Home    General Stuff    General Gaming
#1

OnLive: Replacing Consoles?

Archive: 24 posts

This is an article on the new weird super-awesome online program that will let us people who don't feel like paying for a computer then paying 500 more dollars to upgrade it. Oh, what a dream!

Imagine never upgrading your hardware again.

If you're a console gamer playing on your HDTV, that means avoiding shelling out $500 to play next generation titles. If you're a PC gamer, it means opting out of the endless cycle of new CPUs, motherboards, and graphics cards. It also means you can play your favorite game on just about any platform?even laptops or netbooks. This even includes games famous for being resource hogs, like the Crysis series.

At least, that's dream of Steve Perlman and Mike McGarvey of OnLive.

OnLive is a new gaming service, slated to launch towards the end of 2009. The core idea of OnLive is to make all modern games playable on any system. The actual heavy lifting of rendering, AI, and other gameplay is handled by big iron servers, which are loaded with multiple CPUs and high-end graphics chips (GPUs).

The player has a simple, lightweight client running on a PC or Mac or, alternatively, may opt for what OnLive is calling a "MicroConsole" to play on a big screen TV. No large, power-hungry console needed, no high-end GPU or CPU required on the PC.

In other words, welcome to gaming in the Internet cloud.

"This is the last major console cycle," Perlman said. "If not this one, then definitely the next one."

A confluence of new technologies and market realities are converging to make OnLive even possible. Some of that technology is proprietary, like the high quality, real-time video compression used to send out ongoing gameplay to the user's system.

The increasing density and lowering cost of large server farms, better availability of high bandwidth internet connections, the secondary game market (used games) and the increasing cost of hardware may be what make's OnLive viable.
Click here for the rest of the article. (http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2845,2343703,00.asp)

Thoughts? I love the idea, but a big part of certain PC games (FO3), it seems that mods wouldn't be possible. Ands mods are teh best.

It seems really cool, though. However, with Comcast stealing people internets for being too cool and taking up too much bandwidth, I don't see me being able to use it. 		2009-03-25 03:03:00

Author:
qrtda235566
Posts: 3664

I don't get it, would this mean being able to play Halo 3 on my PS3? Or being able to play Halo 3 from my computer with other Xbox people.2009-03-25 03:12:00

Author:
Whalio Cappuccino
Posts: 5250

I don't get it, would this mean being able to play Halo 3 on my PS3? Or being able to play Halo 3 from my computer with other Xbox people.

It doesn't actually have anything to do with Xbox Live. It isn't even made by Microsoft. It's something that will help people to play games on entry-level computers, gives them a good online service, and all games are downloadable or streaming or something. Just have to pay for them. It's a really good concept. And only PC games and multiplat games will come out for it, DUH! 		2009-03-25 03:16:00

Author:
qrtda235566
Posts: 3664

Ohhhh... Ewww I have to pay for it, it better be a good service worth my money.2009-03-25 03:18:00

Author:
Whalio Cappuccino
Posts: 5250

Ohhhh... Ewww I have to pay for it, it better be a good service worth my money.

I don't know if you have to pay monthly for it, though. Might just have to go to a store and pick up the little thing you plug into your computer. Then you can buy games off it, and being the manufacturer of the games, I'm sure that OnLive will get some money from the purchased games.		2009-03-25 03:21:00

Author:
qrtda235566
Posts: 3664

Hmm.... Great idea, but they're about 5 years too early IMO.

I can see this having a niche market, but nothing too major. It will, however show that something like this is possible.

I do believe the first of the major 3 who do it (Sony, Nintendo, Microsoft) will be the one to make it popular and the next 'it' thing. Money is on Microsoft to do it first, but Sony wouldn't surprise me.		2009-03-25 03:23:00

Author:
LightGrenades
Posts: 218

Hmm.... Great idea, but they're about 5 years too early IMO.

I can see this having a niche market, but nothing too major. It will, however show that something like this is possible.

I do believe the first of the major 3 who do it (Sony, Nintendo, Microsoft) will be the one to make it popular and the next 'it' thing. Money is on Microsoft to do it first, but Sony wouldn't surprise me.

It really depends how well they advertise it and hype it. If we see more at E3, and it gets a good reaction, it could have a big market. All of us console scrubs can move up in the eyes of the PC gaming gods.		2009-03-25 03:33:00

Author:
qrtda235566
Posts: 3664

I actually always wondered if something like this is possible.. this can be a really creative idea but definitely has its disadvantanges.2009-03-25 04:54:00

Author:
Foofles
Posts: 2278

You have to pay a monthly fee PLUS pay for each individual game. I don't like the idea of paying for a game that I don't have any sort of hard copy of.

