Onlive: The next revolution in PC gaming

The technology has been around for ages but it's finally being packaged into something that will change the face of PC gaming as we know it. Imagine playing crysis on a netbook....renting the full version of a game before you buy it....A console smaller than your hand and cheaper than a Wii to play games on your TV....

Onlive needs to launch RIGHT NOW imo!

Read up. This will be huge for PC gaming

http://pc.ign.com/articles/965/965535p2.html

Cept I don't see anythng about mods. And I think this would require a very powerful internet connection to use.

So it organizes your games into a program.. and you can rent games. That isn't really that exciting.mattpunkgd

what? make sense, please

This is heaps exciting. It uses compression, so it is not that big on your internet. And you can also play Crysis on a Macbook Air on full settings (which is not a gaming machine). Can't wait!!!!:D

So it organizes your games into a program.. and you can rent games. That isn't really that exciting.mattpunkgd

So it organizes your games into a program.. and you can rent games. That isn't really that exciting.mattpunkgd

Cept I don't see anythng about mods. And I think this would require a very powerful internet connection to use.

JangoWuzHere

A 1.5 mbps connection (which is usually what base-level DSL is rated at) is required for standard-definition video (480p), while a 5.0 mbps connection is required for HD (720p).

Sorry if your on dialup

Actually this sounds very exciting. However it may be vaporware which is what im thinking right now.JangoWuzHere

Sigh.....It's already up and running at GDC. And many of the biggest publishers in the industry have already signed on. It may fail, but it's not vaporware

Sounds extremely interesting.

Brag Clips, I can just use XFire, but the seamless streaming, now thats interesting. If I can play 360, PS3, and Wii games on this, I don't care if its $400+ and a $20 monthly fee, I'm getting this.

thsi could be what the industry needs this could perfect pc gaming in a way never seen before

So did I just shell out a thousand bucks on my core i7 build for nothing? If so I'm gonna be very dissapointed.

[QUOTE="JangoWuzHere"]

Cept I don't see anythng about mods. And I think this would require a very powerful internet connection to use.

TeamR

A 1.5 mbps connection (which is usually what base-level DSL is rated at) is required for standard-definition video (480p), while a 5.0 mbps connection is required for HD (720p).

Sorry if your on dialup

So did I just shell out a thousand bucks on my core i7 build for nothing? If so I'm gonna be very dissapointed.

DJ419

I doubt it. Beta doesnt start til summer and I don't think it's going to TOTALLY replace gaming machines. Traditional gaming machines will definitly still be the better experience, but this will be a great option for people who just want to test/rent games, or who don't have powerful gaming machines

i dont like it:evil:

firstly cos i only have 350kb internet.

secondly cos it can only play at 720p.

thats roughly 1280 by 720 or thereabouts isnt it? my 17inch monitor has more than that. for this reason, i do not think it will succeed, much. certainly not with hardcore gamers.

i do not think it will succeed, much. certainly not with hardcore gamersjpph

Interesting idea, but something tells me that performance and control response times will be very inconsistant. I have a feeling that this will fail, unless we see a new connection type spring up in the next few years that is both fast and affordable.

It's clever they pointed out using this for netbooks, because anything else for a PC Gamer will be rather useless. The advertisement hype is also quite amusing, almost similar to those Japan commercials on the cartoon channel Yes, even your sub $500 netbook or MacBook can play processor intensive, GPU demanding PC games. In fact, that's the whole point! Great, now I can buffer a 480p image on my netbook to make it much more painful to even view it on the the small screen for long playing times. The only interest I identify out of OnLive is being able to instant buffer a game demo, due to I have no patience to download a demo over 1GB in file size, granted I'm on a 1.6mb/sec .

Personally, I see publishers/developers attraction to this service is basically to exanimate the used game market on Consoles(GameStop, GameFly, BlockBuster); almost all the developers utilizing the service so far are console focused companies The best part? It already has serious buy-in from major publishers, including EA, THQ, Codemasters, Ubisoft, Atari, Warner Bros., Take-Two, and Epic Games. Eh, I'll stick to processing power..

