Top
630°

OnLive 48 Mins Video Demonstration - Play Crysis on the iPhone, Mac, & console with OnLive

Gamertag Radio writes: "The founder and CEO of OnLive, Steve Perlman. Shows a demonstration on how to play Crysis on the iPhone, Mac, & console with OnLive. Also talks about the features and how this works to the students at Columbia University in New York City. After watching this 48 min video. I'm so impressed with OnLive. Watch this video so you can see why."

Read Full Story >>
gamertagradio.com
The story is too old to be commented.
whothedog2907d ago (Edited 2907d ago )

Price would be the biggest factor for me on this device. Other than that it seems like a good idea, and seems to work well. Also, I collect video games so that is a downside to not being able to own physical media of the product.

Greywulf2907d ago (Edited 2907d ago )

Lets just say that Crysis didn't exactly set the world on fire. Neither do most PC games. The PC gaming industry at this point is on life support as we know it, So I really don't get the appeal to the Wii/Console market with this technology. The gaming industry/media decided to kill PC gaming with myths about how expensive it is to participate in, how you have to upgrade upgrade upgrade etc. Few PC-Only projects, and even fewer that demand top of the line technology to run.

So you have a technology that allows people to play a handful of hardware beast specification games, while the other games are Unreal Engine ports of PS3/360 games--that don't require super computers to run--. Streaming and allowing a player to input button commands is great, but who is buying this? The Console gamer who isn't missing out on PC gaming? Or the PC owner, who isn't missing out on console gaming? Or, the mobile phone owner who is missing out on PC/Console gaming?

Its a neat concept, but most games played on steam right now are played due to a community thats supporting the game. I can't see a casual constant interest in OnLive, when its just as practical to maybe spend 2x as much on a computer, but one that has both utility, and game playing ability without any latency issues..?

I really do wonder if there is any money to be made by people avoiding wii/ps3/360, and buying this device. Wouldn't it have to re-do its online functionality adding a PSN/XBLA as well..? Kinda starting from scratch. Offering Movies on demand etc.

Hanif-8762907d ago (Edited 2907d ago )

The downside for me is that when i don't have a internet connection, i can't play my games offline. I just like to own disks or any other type of storage medium so i can play whenever i want to. I currently have Gran Turismo 5 prologue and Warhawk that i bought off the PSN store instead of getting them on disks and i can't play them without signing into PSN first, that sucks but i guess they want to fight against piracy so they let you sign in to verify that its not pirated.

IdleLeeSiuLung2907d ago

However, seeing how we already have lag with online console gaming then adding another potential layer makes this thing virtually useless.

I guess if you are only playing single player campaigns, then your experience might be like playing online?

This technology will NOT take off as there isn't a real demand for it. Why bother with PC gaming with OnLive and introduce all those issues when you can just get a console and call it a day!

led10902907d ago

well it did sell around 2 million copies...and unless somehow bobby kottick is somehow sharing a piece of the pie from COD sales with you....i don't think those are very bad numbers. And when you say that it is hard to ignore the consoles you forget major players such as starcraft, diablo and almost all the mmo cash cows out there. Its just on the surface it seems that way cause the 'big players' are trying to spread out, and in doing so they tend to ignore the pc with shoddy ports which would obviously not sell well. But then Valve, blizzard, bioware etc etc are milking as much money from the pc are most devs out there. As has been said countless times, the pc market is not declining. Its just evolving.

RealityCheck2907d ago

I agree that besides actually working well that price is the biggest factor here.

If their service is subscription based to compete with the likes of Gamefly, $xx/month for unlimited playtime, then it might be interesting.

However, if they get greedy and they try to make it pay to play as in $xx/per minute, then it will be too expensive for frequent gamers.

Cenobia2907d ago

I think they are going for a PC gaming market for those people that don't have a PC. There is just too much competition between the 3 consoles for this to work though. They are assuming that the developers making these games and the owners of each console are going to LET them play their games. Would MS really let people play Mass Effect 2 on the PS3? I don't think so, despite what the developer says. Sony and Nintendo have no reason to offer their exclusives for this service since it would simply cause their brands to lose value.

This will only ever be useful as a new way to play PC games, and I highly doubt the consoles will get involved (I could see MS buying this and making it their console after the "720" though). The company making this will go bankrupt before it becomes viable though. I can't even get broadband internet where I live so a service like this is automatically useless to a pretty large portion of the world.

It will only be a hardware alternative for the next ten years, if it ever even takes off. If we have global internet by then I could see it becoming pretty big.

bacon132907d ago

^agreed.