This is a terrible idea.		2009-03-25 08:05:00

Author:
Pinkcars
Posts: 380

I watched the Conference video, The idea sounds amazing. I mean Streaming a game wow. Although here are the Pros and Cons

Pros
+It's Tiny
+Controller Looks smexy
+Streaming Games no download woah
+No need of super computer (even tho I have 3 XD )
+Brag Clips
+Watch and comentate on live Games with friends (Not just Multiplayer)
+Rent the game
+Watch live video clips no load times (Good if you want to check the game out before buying it)
+Watch other people play before buying it
+Crisis


Cons
-No offline always required to be online
-On release US only
-Monthly fee (Yes there is)
-No littlebigplanet (All the better reason to get a PS3)
-No Splitscreen?
-Very decent internet speed required
-Bandwidth allowance for some people will prevent from play

Can't think of any others, anything else I missed out?		2009-03-25 13:37:00

Author:
Defaultsound
Posts: 137

[...]Can't think of any others, anything else I missed out?

Correct me if I'm wrong but... if the company folds or cuts the service because it's no longer profitable, all of the games you've bought are lost.		2009-03-25 14:36:00

Author:
Gilgamesh
Posts: 2536

Correct me if I'm wrong but... if the company folds or cuts the service because it's no longer profitable, all of the games you've bought are lost.

Definitely not beyond the realm of possibility. This all sounds great in theory, but it's not practical for everyone. That said, saying that this is the last or second to last console generation is like saying that checks as a form of payment are on their way out. Statistically, that's true, but it doesn't change the fact that people still write checks.

So, the question here is can this new way of gaming co-exist with a physical console generation? Can it thrive and succeed and, in turn, drive out the physical consoles altogether? I highly doubt it...		2009-03-25 15:17:00

Author:
supersickie
Posts: 1366

It's an interesting concept. Any sort of lag or internet glitch would make the whole thing not work at all though, which is not good. It's theoretically possible though, and it is an interesting idea.

I could imagine it being an absolute nightmare in terms of copyright control though. They would have to get a big game maker (not necessarily console maker) absolutely behind it, almost to the point of staking their company on such technology, for it to work I think. If you can't access old games then that will turn some people off, and if game makers are still doing hard copy stuff, and not doing exclusive content for this, I just can't see it taking off. Certainly, a next generation console can cost up to $1000 AUS at launch, and a top end PC even more, but I just can't see this idea being an absolute alternative to hard technology.

But then again, the idea of MP3 stores like iTunes et al several years ago would have been ridiculed. Why buy an MP3 on the net when you can buy a CD? Yet nowadays some people, especially younger folks, have their entire music collection (and a large one at that) entirely stored/accessed online.

Still though, that's not pure streaming of music, just simply access to the rights to play. It's one thing to have, say, ownership of the game online and still have a copy on a storage medium locally, compared to the pure streaming idea presented here. Considering they are pushing/suggesting for "ultra next generation" content to be doing this, we would be looking at very big file sizes and processing needs. To only stream that much stuff and have no back up... well, it does not appeal to me much when I word it out like that. :blush:		2009-03-25 16:31:00

Author:
Elbee23
Posts: 1280

AFAIK, not all countries have the infrastructure to support a service like this. The current gaming consoles and PCs, on the other hand, can be used in most countries around the world. They would have a pretty big mountain to climb to be able to replace physical media completely with an online service. I don't think this will happen any time soon, if at all.2009-03-25 17:07:00

Author:
Gilgamesh
Posts: 2536

AFAIK, not all countries have the infrastructure to support a service like this. The current gaming consoles and PCs, on the other hand, can be used in most countries around the world. They would have a pretty big mountain to climb to be able to replace physical media completely with an online service. I don't think this will happen any time soon, if at all.

"Not all countries" would certainly include the United States...


But then again, the idea of MP3 stores like iTunes et al several years ago would have been ridiculed. Why buy an MP3 on the net when you can buy a CD? Yet nowadays some people, especially younger folks, have their entire music collection (and a large one at that) entirely stored/accessed online.

As you stated later in your comment, this type of purchase is still physical to some degree whether the music is burned onto a CD or simply stored on an MP3 player. It's still tangible to some degree and that's why it works. They'll have to come up with some way of actually owning the material.		2009-03-25 17:22:00

Author:
supersickie
Posts: 1366

While a fantastic idea, it's not going to be without its limitations, and I think it was grossly arrogant for them to comment that this is the "last major cycle" in reference to generation-dated hardware.

