marrec said:
    " It's a video decompressor with 1080p support "
    Sorry mate,  all the games are internally rendered at 720p, not 1080.  They can be up and down scaled to suit whatever target res is necessary (from iphone to Dual-Link DVI PC monitor) depending on the client (this box only supports native HDMI resolutions, hence its low price but the browser based clients can output at any resolution) but they are rendered as 720p.  There is no support for ATI Eyefinity or Nvidia Wide Desktop multi-screen resolution displays either.   The games are run at medium detail too to encourage a smoother framerate and to have less complex effects running (which entails simpler and faster encoding).
    Avatar image for seriouslynow
    SeriouslyNow

    8504

    Forum Posts

    0

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 1

    #92  Edited By SeriouslyNow
    @marrec said:
    " @Diamond: Well... I hate to say this part, but I wouldn't be too surprised to see OnLive bought out by Comcast/Verizon and offered exclusively to their customers for an additional fee. *shrug* "
    Which means they end up with an even smaller customer base.  That's not exactly what a business like Onlive is aiming for.
    Avatar image for coldwolven
    Cold_Wolven

    2583

    Forum Posts

    3

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 0

    #93  Edited By Cold_Wolven

    It won't be a first day purchase for me. I'll wait and see after a few months to see how successful OnLive is and if some of the worries I have with the service aren't a real problem.

    Avatar image for mrmyxo
    MrMyxo

    7

    Forum Posts

    0

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 1

    #94  Edited By MrMyxo

    so when do this shit come to Europa ? intresting to try it but probe but bay it :P

    Avatar image for twoonefive
    TwoOneFive

    9793

    Forum Posts

    203

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 1

    #95  Edited By TwoOneFive

    i really like onlive.  
     
    Sony would be smart to just buy them out and use their system for a new psn. the social features alone are outstanding.  
     
    being able to instantly watch and chat with any other player using OnLive is a fantastic features and the brag clip feature built right into the controller is genius. 

    Avatar image for marrec
    marrec

    258

    Forum Posts

    1

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 2

    #96  Edited By marrec
    @SeriouslyNow said:
    " @marrec said:
    " It's a video decompressor with 1080p support "
    Sorry mate,  all the games are internally rendered at 720p, not 1080.  They can be up and down scaled to suit whatever target res is necessary (from iphone to Dual-Link DVI PC monitor) depending on the client (this box only supports native HDMI resolutions, hence its low price but the browser based clients can output at any resolution) but they are rendered as 720p.  There is no support for ATI Eyefinity or Nvidia Wide Desktop multi-screen resolution displays either.   The games are run at medium detail too to encourage a smoother framerate and to have less complex effects running (which entails simpler and faster encoding). "
    Not to be pedantic, but what I meant by 1080p support is the ability to up-res on your screen. Also, theoretically, depending on how good they get at compressing and decompressing the video that is sent to you they may be able to move to true 1920x1080 resolutions in the future. It's not like the server side computers couldn't hand it. 
     
    Also if I were OnLive I'd love to be bought out by one of the big cable providers, it's not like Comcast is lacking customers. Besides, that's just one scenario. They could licence out their boxes like TiVO or just the software like Netflix...
    Avatar image for seriouslynow
    SeriouslyNow

    8504

    Forum Posts

    0

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 1

    #97  Edited By SeriouslyNow
    @marrec:   The target resolution is rather unimportant if the game isn't being rendered at 1080p.  PC gamers choose PC over console so they can play at resolutions beyond what most console games offer (in the case of multiplatform releases) and games which consoles can't play well or at all (like RTS and MMO) so if your gaming experience is limited by both rendered resolution and detail (I've yet to see a DX10 game on Onlive rendered in full detail and I'm not talking about view distance, Anisotropic Filtering or FSAA) then it's hardly worth the effort as a replacement for PC gaming.  It's fine as a rental or demo service for those games which you may have a passing interest in but PC gamers would much rather have the experience in the fullest of detail on their own hardware.  While Onlive has made a tiny bit of noise (in their EULA alone) regarding supporting user generated content, I really don't think it's likely it will provide access to the wealth of mods available for free and I doubt even more sincerely that they will offer 1/100th of what's available due to game breaking aspects, copyright infringement and adult content which many mods are geared towards.  PC gamers bemoan consolification of games that they can play locally and a service like Onlive will only make that more apparent.  I just can't see this ever gaining any traction as a full on games providing service, though it may have some success as a rental and demo service.
    Avatar image for marrec
    marrec

    258

    Forum Posts

    1

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 2

    #98  Edited By marrec
    @SeriouslyNow: I hardly want to get into another argument about the merits of OnLive so I will just say point well taken. As a PC gamer myself, I understand the difference between my 360 version of Mass Effect 2 and my PC version... there really is no comparison and I won't argue that OnLive is a replacement for high-end PC gamer. But, as I have said previously in this thread, paying 99$ (+Free Game) for a box that lets you replicate the gaming capabilities of a 500 dollar media machine isn't anything to sneeze at. It's not as if the games are in an unplayable state because they're only 720p up-resed to your TV, they looked pretty good on my Monitor and I imagine they'll look pretty good on a 1080p TV as well. PC gamers that care enough to download new texture Mods for Resident Evil 5 just to get it looking a gorgeous as their system aren't the target audience for this you see, my sister who wants to play Assassin's Creed 2 without having to buy a gaming laptop or new desktop is who this is aimed at. 
     
    But, again, all of it won't mean a thing if they don't make available the latest and greatest games. That's the biggest limitation at this point, not the fact that it looks a bit like the 360 version of games on your TV. 
     
    Edit: To illustrate my point, I'd love to play through the single player of Black Ops but couldn't give a hoot about the Multiplayer. (I still enjoy MW2.) If OnLive allowed me to rent COD:BLOPS for 6 bucks for three days that'd be perfect for me.
    Avatar image for sins_of_mosin
    sins_of_mosin

    1713

    Forum Posts

    291

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 27

    User Lists: 7

    #99  Edited By sins_of_mosin

    They got the left thumb stick in the wrong spot.

    Avatar image for i_smell
    I_smell

    4221

    Forum Posts

    1650

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 5

    User Lists: 11

    #100  Edited By I_smell

    Holy fuck, this is a real thing now.

    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.