PDA

View Full Version : OnLive?



II J0SePh X II
10th Jul 2010, 15:13
Will DE:HR be available via OnLive? If so, is anyone getting DE:HR for this service/platform?

Kodaemon
10th Jul 2010, 15:27
OnLive is the most evil thing since Steam.

Badmaker
10th Jul 2010, 17:11
OnLive is the most evil thing since Steam.

Why Steam is Evil ?
In my country is no PC or Consoles games dealers so Steam is only option ( and trackers :D).

Shralla
10th Jul 2010, 19:42
He hates convenient, affordable, and easy-to-use distribution software even though it offers the developers more money per sale, and also has THE BEST sales on video games EVER.

pringlepower
10th Jul 2010, 19:50
He hates convenient, affordable, and easy-to-use distribution software even though it offers the developers more money per sale, and also has THE BEST sales on video games EVER.

Well as the great philosopher B.I.G said "mo money mo problems".

Kodaemon
10th Jul 2010, 19:53
I hate my software phoning home for no good reason, I hate installing a store-bought game just for it to tell me I can't play it until I download a 1gig+ patch consisting of multiplayer maps I have no interest in, I hate even more when I can't even begin downloading that patch since the servers timeout. Most of all I hate the concept of "games as a service" that Steam helped pioneer.

Shralla
10th Jul 2010, 20:05
I hate my software phoning home for no good reason

Um? How about to VALIDATE YOUR COPY OF THE GAME?


I hate installing a store-bought game just for it to tell me I can't play it until I download a 1gig+ patch consisting of multiplayer maps I have no interest in

A patch which will take you all of what? Five minutes to download? Never mind the fact that all those patches come with fixes to the game's source code. There is no such thing as a "patch" that is ONLY multiplayer maps. You really must hate having games that work the way they're supposed to, huh? And really, when the hell was the last time that even HAPPENED to you? I can't even think of any store-purchased games that require Steam except Valve games and Modern Warfare 2.


I hate even more when I can't even begin downloading that patch since the servers timeout.

Now you're just *****ing about random inane crap. I've had a server timeout happen ONCE on Steam, since I started using it with Half-Life 2 the year it came out. If you're having enough problems with that to make it worth complaining about (though I suspect that once or twice is "worth complaining about" to you), then you need to fix your Internet connection, because it sure as hell isn't Steam.


Most of all I hate the concept of "games as a service" that Steam helped pioneer.

This doesn't even have any kind of basis in reality. Yeah, if you read way down in the fine print, Steam is technically "games as a service," but the fact is that NOBODY ANYWHERE HAS AT ANY POINT BEEN FORCED TO RELINQUISH THEIR OWNERSHIP OF STEAM GAMES UNLESS THEY WERE BREAKING THE TERMS OF USE IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Really, you're just *****ing about absolutely nothing. I have no idea what kind of steampowered bug crawled up YOUR ass, but the fact is that Steam is the EASIEST, CHEAPEST, and MOST CONVENIENT way to purchase PC games. Additionally, it gives MORE MONEY TO THE DEVELOPERS and allows SMALLER STUDIOS to release their games to the public with a price attached, instead of what has historically happened, which is all the smaller games just get released for free on the Internet.

I realize that Steam must have raped your mother (or something comparable, like downloading patches FOR YOU so that you don't have to waste time and effort searching the Internet to see if something has gotten a patch recently), but just because you hate when things are simple doesn't mean it's "evil."

Kodaemon
10th Jul 2010, 20:17
Look, I'm on a gsm connection with no hope of getting a better one unless I move. 20-25k per second at the best of times, with a 4 gig monthly bandwidth limit. Try downloading a 1 gig patch that way.

Since you were wondering, the game in question (last game I bought boxed with Steam) was FEAR 2. After practically a month of trying to download that patch, I finally gave up on running the game via Steam and found a bypass. 5 minutes of installation, a couple more of fiddling with files, and presto! everything worked. Didn't notice anything that really needed to get patched throughout the whole game.

From my point of view, Steam is anything but handy.

Badmaker
10th Jul 2010, 20:23
I downloaded MW 2 from Steam with absolutely no problems at all.

Kodaemon
10th Jul 2010, 20:24
Good for you then.

Tecman
10th Jul 2010, 21:15
CHEAPEST

Not if you're European or Australian (especially with their net traffic limits). And this is coming from someone with a 1.5 terrabyte hard-drive with nothing but Steam games (http://www.nanoaugur.net/steam/steamlist-05-july-10.png), thanks to making friends in the US and UK and using Paypal to get them in USD prices. :D

And yeah, you really need a solid connection to use Steam, live in the US (or get trustworthy friends around the globe) and while I love the service to death, I don't want to step on people's options by having physical copies be Steamworks dependent (FEAR 2, SupCom 2, Just Cause 2, the upcoming FO: New Vegas game to name some examples).

