OnLive beta goes online

Testers now being accepted for on-demand game-streaming service in advance of winter launch.

OnLive has generated a healthy amount of skepticism, as well as unbridled enthusiasm, since the on-demand game-streaming service made its impressive debut at the 2009 Game Developers Conference. The cause for that interest is OnLive's promise, which is to stream new, top-tier titles from publishers, such as Electronic Arts, Ubisoft, and Take-Two, directly to gamers by way of a PC or Mac software application or small TV plug-in device.

OnLive's hardware.

Soon, a number of the outstanding questions concerning the service may be answered, as OnLive said today that it has opened up the service's beta-testing phase. Those interested in beta testing the game-streaming service can sign up through OnLive's official Web site. Eligible testers must be located in the US and at least 18 years old, as well as have a broadband-equipped Windows Vista/XP PC or Intel-based Mac.

Along with the beta-test announcement, OnLive founder and CEO Steve Perlman provided a detailed description of the selection process and what gamers can expect from the program. As the beta test is designed to test the service using a host of different system configurations and Internet Service Providers, Perlman said that interested testers will be divided into groups. These groups will then be called upon as needed to test the service.

OnLive has yet to nail down a release date for when the service will be available or how much it will cost. However, the company has previously stated that it is targeting this winter for the service's full commercial launch.

449 Comments

  • julle23

    Posted Nov 24, 2009 11:02 am PT

    i rally want dis 2 work but i have my doubts i mean, on the e3 the servers was only like 50 miles away. hows it gonna work when thousands maybe even millions of ppl will play far away?

  • ddelor

    Posted Oct 2, 2009 11:38 am PT

    My understanding is that the game is running on their hardware and we're able to view it and then send it commands via the controller. Shouldn't there be an issue with lag times? And, like viewing HD videos via broadband now, doesn't our hardware still have to process the video even though it comes through a browser? Someone help me out if I'm wrong, it just seems to me that the user's hardware will still be a factor and the responses between the visual and the controls will have some significant lag.

  • WTFitsPauL

    Posted Sep 9, 2009 4:38 pm PT

    60% Failure Rate. Good Ol Gaming Peripherals FTW!

  • rostam93

    Posted Sep 9, 2009 3:53 pm PT

    i agree with dynomitemasta. sony and ms are like "your gonna what? well, fine go ahead." i'll laugh like crazy if this gets big, cuz sony and ms are then gonna make some insane thing that plugs your mind into the internet/games/movies/everything ever made without you ever having to take your eyes off the screen ever!!!!! yeah.........

  • daveg1

    Posted Sep 9, 2009 10:30 am PT

    is anyone even bothered about this??? maybe if the games are cheap enough to play then it might take off but i think its to fearce to be launching any kind of a gaming device with the big three still in the game plus pc gaming ...FLOP!!!

  • peterz0306

    Posted Sep 9, 2009 9:22 am PT

    i really like to watch my game box collection... how can you collect with onlive? seems more too me like a sort of cable tv...

  • 00-Riddick-00

    Posted Sep 9, 2009 7:44 am PT

    i still see this epically failing

  • Caer_Death

    Posted Sep 9, 2009 6:27 am PT

    @ColdfireTrilogy

    I only got my first computer back in 2001. Before that, I used my stepdad's, and yeah, there were a few times when we weren't allowed on it for years,but the rules fluctuated so much, I can't recall dates that well. My earliest experiences was when I was about 7 or so playing Psycho Pinball, and honestly, that never crashed. Neither did Heroes of Might and Magic, nor the EoB games. I remember using DOS Shell for a while. But I only had one computer that was shared between me and my brothers, not online for a few years between 2002-2004. It had problems with the hard drive frying out once and we replaced it, and put Linux on there for a while. We fixed up and inherited an old computer from my aunt a couple years ago, used that for a while, and then I bought a laptop for myself, and I've been using that ever since. My mom has a new desktop that everyone here uses, but no, no crashing problems, as far as I can tell. Maybe I'm just incredibly lucky. I don't run too intensive of games, I.E. I still play Heroes III instead of Heroes V. Graphic intensive games are better off on consoles now, at least for the lower budget consumer.

  • RequiemOfHearts

    Posted Sep 8, 2009 11:01 pm PT

    They forget one thing:
    NOT EVERYONE HAS INTERNET.

    If this way of playing games ends up dominating the market, my gaming days are over for good.

  • hollatchaboy

    Posted Sep 8, 2009 10:58 pm PT

    Wow. This blows my mind. I wasn't ready for this. I dont know if this is good or bad, kinda sounds to good to be true............. I'll sit on the sidelines and play my ps3 for a while. Im gonna say what my Mom always told me whenever i asked for something.... "We'll See"

  • dynomitemasta

    Posted Sep 8, 2009 9:11 pm PT

    Once, or if this takes hold, Sony and MS will follow, the are letting these guys do all the heavy lifting to see if it works... and if it does they will pounce.

