OnLive

[Flawless]

Re: OnLive

Eurogamer: Why OnLive Can't Possibly Work

There's only one slight problem. Realistically, there is no way it can work to the extent suggested, and no way it can provide a gaming experience as good as the one you already have without inherent compromises. It's a great idea, and an intriguing demo that is amazing in that it actually works at all. However, away from the concept and the tech demos running in controlled conditions, OnLive raises so many technical questions and seemingly overcomes so many impossible challenges that it can't possibly work.

In essence, we're looking at several very specific challenges for OnLive to overcome - challenges that are either massive in scope, or technologically beyond the very best minds of their respective fields. For this to work, we're talking about a generational leap in not one, but several fields of technology.

Penny Arcade

OnLive is pretty much the belle of the ball at GDC thus far, and its promise of rapture must be pure exhilaration to anyone who has never worked IT. I wouldn't describe it as a fight, per se - the knives remained sheathed - but I would say that Gabriel and I entered into what you might call a scale model of a fight. There was fury, but it was a very compact fury.

I received an SMS from Robert late last night, no doubt typed at some Game Developer's Conference bacchanal, and something in the way it was formatted managed to communicate a breathless enthusiasm. I reminded him that years ago - during E3 That Was - we saw a demo of the Phantom that was impressive enough to elicit a purchase. The demo was that good. So good that I never wrote about it - it was, in fact, too good. The machines that served the content were situated in a room not ten feet away, connected via gigabit ethernet. Every time I pore over some unchecked torrent from an ecstatic new convert, I start to become very curious about topology.

I mentioned IT before because people who have done time in the field have already been through several cycles of this kind of thinking. I'm not making a value judgment of any kind - I'm just saying that terminal computing is perpetually making a case for itself, because the seat of processing power is always shifting. Back when I worked for the school district, the basement of the administration building was given over to an ancient mainframe serviced by equally ancient people who only knew how to tend to their beloved, humming sarcophagus.

What I'm saying is that server-side solutions invariably lead to sinister necromantic cabals.

I'm not saying that exactly. Even sight unseen, there are genres I prize greatly that would work well on a mechanism like this. Virtually any raw tactics experience would excel under these conditions. Role-playing titles and some massive games would perform adequately, even in the absence of any unique technology. The new Prince is the sort of platformer that might function, and it features prominently in their materials. When I see a racer or a shooter, however, something in my mind rebels.

They have some incredibly forward thinking community solutions, and as a rental scenario what OnLive delivers is near optimal. I resonate in a harmonious way with the idea that discrete gaming "platforms" are a divisive, untenable regime that often obscures the medium. This is precisely why I am careful about things of this stripe: it is the will of my heart to believe it. I believe Matthew 24, verses 23 through 26 might be appropriate here. Due diligence.

If a man claims to be Jesus Christ, you can bet I'll check the wrists.

[DaveDQ]

Re: OnLive

A lot of sarcasm there that barely touches on why it can't work. This isn't something that's going to overthrow consoles, but it is something that should be appreciated and respected in that it is opening up a layer that the industry hasn't gotten to yet.

Let them work at it. Let it happen, encourage it. What's it going to hurt? I don't see the point in wanting to be on the side of the smart-*** like Eurogamer and Penny Arcade are doing. Why not embrace it and appreciate the attempt?

[23]

Re: OnLive

You always have your doubters

[mgoblue]

Re: OnLive

You always have your doubters

My thought is that we can't get damn baseball games to play online lag free, so this is a bit of a leap...

I'm all for it succeeding, I'm just very skeptical (like a lot of the gaming industry is).

Side issue is then you're tethered to your internet connection to play ALL games. Internet goes down, you're screwed, even if you want to play single player. Want to download movies and play your franchise in The Show at the same time? That download would probably hatchet your gaming quality to nothing. Just some food for thought.