Kodaemon
10th Jul 2010, 21:31
Also, I know a few people who liked Steam... until the latest (automatic, of course) Source update seriously broke half of the mods for HL2/episodes.

Dead-Eye
11th Jul 2010, 00:44
Yeah if you have a slow connection steam would most defiantly suck, also if you live in Australia where everything cost twice as much for absolutely no good reason. For people with fast internet connections and live in the US however, Steam is great.

Although I have had stream servers time out on me 3 times. But I would much rather prefer a game was a steam exclusive then had to install games for windows live.

... I seem to be unable to make congruent paragraphs.

CyberRook
11th Jul 2010, 02:50
Will DE:HR be available via OnLive? If so, is anyone getting DE:HR for this service/platform?

Good questions! I will be getting it via digital distribution (probably Steam) as my rig should be able to handle the game no problem. However, when that dark day comes where my rig can no longer handle a hot new game, I think I would consider giving Onlive a try. I am not at all happy with their fee structure, but I think OnLive, and the inevitable copycat services (http://www.gaikai.com/), will prove to be increasingly handy and popular one day.

Corpus
11th Jul 2010, 03:32
I know people who have used the OnLive service and they've said it's absolutely terrible.
It uses bog standard graphics for the most part, even a low end rig could probably do better than what their streaming. If your connection is bad it will be impossible to play. You essentially experience lag on a single player game.
Don't waste your time on it folks (or EM for that matter).

CyberRook
11th Jul 2010, 05:08
Most of the reviews I've read remain cautiously optimistic. The service isn't perfect, but it does deliver on its promise. I think CNET had one of the better reviews:

Hands-on with OnLive: Is this the future of PC gaming? (http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-20009033-1.html)


The much-hyped OnLive PC gaming service has soft-launched to a limited preview audience, and we've spent the past several days putting the streaming service through its paces. OnLive allows nearly any laptop or desktop to play high-end PC games, by offloading the CPU and GPU-intensive tasks of actually running the game software to a remote render farm, then beaming the gameplay back to you as a streaming video.

As unlikely as that scenario sounds, in practice the system actually works quite well, at least at these initial stages. The game selection is decent, the hardware requirements are very flexible, and the overall image quality and gameplay experience runs from acceptable to very good. The big question mark in OnLive's future is how well the system will scale for a mass audience.

For high-end PC gamers, OnLive won't replace your turbocharged, water-cooled quad-GPU gaming rig, and the insane screen resolutions it can pump out (OnLive is currently limited to 1,280x720 pixels), but for casual gamers who are interested in sampling the latest PC games, there's a lot of promise here.

ikenstein
11th Jul 2010, 07:13
OnLive is the most evil thing since Steam.

Yeah, steam sucks big time. I bought a game not so long ago that neede steam activation. Of course, it didnt say that clearly on the box or I wouldnt have bought it. Nope, they hid this away in titchy print on the back.

So instead of just installing and playing I get the pleasure of registering with this rubbish steam heap of junk and a 2 hour download, before I can start. I also get a third party program installed on my pc and a bunch of adverts every time I want to play. And I cant use the software i paid my money for without steam checking up on me. Fantastic.

For people who want to rent their software, be dependent on someone elses server and the status of their internet connection i suppose it may be OK. Me, I prefer to just buy something then own it.

Corpus
11th Jul 2010, 07:46
Yeah, steam sucks big time. I bought a game not so long ago that neede steam activation. Of course, it didnt say that clearly on the box or I wouldnt have bought it. Nope, they hid this away in titchy print on the back.

So instead of just installing and playing I get the pleasure of registering with this rubbish steam heap of junk and a 2 hour download, before I can start. I also get a third party program installed on my pc and a bunch of adverts every time I want to play. And I cant use the software i paid my money for without steam checking up on me. Fantastic.

For people who want to rent their software, be dependent on someone elses server and the status of their internet connection i suppose it may be OK. Me, I prefer to just buy something then own it.

What game required the activation?
Third party software is never really included with steam. If it is you can just uninstall or remove the setup file from your steam folders. I'd ask you if you understand the benefits of steam but it would result in flame war.

Kodaemon
11th Jul 2010, 07:56
Steam is the third party software in this case. As for boxed copies requiring Steam, Tecman already gave a short list:


FEAR 2, SupCom 2, Just Cause 2, the upcoming FO: New Vegas game to name some examples

I'll add Silent Hill: Homecoming of the games I own. And, of course, any Valve game.