It's clever they pointed out using this for netbooks, because anything else for a PC Gamer will be rather useless. The advertisement hype is also quite amusing, almost similar to those Japan commercials on the cartoon channel Yes, even your sub $500 netbook or MacBook can play processor intensive, GPU demanding PC games. In fact, that's the whole point! Great, now I can buffer a 480p image on my netbook to make it much more painful to even view it on the the small screen for long playing times. The only interest I identify out of OnLive is being able to instant buffer a game demo, due to I have no patience to download a demo over 1GB in file size, granted I'm on a 1.6mb/sec .

Personally, I see publishers/developers attraction to this service is basically to exanimate the used game market on Consoles(GameStop, GameFly, BlockBuster); almost all the developers utilizing the service so far are console focused companies The best part? It already has serious buy-in from major publishers, including EA, THQ, Codemasters, Ubisoft, Atari, Warner Bros., Take-Two, and Epic Games. Eh, I'll stick to processing power..

OoSuperMarioO

this reeks of fail, it's called latency people, something not related to your Internets "speed". If the game is actually being run on the server, that means any control input will have to go to the server before it is registered... then back before it is seen by the player! This means, assuming that you have a good connection, you can expect at least half a second of delay from button inputs to the actual actions being preformed. This will die as quickly as it began.kuabarra

So far this thread reminds me of when valve first announced steam. Blah blah blah, it's too much of a hastle, it will fail, blah blah blah. Now here we are 5 years later and I don't think I need to tell you how successful steam is.

As pointed out in the article they've taken numerous steps to reduce latency. I don't know why you think, when developing Golive, they wouldnt consider video latency. They created their own video compression algorithm, and everyone at GDC is saying the same thing: it plays smooth.

Every Pc gaming community is salavating over this technology right now. Except here at Gamespot, of course. Because instead of thinking about the huge benifit this would be to our chosen platform, most people here are just stuck in their "want everything to fail" mode. Maybe thats why I barely post here anymore

Well its a good idea, but the internet in my country could never do something like that, and i sorta feel like you dont have much controll over the game if you know what i mean

Every Pc gaming community is salavating over this technology right now. Except here at Gamespot, of course. Because instead of thinking about the huge benifit this would be to our chosen platform, most people here are just stuck in their "want everything to fail" mode. Maybe thats why I barely post here anymore

TeamR

Well, this type of cloud computing is certainly the future of gaming if nothing else ... at least as envisioned by the industry.

As a way of gaming for me personally, I'm not excited. To better clarify that though, as an alternative to the current gaming model I think it could be fantastic. However, as the dominant gaming model, I wouldn't care for it at all.

It eliminates hardware aspects of current PC gaming that I enjoy (the individuality and customization, what would really be the point of building and tweaking gaming rigs under this model for example?). In addition, my preference is by far and away to purchase games without "strings" attached that extend beyond the game itself --- such as with activation-based DRM. Obviously under this model, your games are very much under the control of the service, I prefer to have games that I purchase completely under my control without external dependencies.

Even if you don't agree with that perspective, hopefully it shouldn't be too hard to at least understand it. It's less about "wanting it to fail" and more about it not meshing with personal preferences. At any rate, as an alternative model and as an opportunity to play games that otherwise might not be possible for some, I think it could be quite welcome ;)

...thanks for the link

Another way to take ownership away from the gamer.

I can see this bringing more sales tothe gaming market and if people know they can use this on their laptops or dated desktops it could lead to better things for the pc as well as the consoles.

Another way to take ownership away from the gamer.