  • Irve

    Posted Sep 8, 2009 6:09 am PT

    Everyone is interested in Onlive no matter how they think it will operate.
    i'm very interested to see how it pans out over the next few years ..
    but i think it's gonna take a few years yet before a service is there that you can trust to give a proper gaming experience.

  • lilromeo0606

    Posted Sep 7, 2009 11:51 pm PT

    Forgetting all the comments that say that this will fail, and there is a high probably chance that it might. But if it does work and succeeds very well. What does this mean for the future of gaming. Sure there might be an issue of a high monthly cost to support the bandwith, but again this will open the doors to those gamers that cannot afford a top of the line running computer. I know many a times computer limitations have stopped me from getting highly anticipated games. But in the long run this will save users money because then they don't have to upgrade their computers regularly. Average users maybe every 1-2yrs and maybe for hardcore gamers every 6mnths to a year.

  • ZombieKingX

    Posted Sep 7, 2009 7:48 am PT

    I think this is a baddd idea. There's not a thing wrong with how media is currently delivered, it works great actually. Seems to me this is just a company sticking their nose where it doesn't belong so they can try to make a quick buck.

  • Simple_malk

    Posted Sep 7, 2009 1:43 am PT

    Ya it's so believable that this will be the next big thing when they completely snub E3. Get over yourself Onlive you're not Blizzard.

  • Henninger

    Posted Sep 6, 2009 9:04 am PT

    This is either gonna b a real big hit or a real epic fail. I think it'll b aight if they can properly market & promote it. They have a real uphill battle with competing with Nintendo, Microsoft, & Sony.

  • clockpenalty

    Posted Sep 6, 2009 8:41 am PT

    Wake up, people. This is the phantom and the Gizmondo all over again. Just a big venture scam capitalising on the ignorance of venture capitalists.

    The truth is, it would be impossible with today's technology to scale a service lie onlive. A game that requires a geforce 6 level chipset to support 1 user will need the power generation of a small country to support 1,000,000 users. And this is not even talking about the huge bandwidth and pricing problems that have been already discussed.

    Unless onlive exclusively runs games like peggle which can be run locally in flash-like systems anyway, it is a complete waste of time.

  • rgjj

    Posted Sep 6, 2009 12:53 am PT

    @Ravenor12345678
    lol yeah but there is the other theory the sony and microsoft have got this hand as they are downright hardware wise capable of simulating the same service. And never say mever theyve all started somewhere each suceeding due to being that bit more different than that of the other(company), sometimes it works sometime it dont never forget nintendo failed at one point for not keeping up with the times but at the same time they introduce vibration and anologue whilst sony copied and fine tuned it, so could sony and microsoft fine tune this technology or if it does suceed copy it

  • akiwak

    Posted Sep 5, 2009 8:56 pm PT

    Automatic fine tuning for maximum enjoyment???? Should I even try using my seven year old PC with windows XP. I wonder how many other people are just like me. I have the requirements but barely.....
    I boosted my computer to full power about 3 years ago and right now it handles being online well when I have windows xp running plus my anti-virus and popup-blocker. Once I start running iTunes or some other program... it starts going to $h!T...

  • thenephariouson

    Posted Sep 5, 2009 12:34 pm PT

    Pro's & Con's aside, i cant help but feel sceptical about this.

  • biggest_loser

    Posted Sep 5, 2009 7:45 am PT

    If this succeeds it could very well be 'the best thing since sliced bread'..

  • Rohan75

    Posted Sep 5, 2009 4:26 am PT

    lol @JacobD1505

    I live with my parent, I'm a teenager, I do loads of chores get maximum of $10 a month, and pay full cost for all of my games

  • Ravenor12345678

    Posted Sep 5, 2009 3:13 am PT

    lmao@JacobD1505, yeah good luck with that. And when OnLive goes bust or shuts down their service in your area,or change the game lineup available and you cant access those "wonderful" games, i'll spare a thought for you when i'm still able to play my favourite games on my 360 or PS3.

    Streaming games sounds like a good idea, in theory. However the reality will be that half the time servers will be down, there will be connection issues, they will drop games that arent popular- good luck trying to complete something before it stops being the flavour of the month, and you will get to pay for the privalege. Personally i'd rather stick with a physical copy that i know i can play without relying on some tech guy in India.