For one, there's the notion that subscription fees would undoubtedly be required to subsidize the high-end hardware required for processing work. Sure users might not be shelling out $500 for a game console or PC (assuming a 5 year lifespan, is $100 annually), but somebody has to pay for that hardware - and you can bet it will be end users.

On top of that, I don't see them doing away with charging per game either. Software companies are going to want to be paid for their product, and will probably adopt site-licence fees to provide the games to the service providers, who, in turn, will get this money back from end-users.

Then there's the notion that the service won't be globally available. We're not even in an age yet where Canadians can access Hulu videos, despite the fact that we receive 90% of the same network channels as our US friends, including NBC and ABC. So, I certainly don't expect we'd see this type of service very available.

What about network bandwidth? Are we likely to see a whole new instance of lag-related issues as a result?

I could keep this list going on and on, but there's no point. It's a great concept, but I'm very skeptical at this point. They are promising the world and we've yet to see how they deliver on this.		2009-03-25 17:47:00

Author:
Thegide
Posts: 1465

This won't fly and for many reasons:

- People buy PCs for TONS of reasons so they will continue to do so. Therefore this basically renders the "you don't need to upgrade your PC" argument moot.

- Internet connections aren't evolving much. Most the world is behind the kind of connection you can have in Japan and USA. We will need MUCH FASTER connections and MUCH MORE people connected to those in order for their idea to become mainstream.

- Hardware makers Sony and Microsoft will totally want to sell their games to you directly -- and they would probably make more cash doing so.

Also, the economical context of the world at present doesn't help any of my points.
I think their idea is great though. It could kill the physical rental system or PC games someday. But let me tell you this day is FAR, FAR away.

We will probably see a consortium of different hardware maker develloping a close platform before any of that streaming stuff. That "unified console" could completely ravitalise the industry and might become the only option to reach a sales through price for games and really make the industry grow. Might also be the only option to compete Nintendo at some point... lol

.		2009-03-25 22:54:00

Author:
RangerZero
Posts: 3901

Yeah, I can't see this working. Also expect delay for input on games.2009-03-26 08:51:00

Author:
Pinkcars
Posts: 380

On further reflection of this issue, I just can't see it being cost justifiable. Considering the cost of production for major games for this generation of consoles, outside of most Wii titles, is several million dollars and 100-200+ staff to produce, it's just a monster to make a main stream title. If the trend does continue for hardware abilities to increase, leading to software potential increasing, this would make the already huge costs just mind boggling. To be able to sell this to people who have a good enough internet connection at some sort of believable price, like $50 per month, you would need a huge number of users. It's just not economically possible, at least the way current trends are.

There is always the possibility of technological breakthroughs, like cheap ultra-fast internet for everyone, and cheap yet powerful servers being accessible to many people. At the moment though I think they are seriously dreaming.

There is also no guarentee that production budgets for games are going to get any bigger. Already some are costing 10 times more than the average block buster movie. That's part of the reason for the Wii existing. It's a protest against the ridiculous production budgets that are needed.

Yet the original idea proposed here is to be replacing the "next generation" console, or at worst the one after it. In terms of time, that's about 10 years. I might be old, but I just can't see it all happening.

I could believe it in say... 2 to 3 decades, but not in the time span suggested. Not with the current system of game production we have for the PS3 and 360.

If you look back to the 60s and 70s (which were before my time) the idea of a portable personal communication device being assessible to everyone was just science fiction. But just 10 years ago mobile phones were common, and now adays it's not too hard or expensive to get a phone as powerful as a PS1 or even PS2. Technology does move quick... but this prediction is too fast. 		2009-03-26 12:41:00

Author:
Elbee23
Posts: 1280

Gizmodo has some hands on impressions.

http://i.gizmodo.com/5184502/onlive-streaming-games-hands+on-impressions

Eurogamer explains why it probably will not work.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/gdc-why-onlive-cant-possibly-work-article		2009-03-26 13:02:00

Author:
Rabid-Coot
Posts: 6728

(sorry for the bump; I had to add my thoughts )

Honestly, after the live demo I saw, I'm really hopeful that this service succeeds. There's arguments that network connection will be an issue - it is valid for those with slow ISPs, but not for those with good D/L speeds. The service requires 1.5Mbps D/L for SDTV quality and 5Mbps for HDTV quality. As far as the demo went, I saw no lag in input-versus-response. Granted, they were only 50 miles away from the data center they were pulling from, but since you can be something like 500 miles from the data center without any noticeable lag and they have 3 data centers set up around the US right now, with more being built, I don't see it being a problem.