By the way, one of the Eidos admins posted his own rant against Steam some time ago in Community chat, I think it was either Keir or GoranAngar. Funy thing, I can't find that rant since Just Cause 2 came out.

K^2
11th Jul 2010, 09:07
Comparing Steam to Live is like comparing uncomfortable shoes with having your feet cut off. I mean, yeah, Steam has problems, and boxed games requiring it is just silly. But when Steam support is done right, it can be a nice thing. Especially if you happen to have friends. But with Live, you are guaranteed that it will behave in the most broken way it can and still pass for working, because Microsoft actually requires that terrible behavior as condition of having that Live sticker on the box.

Exian
11th Jul 2010, 09:16
I adore Steam. If you have a solid connection, then Steam is the best console, no doubt about it. Great support, great interface, great navigation, great updates and great+fast problem solving if there's a bug in some game (after an update, or before).

Some online services like ijji.com still have bugs in their games, which they haven't fixed from 3 years ago.

super...
11th Jul 2010, 11:56
i have actually played on live myself! for really real, running on my brothers pc. and then even more amseing it ran really well on my parents rinky dink lap top.

so far it's like god damn magic, i'm not sure how many kittens they sacrificed to what pagan god but it looked and played great. had graphics far superior to the x box or ps3, it's still only HD but thats fine for most things. I'm sure some folks have connection problems but i'm also fairly sure these people either have bad internet or systems full of viruses and simply EVERYthing is slow on their box.

if your sharing a connection then i would not recommend onlive, because it will hog your net. roommates and the like would not be able to stream or torrent while your playing.

Issues remain with pricing and ownership but i'm fairly sure they will get something going. it's going to take a new perspective to figure out what a game costs. I would be cool with something like a year long rental + service for a retail title being around 30-40 bucks

i'm really hopping they open the service up to high end creative products like 3d programs and adobe style stuff

super...
11th Jul 2010, 12:01
oh! i imagine a game like deus ex HR is perfect for the service, it's got great modern graphics and it's it's not the kind of turbo twitch were you may notice a little lag.

Irate_Iguana
11th Jul 2010, 13:33
Um? How about to VALIDATE YOUR COPY OF THE GAME?

And each and every time after that when you start up the game. Not just after install.



Now you're just *****ing about random inane crap. I've had a server timeout happen ONCE on Steam, since I started using it with Half-Life 2 the year it came out. If you're having enough problems with that to make it worth complaining about (though I suspect that once or twice is "worth complaining about" to you), then you need to fix your Internet connection, because it sure as hell isn't Steam.

A while back when I still played a bit of MW2 you could set your clock on the amount of times the servers would be down and people would be unable to game. Each and every Tuesday night about the same time the game would be down for 15 min to an hour or three.

On the other hand I've had no problems with TF2. It all depends on the game.



CHEAPEST

No. Unless there is a super weekend sale or something most games are priced much higher than other stores that will mail me my game overnight. Additionally if I do buy something during one of those sales I get the wonderful benefit of having to pay much more than the Americans and the Brits.

Corpus
11th Jul 2010, 14:49
And each and every time after that when you start up the game. Not just after install.

A while back when I still played a bit of MW2 you could set your clock on the amount of times the servers would be down and people would be unable to game. Each and every Tuesday night about the same time the game would be down for 15 min to an hour or three.

On the other hand I've had no problems with TF2. It all depends on the game.

No. Unless there is a super weekend sale or something most games are priced much higher than other stores that will mail me my game overnight. Additionally if I do buy something during one of those sales I get the wonderful benefit of having to pay much more than the Americans and the Brits.


Your MW2 problem is because Infinity Ward are the only server hosts, this is an IW problem not steam.
The conversion rates are messed up for everyone except US and UK I'll agree that is messed up and unfair for you folks.

Irate_Iguana
11th Jul 2010, 17:04
Your MW2 problem is because Infinity Ward are the only server hosts, this is an IW problem not steam.

So when Steam says that the Steam servers hosting the Steam friend system are going down for maintenance and as a result of that my MW2 copy doesn't work that's the fault of IW?

Ashpolt
11th Jul 2010, 17:55
...

Modern Warfare 2 doesn't have dedicated servers. It's all P2P. As such, it's neither Infinity Ward / Activision or Steam's fault in that case.