Wasdie

It's a good think .It will bring more people into gaming

But i dont think it will stop us playing the traditional way we do now on pc .If anything this will be in more competition with consoles

One of the biggest strength of pc gaming is mods ( is impossible to use mods with that model)

Pc gaming is the de facto platform of gaming in emarging markets like india,brazil,china and russia. In these countries users with dsl access of 2mbps or more are less than 5% ( look it in that pc gamer allience state of pc gaming in 2008 report)

Many pc gamers buy new hardware every once in a while and they like beign on the edge of technology when it comes to graphics ( seen that the onlive model is steaming content i dont think we are gonna see graphics so good as crysis at 1080p )

finally pc gaming is cheap ( i only bought 5 games in 2008 for about 140 and when i want something new i installed a new mod, a new map or a new total conversion mod)

It's a good think .It will bring more people into gaming

But i dont think it will stop us playing the traditional way we do now on pc .If anything this will be in more competition with consoles

One of the biggest strength of pc gaming is mods ( is impossible to use mods with that model)

Pc gaming is the de facto platform of gaming in emarging markets like india,brazil,china and russia. In these countries users with dsl access of 2mbps or more are less than 5% ( look it in that pc gamer allience state of pc gaming in 2008 report)

Many pc gamers buy new hardware every once in a while and they like beign on the edge of technology when it comes to graphics ( seen that the onlive model is steaming content i dont think we are gonna see graphics so good as crysis at 1080p )

finally pc gaming is cheap ( i only bought 5 games in 2008 for about 140 and when i want something new i installed a new mod, a new map or a new total conversion mod)

adamosmaki

Personally, this is an interesting concept but I don't like it. I just built a gaming PC just for Crysis and other high-end games, if this works, this just eliminates a favorite pastime for PC gamers. Companies like Alienware, AMD/ATI and Nvidia would go under because since everybody can play crysis on a netbook...what's the point of having all this high-end stuff? Consoles from Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo would also go under because everybody can just run the game on a PC and output to a TV so again, why buy a clunky console when you can buy another console for 100 bucks and its the size of a PSP? From a business perspective, I don't think it'll do that well...for one thing it relies on the internet....you need a 5 mbps for 720p when most gamers can have a resolution twice that. So since I have a 768 kbps i can only play at what....1024 by 768?! I think people with low end PCs or can't afford a console will like it but for those that HAVE a console or a PC that can run Crysis at high won't like it because it makes everything they use to game virutally useless. spiderman120988

Personally, this is an interesting concept but I don't like it. I just built a gaming PC just for Crysis and other high-end games, if this works, this just eliminates a favorite pastime for PC gamers. Companies like Alienware, AMD/ATI and Nvidia would go under because since everybody can play crysis on a netbook...what's the point of having all this high-end stuff? Consoles from Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo would also go under because everybody can just run the game on a PC and output to a TV so again, why buy a clunky console when you can buy another console for 100 bucks and its the size of a PSP? From a business perspective, I don't think it'll do that well...for one thing it relies on the internet....you need a 5 mbps for 720p when most gamers can have a resolution twice that. So since I have a 768 kbps i can only play at what....1024 by 768?! I think people with low end PCs or can't afford a console will like it but for those that HAVE a console or a PC that can run Crysis at high won't like it because it makes everything they use to game virutally useless. spiderman120988

A 768 kbs seems very low bud to obtain a good resolution output, but we'll see over the months/years how this service sophisticates.

It will be marvelous if they up the resolution output for PC users personally. North America has the largest percentage of home users with high speed connections, but yet doesn't even come close to a 5mb/sec network. From a PC perspective Onlive is uninteresting, but from a Console perspective it's indeed a step forward if practice correctly and can certainly advance various benefits for publishers/users.

OoSuperMarioO

I disagree with you. I think Pc gaming would see the larger benifit from a service like online.

With onlive, pcgamers will be able to enjoy many of the things typically asscociated with console games. Rentals, (somewhat) standardized hardware, a super low entry price point, portability. Powergamers who already have super beefy systems probably won't see much benifit from the service, but thats why I think it is the perfect service to run ALONGSIDE current PC gaming standards. Because there are TONS of people out there who would love to get into PC gaming but don't because of many of the problems solved by onlive.

College student who only has a small laptop and access to school computers?

