Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
Customize
User Settings
Styles:
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:

Regularly scheduled events

OnLive Chatter

The buzz surrounding the OnLive cloud gaming service announced at GDC continues. GamesIndustry.biz quotes Dave Perry about Gaikai, his planned rival service, saying: "Our solution is arguably better than anything OnLive has - they're never going to be able to beat us on this." This is an excerpt from an interview with Perry on the topic. Meanwhile, TechRadar UK reports Guy de Beer, CEO of competing cloud gaming company Playcast, says he believes OnLive is positioning itself for acquisition by a giant like Microsoft or Google. Finally, GamesIndustry quotes Crytek's Cevat Yerli saying when they investigated such a concept in 2005 they found that internet infrastructure would make it practical sometime between 2013 and 2015.

View
23 Replies. 2 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 ] Older >

23. Re: Major Buzz Apr 2, 2009, 17:25 Bhruic
 
Everyone here is talking about how this won't work "TODAY". They aren't releasing it "today. The technology is there to pursue it, it just might not be fully ready for a year, two, or three.

No, they literally aren't releasing it "today". But they are releasing it this year, so talking about 3 years from now isn't relevant. Nor are most of the concerns dealing with things that are likely to be any different 3 years from now, unless there's some radical new technology that gets invented between now and then.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
22. Re: OnLive Chatter Apr 2, 2009, 17:15 nin
 
Dave Perry FTL!

I'm just glad he has his MMO game "DANCE!" to fall back on, when this all falls apart...

 
http://www.nin.com/pub/tension/
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
21. Re: Major Buzz Apr 2, 2009, 17:14 GT
 
You're the idiot that made the reference to the music & video industries in the first place
But I wrote and meant "streaming" video as in movies. I didn't mean television service or all forms of video.

So the dozens and dozens of music & video content delivery services around the world...aren't actually services?
They don't have mainstream success and pale in popularity to the traditional sales model with the "masses" which is my point. I also specifically mentioned the music subscription services myself if you would simply learn to read.

And as usual you are willing to spew bullshit just try and avoid admitting you are wrong.
As usual you don't read the totality of what people actually write so that you can create a false argument over a small snippet taken literally or out of context to make yourself look correct.

that doesn't mean they can't co-exist. But we know you...you are all about the black & white
You obviously don't really read before you reply. If you had, you would see that my comments were specifically directed towards a comment about the mainstream market in Techie714's post, i.e. "This is what the masses want a service like this." Hell, I even quoted that statement above my reply so that it would be obvious to even someone like you the context of my reply. The masses don't want it for the reasons I specified. I didn't address anything else about OnLive in that post even though you tried to trump it up into some broad attack on OnLive to make yourself look open-minded. I wrote earlier in another thread that services like OnLive could be viable with some genres of games as a niche player, but not with the mainstream market or with the hardcore crowds because the mainstream doesn't care enough about gaming to pay continually for a subscription especially that's tied to an Internet connection and the hardcore crowd is too uncompromising on performance.

And no, it's not coming from people with incentive or vested interest in it to succeed
Oh really?! Well name some of these impartial parties then. I haven't seen any yet.

This comment was edited on Apr 2, 2009, 17:55.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
20. Re: OnLive Chatter Apr 2, 2009, 17:04 Cutter
 
Dave Perry FTL!
 
Avatar 25394
 
James Woods: Oh that's fun. That sounds like you had a fun time. Where would I fit in with the fun time, huh? Where does James Woods fit into the fun?
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
19. Re: OnLive Chatter Apr 2, 2009, 16:34 Krovven
 
wah wah namecalling...whatever. I know who I'm talking to with GT.  
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
18. Re: OnLive Chatter Apr 2, 2009, 16:31 Techie714
 
@Dagok
I usually agree with some of what you say but once you start with the name calling it's obvious you have lost the argument. The name calling is not part of the debate...
 
Avatar 25373
 
Steam (ID)
http://steamcommunity.com/id/techie714/
DEAD SH0T
Keep your privacy!
http://prism-break.org/
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
17. Re: Major Buzz Apr 2, 2009, 15:47 Krovven
 
Your analogy is faulty because those media are different and consumers therefore treat them differently.

GT, you dipshit, you are the one that said..."music and video entertainment".

GT - The masses won't want this service anymore than they wanted streaming music and video for their music and video entertainment.

So now my analogy is faulty? You're the idiot that made the reference to the music & video industries in the first place.

Television service is by nature a service, but music and video games are not.

So the dozens and dozens of music & video content delivery services around the world...aren't actually services?

You are an idiot as usual. And as usual you are willing to spew bullshit just try and avoid admitting you are wrong. Keep it up fool.

Both of those still pale in comparison to the mainstream success of DVD's.

Hmm lets see Blu-Ray's have been out a few years...DVD's 15 years or so...well no fucking shit it's going to pale in comparison. But the other fact (depends whether you believe the statistics out there) is that Blu-Ray has actually had a faster adoption rate than DVD's did in the first couple of years.

Video on demand pales by comparison? Again...hasn't been around very long, and you have no stats to back it up. I'm sure the cable companies may have something else to say about that.

