65 Replies. 4 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 4 ] Older >
 |
| 65. |
Re: OnLive Reviewed |
Nov 26, 2010, 11:07 |
edgeman2112 |
|
|
I played it. It was good. Did you play it? Onlive is free to download and try. Why are you arguing? Find a good connection. Download the small client. Play UT3. Then let me know how it was for you. It costs you NOTHING to evaluate it for 30 minutes.
Unless you try it for yourself on a similar connection to what I was on, you're gonna sit there arms folded. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 64. |
Re: OnLive Reviewed |
Nov 24, 2010, 09:00 |
Overon |
|
|
| How represenative do you think your stated experience is? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 63. |
Re: OnLive Reviewed |
Nov 23, 2010, 21:09 |
Sepharo |
|
|
Games being played on a box right next to a gamer experience occasional hitches. I find it extremely hard to believe that one being wholly controlled over the internet performed flawlessly. As far as control responsiveness goes, even under perfect (presently unattainable) conditions you're looking at added delay no matter what.
Calling it lying may be too harsh, let's go with extreme exaggeration.
And yes, looking at your posting history the majority of your posts, which can be viewed all on one page, are anti-PC and/or pro OnLive.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [I'm not trolling I'm just] tossing stuff like that in there only to get your panties all bunched up. -TrollinThundr |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 62. |
Re: OnLive Reviewed |
Nov 23, 2010, 20:55 |
edgeman2112 |
|
|
I am a console dev, yes, but the rest isn't true.
Seriously. I was on a fast connection at work and it worked perfectly. The only downside was the muddiness of the art. I haven't tried it on my home connection.
This was my experience. Yours may be different, but others will have the same experience I had. I'm really interested in the service to see how far they'll go.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 61. |
Re: OnLive Reviewed |
Nov 23, 2010, 20:35 |
Sepharo |
|
|
You're a console developer whose Blues account exists solely to bash PC games and promote on OnLive.
No one is going to believe this bit:
No hitches. Very responsive controls.
You're either lying or so oblivious to reality that you shouldn't be operating heavy machinery. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [I'm not trolling I'm just] tossing stuff like that in there only to get your panties all bunched up. -TrollinThundr |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 60. |
Re: OnLive Reviewed |
Nov 23, 2010, 20:23 |
edgeman2112 |
|
|
When Steam was announced, scores of people trashed it thinking it won't work, it'll take years for games to be downloaded, blah blah freaking blah.
You PC gaming crowd hate innovation until it's had a couple years to sink in. You trash every new idea, every new console, even yourselves. What do you gain from that?
I tried onlive today for the first time. I was on a fast connection and was very very impressed with the service. I played UT3 and Borderlands. The framerate was excellent. No hitches. Very responsive controls. The graphics were a bit compressed, but I can accept that because I'm not so wound up in that.
OnLive, or at least the cloud-method of delivery of gaming, is the future of gaming. Here are the reasons:
1. Developers and publishers are looking for ways to get rid of retail because of the huge cut they demand. Customers may potentially see a decrease in the price of games.
2. Play your game anywhere. Yes, the connection is the bottleneck. That's less of a bottleneck that lugging your xbox 360 and a TV with you wherever you go.
3. Play any game on any laptop. Makes gaming so much more accessible.
4. Potentially play console games on the PC. This would be killer, though it would cannabalize sales of consoles.
5. OnLive brings developers and publishers back to the PC gaming front because it knocks out piracy completely. Expect most games to be OnLive-capable. Like it or not, piracy is a problem for publishers. Each has internal documentation and metrics of how their games are pirated. This information is never public because it's embarassing and likely damaging to their share price.
6. Developers for PC games don't have to have minimum requirements. That's HUGE, not only for the consumer, but financially for the publisher and developer.
You don't have to like OnLive, but you should realize the benefits it brings to your hobby.
This comment was edited on Nov 23, 2010, 20:56. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 59. |
Re: OnLive Reviewed |
Nov 23, 2010, 20:17 |
Surf |
|
|
Speed of light that hits components on a router, firewall then desktop system.
You said, but GROSSLY understated the processing part my friend between the above devices AND sending that data back.
As i stated, WAY too much tech too soon. OnLine will go the way of Voodoo/3dfx but someone will buy their tech for pennies on the dollar a few years from now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 58. |
Re: OnLive Reviewed |
Nov 23, 2010, 12:00 |
Vitalious |
|
|
What the HELL are you talking about?
First of all, it's just as much an issue of bandwidth as it is the speed. Just cause my laptop is connected to my desktop via a ft of cable, doesn't mean that data arrives instantly. Processing cycles are still required to parse the arriving information and the speed of our processors is growing at staggering rates.