Or are you simply talking about being able to launch the game, not just playing multiplayer? If so, that'd be on the Steam side, yes. But I maintain that Steam is a fantastic platform. If you've got a very limited net connection it's not going to be great, sure (though you can set it to let you play games offline, which will stop it trying to auto-update them) but other than that, it's great. The only times I've had a problem with it were a) When it was still in its infancy, and on the launch day of Half Life 2 everyone was trying to access it at once (and it's improved in leaps and bounds since then, I get a feeling that a lot of the people that hate it are just basing it on that initial bad experience) and very occasionally I can't access the servers to download new games (but can play games I already have) for an hour or so after they put up a new set of deals on one of their massive sales - and the greatness of those sales far outweighs the irritation of not being able to download a new game for an hour or so.

So, yeah...other than if you've got a slow net connection, I can't see any reason to dislike Steam at all. I'd much rather have all my games on Steam, personally, because it doesn't require a disk-check: a small thing, maybe, but really handy. I'm not bothered about the fact that I'm just "renting" my games, and will lose them all as and when Valve eventually shut down, because chances are that will be far enough in the future that I won't want to replay most of my Steam games, and those that I do will be so ludicrously cheap to buy elsewhere that I can do that if needed. Also, there's every possibility that, as and when Valve do shut down Steam, they'll release unlock codes for the games anyway.

Corpus
11th Jul 2010, 18:21
...
Modern Warfare 2 doesn't have dedicated servers. It's all P2P. As such, it's neither Infinity Ward / Activision or Steam's fault in that case.


It's P2P through IW.net so it's still part Infinity Ward.

Kodaemon
11th Jul 2010, 18:29
(though you can set it to let you play games offline, which will stop it trying to auto-update them)

You have to update freshly installed games before running them for the first time. Only then can you switch the autoupdates off. Well, at least theoretically - last time Steam updated itself, it forced updates on the games for me too. Korsakovia still doesn't work :hmm:

Rindill the Red
11th Jul 2010, 18:51
Will DE:HR be available via OnLive? If so, is anyone getting DE:HR for this service/platform?

Obvious viral marketer is obvious.

OnLive is destined to fail. Steam is destined to continue to gain ground... all steam really needs to do is add a physical product option and they'll be as good as gold.

OnLive will fail for several obvious reasons...
1. No actual physically owned product.
2. Requires a 5Mbps internet connection (not shared) to stream data.
- Control lag
- Dropout connections
3. Will have maximum resolution of 720p with who knows how poor of hardware...
4. You are only guaranteed to be able to play a game you purchase for 3 years, after that they can simply stop offering it.

Really, the idea is so ludicrous I can't believe someone went along with it.

Input data has to be sent from the user to the server farm.
Visual data has to be compressed, sent to the user, and uncompressed.
The compression time means lag, which is BAD for games, especially when it's not even online multi-player, and especially for first person shooters.
There is also the natural lag in the time for data to be sent to and from the computer. So what you are seeing is something that the computer thinks happened a little while ago, and what the computer is reading from your input is something that you think should have happened earlier (when they sent the visual data to you).
This is going to fall flat on its face, but when they go bankrupt I would sure like to buy some of their gaming equipment on the cheap.

super...
11th Jul 2010, 19:18
wow did no one read my post?

write as many reasons as you want you will still be ignoring the simple fact that onlive works, i'm not saying it works in every condition. but it works.

like everything it will get better with time. yes they have some priceing issues i'm sure they will figure it out eventually.

DX hr looks like the perfect kind of game for onlive.

Rindill the Red
12th Jul 2010, 03:17
wow did no one read my post?

write as many reasons as you want you will still be ignoring the simple fact that onlive works, i'm not saying it works in every condition. but it works.

like everything it will get better with time. yes they have some priceing issues i'm sure they will figure it out eventually.

DX hr looks like the perfect kind of game for onlive.

Second obvious viral marketer is even more obvious.

super...
12th Jul 2010, 04:05
it's a conspiracy!

by your diatribe you are clearly emotionally invested in On Live failing. i'm not from on live (i would behave much better if i was) i'm not even in their beta program yet, my brother is and i have got to play it.

i dont know if they will work out the pricing issues. i only know that what i played works well enough.

II J0SePh X II
5th Jul 2011, 16:26
More free online viral marketing :D

Thought this might be relevant considering DXHR is releasing on OnLive. It's the E3 demo by Steve Perlman showcasing the new features of the service:

-Controller

-Spectate other gamers playing

-Cloud browse the web

-Game anywhere

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UoX0bs10-Vs&feature=player_embedded

Also:


“The OnLive/VIZIO announcement marks a major milestone: for the first time in the history of video games, consumers will be able to enjoy premium video games directly on a TV, no console or computer needed,”

Might go look at some VIZIO TVs to see how this is shaping up. Looks very interesting.

JCpies
5th Jul 2011, 17:44
Second obvious viral marketer is even more obvious.