A pure subscription model for movies which relies on an Internet connection won't supplant disc sales or other offerings which don't. It's the same for video games. The mainstream market simply won't tolerate it at least for the near future.

While I agree with that, and have said the same many times in regard to the Blu-Ray vs VoD discussion...that doesn't mean they can't co-exist. But we know you...you are all about the black & white...there is no gray. But according to you, there is no relation...oh wait, according to you there is a relation...well damn you just can't seem to keep your comments straight.

The buzz is coming from people with an incentive or vested interest in it to succeed.

So we should listen to idiots like you? And no, it's not coming from people with incentive or vested interest in it to succeed. The potential for this service has a lot of people talking. Hardcore gaming forums are really the only place I see people trashing the idea...because it's not targeted to hardcore gamers.

Try and wrap this around your little brain. I dont care if this succeeds or fails one way or the other. It's likely I will never use something like this, kinda like the Wii. But I still see the potential and am willing to watch and see what happens and not look like a moron trashing new tech and service before it has even seen public eyes.

This reminds me of the days with the 3D0, when people were trashing the use of CD's and how the tech wasn't needed, etc, etc. Turned out the 3D0 was just ahead of it's time.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
16. Re: Major Buzz Apr 2, 2009, 15:01 GT
 
Really? Tell that to the millions that pay for cable tv service, video on demand, pay per view,
Your analogy is faulty because those media are different and consumers therefore treat them differently. Television service is by nature a service, but music and video games are not. Video on demand and pay per view movies still pale in comparison to DVD sales and rentals. That is why most consumers have been willing to pay for television as a service, but not the others. The failure of widespread acceptance of music subscription services and satellite radio proves that. Consumers want ipods filled with music not a music subscription service for their ipods which relies on an Internet connection and a monthly fee. Video games are no different. A video game subscription service which relies on an Internet connection and a monthly fee is not going to have mainstream support, and that was my point below.

watch streaming tv over websites
They are not paying a subscription fee for that.

Hell, there are people on these forums that think Blu-Ray is already dead because video on demand is the "future", despite the quality difference.
Both of those still pale in comparison to the mainstream success of DVD's. A pure subscription model for movies which relies on an Internet connection won't supplant disc sales or other offerings which don't. It's the same for video games. The mainstream market simply won't tolerate it at least for the near future.

there is a lot of buzz being generated from people that actually tried OnLive.
The buzz is coming from people with an incentive or vested interest in it to succeed. It's no different from the glowing video game previews that the gaming sites and rags have put out for years.

This comment was edited on Apr 2, 2009, 15:07.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
15. Re: OnLive Chatter Apr 2, 2009, 14:41 GT
 
No, the real expense for ISPs is the final internet connection. Bandwidth that stays within their network is much much cheaper. If they had an agreement with these guys it would entail a server that was on AT&Ts network meaning faster connections and no need for caps.
You are wrongfully assuming the limits and overage charges have to do with a need for the caps. They don't especially for an ISP the size of AT&T. It's nothing but a money grab.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
14. Re: Major Buzz Apr 2, 2009, 13:56 Krovven
 
Most consumers still prefer to own the copies of the music and video they purchase and to be able to play them on their pwn equipment and terms not on some remote server.

Really? Tell that to the millions that pay for cable tv service, video on demand, pay per view, watch streaming tv over websites, etc, etc. There are at least a dozen examples out there that contradict your statement. Hell, there are people on these forums that think Blu-Ray is already dead because video on demand is the "future", despite the quality difference.

Fact is most people chiming in about OnLive in the last week don't have a fucking clue...because there isn't enough information available yet. There is no release date, pricing, availability, etc, etc, there are a lot of big companies signed up as partners, there is a lot of buzz being generated from people that actually tried OnLive.

I have yet to chime in on the viability of OnLive, and won't because like everyone else here, I haven't seen it first-hand. Everyone here is talking about how this won't work "TODAY". They aren't releasing it "today. The technology is there to pursue it, it just might not be fully ready for a year, two, or three.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
13. Re: OnLive Chatter Apr 2, 2009, 13:17 MindStalkerReturned
 
I doubt it because it is not in AT&T's FCC filing on its cap plans. Plus, the caps are too easy of a money grab not to stick with them. There simply isn't enough competition in the U.S. for most consumers to switch to a competitor without such caps. Bandwidth caps will kill these services without signficant revenue sharing, and there are simply too many players here (gaming service company, ISP's, and game publishers) for them to settle on a agreeable split and still have the service be financially viable and affordable.

No, the real expense for ISPs is the final internet connection. Bandwidth that stays within their network is much much cheaper. If they had an agreement with these guys it would entail a server that was on AT&Ts network meaning faster connections and no need for caps.

This comment was edited on Apr 2, 2009, 13:18.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
12. Re: OnLive Chatter Apr 2, 2009, 13:09 GT
 
This will appeal to all the Wii owners & casual gamers
I disagree. Even the casual crowd won't put up with the intermittent service and the continuous expense that these cloud gaming services would no doubt provide. Simply look at the Wii market right now. Most Wii owners aren't buying many games for their systems, and they certainly don't continuously pay for access to games. While I do agree that this audience is less demanding when it comes to game performance, a subscription model for games simply won't work with them because they aren't into gaming enough to continuously pay for it. They play the games that come with the system and maybe buy a game at Christmas and birthdays, but that is it.