[DaveDQ]

Re: OnLive

Side issue is then you're tethered to your internet connection to play ALL games. Internet goes down, you're screwed, even if you want to play single player. Want to download movies and play your franchise in The Show at the same time? That download would probably hatchet your gaming quality to nothing. Just some food for thought.

That's probably the best point made thus far, which would almost settle this as a way to rent a game and play it on demand. The only separation they could get from that would be for a developer to develop solely for OnLive and end up making something special.

I like it though. I've always wanted to play Crysis, but my laptop isn't going to handle that. If they can pull off me playing a game like that and do it bug-free, I'd be happy.

[23]

Re: OnLive

My thought is that we can't get damn baseball games to play online lag free, so this is a bit of a leap...

I'm all for it succeeding, I'm just very skeptical (like a lot of the gaming industry is).

Side issue is then you're tethered to your internet connection to play ALL games. Internet goes down, you're screwed, even if you want to play single player. Want to download movies and play your franchise in The Show at the same time? That download would probably hatchet your gaming quality to nothing. Just some food for thought.

Oh we're all sceptical but not to come out and outright bash innovation

They have alot of questions to answer, but if they can manage to get things right, this is the future. I know one thing, it sure would stop companies from producing broken out of the manufacturing plant consoles that have a working life of a year if it starts catching on

This could potentially save alot of time and money in gaming and cutting out the middle man, but they dont have alot of rooms for mistakes right now either.

[ODogg]

Re: OnLive

It won't work and here's why:

1. Not everyone has a broadband connection in every place they want to play games. Most people just have one connection and would not want to get into wireless, if wireless could even have enough bandwidth for this.

2. Not everyone's internet is fast enough.

3. Most people, not all, but most, prefer to own something they can hold in their hands. It's the reason most people still go to Gamestop and buy PC games as opposed to just downloading them from Steam or other sites where you can download.

4. People won't want to pay a subscription fee for something they can buy outright once and be done with the payments.

5. In relation to #3 and #4 - a lot of people don't know what their future is like in regards to having an ongoing subscription to have to pay so they would prefer the comfort of knowing if they lose their job they may not have the money to pay for their internet or their Xbox Live but they still can play their Xbox 360/PS3 anytime they want.

6. Say you're going to a buddy's house who doesn't have internet and/or the subscription service setup and ready to roll, you're not able to game. If you have a console you can just take it with you though. And if he does have internet do you really want to have to hope it's fast enough and spend the time to setup whatever you have to do to access your account? Isn't plugging a cable into the tv and the wall easier and quicker?

7. When the internet is down you're not able to play games. Not just multi-player online games. Any games.

8. When the subscription service is having issues, and all of us who have gamed online on PS3 and Xbox know it happens, then you're not able to play games. Not just multi-player online games. Any games.

This idea is a great idea but one that's ahead of it's time. In general I don't like it because I would not want to have to depend on a subscription service and/or the internet for the ability to play my games. Bottom line that will be how most people feel too and why this business model will fail.

[DaveDQ]

Re: OnLive

It won't work and here's why:

1. Not everyone has a broadband connection in every place they want to play games. Most people just have one connection and would not want to get into wireless, if wireless could even have enough bandwidth for this.

2. Not everyone's internet is fast enough.

3. Most people, not all, but most, prefer to own something they can hold in their hands. It's the reason most people still go to Gamestop and buy PC games as opposed to just downloading them from Steam or other sites where you can download.

4. People won't want to pay a subscription fee for something they can buy outright once and be done with the payments.

5. In relation to #3 and #4 - a lot of people don't know what their future is like in regards to having an ongoing subscription to have to pay so they would prefer the comfort of knowing if they lose their job they may not have the money to pay for their internet or their Xbox Live but they still can play their Xbox 360/PS3 anytime they want.

6. Say you're going to a buddy's house who doesn't have internet and/or the subscription service setup and ready to roll, you're not able to game. If you have a console you can just take it with you though. And if he does have internet do you really want to have to hope it's fast enough and spend the time to setup whatever you have to do to access your account? Isn't plugging a cable into the tv and the wall easier and quicker?