Monthly/yearly subscriptions is the way to go. Affordable pricing is also going to make or break OnLive. I know a lot of gamers, myself included, like an physical copy as well which is downside imo. Very interested to see where this technology will end up.

Greywulf2907d ago (Edited 2907d ago )

I brought up crysis to just illustrate a point, streaming a complicated game is great & all, but whos around to play it. PC gaming is dead because PC-Only games aren't being developed anymore that utilize state of the art PC technology. Even Crytek has gone backwards to make console engines on lower spec technology. Outside of the diehard grinders in MMO's, the days of HL2/Doom3/Black&White/King pin/Prey/STALKER coming out bigger and better than before are unfortunately over. The demand for a 5000 dollar computer to play a game isn't there. Which is why I don't see OnLives service being useful. The PC market is a handful of legendary MMO's, multiplatform games, and 1 -maybe- 2 "crysis" type titles. What games are Console gamers/ Casuals dying to stream that they haven't played already? Older titles?

Cenobia,

I dont see the hardware edge either, considering Crysis's specs are really in the minority of specifications. Multiplatform games specifications are absurdly low compared to Crysis. So if you're so devastatingly poor, you cant get together 500 dollars for a PC,(yet some how an avid gamer), OnLive is the way to go....? I feel like you also get that Utility with a PC that makes a PC a better purchase for a gamer on a budget, thats something streaming online only gaming cant touch.

If PC gaming was where it was say 5 years ago, then this would be a great kickass service. Now though? The case has been made that you don't need the latest in technology to be enjoyable or popular. The development isn't there like it was. Hell Futuremark is going bankrupt after Shattered Horizon(not literally ;)) But you get what I mean.

solar2907d ago (Edited 2907d ago )

"all the major publishers but activision"

wow thats a shock.

edit:

and wow, no one in the audience has played crysis. i see its a lamer console only crowd.

Cenobia2907d ago

This could change the fact that Crysis' specs are in the minority (developers could go crazy with it if this service actually worked), but I have a really hard time seeing that happen. The amount of resources that must go into maintaining a system like this would be crazy.

I mean basically you'd need a computer that could handle the best graphics ever for every person signed up right? That's a lot of hardware and a hell of a lot of bandwidth. I feel like they'd have to actually invent Magic to get that working for thousands of people. I'm not exactly that knowledgeable about networks, but it seems beyond reality when I can only get Satellite Internet that doesn't work 8 times out of 10.

I can't see something like this getting off the ground for at least another 10 years.

gaffyh2907d ago

If the pricing is subscription based, then this would be a great product. But if it is based on buying each game in order to be able to play it, then it will fail.

led10902907d ago

@Greywulf

Ha you just make once case and you think that represents the entire face of the industry? Did you not read me mentioning games like starcraft and diablo? There are many other franchises that will sell amazingly well on the pc like battlefield, dragon age, all valve games, football manager(yes it does sell well on the pc), and most of the RTS games. Free to play multiplayer games are also extremely successful. Plus well ported multiplatform games sell well on the pc, as has been demonstratred with bioshock and mass effect

Axcess2907d ago (Edited 2907d ago )

The pricing is going to have to be competitive and worth it. Without any physical media being obtained, it's all going to boil down to the experience. When I'm done with a 1 year subscription for this service I'm going to be left with nothing to show for it. No console or games to resell if needed. No monetary return on the investment other than being happy with the service. Pricing will be everything when this product reaches the market.

BattleAxe2907d ago

What I like about owning a PS3 is that I own the hardware and I play online for free. We already get demos and Sony is rumored to be comming out with a rental service with the Premium services package.

And like someone else mentioned, you will never see games like Killzone, Socom, Resistance, Infamous, Super Mario Bros., Zelda and maybe even Halo, because the big 3 console makers won't sign onto supporting a competing console like Onlive. Activision hasn't even signed on yet.

DelbertGrady2907d ago

Who says they are going up against MS, Sony and Nintendo?

It would seem more logical to join forces with one of them, which is what I think they will do.

RememberThe3572907d ago

The thing is that your talking about what will and he's talking about what has happened. PC gaming but a shadow of what it once was. What was once great has now been taken over by crappy MMOs and Facebook games.

The success of StarCraft II or Diablo III is not set in stone. They're is no way to know how they will sell. But, those are only two games.

I don't see the PC market going away, it's just changing. But, you can't argue with the fact the few PC-only projects are left. If thats not an indication of a shrinking hardcore PC market, I don't know what is.

presto7172907d ago

So I cant game when my internet connection gets a little hazy or when I am out of town? Really?

