A potential gaming revolution?

[tibilicus]

http://www.gametrailers.com/player/47080.html

I'm not sure of this myself but if it can really deliver what it says than surely gaming will be changed forever?

All other consoles will become obsolete and the need to upgrade your pc will be a thing of the past.

Is this really to good to be true?

[Husar]

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?p=2189750#post2189750

otherwise:

My thoughts on OnLive:

- works ONLY online, meaning the whole data of everything is on their server and you depend even more on their server than you do with Steam
- even if you have a 100Mbps connection and their servers are lightning fast, there can be lag and I seriously doubt that there will never be lag between your input and the picture, unless you live next door to their server farm, perhaps
- you will pay quite a bit more for your games, you may not have to upgrade your own PC but you pay for them to upgrade their servers
- I'm european
- they're american
- you get the point

[ChaosLord]

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/gdc-why-onlive-cant-possibly-work-article Thats a link to the eurogamer article about it, sums up OnLives issues and the questions it raises quite nicely.

I for one don't think shifting from paying for hardware you own to temporary server usage you don't is a giant leap forward, but thats just me..

[The Spartan (Returns)]

My friend told me about this two days ago. Personally, I don't believe that's possible.

[Xiahou]

I for one don't think shifting from paying for hardware you own to temporary server usage you don't is a giant leap forward, but thats just me..I agree. I have no interest in this product at all.

Obviously, it's main appeal is going to be price. Instead of buying a new PC every 2-3yrs to play the latest games, or instead of trying to own every console, you just "rent" the hardware from them. Unless I'm mistaken, you're still going to have to "buy" your games and then pay them to host your games as opposed to owning your own hardware.

So let's say it saves you money on hardware costs- what are the tradeoffs?

-You're dependent on them to keep the hardware running.
-You have to be online at all times when playing a game. Something tells me this might be bandwidth intensive. If the Internet connection on your end, their end, or any point in between goes down.... NO GAMES!
-You're dependent on the whims of the Internets to give you a lag free connection. Game video must be streamed to you while your control inputs are sent to their servers. Any lag at all in this process would have to be very noticeable.
-No second sales, no trading games to friends, no portability- period. You can play the game on your onlive account- that's it.

No thanks, I'd rather keep my own hardware.

Edit: The controller also looks hideous.

[Vuk]

Sounds like :daisy: to me. Just another way to regulate the gaming industry for maximum profit and minimum freedom. If gaming moved over for this, it would likely become much MORE expensive than it is soon, you would lose the freedom of what to do with you game (modding, tweaking, etc), you would have to rely on their servers (and if something happens to their hardware, every gamer around the world suddenly won't be able to play), you would need to rely on the internet (probably the most unreliable thing in the history of mankind :laugh4:, if you had a slow internet connection (like my turtle connection) you are :daisy:, etc. It would kill the game resell economy completely, so if you spend $50 on a game and decide that you do not like it, you can no longer sell it to make a little money back (my sis for instance recently bought that garbage excuse for a game assasins creed, found out it was a waste of money, and sold it for $5 less then she paid for it. It was in perfect condition, so the person she sold it too got a bargain, and she made only a small loss). It will also be much easier for large publishing companies to control everything you play. Games like M&B would be a thing of the past, because it just wouldn't work. Since you are depending on connecting to a server and no longer running something off your own hardware, you could not have people making indie games and mods for others to download. I don't know about you, but when I get a game, I spend a month playing it, and 4+ years modding it. :P (I am making fanmissions to that marvelous and perfect game we call Thief II to this day :P)
IMHO the gaming world is like the economy, the less regulation, the more it flourishes. All the best games started out the dreams of a bunch of nerds that they did on their spare time. A lot of them got their fame with the gaming community which then allowed them to get publishers. If this takes over gaming, the only way will be to hope a publisher thinks your project will be profitable. Most indie gamers and modders make things for fun and quality, but publishing companies only want profit. Give them more control, and the more toward profit the gaming industry will shift.
My advice would be to ignore this and support the conventional gaming industry.

[Rilder]

Gotta love these :daisy: companies and what not who think that everybody has uber internet connections. :/

[Fragony]

This is no doubt the future, but you need a pretty fast line, and their CPU's probably need their own nuclair plant. I like the idea.