7. When the internet is down you're not able to play games. Not just multi-player online games. Any games.

8. When the subscription service is having issues, and all of us who have gamed online on PS3 and Xbox know it happens, then you're not able to play games. Not just multi-player online games. Any games.

This idea is a great idea but one that's ahead of it's time. In general I don't like it because I would not want to have to depend on a subscription service and/or the internet for the ability to play my games. Bottom line that will be how most people feel too and why this business model will fail.

All very valid points, plus you have Ace in your avatar.

As the ISPs are now, there would be some issues outside of the actual service, but if we were to consider when the Xbox first came out, it was broadband only and many claimed it was a bit of a risk because only 6-12% of households had broadband connections. Now, several years later, Xbox Live is one of the most stable, reliable and entertaining aspects of this generation of consoles.

In the gametrailers interview, he mentions they are open to partner. Maybe that's also a possibility. Think about NetFlix. They started with delivering movies to your door. then they found out ways to do it quicker, like tagging the movie at the post office, letting them know you shipped it back and they can send the next queued movie. Then NetFlix revealed Instant Watch movies to download via your PC. and then of course they partnered with MS. Hulu is another good example.

It has to start somewhere, and I think it's a good time to. My ISP is 12MB, which is 8 higher than what they are saying is good for 720p gaming at 60fps. Sure they are making big claims, but these aren't new comers claiming they have the next best thing. All involved have a pretty strong resume.

Also, consider the failure rate of the Xbox 360 and the obstacles the consumer has had to hurdle. The day after Christmas, I put in Mass Effect and got the RROD. I had to wait at least 3 weeks to get it back, hardly comparable to the occasional disrupted internet connection.

[spit_bubble]

Re: OnLive

...Side issue is then you're tethered to your internet connection to play ALL games. Internet goes down, you're screwed...

I'll bet the same was said about electricity when it first was introduced... And yet now the grid for power is pretty reliable.

Yes, this service is ahead of it's time... But time is approaching fast.

Doubters really need to watch the presentation... Dude said at the highest it requires just under 5Mbps... That's for the high end games in 720p, at their peak requirements... And that normally it's around 2-3Mbps for those high end games.

He also said they did quite a bit of testing under different circumstances and conditions... I mean, don't you think would, before rolling this out???

Well, I'm sure there will be a snag or two, here and there... But have we all so quickly forgotten Microsoft's Red Ring of Death? Or other such blunders?

I think this service will do just fine, barring some unforeseen disaster... There's clearly a market for it, and it sounds like it's good for publishers... Give this service a big time exclusive and it could really take off.

[spit_bubble]

Re: OnLive

^ Forgot to say...

I wonder if this service will ever be available on the current consoles???

I mean, if it's available on low end PCs and Macs... And your account is transferable...

[DaveDQ]

Re: OnLive

^ Forgot to say...

I wonder if this service will ever be available on the current consoles???

I mean, if it's available on low end PCs and Macs... And your account is transferable...

Right, and many are saying it's the talk of GDC, giving it visibility and exposure. If this was an extension of XBL, or a place to visit in Home, thatd be a very useful feature.

[DaveDQ]

Re: OnLive

Here it is in action...

<object width="480" height="295"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/s7fq8NmiV8U&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/s7fq8NmiV8U&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="295"></embed></object>

[ODogg]

Re: OnLive

I notice in the replies to my reasons it would fail everyone only addressed my technical reasons it wouldn't and no one addressed the human nature, psychological reasons it wouldn't. I agree it's a great idea, like I said, but it is one that won't work for probably another 10 years, if it ever will.

Also, look at on-demand movies most of us have on our cable boxes, a lot of folks use them but far, far more people still rent physical movies, whether it's renting via online or actually going to the brick and mortar stores. And how long have we all had on-demand in our homes?

The reason, people want something to hold in their hand, a tangible purchase, not some commitment that's vague and obtained through a connection.