  • JacobD1505

    Posted Sep 5, 2009 12:55 am PT

    Oh...some of you kids will learn as you grow older. Quit sucking the shaft of the company. If I am able to play all of the wonderful games that I play now...but without ever having to buy a console again...then I'm on board....and if you disagree...you are probably still living off of your parents income and your opinion doesn't matter anyways. I don't care what console it is on...i just love playing video games.

  • otanikun

    Posted Sep 4, 2009 8:55 pm PT

    Would have been an interesting premise had it been released prior to the launch of the Xbox/Xbox 360 and PS3 respectively, I mean, yay we can now download games!
    Wait a minute, we can already do that on existing consoles now, namely again the Xbox 360 and the PS3, so why would I waste my money on a console that does exactly what the others do?

    This "console" as they claim it to be, will likely flop within the year it's launched, I don't see many takers.

  • XeonForce

    Posted Sep 4, 2009 8:37 pm PT

    @E1025gama

    The service OnLive provides is to get games on gamers' plates right? How is that any different from what is being done now? The middle-man has not been cut out, he has just changed faces.

    Do you understand now?

  • okassar

    Posted Sep 4, 2009 6:32 pm PT

    E1025 Gama--Of course piracy is possible with OnLive!Even more so!

    The only difference is (roflroflteeheehee) that the pirates don't have to bother to copy something onto a disc,they could just hack the code on sell it online with many different sources,it's hard for us to believe but really easy for high end hackers in the world.

  • okassar

    Posted Sep 4, 2009 6:25 pm PT

    I don't know why,but as a gamer,I feel that these guys are conmen. I really don't want them to take business away from Microsoft,Sony,and Nintendo--I don't know,I'm just used to it you know.

    and that controller looks like crap....

    On top of that,I don't mind buying a game off ebay for 20 bucks and popping it in my Xbox or PS3,buying it online doesn't really make a difference.

    and did I mention that that controller would completely ruin my gaming experience.I know you could use a keyboard instead,but I'm a CONSOLE gamer and I want a good frikkin controller.

    Worst of all,software companies would be conflicted as to who they develop for what deals to take what developing kits to buy and it's just going to be a huge mess.


    You know what,I would much rather see MS Sony and Nintendo all do something like this--with good controllers and systems that act as all in one media centers with 1000 GB with motion cameras and amazing graphics anyway.We all know that's what the next gen of systems will be,there's going to be a HUGE jump.

    I just don't want to give the OnLive guys my money,I'm not comfortable with the whole concept.Besides,it's PAYING for a service where you pay AGAIN for the games.

  • Icehearted

    Posted Sep 4, 2009 6:01 pm PT

    I can think of a large number of reasons as to why this thing seems... fantastical, but if it lives up to the enthusiats, this could be a boon for expensive, overpriced xbla style games and DLC, and a huge burden on gamers.

  • andrew_ribbons

    Posted Sep 4, 2009 5:54 pm PT

    "Or maybe the paying scheme would be, you pay $200 for a OnLive account and you buy your games individually. Then you can't play games if you don't have a connection, of course, but you technically own* it."

    Which would never work because while you pay once, their electricity, employee and hardware fees would continue exponentially. The only way they could manage that would be to hype game prices intensely on the service to generate income.

    However this is all still preceded by the fact that several key issues remain unanswered by the company, and it all seems a big hypefest over something bound by current hardware physics to flop. No good saying this will work in 10 years time, if it doesn't work here and now they'll be bound to the dusts of history by the time it does. The CEO also comes over as a pretentious and arrogant ass in his foundationless statements.

  • bobby1690

    Posted Sep 4, 2009 5:45 pm PT

    imo the onlive box will be better than the pc

  • andrew_ribbons

    Posted Sep 4, 2009 5:41 pm PT

    "@ happyfatman021
    I'm glad some people around here are able to look at the potential problems with OnLive with an open mind."

    If only by being blissfully ignorant to it's key and blatent problems. I read his comment in full, this person ignores the fact that your enjoyment of the service is ENTIRELY dependant on the host company being in 100% nick 100% of the time. With technology that is almost an entire impossibly, if not more so because of the scale. Also there's the issue of input lag, whereby no internet connection exists which can ping a set of command instructions to the server, register in the software, and get it back to your screen in under 20ms, which is what we're talking about to get true console-esk quality feel. Most game struggle to give you a server connection ping of under 100ms, and controlling a game with something like that would be ghastly.

    Also the fact that if you stop giving them buckets of money, your entire purchased games collection is null and void. Like hell that's a good plan.

  • xblane

    Posted Sep 4, 2009 4:45 pm PT

    the issue is going to be peoples broadband connection... so, expect everyone to still be split down the middle after it launches

  • toadman682000

    Posted Sep 4, 2009 4:12 pm PT

    Why bother debating this on an internet comments field? Either it will work or it won't depending on how good the company is at programming and marketing it, arguing about it here is useless. Remember the special olympics.