As for the "speed" issue, if the speed of the signal is what you are talking about then you OBVIOUSLY haven't done the math.
Light travels at 300,000,000 m/s through a vacuum - that's 300,000 km / second. If a server is located 3,000 km (about 1800 miles) away from your house, you'd have a base latency of 2ms. Any other latency would be due to bandwidth and processing speeds which are, once again, improving fast. If you can play games at 6ms latency, that would be barely noticeable. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 57. |
Re: OnLive Reviewed |
Nov 23, 2010, 09:22 |
Verno |
|
|
ColoradoHoudini wrote on Nov 23, 2010, 00:39:
I'm just spitballing here, but by the time most houses that want this service will have the ability to play, latency-free, and the game library is solid and they can deliver a smooth gaming experience.. won't most gaming households have some Xbox 1080 multifunction super gaming/media player/tv tuner/PC/whatever else machine? seems that's the way we're going here.
I can totally see tis box sitting in the corner, delivering lower-resolution games while the PS6/1080 do everything this device does and 3-5 other functions people find useful.
That's the whole point really. A lot of posters in this thread are assuming that some miracle of networking will occur and yet somehow the rest of the world will be frozen in time before this occurs, creating some perfect storm event for OnLive. It's ludicrous. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Playing: Super Mario 3D Land, Tales of Graces F, Fire Emblem 3DS
Watching: Hannibal, Community, Life |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 56. |
Re: OnLive Reviewed |
Nov 23, 2010, 05:56 |
WyldKat |
|
|
I've recently messed around with OnLive for a bit recently. It's actually pretty impressive technology but I think it's just too soon to be really feasible.
For people out there who are stuck with facist download limits (Thanks, Con-cast!) you'll be draining a lot using this service. US networks are also just sorely out of date and with FIOS installation slowly dying off this doesn't seem to be improving any time soon.
Also the prices are just ridiculous compared to the gaming experience that you actually receive. OnLive is a nice service to preview a game before buying a disc or digital download, though, I'll give it that.
It would also be nice if you could register your boxed copy with OnLive and OnLive would recognize it as a title you've already purchased, or at least give you a substantial discount. Of course it makes sense why they don't do this.
The actual titles they do have is pretty lackluster, all of which you could just easily rent and play on a console for far cheaper. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 55. |
Re: OnLive Reviewed |
Nov 23, 2010, 00:39 |
ColoradoHoudini |
|
|
I'm just spitballing here, but by the time most houses that want this service will have the ability to play, latency-free, and the game library is solid and they can deliver a smooth gaming experience.. won't most gaming households have some Xbox 1080 multifunction super gaming/media player/tv tuner/PC/whatever else machine? seems that's the way we're going here.
I can totally see tis box sitting in the corner, delivering lower-resolution games while the PS6/1080 do everything this device does and 3-5 other functions people find useful.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 54. |
Re: OnLive Reviewed |
Nov 22, 2010, 22:27 |
Surf |
|
|
OnLive's biggest mistake is not being able to control the client/end users side of the network. Without some sort of working QoS setup, people are going to bitch, moan and point the finger at OnLive.
Too much too soon. Onlive is taking the Origin Systems Inc. (now defunct) method of projecting where technology will be when they go live. But like Origin Inc., they are way fucking off base. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 53. |
Re: OnLive Reviewed |
Nov 22, 2010, 21:52 |
NewMaxx |
|
|
| Seems like OnLive should consider working out a deal with Bigfoot Network's Killer NIC line. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 52. |
Re: OnLive Reviewed |
Nov 22, 2010, 20:05 |
Dev |
|
|
Icewind wrote on Nov 22, 2010, 19:30:
If the reviewer could feel it with his 20mbps connection, I'm guessing my 3mbps connection isn't even possible.
Not that it matters since I have a very capable PC, but still. I don't know anyone around here, even out of the group I go and LAN with, that has a connection faster than 3mbps around here. Neither will matter too much I don't think. Its the ping, the distance from you to the server that matters more. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 51. |
Re: OnLive Reviewed |
Nov 22, 2010, 20:01 |
Overon |
|
|
This is news? Did anyone see the other Bluesnews threads on this topic for the last few months? Maybe because its Ars Technica and they have a large degree of credibility, that this story is getting traction.
On behalf of the people who told you so, "We told you so!" Now time to pat ourselves on the back. Just like the perpetual motion machine, you can't change the laws of physics. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 50. |
Re: OnLive Reviewed |
Nov 22, 2010, 19:30 |
Icewind |
|
|
If the reviewer could feel it with his 20mbps connection, I'm guessing my 3mbps connection isn't even possible.