Busy professional that doesn't have the time, patience or disposable income to invest in pc gaming

Kid who can't convince his parents to invest in a gaming rig

Those are all examples of people who would probably turn to console gaming, but a service like golive will negate many of the advantages consoles have over the PC. As long as you have the connection to support it. I see onlive stemming the tide of developers ditching the pc for consoles, and even doing the reverse. onlive has the potential to do for pc gaming what the wii did for console gaming, bring in an entirely new audience. People who declined pc gaming in the past because of the precieved diffuculty, high cost and non-user friendliness.

Look at the companies that are backing the service right now: EA, THQ, Codemasters, Ubisoft, Atari, Warner Bros., Take-Two, and Epic Games. Notice something? Those are companies that have been turning their noses up at PC gaming in recent years to refocus on consoles, all backing a PC service that has the potential to open our platform to millions and millions of people.

People said that Xbox Live and Steam would never work, streaming video from Hulu would fail, there was no way you'd get an HD video stream from Netflix....Hows about instead of continuing the trend you try looking at onlive from a "glass half full" perspective? Hands-on demonstrations have been getting really good reviews out of GDC. And there is no reason to wish for the tech to fail, because at the end of the day it can do nothing but good for PC gaming.

Soon all the high end PC and console gamers will be a tiny minority, a dying breed still playing Halo 5 on Xbox 720 or Crysis 3 on a High end PC while everyone is gaming on a tiny netbook! I hope it doesn't come to that! =[spiderman120988

why not? They can still play whatever game they want. why do you have a problem with others finally being able to play, too?

yeah BUT!.

The article says 720p. Well the technical translation to "p" for my 30" monitor would be 1600p and most PC gamers are running at what would be 1080p

SEANMCAD

Yeah? I thought it was obvious that the service would'nt be exactly as good as playing on a good gaming rig. lol

[QUOTE="OoSuperMarioO"]

It will be marvelous if they up the resolution output for PC users personally. North America has the largest percentage of home users with high speed connections, but yet doesn't even come close to a 5mb/sec network. From a PC perspective Onlive is uninteresting, but from a Console perspective it's indeed a step forward if practice correctly and can certainly advance various benefits for publishers/users.

TeamR

I disagree with you. I think Pc gaming would see the larger benifit from a service like online.

With onlive, pcgamers will be able to enjoy many of the things typically asscociated with console games. Rentals, (somewhat) standardized hardware, a super low entry price point, portability. Powergamers who already have super beefy systems probably won't see much benifit from the service, but thats why I think it is the perfect service to run ALONGSIDE current PC gaming standards. Because there are TONS of people out there who would love to get into PC gaming but don't because of many of the problems solved by onlive.

College student who only has a small laptop and access to school computers?

Busy professional that doesn't have the time, patience or disposable income to invest in pc gaming

Kid who can't convince his parents to invest in a gaming rig

Those are all examples of people who would probably turn to console gaming, but a service like golive will negate many of the advantages consoles have over the PC. As long as you have the connection to support it. I see onlive stemming the tide of developers ditching the pc for consoles, and even doing the reverse. onlive has the potential to do for pc gaming what the wii did for console gaming, bring in an entirely new audience. People who declined pc gaming in the past because of the precieved diffuculty, high cost and non-user friendliness.

Look at the companies that are backing the service right now: EA, THQ, Codemasters, Ubisoft, Atari, Warner Bros., Take-Two, and Epic Games. Notice something? Those are companies that have been turning their noses up at PC gaming in recent years to refocus on consoles, all backing a PC service that has the potential to open our platform to millions and millions of people.

People said that Xbox Live and Steam would never work, streaming video from Hulu would fail, there was no way you'd get an HD video stream from Netflix....Hows about instead of continuing the trend you try looking at onlive from a "glass half full" perspective? Hands-on demonstrations have been getting really good reviews out of GDC. And there is no reason to wish for the tech to fail, because at the end of the day it can do nothing but good for PC gaming.

I think it's a good thing for gaming in general and especially the pc, because most people use a pc for diff apps. including games and it's the most owned "console" and used of them all. I can see coming over to the pc side which will increase the amount of games available and it'll also lead to more exclusives and attention from devs. who will focus more on the pc which will become the preferred console of choice for most people.