[Crandaeolon]

Pros:

Platform independent - cheaper development costs, less glitches
Cross-platform multiplayer easily implemented
Games available practically instantly - impulse purchases more likely
Renting games a viable option
Very controllable try-before-you-buy
No piracy
No reselling
Community features integrated into the service
High portability if internet connection is available

Cons:

Dependant on internet connection
No modding
No reselling
Subscription fee in addition to cost of games

From a developer perspective, it certainly sounds delicious. From a consumer perspective, the cons are pretty minor - lack of modding is perhaps the biggest bummer. The subscription fee would need to be quite low, certainly less than 20 bucks/month, to get people to use this service instead of purchasing top-notch hardware.

The big question is, naturally, is it possible? I think it all boils down to the video compression system. If it indeed has only 1 ms latency (a mind-boggling claim), I can see how this thing could have a playable ping if the server farm is on the same continent.

[Vuk]

Pros:

Platform independent - cheaper development costs, less glitches
Cross-platform multiplayer easily implemented
Games available practically instantly - impulse purchases more likely
Renting games a viable option
Very controllable try-before-you-buy
No piracy
No reselling
Community features integrated into the service
High portability if internet connection is available

Cons:

Dependant on internet connection
No modding
No reselling
Subscription fee in addition to cost of games

From a developer perspective, it certainly sounds delicious. From a consumer perspective, the cons are pretty minor - lack of modding is perhaps the biggest bummer. The subscription fee would need to be quite low, certainly less than 20 bucks/month, to get people to use this service instead of purchasing top-notch hardware.

The big question is, naturally, is it possible? I think it all boils down to the video compression system. If it indeed has only 1 ms latency (a mind-boggling claim), I can see how this thing could have a playable ping if the server farm is on the same continent.

If I paid a subscription fee of $5 a month for ever game I regularly play I would end up paying about $100 dollars a month. That is ridiculous, it would come to about the cost of a new computer (and a really good one) every year. There is a reason I play GW instead of WoW. When I buy a game it should be mine. I am not gonna pay each and every month for the great priviledge of keeping what I already paid for. This is now tops on my list of boycott material (above even Securom).
Also, Crandaeolon, you are forgetting about independent developers like M&B who would not have ever gotten a shot if this is how all gaming was done. It would get rid of the individuals power to develop their own games/mods and distribute them. That IMO is reason enough not to buy into this.

[Crandaeolon]

If I paid a subscription fee of $5 a month for ever game I regularly play I would end up paying about $100 dollars a month.

This would indeed be retarded, which is why the subscription has to be a flat fee and less than around 20 bucks a month - otherwise people will just buy hardware. I'd guess around $15-$20 a month for the service, normal one-time fees for games just like any other digital distribution, and rental fees comparable to existing rental services.


Also, Crandaeolon, you are forgetting about independent developers like M&B who would not have ever gotten a shot if this is how all gaming was done. It would get rid of the individuals power to develop their own games/mods and distribute them. That IMO is reason enough not to buy into this.

I don't see why indie game devs would be harmed by any form of piracy-free digital distribution, quite the contrary. Also, PC hardware will undoubtedly be around in some form, there's just less need to be at the cutting edge - hardly a problem for indie devs, since indie games tend to require less power.

But about mods, that argument I'll buy. Modding would certainly be complicated if not impossible.

I don't think Onlive, even if it works perfectly (very unlikely), will monopolize gaming. I'd see it more of an alternative to consoles and a platform to play AAA titles and multiplayer games.

[Vuk]

This would indeed be retarded, which is why the subscription has to be a flat fee and less than around 20 bucks a month - otherwise people will just buy hardware. I'd guess around $15-$20 a month for the service, normal one-time fees for games just like any other digital distribution, and rental fees comparable to existing rental services.



I don't see why indie game devs would be harmed by any form of piracy-free digital distribution, quite the contrary. Also, PC hardware will undoubtedly be around in some form, there's just less need to be at the cutting edge - hardly a problem for indie devs, since indie games tend to require less power.

But about mods, that argument I'll buy. Modding would certainly be complicated if not impossible.

I don't think Onlive, even if it works perfectly (very unlikely), will monopolize gaming. I'd see it more of an alternative to consoles and a platform to play AAA titles and multiplayer games.

