surf dtoid with 
Rising (10+)
People you follow
how would this work with different pc specs? I know I cant play Crysis even on the lowest settings, but others can. Keeping up with new game specs has always been my biggest barrier to play in the PC game market.
Yeah, it sounds fucking awesome. If I'm out to sea with a shitty laptop, knowing I can play Crysis on max with my mobile 7.2mb broadband is pretty sweet.
Also, by doing it this way, you bypass the asshole retailer and the useless publisher and give the money directly to the people providing the service and the developer of the actual game.
Seriously, to only need a TV, broadband and that hub + controller for all gaming you'll ever need was really the dream. The fact your PC will be able to do it is great too. No more installing no more incompatibilities, just playing.
Sounds great. Let's see if it works.
Also, by doing it this way, you bypass the asshole retailer and the useless publisher and give the money directly to the people providing the service and the developer of the actual game.
Seriously, to only need a TV, broadband and that hub + controller for all gaming you'll ever need was really the dream. The fact your PC will be able to do it is great too. No more installing no more incompatibilities, just playing.
Sounds great. Let's see if it works.
Chad Concelmo is going to be such a fanboy. But I seriously don't see this as a threat considering all the different configurations PCs can have.
@Spitfire & Syn
From what I heard is that the servers will render and calculate everything in-house then transfer the video to you PC screen. All you need is a Screen and a Good Internet Conection. It sounds almost impossible. Lets hope its not a April Fool's joke.
From what I heard is that the servers will render and calculate everything in-house then transfer the video to you PC screen. All you need is a Screen and a Good Internet Conection. It sounds almost impossible. Lets hope its not a April Fool's joke.
@BlackDove
Not sure if you read that right, but all of the companies that where shown to be signing up for the service where in fact publishers, so somehow I don't think they will be cut out of the loop.
Not sure if you read that right, but all of the companies that where shown to be signing up for the service where in fact publishers, so somehow I don't think they will be cut out of the loop.
@JACK of No Trades: That's awesome, but it sounds astonishingly like this thing I heard of called a "Pipe Dream"
@Colette
Can't you use a Mac too? Or any recent computer really as long as its got a broadband connection?
Can't you use a Mac too? Or any recent computer really as long as its got a broadband connection?
I can only imagine how much power their machines would need to be packing if this idea actually takes off like they hope it will.
I'm not convinced. There are too many things that the success of OnLive depends on that are both out of OnLive's control and out of the customer's control.
I mean, people complain enough that Steam makes you log into the client to launch games, what more if your entire game is sitting on their remote server, your ability to access it completely under the control of the publisher and your ISP?!
Based on the data that's available at this point, I see slim chances at best, for a variety of reasons.
Can OnLive's servers handle the demand of a million players trying to stream Crysis at the kinds of speeds needed to keep it running?
Can OnLive easily keep up with the changing technological environment? How much will it cost to upgrade an entire server farm in anticipation of Crysis 2 or 3 being streamed to a million consumers? More importantly, can they afford it, since their apparent business plan is to use a subscription-based model that's no more expensive than Live.
How do publishers recoup their developmental costs when they have to split with every other publisher that's on the server?
Why not consoles? If this works every disc-based game-playing machine will be obsolete.
What about ownership? People still want to own what they buy.
Will it be supported by advertising? Will we be forced to watch ads during the loading screens, like commercials over broadcast TV?
Connection. One bork, one problem with your router or ports, or if your ISP decides to throttle your pipe-hogging, and POOF, everything you can play, gone.
Where are mods in all this? How do we mod a game when all of the game's data is being streamed from someone else's server? How will we create custom content, ala' LittleBigPlanet? All the content in a game will be under the TOTAL control of the publisher, which means that if you can add anything at all, it can be ripped off, sold as DLC, or censored. No more Galactica mods, no more Gary's Mod, no more Counter-strike, no Team Fortress (it started out as a mod to begin with), no more hot coffee.
And abandonware? As Gametap found out, it's not financially viable to keep old games online. If it's old, POOF, it's gone. No preservation in perpetuity. That game preservation library that came up? Neutered and meaningless.
And the global market? This can't be the future of gaming if only a quarter of a tenth of the market (i.e. those with fast, reliable broadband) are capable of playing a game.
There are just too many questions that can't be addressed in a single low-scale controlled demo.
Don't get me wrong, it'd be wonderful if this actually worked, but so far all I'm seeing right now is the Phantom, mark 2.
I mean, people complain enough that Steam makes you log into the client to launch games, what more if your entire game is sitting on their remote server, your ability to access it completely under the control of the publisher and your ISP?!