Will it replace consoles? It's too early to tell. OnLive's got three things that make it attractive: cheap hardware to play the games with (assuming the microconsole goes for around $50), constantly upgraded hardware for newer games, and no installs. I have the money to purchase a new console each generation, but if OnLive can save me money so I can spend it on buying games through it's service, then I will almost definitely make the switch. However, there's a few things that I will wait for before deciding to switch or not:

Will it's community features rival Xbox Live's options? - For it's community features, I'm holding out to see if it supports a friends list, voice chat, cross-game private chat, cross-game party chat, and messages.
Will every major game be developed for the platform? - It's already got a surprisingly strong partnership lineup, so there shouldn't be a scarcity of games by the time it launches.
Is the monthly fee low enough to justify switching? - In terms of monthly fees, I pay about $5 a month for Xbox Live. Now, I realize OnLive is offering freedom from static hardware, but I'd rather dish out $400 every 4 years plus the yearly $60 Live fee than pay a yearly $180 fee, even if it is cheaper overall. To be competitive, I think the service should be priced at or under $13 a month. In a standard console lifespan of 4 years, that would round out to about $624, which beats out an Xbox 360 + Live by about $16. That's not low enough for many of those used to free online play, but I'd pay it if the service was worth it.

My internet D/L speed is over 20Mbps, which is more than enough to support this service, so network connection isn't even an issue for me. However, many people don't have a good enough network to support it; while that number is shrinking over time, it's still big enough to be a barrier for many. The other thing about the OnLive service is the fact that while most people won't switch over now, once it comes time to buy a new console, it will look much more attractive than that clunky console that you have to lug around, warranty against breaking, and maintain. If OnLive can offer top titles, great community features, lag-free high-quality streaming video, and do it all at a $90 or cheaper yearly price point, then I think it could easily rival Microsoft and Sony. However, I don't see Microsoft or Sony immediately switching to this kind of service - instead, my guess is they'll patent a bunch of technologies that would allow them to implement this down the road, but they won't do anything unless they see a significant dip in profits. I don't see OnLive being a major player for a few years, but I do think that it will be a thorn in Microsoft and Sony's side. This kind of gaming is something that I would prefer, if it's done right, so I'm rooting for OnLive.		2009-04-01 01:29:00

Author:
ConfusedCartman
Posts: 3729

.... That was a large post CC o_O...

Anyway, I'm not going for it. For me it deviates from "Gaming" as it should be. On a console. JUST MY OPINION! DONT SHOOT! Games aren't a service, they're a product. I want to be able to play ANY game I want whenever, and I can do that once I have purchased a console. If I purchase OnLive, I will have to pay a monthly fee and those can become tiresome.

I like a variety of games. Even the spontaneous, cooky and downright crazy games. No matter how small of a game, I will possibly buy it. But with OnLive, I doubt that this will happen. It will probably only provide the Big Name games like Halo or Killzone. What happens then?

Strangely, I wold definitely prefer a console than anything else for gaming. Sounds strange, but it's true! I want to be able to pop my CD into that slot and PLAY. I want to line up at a store with limited stock for a game. I want to have a chance of not getting it! I want to be SPECIAL. If games just become a downloadable thing... I don't know. The current console stores like PSN are OK, because you are downloading onto a console and you need that console to play it.

What fun would lining up at a store for a game be if you can just get it online :...

Once again, I dunno...		2009-04-01 06:40:00

Author:
Unknown User

It seems like it only produces games that were on the pc, so I guess it's just an up-to-date gaming computer..2009-04-06 10:22:00

Author:
TheArmedReaper
Posts: 1543

I got the worst download speed ever, and I'd rather have a disc then some virtual saved game.2009-04-06 11:38:00

Author:
oldage
Posts: 2824


LBPCentral Archive Statistics
Posts: 1077139    Threads: 69970    Members: 9661    Archive-Date: 2019-01-19

Datenschutz
Aus dem Archiv wurden alle persönlichen Daten wie Name, Anschrift, Email etc. - aber auch sämtliche Inhalte wie z.B. persönliche Nachrichten - entfernt.
Die Nutzung dieser Webseite erfolgt ohne Speicherung personenbezogener Daten. Es werden keinerlei Cookies, Logs, 3rd-Party-Plugins etc. verwendet.