$20 a month for games I have already paid for? I will not pay for the right to keep my own property, that I bought with money earned from my own hard labour. If I buy something, I expect to be able to keep it. If you are going to rent something to someone, then make them pay rent. If you are going sell something to someone, make them pay a price for it. You don't rent something to someone and make them do both. I personally won't pay for rented games at all. (not that I think there is anything necassarily wrong with games like WoW or other subscription fee based games, but that I have better things to spend my money on and quite enough bills as it is)
As for harming Indie gamers, I said it would make them impossible IF this takes gaming over (as the thread suggests), because then most people probably would not have the highspeed computers needed for gaming. Either way it will harm them though. If people start relying on games from OnLive, they will be used to the perfect performance (IF it come through like it is supposed to and IF they have a good connection), and not want to clutter up their computer with small indie games and rely on their computer to play them (no doubt with worse performance for most people than they will get with OnLive). Also, it will probably allow game developers to take quite a few steps forward in graphics development, as the computers used on OnLive will probably be capable of handling a lot more, and it will make life very hard for Indie developers who have to make their games for the common person's hardware. Also, if this is to be where the common person looks to find games (instead of the internet where most do now), they will completely miss Indie games and Indie devs will have very little chance of expanding their audience. It may not kill Indie games, but it will do it anything but good.
I say again, it is BS.

[Husar]

If you are going to rent something to someone, then make them pay rent.

Dood, that's exactly what they do, they rent you their processing power so you can play the newest games on an office laptop, if it works that is.

[Vuk]

Dood, that's exactly what they do, they rent you their processing power so you can play the newest games on an office laptop, if it works that is.

Yeah, technically you are right, but what it gets down to is that after you buy the game, you are still paying rent to play it (not for it, but still for the right to play it, that is my point). I will buy hard copies of my game, so that once I pay for it, I do not need to pay rent to play it. That is bogus to me.

[Crandaeolon]

$20 a month for games I have already paid for? I will not pay for the right to keep my own property, that I bought with money earned from my own hard labour. If I buy something, I expect to be able to keep it. If you are going to rent something to someone, then make them pay rent. If you are going sell something to someone, make them pay a price for it. You don't rent something to someone and make them do both.

If the service is worth its price, it will obviously be able to attract users. You'll need around $1000, if not more, every three years to have a PC capable of playing cutting-edge games at high graphics. That works out to $27,8 per month. (The figure is not 100% accurate, of course, but it's in the ballpark.) I could see myself switching to smaller, quieter and/or more portable computer(s) and then forking out that $15 a month. I already maintain a gaming computer, a work laptop and a HTPC - losing one wouldn't be a hassle, quite the opposite.


I personally won't pay for rented games at all. (not that I think there is anything necassarily wrong with games like WoW or other subscription fee based games, but that I have better things to spend my money on and quite enough bills as it is)

Not on topic, but I do think there's something wrong with subscription-based games - there's an inherent conflict of interest. In order to maximize profits, developers need to keep people playing, and the most cost-effective way to do that is to increase grind.


As for harming Indie gamers, I said it would make them impossible IF this takes gaming over (as the thread suggests), because then most people probably would not have the highspeed computers needed for gaming. Either way it will harm them though. If people start relying on games from OnLive, they will be used to the perfect performance (IF it come through like it is supposed to and IF they have a good connection), and not want to clutter up their computer with small indie games and rely on their computer to play them (no doubt with worse performance for most people than they will get with OnLive). Also, it will probably allow game developers to take quite a few steps forward in graphics development, as the computers used on OnLive will probably be capable of handling a lot more, and it will make life very hard for Indie developers who have to make their games for the common person's hardware. Also, if this is to be where the common person looks to find games (instead of the internet where most do now), they will completely miss Indie games and Indie devs will have very little chance of expanding their audience. It may not kill Indie games, but it will do it anything but good.

None of these arguments are really new. As always, big developers can make games with much greater production values. That's not gonna change in any way. Gamers interested in indie titles will still be interested in indie titles. The more successful indie titles will probably even be featured on Onlive - World of Goo is already in their starting lineup.

What is new, however, is a biggie: no piracy. That is the siren song argument to indie devs and AAA devs alike. Taking World of Goo as an example; WoG has a piracy rate of 90%. Most of WoG profits were made in WiiWare or Steam, ie. digital distribution. If it works, Onlive has a good chance of becoming the piracy-free 600-pound gorilla of digital distribution.

Consolidating development to something like the PC platform (or whatever core system Onlife will use) would benefit indies too. 8th-gen consoles are still years away and it's pretty safe to say that no games are being developed for them yet. This winter is strategically an excellent time to unveil a new, powerful "console."

Oh well. Speculation is fun, but I guess we'll just have to see what happens. ~;p

[Mailman653]

Not being able to mod a game is like a day without sunshine. And speaking of indie games, look at MB, modding pratically keeps that game alive because it's so easy to mod and the devs encourage it.