ISP's will remove the caps if you "subscribe" to their "gaming package"
I doubt it because it is not in AT&T's FCC filing on its cap plans. Plus, the caps are too easy of a money grab not to stick with them. There simply isn't enough competition in the U.S. for most consumers to switch to a competitor without such caps. Bandwidth caps will kill these services without signficant revenue sharing, and there are simply too many players here (gaming service company, ISP's, and game publishers) for them to settle on a agreeable split and still have the service be financially viable and affordable.

This comment was edited on Apr 2, 2009, 13:13.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
11. Re: OnLive Chatter Apr 2, 2009, 12:37 Techie714
 
@GT
This service is really geared towards the non hardcore gamers. This will appeal to all the Wii owners & casual gamers & guess what that market is HUGE, that's where a lot of the $$$ is. People like us "PC gamers" this really wont appeal to, but the majority of the market will love it, IF it works.

ISP's will remove the caps if you "subscribe" to their "gaming package".
 
Avatar 25373
 
Steam (ID)
http://steamcommunity.com/id/techie714/
DEAD SH0T
Keep your privacy!
http://prism-break.org/
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
10. Re: OnLive Chatter Apr 2, 2009, 12:34 eRe4s3r
 
Gaikai is a close contender, claiming to feed a decent image at 2mbit.. still rolling on that one, only a marketing moron could spoon-feed such bullshit to himself, realtime encoding and the internet is simply not there yet, and won't be for at least 5 years (and that is with a lot of hope*), a time during which these services will hopefully all vanish

Also fun when 2 vaporware guys claim theirs is better, both of the products are vaporware, so which one of them is better has little impact on anything
 
Avatar 54727
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
9. Re: Major Buzz Apr 2, 2009, 12:30 Mostly_Harmless
 
Even if Onlive and the like worked flawlessly and I had the bandwidth to be able to use it as much as I liked, I would still be building a monster gaming rig every time I upgraded my PC. Like many PC gamers I enjoy the hardware side of my hobby as much as the gaming itself.

This comment was edited on Apr 2, 2009, 12:32.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
8. Re: Major Buzz Apr 2, 2009, 12:01 GT
 
"This is what the masses want a service like this" TWIT
The masses won't want this service anymore than they wanted streaming music and video for their music and video entertainment. Most consumers still prefer to own the copies of the music and video they purchase and to be able to play them on their own equipment and terms not on some remote server. Content providers on the other hand will fall all over themselves to make services like OnLive a reality because it means the end of used sales, sharing, piracy, and it provides a continuous revenue stream since consumers will have to continuously pay for access to content.

This comment was edited on Apr 2, 2009, 14:44.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
7. Re: OnLive Chatter Apr 2, 2009, 11:55 GT
 
Maybe more of us will see Verizon FIOS and AT&T U-verse around our areas by then.
AT&T will no doubt have its capacity caps in place long before then. And, if OnLive uses 256MBytes/sec of bandwidth as I have seen written somewhere, it won't take long to go over the 80GB monthly cap AT&T plans for U-verse. So, services like OnLive would become very expensive to use very quickly.

This comment was edited on Apr 2, 2009, 12:04.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
6. Re: Major Buzz Apr 2, 2009, 11:36 Techie714
 
This service is getting a ton of buzz in the tech industry right now. In fact I have heard it spoke of extensively on a few of my Podcasts. I'm looking forward to hear what the guys at PCG (PC Gamer) have to say about it. Some of the statements thrown around on the Podcasts.

"This is a game changer" Windows Weekly
"This is what the masses want a service like this" TWIT
"The technology is bleeding edge" Extreme Tech
 
Avatar 25373
 
Steam (ID)
http://steamcommunity.com/id/techie714/
DEAD SH0T
Keep your privacy!
http://prism-break.org/
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
5. Re: OnLive Chatter Apr 2, 2009, 11:13 nin
 
quotes Dave Perry about Gaikai, his planned rival service, saying: "Our solution is arguably better than anything OnLive has - they're never going to be able to beat us on this."

Oh god, it's a battle of the bullshitters...

Who can lie the most?

 
http://www.nin.com/pub/tension/
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
4. Re: OnLive Chatter Apr 2, 2009, 11:10 tuddies
 
IF you could provide the user with a lag-free scene with CRAZY AMOUNTS of polys, then you would have a use for cloud computing. Right now, anyone with a decent rig is ahead of these services because they have 1- the rendering capability locally and 2- no lag.

IF you could move graphics ahead by 5 years using cloud computing, then you would be offering something. Of course, then you have the monumental development task of creating such assets.

So, if you could provide KILLZONE2 TRAILER-type graphics with even a little lag, then you would have something.

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
23 Replies. 2 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 ] Older >


footer

.. .. ..

Blue's News logo