His inner fanboy is showing.

dlind70
5th Jul 2011, 20:48
yes and i'm getting it :D

nordoM
5th Jul 2011, 21:27
As it happens I just read a small article about how OnLive's service is unlikely to remain competitive in the end.
Their actual profit margin is supposedly rather slim since they have ongoing cost for their server infrastructure and setting up new datacenters.
People who experience connection problems or lag during their game will stop using the service sooner or later, and some other points...

So, yeah... even if it survives it'll never compete with the big names.

AlexOfSpades
5th Jul 2011, 22:00
I dont like Kodaemon, but i'm sure he doesnt hate Steam out of nowhere.

He probably has a reason for it.

CoDEllite
5th Jul 2011, 22:24
People like Kodaemon is one of the reason why I cant take pc gamers seriosly. Steam evil? really? AND on topic of OnLIVE. It would be great if Deus Ex HR was offered for it. Im considering subscribing. OnLive is probably the only thing that can save pc gaming at this point in its downfall. If only more games were offered for it that is

Reven
5th Jul 2011, 22:42
The thing that saves PC gaming will not be Onlive it will the emergance of the East as a major developer and distributor of games.

CoDEllite
5th Jul 2011, 22:50
East? Really? I dont think Japanese are that much into pc gaming Reven dude. Except for those nasty porno titles that their pc game shelfs are filled with

nordoM
5th Jul 2011, 23:04
OnLive is probably the only thing that can save pc gaming at this point in its downfall. If only more games were offered for it that is

"Oh wait, you're serious. Let me laugh even harder."

CoDEllite
5th Jul 2011, 23:10
"Oh wait, you're serious. Let me laugh even harder." And please tell me how exactly is OnLive a bad thing? It will eventually let everybody play all game without need for expansive hardware and graphic card upgrades. All ull need is fast internet and big ass monitor. It will redefine pc gaming as we know it. Just pop the game in and enjoy. How all gaming should be

Rindill the Red
5th Jul 2011, 23:14
And please tell me how exactly is OnLive a bad thing? It will eventually let everybody play all game without need for expansive hardware and graphic card upgrades. All ull need is fast internet and big ass monitor. It will redefine pc gaming as we know it. Just pop the game in and enjoy. How all gaming should be

All you need is an internet speed faster than that found in the vast majority of the world. And you have to want to pay for the service and the game (and even then you are only leasing the title for 3 years).

Reven
5th Jul 2011, 23:17
East? Really? I dont think Japanese are that much into pc gaming Reven dude. Except for those nasty porno titles that their pc game shelfs are filled with

There is more to the east then japan, Russia south korea and China are slowly opening up as developers with Poland already making great world class games.

CoDEllite
5th Jul 2011, 23:19
All you need is an internet speed faster than that found in the vast majority of the world. And you have to want to pay for the service and the game (and even then you are only leasing the title for 3 years). I tried OnLive demo and my high speed broadband worked fine. Very little noticable lag. And I got nothing agains owning games for three years. I trade most of the games I play way before 3 years. U know play, have fun, move on to better things. But I see how in that way OnLive might not be for everyone :)

TheYouthCounselor
6th Jul 2011, 03:31
Not if you're European or Australian (especially with their net traffic limits). And this is coming from someone with a 1.5 terrabyte hard-drive with nothing but Steam games (http://www.nanoaugur.net/steam/steamlist-05-july-10.png), thanks to making friends in the US and UK and using Paypal to get them in USD prices. :D

Good god! Do you actually play all those games?

My Steam list is only 1/16th your size and a fifth of the games I never play due to boredom, or bugs or just not having time.

II J0SePh X II
6th Jul 2011, 05:35
AND on topic of OnLIVE. It would be great if Deus Ex HR was offered for it.

DXHR will be a day one release on OnLive.

Signed up for it yesterday and reserved my playertag. Surprise surprise, 'II J0SePh X II' wasn't taken. I didn't Know that you only leased the game for 3 yrs, I'll have to look into that. They do have something called the player pack which is $9.99 a month and contains 100+ games that are older or less popular. Homefront has just made its way onto that service.

super...
8th Jul 2011, 03:26
The three year limit is worrying but it's something they had to do to cover there ass if the worst went down. I highly doubt they will pull the rug out from under a stable audience's feet three years into a successful service.

anyone who's current connection is not quite good enough for OnLive will be very interested in this, apparently they are inventing a new super wireless standard to go with their OnLive service.

so check out this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1QxrQnJCXKo&feature=player_detailpage#t=3320s


I myself will be picking up DXHR as a physical augmented edition because i love physical art books.

personally i'm very interested in using onlive for high end computing applications like maya.

