" Is this really going to be a thing now? As if consolls werent confusing enough for the average consumer. Cant wait until I have to start explaining this to people. "
Here's a good place to start:
"You buy it, plug it into your TV, buy games, and play them." As for how it does what it does, just tell them magical elves travel along the internet line carrying their game one frame at a time back and forth.
@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.
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...
@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.
It's not panic time, this is just the Judiciary Committee and they pass a lot of stupid shit that never sees the light of day. Congress does't have time to actually pass the bill before recess and in the interval there will be a ton of lobbying and the like.
Not to say that we shouldn't be well aware of whats going on so that we can make our voices heard, just reminding you that it's not like they have actually passed anything yet.
" I'll be going GOG as well. I mean, gog.com is owned by CD Projekt so all my money does directly to them. I'm also going to buy the $130 Retail Collector's Edition. I don't mind double dipping for The Witcher 2. "
This, I don't need Achievements in my Witcher 2.
A year or so from now when the Steam version drops to 7.50, I'll pick it up and play it through again. Day One on GoG.com though.
@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.
@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?