[DaveDQ]

Re: OnLive

I notice in the replies to my reasons it would fail everyone only addressed my technical reasons it wouldn't and no one addressed the human nature, psychological reasons it wouldn't. I agree it's a great idea, like I said, but it is one that won't work for probably another 10 years, if it ever will.

Also, look at on-demand movies most of us have on our cable boxes, a lot of folks use them but far, far more people still rent physical movies, whether it's renting via online or actually going to the brick and mortar stores. And how long have we all had on-demand in our homes?

The reason, people want something to hold in their hand, a tangible purchase, not some commitment that's vague and obtained through a connection.

I would say though that, in reference to movie rentals, the trend has shifted to people considering an alternate source besides the tangible item in their hand. Xbox Live has had success with the Marketplace and downloadable movies etc. The culture has changed through time, and while it may be mainstream 5-10 years from now, you can't drop it in our laps then. This is something that has to gradually become part of the gaming culture.

In reply to your human nature/psychological points, I think that too is a process that will gradually develop over time. The interview with the CEO of OnLive shows he's quite humble about this. He doesn't make big statements that claim this will replace PC/Console gaming. In fact, he mentions it's something that will most likely happen along side the two. Again, consider Youtube. Many people were bashing it because of the quality of videos, but as technology changed things got better and people began to embrace the technology. Now there are very well done videos over Youtube with HD quality.

If we are saying this will replace consoles and PC gaming in 2010, then we are making very unrealistic projections. If we are saying this is an example of what can be done in the future, as we see technology continue to grow and develop, then I see nothing wrong with taking it as that and embracing its chances.

If at first you don't succeed, you're running about average. You put it out there and build on it, working at it until it's something of substance and value.

[ODogg]

Re: OnLive

I would say though that, in reference to movie rentals, the trend has shifted to people considering an alternate source besides the tangible item in their hand. Xbox Live has had success with the Marketplace and downloadable movies etc. The culture has changed through time, and while it may be mainstream 5-10 years from now, you can't drop it in our laps then. This is something that has to gradually become part of the gaming culture.

In reply to your human nature/psychological points, I think that too is a process that will gradually develop over time. The interview with the CEO of OnLive shows he's quite humble about this. He doesn't make big statements that claim this will replace PC/Console gaming. In fact, he mentions it's something that will most likely happen along side the two. Again, consider Youtube. Many people were bashing it because of the quality of videos, but as technology changed things got better and people began to embrace the technology. Now there are very well done videos over Youtube with HD quality.

If we are saying this will replace consoles and PC gaming in 2010, then we are making very unrealistic projections. If we are saying this is an example of what can be done in the future, as we see technology continue to grow and develop, then I see nothing wrong with taking it as that and embracing its chances.

If at first you don't succeed, you're running about average. You put it out there and build on it, working at it until it's something of substance and value.

Yeah I hear you, I agree with you on everything you say, I can see this at some point taking hold but changing how people think is such a slow process that really can't be rushed. They really have to have a REASON to do so. This will have to be cheap, really cheap and offer more than what you'd get for the same tried-and-true buy a console, bring it home, plug-n-play model. If it's the same or more expensive it will die quickly.

For example, Youtube works well and has replaced a lot of conventional methods but remember, it's completely free. It would not have succeeded like it has on a subscription model. Heck, it may have been run out of business on a subscription model a long time ago.

And to compare it to the more conventional comparison, on-demand movies, it makes my point. A lot of folks, including myself, don't use on-demand on their cable boxes because the movie prices are too high. Why pay $6 for an on-demand that you get for 24 hours or whatever when you can pay $4 at Blockbuster and keep the movie for a week and watch it wherever and whenever you want? The business model makes no sense. If the same movie however was 99 cents on demand I might buy it because then they have given me a reason to change my buying habits.

Just putting out new technology and saying to the public "here is something new, use it" doesn't work, you have to give them a reason to change.