DisaFear
8th Jul 2011, 03:59
The only time I've had problems with the Steam servers is when TF2 was made F2P, thats when it got hectic
Otherwise, Steam is good

Link2877
8th Jul 2011, 05:05
You guys know you don't even have to subscribe to try OnLive. They have a whole bunch of timed demos you can try for free to see if the service is to your liking and works for your connection. I tried it a couple months ago but my connection was just a tad too slow. I personally think it's a promising idea. You're telling me you wouldn't like to be able to buy a light crappy little netbook and be able to play all your games on it where ever, when ever you want (you know as long as you're in range of internet). If you travel alot I could see it being a very nice thing to have.

Coyotegrey
8th Jul 2011, 05:26
You guys know you don't even have to subscribe to try OnLive. They have a whole bunch of timed demos you can try for free to see if the service is to your liking and works for your connection. I tried it a couple months ago but my connection was just a tad too slow. I personally think it's a promising idea. You're telling me you wouldn't like to be able to buy a light crappy little netbook and be able to play all your games on it where ever, when ever you want (you know as long as you're in range of internet). If you travel alot I could see it being a very nice thing to have.

Yeah exactly. Playing from my netbook while on the road? Sounds great. Now, I wouldn't play The Witcher 2 for the first time this way, but whether you like it or not, cloud-gaming is going to be a big part of our gaming future. Hell, it already is, with google and Facebook games.

jtr7
8th Jul 2011, 08:23
Yes, and some of us are getting left on the outside of your gated community, cut off from great gaming, and are naturally not happy about it. What the hell? The smugness, nose-thumbing, and gloating over it is vile.

And since when can a person just go and buy "a light crappy little netbook" that is "able to play all your games on it" without it being lucky or requiring a techie, let alone "where ever, when ever you want"? BS. The requirements for making those statements true are too beyond the average consumer.

II J0SePh X II
8th Jul 2011, 10:32
For those in Europe who can't get OnLive yet, there are demos of Mass Effect 2 and Dead Space 2 available at Gaikai:

The ME2 demo appears as a pop-up here

http://www.gaikai.com/

And the DS2 demo appears after a short paranoia-free survey on gaming preferences here:

https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/MJLXPQ5

I imagine most people reading this will have high-end PCs, so it won't have the same impact as it did with me playing them on my mum's budget laptop and getting a really good experience.

[FGS]Shadowrunner
8th Jul 2011, 11:28
Yeah exactly. Playing from my netbook while on the road? Sounds great. Now, I wouldn't play The Witcher 2 for the first time this way, but whether you like it or not, cloud-gaming is going to be a big part of our gaming future. Hell, it already is, with google and Facebook games.

I'm thinking of all those people in Canada on 56k and all those students, graduates, first-time jobbers who don't have the net at home, but love games. There are people who could afford the game, but not the deposit an internet company might require, if they're living in rented accomodation with a bad history etc. I would think that amounts to hundreds of thousands of people around the world, who might not so easily get the internet on a regular and consistent basis. I know people who work, yet have trouble renting the internet and they are all mostly 18-25.

I can see it works really well with phones and the convenience of it means there will always be people to pay, but making a SP game rely on the internet is surely unnecessary, other than to suit the publisher it seems.

Coyotegrey
8th Jul 2011, 14:41
You're misunderstanding what I said. I never implied OnLive and cloudgaming is the be-all end-all for gaming. It's one way to experience videogames, and it's going to be a much larger part of this industry in the coming years. Remember, North America is very far behind other modern civilizations in terms of bandwidth speed. Our current speeds are just a hurdle we'll eventually overcome. It's only a matter of time.

This discussion reminds me of when Steam started doing digital distro. Message boards blew up, with people saying they only wanted physical copies, and they wouldn't purchase a digital-only copy. Well, we know what happened there...

Also, I'm totally a fan of the games as a service concept. I don't care so much about owning a product as experiencing it, as long as the content creator gets rewarded appropriately (i.e. not pirating).

Ashpolt
8th Jul 2011, 14:56
Also, I'm totally a fan of the games as a service concept. I don't care so much about owning a product as experiencing it, as long as the content creator gets rewarded appropriately (i.e. not pirating).

But owning a product and experiencing it aren't mutually exclusive: if you own it, you can play it as many times as you want, for as long as you want, even years down the line when the company who made it has bitten the dust. What conceivable advantage does the "games as a service" model have to the consumer over "games as a product"?