Not that it matters since I have a very capable PC, but still. I don't know anyone around here, even out of the group I go and LAN with, that has a connection faster than 3mbps around here. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 49. |
Re: OnLive Reviewed |
Nov 22, 2010, 18:58 |
Flatline |
|
|
Jdrez wrote on Nov 22, 2010, 16:55:
"our technology" ?
The only thing keeping this service from working is bandwidth. When houses are wired up with 100 Megabit down / 30 Megabit up, it'll probably play fine.
And by that time the bugs will be worked out of their code better probably, and maybe someone will improve the compression maths.
Or they'll be bankrupt. Either way.
Bandwidth and latency are not the same thing. Frame rate spikes and button lag, hell probably even the compression artifacts are all, I'm willing to wager, problems from latency.
Let's put it this way: Let's say the Mississippi delivers 1000 gallons of water out into the ocean per second (just pulling numbers out of the air here). However, it's not a very *fast* flowing river. It's just wide. It's a high-bandwidth, high latency delivery system. Putting a gallon of water in a mile up river will take a while to get down to the delta.
Now, a firehose that is delivering 1000 gallons of water a minute has the same bandwidth as the river, 1000 gallons/minute, but it's latency is *much* lower. A gallon put into the pipes a mile away is going to get to the hose nozzle faster than in the river.
I know this isn't precisely a direct port over to how net connections work, but the point is that you can have high-bandwidth, and yet have high latency issues. 99% of the time this isn't an issue: you either don't notice the latency delay or you are simply receiving data, and when it starts doesn't matter so long as the stream is uninterrupted. But with OnLive, there is a *very* narrow window of latency going on here that you can suffer without humans noticing. A 100 megabit pipe isn't going to solve inherent latency issues.
Let's put it this way: Unless we completely scrap TCP/IP, the biggest problem with latency is going to be the unreliability of a TCP/UDP packet as it traverses the cloud. Between one packet and the next, a router could decide to reroute the traffic, either to traffic balance, traffic shape, or due to any number of other reasons. Suddenly, that stream of consistent data takes another path, and may arrive before earlier packets or so far after the previous packet that it's no good any more.
The only solution to this is to set up a permanent virtual or actual circuit between routers. OnLive could go a long way to at least getting rid of lag bubbles by negotiating with ISPs and core internet architecture to set up said circuits for their service, but that's f*cking expensive.
So Bandwidth isn't really the solution here. FIOS already can deliver "perfect" bandwidth conditions, and even then you still get artifacts and lag bubbles and latency between the button press and the reaction on your screen. The "solution" is to overhaul the core, fundamental benefit of the internet: Redundancy, and throw it out the window. While the internet is blindingly fast, it's very architecture sacrifices even more speed, bandwidth, and latency for redundancy.
Edit: That being said, I'm impressed that a first effort in cloud gaming has managed to hit the uncanny valley of gaming. It's too close to what we normally experience in video games, and yet too far away to divorce us from our expectations and nuanced interaction. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 48. |
Re: OnLive Reviewed |
Nov 22, 2010, 18:37 |
nin |
|
|
The only thing keeping this service from working is bandwidth. When houses are wired up with 100 Megabit down / 30 Megabit up, it'll probably play fine.
Don't forget the bandwidth cap many ISPs are going to. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
RollinThundr Apr 17, 2013, 12:25: Eh really tossing stuff like that in there only to get your panties all bunched up. If you really want to call that trolling sure.
Mr. Tact Apr 17, 2013, 12:33: Pretty sure that's the definition of trolling... |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 47. |
Re: OnLive Reviewed |
Nov 22, 2010, 18:35 |
Verno |
|
|
ASJD wrote on Nov 22, 2010, 18:19:
Verno wrote on Nov 22, 2010, 16:05:
That's ignoring the possibility that gaming itself will be totally different in fifteen years anyway. Hence my earlier point that faraway technology speculation is pointless beyond the entertainment value.
The ONLY question is if people are willing to settle with shittiness or will ever hold some standards.
Nah, that's just depressing dude. If that's the only question then we're all doomed  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Playing: Super Mario 3D Land, Tales of Graces F, Fire Emblem 3DS
Watching: Hannibal, Community, Life |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 46. |
Re: OnLive Reviewed |
Nov 22, 2010, 18:19 |
ASJD |
|
|
Verno wrote on Nov 22, 2010, 16:05:
That's ignoring the possibility that gaming itself will be totally different in fifteen years anyway. Hence my earlier point that faraway technology speculation is pointless beyond the entertainment value.
The ONLY question is if people are willing to settle with shittiness or will ever hold some standards. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
65 Replies. 4 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 4 ] Older >
|
|
Twitter 
