ibm wrote on Dec 8, 2010, 07:31:
Doesn't seem that long ago when 150ms was very acceptable. If you had lower than that you were a LPB and usually labelled a cheat
Dev wrote on Dec 8, 2010, 13:03:Verno wrote on Dec 8, 2010, 10:30:No, the steam and GFWL say in the TOS that they can kill your account and/or remove your games at any time for any reason. You have no ownership. You might be downloading it to a hdd instead of 100% remote, but steam can still deny you access to what you've downloaded.
That's exactly what it is, you are renting titles. You have no ownership, it's gone as soon as your subscription is. Actually technically speaking they can yank your access to play that game at any given time and unlike say Steam or GFWL you have no client side ownership of the product so you have no recourse.
Really the same applies for all software licenses, its certainly not ownership.
Verno wrote on Dec 8, 2010, 10:30:No, the steam and GFWL say in the TOS that they can kill your account and/or remove your games at any time for any reason. You have no ownership. You might be downloading it to a hdd instead of 100% remote, but steam can still deny you access to what you've downloaded.
That's exactly what it is, you are renting titles. You have no ownership, it's gone as soon as your subscription is. Actually technically speaking they can yank your access to play that game at any given time and unlike say Steam or GFWL you have no client side ownership of the product so you have no recourse.
Beamer wrote on Dec 8, 2010, 10:07:I could get behind OnLive if there was some inherent advantage to using the platform but instead it comes off more as an IP owner wetdream instead of a useful consumer service.
What if it brought a netflix on-demand style subscription service? You'd pay $9.99 (more likely $19.99) and get unlimited access to all the games you want, including new releases.
I don't see there being a rush to this because I think many would spend less on games than more. I don't see the benefit to publishers. I also think many on this board that spend significantly more than that per month and would likely play more games this way (or, rather, pay developers for the games they play more often) would be against this simply because they'd see it as "renting games," even if it was a fantastic deal.
Beamer wrote on Dec 8, 2010, 10:07:I could get behind OnLive if there was some inherent advantage to using the platform but instead it comes off more as an IP owner wetdream instead of a useful consumer service.
What if it brought a netflix on-demand style subscription service? You'd pay $9.99 (more likely $19.99) and get unlimited access to all the games you want, including new releases.
I don't see there being a rush to this because I think many would spend less on games than more. I don't see the benefit to publishers.
I could get behind OnLive if there was some inherent advantage to using the platform but instead it comes off more as an IP owner wetdream instead of a useful consumer service.
ibm wrote on Dec 8, 2010, 07:31:
Doesn't seem that long ago when 150ms was very acceptable. If you had lower than that you were a LPB and usually labelled a cheat
StingingVelvet wrote on Dec 8, 2010, 08:44:
I agree with everything you said and I personally hate and fear OnLive, I'm just saying if it ends up a minor success but not a great success maybe it can coexist with real PC gaming without taking it over, adding incentive to publishers for some more PC focus.
It's a lark... a curiosity I thought of. Overall I still want to blow up the factory, if you know what I mean.
Verno wrote on Dec 7, 2010, 23:07:
I can't really agree, I see something like OnLive as the end of PC gaming, not any platform that would move it forward in any way. Any adoption rate for OnLive is a negative thing for the consumer. It's distribution model means that publishers would retain 100% control of the product, leaving you with a literal take it or leave it situation as a consumer. At least in the case of DD vendors like Steam, GamersGate and etc I can crack my games if I need to get around DRM or whatnot. As headkase points out with OnLive you can't really do that, people would need to construct the game client itself which is run on the headend at their server farms.
Normally consumers are used to trading off control in exchange for convenience and other features but in the case of OnLive you don't really gain anything worthwhile and you give up basically every option available to you now. The industry hasn't exactly shown itself responsible when it retains total platform control either so I wouldn't be willing to give them a chance with my entire gaming library. And no, I don't even do that with Steam.
frag.machine wrote on Dec 8, 2010, 06:37:"When it comes to videogames, particularly first person shooter games, anything less than a response time of 30 or 40 milliseconds is unacceptable"
Duh, this guy should try to live in a 3rd world country like me. I feel lucky for having a 150 ms latency in TF2, and this doesn't stop me from pwning a bunch of LPB noobs (of course I frequently get pwned by LPB snipers with 10 or 15 ms latency, but hey, shit happens). It's all about skillz, man.
"When it comes to videogames, particularly first person shooter games, anything less than a response time of 30 or 40 milliseconds is unacceptable"
headkase wrote on Dec 7, 2010, 22:14:If I were working in the industry I would be very careful about what I wish for. Eliminating piracy would mean you could no longer blame the failure of your game on the bogey man that is piracy, they might have to admit that their game sucked.
There is a huge incentive here. If OnLive as a technology can be made to work in all cases then in one fell swoop the issue of piracy can be mitigated almost completely. As the technology and network infrastructure matures - both in latency and supplied resolutions - OnLive or a another player doing the same thing in the future would provide the ultimate DRM system.
I can't really agree, I see something like OnLive as the end of PC gaming, not any platform that would move it forward in any way.