Based on the data that's available at this point, I see slim chances at best, for a variety of reasons.
Can OnLive's servers handle the demand of a million players trying to stream Crysis at the kinds of speeds needed to keep it running?
Can OnLive easily keep up with the changing technological environment? How much will it cost to upgrade an entire server farm in anticipation of Crysis 2 or 3 being streamed to a million consumers? More importantly, can they afford it, since their apparent business plan is to use a subscription-based model that's no more expensive than Live.
How do publishers recoup their developmental costs when they have to split with every other publisher that's on the server?
Why not consoles? If this works every disc-based game-playing machine will be obsolete.
What about ownership? People still want to own what they buy.
Will it be supported by advertising? Will we be forced to watch ads during the loading screens, like commercials over broadcast TV?
Connection. One bork, one problem with your router or ports, or if your ISP decides to throttle your pipe-hogging, and POOF, everything you can play, gone.
Where are mods in all this? How do we mod a game when all of the game's data is being streamed from someone else's server? How will we create custom content, ala' LittleBigPlanet? All the content in a game will be under the TOTAL control of the publisher, which means that if you can add anything at all, it can be ripped off, sold as DLC, or censored. No more Galactica mods, no more Gary's Mod, no more Counter-strike, no Team Fortress (it started out as a mod to begin with), no more hot coffee.
And abandonware? As Gametap found out, it's not financially viable to keep old games online. If it's old, POOF, it's gone. No preservation in perpetuity. That game preservation library that came up? Neutered and meaningless.
And the global market? This can't be the future of gaming if only a quarter of a tenth of the market (i.e. those with fast, reliable broadband) are capable of playing a game.
There are just too many questions that can't be addressed in a single low-scale controlled demo.
Don't get me wrong, it'd be wonderful if this actually worked, but so far all I'm seeing right now is the Phantom, mark 2.
I question how this thing is going to sustain itself. Even with publisher support I just don't see that much demand for something like this despite how cool or amazing it theoretically is.
so this basically ia a VMware type system for games only? dont like. i dont like trusting my gaming quality on my internet service.. im starting to get sick of all this digital distribution crap.
Something likes this is bound to happen but I don't think this will be what does it. After all, consoles are just very specialized PCs, and every generation as brought them closer and closer to being a PC again and less like a "console." It is only a matter of time.
PS yes, we are the master race, and yes I am pretty sure it will work with macs.
PS yes, we are the master race, and yes I am pretty sure it will work with macs.
@falinter -- not sure yet. The info so far sounds like it's PC only. We'll see though, it'd be silly to shut out Mac owners in my opinion.
Pure digital distribution is definitely where we're headed, and the early talk surrounding this seems promising. Consider me interested.
@unangbangkay: you basically summed up my thoughts. Especially the Phantom part... I just don't get what people see in this idea.
Sounds Interesting, but there are far too many what-if's (many put better than I could by unangbangkay a few posts above) to be anything but wishful thinking to me.
From what I heard, this means that you wouldn't need a top of the line PC to play Crysis at 60fps on any computer, as long as you have a good internet connection. I love this idea, but I won't get too excited until I see a price tag.
Sounds fantastic, but I can't help but feel I would need to be delusional to believe this would turn out exactly as their supposing it will here. It just sounds too far fetched.
Also; GDC 2008?
Also; GDC 2008?
@ptcoakley
Oh I see the idea, but it's so mired in this ongoing excitement bubble for Cloud Computing that the necessary reality checks haven't registered yet.
It's a wonderful concept, and frankly speaking I'd probably buy into it at some point, even if I have no intention to stop upgrading my desktop box.
Oh I see the idea, but it's so mired in this ongoing excitement bubble for Cloud Computing that the necessary reality checks haven't registered yet.
It's a wonderful concept, and frankly speaking I'd probably buy into it at some point, even if I have no intention to stop upgrading my desktop box.
@unangbangkay: I probably should have elaborated. I meant I don't see the point of this idea in this market, since at this time something like this is not feasible. There are so many issues right now that I just can't imagine it being able to take off. In concept, yeah it's pretty cool. In another 10 years it could be something worthwhile, but with internet speeds and licensing issues it would have in the market right now, it just doesn't seem like a very good idea.
I don't think most people, including the OP, have any idea what exactly this is.