As for OnLive: got to admit, I haven't tried it yet (even if I wanted to, it's not available in Europe yet) but the idea doesn't appeal to me. Even the best encoded videos of pre-recorded material show artifacting and have a noticeable lack of depth compared to 3D content being rendered locally, so even if we could completely eliminate the lag issue - which, despite OnLive's best claims, I hear they haven't entirely done - and the possibility of lost / interrupted connections mid-game, etc, you're still left with something which, to anything other than the most casual observer, looks inferior. Plus, my monitor is 2560 x 1440, what the hell kind of net connection am I going to need to satisfactorily stream video at that resolution? :rasp:

Maybe I'm just old fashioned - actually, there's no maybe about it, I am old fashioned - but I can't see myself ever switching to OnLive as long as the option to play games on your local machine still exists. It's not like Steam (or other digital distribution) where you're getting exactly the same end result, just in different packaging. But hell, even if it was, I still buy games in hard copy over Steam unless there's significant savings to be made, so it probably wouldn't make any difference to me even then.

Coyotegrey
8th Jul 2011, 15:29
But owning a product and experiencing it aren't mutually exclusive: if you own it, you can play it as many times as you want, for as long as you want, even years down the line when the company who made it has bitten the dust. What conceivable advantage does the "games as a service" model have to the consumer over "games as a product"?

As for OnLive: got to admit, I haven't tried it yet (even if I wanted to, it's not available in Europe yet) but the idea doesn't appeal to me. Even the best encoded videos of pre-recorded material show artifacting and have a noticeable lack of depth compared to 3D content being rendered locally, so even if we could completely eliminate the lag issue - which, despite OnLive's best claims, I hear they haven't entirely done - and the possibility of lost / interrupted connections mid-game, etc, you're still left with something which, to anything other than the most casual observer, looks inferior. Plus, my monitor is 2560 x 1440, what the hell kind of net connection am I going to need to satisfactorily stream video at that resolution? :rasp:

Maybe I'm just old fashioned - actually, there's no maybe about it, I am old fashioned - but I can't see myself ever switching to OnLive as long as the option to play games on your local machine still exists. It's not like Steam (or other digital distribution) where you're getting exactly the same end result, just in different packaging. But hell, even if it was, I still buy games in hard copy over Steam unless there's significant savings to be made, so it probably wouldn't make any difference to me even then.

Take Netflix, for example. How much does a Netflix account cost? Now compare that to the average price of a blu-ray. Having Netflix, as opposed to buying movies, allows me to watch exponentially more films than purchasing them. And that's all I want, to experience the content, especially new material. Just thinking about my media intake, I'm not interested in "what if" scenarios where I imagine the service dying, or the game developer going under, and being unable to re-play the title. It's unfortunate, yes, but how often do titles really just disappear these days, especially mainstream ones?

OnLive isn't perfect now, sure, but the idea's sound. Are you opposed to the concept or its current implementation? I'm guessing both.

68_pie
8th Jul 2011, 15:40
Take Netflix, for example. How much does a Netflix account cost? Now compare that to the average price of a blu-ray. Having Netflix, as opposed to buying movies, allows me to watch exponentially more films than purchasing them. And that's all I want, to experience the content, especially new material. Just thinking about my media intake, I'm not interested in "what if" scenarios where I imagine the service dying, or the game developer going under, and being unable to re-play the title. It's unfortunate, yes, but how often do titles really just disappear these days, especially mainstream ones?

OnLive isn't perfect now, sure, but the idea's sound. Are you opposed to the concept or its current implementation? I'm guessing both.

I have a LoveFilm account (basically the European NetFlix) but that doesn't stop me buying DVDs and Blu-Rays. What it does mean is that the DVDs that I buy are ones that I am likely to rewatch or the ones where I care about quality. The stuff I watch with LoveFilm is the stuff I'm not particularly fussed about seeing or don't mind it not being in high-definition, or the things where I don't care about special features.

But with games I see replayability as being of much greater importance, perhaps one of the reasons that I have never rented a game.

Coyotegrey
8th Jul 2011, 15:52
I have a LoveFilm account (basically the European NetFlix) but that doesn't stop me buying DVDs and Blu-Rays. What it does mean is that the DVDs that I buy are ones that I am likely to rewatch or the ones where I care about quality. The stuff I watch with LoveFilm is the stuff I'm not particularly fussed about seeing or don't mind it not being in high-definition, or the things where I don't care about special features.

But with games I see replayability as being of much greater importance, perhaps one of the reasons that I have never rented a game.

I still buy DVDs and blu-rays from time to time, but not as much. You're right, incentivizing the purchase with extra features is a great allure.

But even with the games as a service idea, replayability doesn't completely go away. I don't know how many times I've streamed the same episodes of Spongebob...

Ashpolt
8th Jul 2011, 16:39
Take Netflix, for example. How much does a Netflix account cost? Now compare that to the average price of a blu-ray. Having Netflix, as opposed to buying movies, allows me to watch exponentially more films than purchasing them.

