It's obscure now, but with enough promotion and game tie-ins it won't be. A great example of how this will work is Hulu. No one ever heard of Hulu either until the big money content providers took the idea of web video already established by YouTube and created their own service for their content. OnLive or at least cloud gaming will be successful because those who are behind it control most of the content in the game market.
I don't agree. There are plenty of people out there who prefer to play a game on a PC, regardless if it's multiplatform or not. Sure the hardware lasts longer than it did in years past, but you still need to "keep up" every few years if you intend to play the latest titles.
Again, Steam still requires you to have a decent gaming rig to run new titles with mid to high graphic settings
The point or benefit (in their terms) is that you don't need to buy expensive hardware.
Verno wrote on Jun 22, 2010, 11:02:I don't agree. There are plenty of people out there who prefer to play a game on a PC, regardless if it's multiplatform or not. Sure the hardware lasts longer than it did in years past, but you still need to "keep up" every few years if you intend to play the latest titles.
That's not even true anymore thanks to multiplatform games. You don't need to "keep up" a machine so much as buy gaming hardware on a cycle near that of consoles. The days of yearly upgrades are long behind us.
Well yes because it's not the same price - OnLive is more expensive. What benefit exactly are you referring to? You are saying "but it can do X!" and we're saying "Yes but you can already do Y cheaper". Doing it for the sake of doing it is not really a path to consumer success. You keep going on about the point of the service but people are harping on it precisely because unlike something like say Steam, it offers little benefit and is even costlier.Again, Steam still requires you to have a decent gaming rig to run new titles with mid to high graphic settings. The point or benefit (in their terms) is that you don't need to buy expensive hardware. To be honest, I don't even know if that rings true or if their service is good enough to cover their claims. I just find it annoying to see people bitch about half the story. I don't consider you one of those people, but there are plenty of them early on in the thread.
Fang wrote on Jun 22, 2010, 03:58:That just means you aren't used to using KBM, it doesn't mean it is actually better. Any game with aiming is better on KBM if you ask me, including Just Cause 2 (and yes I have a 360 controller I use for racing games and beat 'em ups). If PC gamers are going to be expected to try this service they are going to want KBM to work perfectly, and it doesn't.
No, Tumbler is referring to the optimization and performance level of OnLive with it's frame rate and screen updating algorithms. That's what he means by "better". It's basically how fast you turn. Usually with a controller, you turn slower (why PC gamers hate it compared to a KBM). But if you take a mouse and jack up the sensitivity, the screen doesn't update too well. I was getting motion sick from the slow screen updates with a highly sensitive mouse. I set it back to default and the game looked and played much better.
I assume it's in their secret sauce to get the screen to update so fast on an internet connection. It doesn't handle twitches too well from what I've seen.
OnLive seems to optimize based on default settings. So just a warning if you adjust things.
Jay wrote on Jun 22, 2010, 10:48:A fair point. But this only applies if you only intend to do console gaming, with no intention of using mouse/keyboard for shooters, RTSes and what not.
2 Games on OnLive + 1 year subscription fee = price of xbox360 arcade. HMMM tough call!
Elessar wrote on Jun 22, 2010, 10:54:
Maybe here it's a myth not to have a mid to high end gaming machine, but I don't think you're considering the many people who don't keep their hardware up.
Verno wrote on Jun 22, 2010, 10:48:Maybe here it's a myth not to have a mid to high end gaming machine, but I don't think you're considering the many people who don't keep their hardware up. It's just not an accurate comparison, by any means. All people want to do is bitch about how it's the same price, but not mention one iota about the benefit or even the freaking point of the service.
Ah yes, the mythical market of people who own computers but not computers capable of gaming. The same people that also do not own a single console and yet somehow still want to do regular gaming. We're aware of it, thanks Elessar. People make comparisons because in the end it's a gaming product and they are comparing it to other gaming products. By the way you pay for your own games with OnLive.
So wait. Monthly fee, retail pricing, AND lower rez? This keeps getting better and better!
Verno wrote on Jun 22, 2010, 10:15:So wait. Monthly fee, retail pricing, AND lower rez? This keeps getting better and better!
I want someone to do a bandwidth test on these games. Basically playing XYZ game for 123 hours = XXX GB.
It's just 720p video, probably running at a lower resolution on their server farms that is then upscaled to 720p itself. I have no clue what bitrate is used but let's say ballpark 3-4mbps since that's about right for H.264. So about 1.3-2GB per hour of gameplay, depending on compression and overhead.
I want someone to do a bandwidth test on these games. Basically playing XYZ game for 123 hours = XXX GB.
eRe4s3r wrote on Jun 21, 2010, 23:03:
Wow, thats .. thats.. thats absolute retarded pricing. Retail pricing for a time limited rental game ON TOP of a monthly subscription fee???
Who is ever stupid enough to fall for that scam?
I've Got The News Blues wrote on Jun 22, 2010, 05:03:Im sorry but... Are you fucking stupid? Did your mom eat led paint chips as a kit? I can not stress how moronic this statement is.This service is insane.It is now because you have other options. Some day in the not too distant future it will be the only choice for AAA games, and then it will look much more reasonable.