It runs on pretty much any computer, Mac, PC, whatever, because it's nothing but streaming video. The games itself is run on the server end, and they stream the video of the game being played over to you. Meanwhile you have a controller which sends your input to the server, for the game to recognize. There are a myriad of potential problems with this, that I don't feel like going into detail again with, but if you want better information, there is a cblog post with a couple video interviews that explain the system a lot better (albeit with tons of hype).
It runs on pretty much any computer, Mac, PC, whatever, because it's nothing but streaming video. The games itself is run on the server end, and they stream the video of the game being played over to you. Meanwhile you have a controller which sends your input to the server, for the game to recognize. There are a myriad of potential problems with this, that I don't feel like going into detail again with, but if you want better information, there is a cblog post with a couple video interviews that explain the system a lot better (albeit with tons of hype).
that sounds awesome :D
my laptop is goddamn awful and so many awesome pc games pass me by :(
hope they change the controller though its pretty ugly lol :D
my laptop is goddamn awful and so many awesome pc games pass me by :(
hope they change the controller though its pretty ugly lol :D
Sounds like a neat idea but I bet the need a insanely large amount of computing power to get this done.
@Syn - Except Sega channel was awesome!
This reminds me of that one time you asked for that new Gameboy Color for Christmas, and Christmas morning, while your parents leaned on one another, smiling and expecting your glee, you opened a box with a Tiger Electronic game-in-watch. You may or may not have cried, screamed, thrown it at them or all of the above.
This reminds me of that one time you asked for that new Gameboy Color for Christmas, and Christmas morning, while your parents leaned on one another, smiling and expecting your glee, you opened a box with a Tiger Electronic game-in-watch. You may or may not have cried, screamed, thrown it at them or all of the above.
@Collette: In a video interview I saw with the guy behind it he says it works with Mac and PC computers, and can also be plugged right into a TV, which is what that device in the header image is for. On PC there's no hardware needed, just a browser plugin.
Also this is going to fail so hard. 720p streaming video will use up 250gb after about four days worth of gaming, Giantbomb's reporting 80ms latency, which is effectively doubled from there and back, so almost 1/5th a second at best control lag while playing, plus instant and dramatic effects from any lag spike, connection issue, etc., will require a server setup more powerful than Google, and will probably cost you an arm and a leg. I'll eat my modem if a full year of OnLive service costs less than an actual reasonable gaming PC. Their fees are going to need to support a server infrastructure to rival God and licensing fees for all those AAA titles from all those money grubbing publishers.
Also this is going to fail so hard. 720p streaming video will use up 250gb after about four days worth of gaming, Giantbomb's reporting 80ms latency, which is effectively doubled from there and back, so almost 1/5th a second at best control lag while playing, plus instant and dramatic effects from any lag spike, connection issue, etc., will require a server setup more powerful than Google, and will probably cost you an arm and a leg. I'll eat my modem if a full year of OnLive service costs less than an actual reasonable gaming PC. Their fees are going to need to support a server infrastructure to rival God and licensing fees for all those AAA titles from all those money grubbing publishers.
Whether this particular product takes off or not, it feels like this kind of thing will eventually become a mainstay. We're looking at the future here, no doubt - the question is "how far into the future?" Will this thing become commonplace in 10 years' time or 50 years' time?
They are going to fall FLAT on their faces, if they are seriously thinking about centralising game renderings.. It is a crazy and ineffective idea.
Their technology WILL work with 1:1 client / server setup, where I set up my *own* home PC to stream games fast to my *own* netbook to play on the go. A bit like remoteplay - PSP / PS3 connection. Anything other than that will be ludicrous. It is as if rendering a game is free, like you don't have to pay when you are using a credit card.
Imagine them serving 1 million crysis games. Using, 1 million servers. Oh boy. Whoever thought this was a good idea will be fired in future. However, they could sell me software to serve my own PC games to my own Laptop or whatever.
Their technology WILL work with 1:1 client / server setup, where I set up my *own* home PC to stream games fast to my *own* netbook to play on the go. A bit like remoteplay - PSP / PS3 connection. Anything other than that will be ludicrous. It is as if rendering a game is free, like you don't have to pay when you are using a credit card.
Imagine them serving 1 million crysis games. Using, 1 million servers. Oh boy. Whoever thought this was a good idea will be fired in future. However, they could sell me software to serve my own PC games to my own Laptop or whatever.
I think it's an AWESOME idea. But it's almost impossible to think this would actually turn out okay and work well.
I love this idea. It brings PC gaming and console gaming together. I like the online distribution part as well. I'd rather just download all my xbox purchases directly to the machine instead of having to go to a store.