  • NuKkU

    Posted Sep 4, 2009 4:04 pm PT

    good i wanna see if this thing actually works as good as they claim

  • EdibleFood

    Posted Sep 4, 2009 3:18 pm PT

    Gay i wish i got accepted...

  • Dreakon

    Posted Sep 4, 2009 3:12 pm PT

    The more I read about pricing, the less excited I am about this...

  • MrCha1nsaw

    Posted Sep 4, 2009 2:23 pm PT

    Its a good idea...I don't think a lot of people will go for it at first though.

  • atopp399

    Posted Sep 4, 2009 2:14 pm PT

    Who decides what resolution you play in? 720p on a computer monitor that has a native resolution of 1680x1050, 1600x1200 or higher isn't going to look that great.

    And think about it. Where is all this computer hardware that can run thousands of copies of Crysis at the same time and stream it to people? The technology doesn't exist to do what they are stating. They say it does but I would like to see how it is done as would many other people. So far all we have are statements saying what it is and what it can do with absolutely no explanation of how it can be done.

  • Dreakon

    Posted Sep 4, 2009 1:55 pm PT

    And that's just if you plan on playing in HD. I'm sure there's plenty of people out there like me that are perfectly happy with SD...

  • HeartlessJohn

    Posted Sep 4, 2009 1:43 pm PT

    Here in Jamaica, a lot of users get 5 Mbps, me I have 15.

  • franwex

    Posted Sep 4, 2009 1:31 pm PT

    I think it'll be an awesome service! Just hope it works! If it does, it'll be reason enough to upgrade my internet connection and kiss all these dreaded consoles goodbye (okay, not really, i'll still play them).

  • Dreakon

    Posted Sep 4, 2009 12:56 pm PT

    @ happyfatman021
    I'm glad some people around here are able to look at the potential problems with OnLive with an open mind.

  • happyfatman021

    Posted Sep 4, 2009 12:54 pm PT

    I'm really excited and yet very skeptical of this at the same time. On the one hand, this could revolutionize the gaming industry by providing everyone with the highest possible quality gaming experience. On the other hand, the potential problems are obvious; like the fact that you'd need a 5Mb/s connection speed to get true HD quality, and I've read (on Wikipedia, make of that what you will) that the average internet connection speed is 3.9Mb/s, and about 25% of users have a connection speed of 5Mb/s or greater. Then there's the issue of what if your internet connection goes out for a period of time. That would leave you unable to play your games AT ALL until it is resolved. Then I've heard there are bandwidth issues to contend with. But, if the OnLive folks can find a way to work around these potential problems, they could have a revolution on their hands.

  • Dreakon

    Posted Sep 4, 2009 12:48 pm PT

    To use this service, all you need is a computer powerful enough to run a video and a good internet connection.

  • Dreakon

    Posted Sep 4, 2009 12:45 pm PT

    And from what I read, they have tons of servers of different capacities and very complex netcode algorithms to keep the latency as low as possible at all times. If it can actually run smoothly on half-decent connections, this WILL be a revolutionary service.

  • Dreakon

    Posted Sep 4, 2009 12:41 pm PT

    Oh dear lord. No one understands how this works. THIS IS NOT A NEW CONSOLE! It's a gaming service.

    The games are run on servers, everything is transmitted online. You send your input over the internet to OnLive, and the game plays on their hardware. OnLive pretty much sends a streaming live VIDEO back to you. You press buttons, the game plays 1000 miles away or wherever the servers are, OnLive sends a live video of you playing back to you instantaneously. Single player works fine, multiplayer works fine (hacking is technically impossible on OnLive by the way) and OnLive adds a lot of other features like watching other people playing games, saving videos and a bunch of other community aspects.

    With low enough latency, it'll be like you're playing locally. The only difference is, they control the hardware. As more complex games come out with better graphics, they upgrade the hardware and you just keep playing.

  • driton

    Posted Sep 4, 2009 12:37 pm PT

    First I was amazed, now I'm skeptical!!!

  • leeko_link

    Posted Sep 4, 2009 12:37 pm PT

    I like the idea of this service with the on-demand game streaming and all but unless this service had any exclusive titles(games I can't find on any other consoles) that would makes this service worth getting, I'm not interested.

  • MarioBros12321

    Posted Sep 4, 2009 12:36 pm PT

    You dont need a gaming pc to use onlive...

advertisement

Hot Stories

Newsmakers

Featured Stories

Tags

beta   onlive

Submit News

Got tips? Send them in!