That works because Netflix is based on a subscription model though: looking at their website, it seems that games on OnLive are not only priced individually for the most part (rather than Netflix's "pay x per month for unlimited films) but they're priced roughly the same as retail releases. There's the option for a free trial of any game - which IMO is a brilliant idea, and definitely to be applauded - and looking on there now I see it is possible to "rent" games on a limited time basis, but that only seems to be available for select titles, very few of which are new releases (FEAR 3 was the only new release I saw that supported this, on my brief look at their site.)

If the whole service was structured as simply a "games rental" / "games trial" service, like the gaming equivalent of Netflix, then I'd see the point in it - but it seems to be mostly promoted as a genuine alternative to purchasing, which IMO it's not strong enough for.


I'm not interested in "what if" scenarios where I imagine the service dying, or the game developer going under, and being unable to re-play the title. It's unfortunate, yes, but how often do titles really just disappear these days, especially mainstream ones?

Oh, I totally agree with this, and whenever it's brought up as a counterargument to Steam I dismiss it pretty quickly too. I didn't mean to make it sound like it was a significant concern, but at the end of the day if I can choose a version of the game that I may or may not be able to play in 10 years or one that I almost definitely will, I'll always choose the latter, everything else being equal. (And yes, I do still play 10 year old games - the game I've spent most time on this week is the original Unreal Tournament!)


OnLive isn't perfect now, sure, but the idea's sound. Are you opposed to the concept or its current implementation? I'm guessing both.

Both....and neither. I'm not opposed to it at all in itself, and I realise it's an ideal solution for people who don't have access to a good PC but want to play PC games anyway, but I don't like the idea of it being a replacement for locally installed games. The two can co-exist just fine (though admittedly as long as they do, I'll never touch OnLive or similar except as a method of trialling games without demos*) but I don't like it being hailed as the "next step" when, at best, it's a valid alternative.

That's concept I guess, but I do also like it on the implementation level, for the reasons mentioned in my previous post: streamed video is never, regardless of encoding quality and net connection, ever going to match the image quality and depth of locally rendered 3D, so even if we could eliminate lag and connection issues altogether, we'd still be playing a noticeably inferior version. If you're OK with that, it's a great solution for playing on laptops etc - but again, it's an alternative, not a next step.

*Speaking of demos - any news about one for DXHR? EM have gone quiet on that for a couple of months. Obviously us PC lot have had means of playing the game already, but it'd be a shame for console gamers / less download-happy PC gamers to miss out.

Coyotegrey
8th Jul 2011, 16:58
That works because Netflix is based on a subscription model though: looking at their website, it seems that games on OnLive are not only priced individually for the most part (rather than Netflix's "pay x per month for unlimited films) but they're priced roughly the same as retail releases. There's the option for a free trial of any game - which IMO is a brilliant idea, and definitely to be applauded - and looking on there now I see it is possible to "rent" games on a limited time basis, but that only seems to be available for select titles, very few of which are new releases (FEAR 3 was the only new release I saw that supported this, on my brief look at their site.)

If the whole service was structured as simply a "games rental" / "games trial" service, like the gaming equivalent of Netflix, then I'd see the point in it - but it seems to be mostly promoted as a genuine alternative to purchasing, which IMO it's not strong enough for.

In this part I wasn't speaking of OnLive specifically. But of a comparitive model.

Ashpolt
8th Jul 2011, 17:18
In this part I wasn't speaking of OnLive specifically. But of a comparitive model.

Something like Netflix for games would be cool, yeah....thought technically Netflix already send out console games, don't they?

And I take it that's a "no comment" on the DXHR demo front? :rasp:

jason95821
8th Jul 2011, 21:46
the main thing i hate about onlive
is on get game info it saids somthing like if they choose to add a member ship fee you may be required to pay more monthly to gain acess to your bought full games

so i only use them to test games out on there trials other than that it is a worthless peice of junk to me lol

Ashpolt
8th Jul 2011, 23:30
the main thing i hate about onlive
is on get game info it saids somthing like if they choose to add a member ship fee you may be required to pay more monthly to gain acess to your bought full games

OK, going to do a full 180 and defend OnLive here, but....isn't that just referring to the possibility of playing subscription MMOs through OnLive? You know, like how you pay a monthly fee to play most MMOs no matter your distribution method?

Theshadots
11th Jul 2011, 03:16
He hates convenient, affordable, and easy-to-use distribution software even though it offers the developers more money per sale, and also has THE BEST sales on video games EVER.

Dont forget he hates games that are invisible and have little traces to your self.