This OnLive stuff looks pretty friggin' sweet. But one thing I haven't seen until now is that prototype controller. They're not actually planning on spelling out "LIVE" on the buttons, are they? Forgoing the obvious, "That is silly, it makes no intuitive sense, why be different just to be different?" argument, have they not noticed that it also spells out EVIL? Surely, somebody else must have noticed this.
Back to the obvious argument, if a game tells me to hit the L button, I'm going to hit the goddamn left trigger.
Back to the obvious argument, if a game tells me to hit the L button, I'm going to hit the goddamn left trigger.
Pretty sure it won't work. Especially since it'd be straining already strained bandwidth, and since ISPs have started capping user allowance. Also, it gives the companies full control and the consumer none. Nice little tech support nightmares predicted. ;)
This sounds horrible. It has FAIL written all over it for many reasons that unangbangkay and others already listed.
Wait, Wait, Wait.... "removing the reliance on expensive, short-lived hardware"? This is a download service for PC, is it not? Lol.
"But one thing I haven't seen until now is that prototype controller. They're not actually planning on spelling out "LIVE" on the buttons, are they? Forgoing the obvious, "That is silly, it makes no intuitive sense, why be different just to be different?" argument, have they not noticed that it also spells out EVIL? Surely, somebody else must have noticed this."
I know. Obnoxious isn't it?
I know. Obnoxious isn't it?
After reading all these interesting comments, I'm inclined to agree with the idea that it won't work now -- too many potential problems, but this will be possible in the future. Could even become the standard setup eventually.
For a second, let's just forget whether or not it's going to work as well as they say and acknowledge the fact that ONE day, this will be a reality. And when that day comes, it's going to change the PC market dramatically.
Now ASSUMING this worked as well as they say, I think video card makers have more to worry about than consoles do. The very fact that you need an internet connection to make it work (a bad-ass one at that) means it won't completely replace the industry but it's going to take a huge chunk out of it since it would effectively make video cards (for the purpose of gaming at least) obsolete.
But until the day comes where broadband (and I'm talking like Fios broadband) becomes as ubiquitous as cable TV, I don't think consoles or video card producers have anything to worry about.
Now ASSUMING this worked as well as they say, I think video card makers have more to worry about than consoles do. The very fact that you need an internet connection to make it work (a bad-ass one at that) means it won't completely replace the industry but it's going to take a huge chunk out of it since it would effectively make video cards (for the purpose of gaming at least) obsolete.
But until the day comes where broadband (and I'm talking like Fios broadband) becomes as ubiquitous as cable TV, I don't think consoles or video card producers have anything to worry about.
I smell Phantom all over this. I'll believe it when it comes out and people start using it, until then...
I've got my Blu Ray discs, I've got DVD's, I've got my Public Enemy, My lilly white ass is tickled pink, when I play the games that don't depend on lag or sync.
I've got my Blu Ray discs, I've got DVD's, I've got my Public Enemy, My lilly white ass is tickled pink, when I play the games that don't depend on lag or sync.
why did the destructoid fail to mention that there will be a monthly fee tied to this device? that is where i think this device will fall behind the console market, with a console i buy my game and that game is mine unless i sell it. with this if you don't pay your fee for the month it's just a worthless black box.
besides if i wanted to get on my computer, pick which game i wanted to play and then load it up and play it, i would be a pc gamer. also without the a $60 dollar price tag per game plus whatever they make off dlc what incentive does that give developers to publish their game on this system while keeping the same budget to make the games we are used to at this point. would we see a game the scale of gta 4 or fallout 3 or as visually appealing as killzone2 or mgs4 when we aren't paying for the game, just paying a fee for the right to play it?
i think this will do well with uneducated white suburban soccer moms at first, then it will fail worse than the n-gage. i also wonder what they will do to abide by the ratings system and stop a 11 year old from playing m rated games.
here is the article i found stating there will be a monthly fee attached to this service http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7962180.stm
besides if i wanted to get on my computer, pick which game i wanted to play and then load it up and play it, i would be a pc gamer. also without the a $60 dollar price tag per game plus whatever they make off dlc what incentive does that give developers to publish their game on this system while keeping the same budget to make the games we are used to at this point. would we see a game the scale of gta 4 or fallout 3 or as visually appealing as killzone2 or mgs4 when we aren't paying for the game, just paying a fee for the right to play it?
i think this will do well with uneducated white suburban soccer moms at first, then it will fail worse than the n-gage. i also wonder what they will do to abide by the ratings system and stop a 11 year old from playing m rated games.
here is the article i found stating there will be a monthly fee attached to this service http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7962180.stm
follow
