Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'User Submitted News' started by Vidboy10, Jun 19, 2010.
I can't be the only one who thinks this is a terrible idea? Imagine the time it takes to render the game, record and compress it, send it to you, and for you to decode the video and play it. This means high latencies. Unless they have some magic that can squeeze more time into a 60th of a second, I doubt this is worth trying.
That's been said by just about everybody since the concept was first introduced ages ago.
Their only real reply is something along the lines of "our coders are fucking genies, yo, don't worry about it".
Unless they're going to be renting a CDN with machines in every city and only doing racing/RPG/RTS games, I don't believe it.
I think the speed problem is certainly solvable. Maybe you won't be able to play really fastpaced games properly for the next years, but that doesn't make the idea bad.
The only thing I'm really worried about is the games as a service view. A game I buy on OnLive isn't mine. I just pay to play on on their servers, and I'm completely dependant on them. As it stands, that's not a service I want to use.
Still, think of the positive sides. No matter what computer you have and no matter what OS it's running, you'll be able to play a wide variety of games without any installing or long loading times.
I'm most worried about bandwidth. Won't I be blowing it in a day playing games in full res? Also, Australian internet sucks mah ballz, so I won't even consider this for a while (I don't even know if its planned to come out here any time soon). If I'm wrong, somebody educate me because this is certainly compelling, but I don't know much about OnLive.
yeah like nobody here in Australia can use onlive bandwidths capds here in America its heaps good no bandwidth caps well one company limted it to 250gb and people got angry omg i want 250gigs everthing is unfair here and thats why you cant you steam to buy games here internet is heaps cheaper there in america their been protests to stop bandwidths caps come on protesters help Australia.
I believe in it. If the concept wasn't valid at all, they wouldn't have pushed it so far. Who would start an actual business, advertise it and all based on a concept that doesnt work?
I expect it to have 1 major flaw though. Possbly one or more of those:
- crappy/small games only
- very laggy
- limited to a certain type of games
- uses too much bandwidth
- doesn't work in many countries
- very slow for some countries
- if a disconnection occurs which can often happen, the game's lost
or maybe all of that together... haha
Everybody hates this, but I think it is ahead of its time.
I don't like spending $$$$$ for decent gaming PC upgrades every year. I did that, and I felt like I was pissing my money away. Plus, I can't play any cool new games on my netbook.
The idea isn't for everyone. If you live in a country with shoddy internet access, you're SOL. But I bet they won't have local servers that'll support you anyway. (They have to have a server at most 200-300 miles from you.)
"The OnLive service will be hosted in five co-located North American data centers. Currently there are facilities in California, (Santa Clara) and Virginia, with additional facilities being fitted out in Texas and elsewhere. OnLive has stated that users must be located within 1,000 miles (1,600 km) of one of these to receive high quality service."
By "Texas", they probably mean Austin.
its a bandwith hog for sure, fairly sure the released how much you need to play at full 1080pees and it was something like a 5.4mbps line.
I tried it, it sucks balls. Latency issues are def. a problem. it makes playing games like Unreal Tourney 3 pointless.
Meh. I don't like the idea of this. I prefer to own a game than rely on a subscription model such as this, never mind latency as others have mentioned.
The current proposed subscription for this would in fact pay for my hardware upgrades every 4-5 years anyway.
Yep, I agree, this is just ahead of its time... but IMO, also needs the support of a bigger company (like MS, Sony, or anothr HW company)
i doubt this will even be released in Australia no one really has a fast enough connection yes i know we have 24 meg connections but you hardly ever even connect to that (my max is 13mb) and the max bandwidth plans we have is 200gb you'll use that FAST with this!
From what I gather, it's like an internet-based games console...I think. It plays games that are stored at central servers.
I've not looked much into it, so feel free to disagree with me.
My connection can lag while watching youtube videos and I only get a 5gb per month download allowance. I don't think I'll be getting one of these just yet.
Curious, what game did you try?
I also tried it and there was definitely latency issues. I tried Mirror's Edge, Prince of Persia, a game that used the Cry engine, and I think one other one I don't know the name of. Some games work better than others, but I could definitely tell when a game wasn't as responsive as on a normal setup. The service may be free the first year for early adopters, but I don't think it's worth it with all the services disadvantages.
Essentially, yes, you're right. Think of it as you playing on someone else's computer from your own over the internet. So even with a shitty rig, you can still play just as well as everyone else, so long as you have a fast internet connection.
When did you try them? I didn't see Mirror's Edge listed as one of the featured games. Or did you try this during the beta?
I heard the beta had trouble, but they beefed up the servers for the actual service.
I'm part of the free-year/1-free-game pre-order promotion, so I'm trying to decide what to get once they turn on my subscription.
Yes, I did try it during the beta. They could have fix some things for the actual release, but the problems seems like something you can't get rid of so easily with this concept. I could be wrong though, but let's just say I'll never play a rhythm game or fighting game with this service.