Microsoft Xbox 3602907d ago (Edited 2907d ago )

I'm a believer.

This technology is great.

DarkTower8052907d ago

Without these 2 big dogs on board I really don't see this being a must own.

led10902907d ago

@rememberthe357

First of all you might think that the MMO's are crappy but i find most of them to be awesome, especially games like perfect world which has polish compared to that of WOW. And you're talking about there being less exclusives. Heck more and more games are moving away from the exclusive tag. And thats not just on PC most system exclusives are also going multiplatform now. Infact many sequels to games which were exclusive to one platform are now gracing the PC such as dead rising, lost planet etc etc

Budg3tG4m3r2907d ago

I'll keep my PC, PS3, and 360 thanks. You need a super connection to play this and that counts out most gamers around the world. Wake me when gamers that live in middle or lower class can play without 480i. Great concept but it's not realistic for most gamers, most gamers don't have high speed connections good enough to play.

inveni02907d ago

What we have here is the progression of video games. Look how drastic home internet connectivity has changed in the last 5 years. The change in technology is insane.

The real problem with this concept is that most PC gamers game on PC because they can do it "much cheaper". Sure, they have the high cost of hardware, but what does that mean when compared to a much lower "average" cost for games? This type of service would have to compete with PC piracy. It just has to. It has to be so affordable and obvious that people stop and say, "Wow...this is much easier than browsing the web all day looking for a pirated copy." It's why many pirates have moved from free P2P services to subscription based file sharing like RapidShare for downloading pirated media. You can download EVERYTHING at your max speed 99% of the time. Paying $10 a month to save all that time? It's just obvious.

For OnLive to compete, it has to be the obvious choice. Nobody is going to pay $15/month for the service and then $60 for a game. It's just not gonna happen. Furthermore, if they had 1 million subscribers, and 300,000 of them were trying to play a hot new game on the day of release, they're gonna have some issues. The dude in the video said it himself. You're always at the mercy of physics.

But $15/month and a $15 discount on games? Well, that might just be a pretty good deal.

SilentNegotiator2907d ago

....renting hardware and software, but never owning anything and playing in laggy 720p.

I'll take the physical discs and hardware, thank you very much.

Sub4Dis2907d ago (Edited 2907d ago )

i don't know what you're all talking about. i see so much potential here. a lot of you seem to think this is meant to replace the problem of having to upgrade your pc and that's it. no, this is going to take everyone on. and when you factor in the cost of buying games, the console, online fees, etc...this will be the cheapest way to game. even with psn being free...you still gotta buy dlc, and other games from the store. so with this, you're doing that, but the unit was free or a few bucks or comes free with the subscription. and you NEVER have to replace it. no new console, no new video card, nothing. and why would developers continue to support anything else? the guy makes a great point during the show. the publisher can completely remove half the development costs and all of the distribution costs. you make the game specifically for one system (the highest end system available at any given time) and everyone can access it. no porting, no added production costs, no catering to low end systems, real time feedback, no pirating. the developers are going to eat this stuff up. and while i'm not surprised activision isn't on board YET....they'll jump on it the moment they realize there's 0% pirating. activision will be the first company to stop making physical discs. they love money, and this onLive thing is by far the most innovative idea i've seen in gaming from a money making stand point.

bottom line though, their tech better hold up when it goes retail, because the moment ppl start to notice hiccups or when the latency gets too high, gamers will sign it off for good.

Arnon2907d ago (Edited 2907d ago )

You realize PC gaming makes more revenue than any console to this day, right?

http://news.bigdownload.com...

Please stfu, as you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, and it's probably the reason why you have two bubbles. PC gaming is not only larger than every console out there, but it makes the biggest profit, and will always top a console in performance. You think NVIDIA and ATI are releasing cards because they somehow think that PC gaming is dying? Why is DirectX now on version 11? Why is it that games on PC are always the definitive version? I can tell you right now that it's not because PC gaming is dying. In fact, it's only growing.

"Even Crytek has gone backwards to make console engines on lower spec technology."

Crytek has done absolutely nothing to decrease the quality of Crysis 2 for PCs. The inferior ugly versions will reside on the consoles.

"The demand for a 5000 dollar computer to play a game isn't there. Which is why I don't see OnLives service being useful."

Mine cost me $550-$650, and it plays Crysis on Very High.

Thank god you're out of bubbles. It's like listening to an inbred Rush Limbaugh.

The Happy Baby2906d ago (Edited 2906d ago )

Why? B/c its not a Sony product?
Grow up. This is awesome.

I watched the entire video, and I must say its impressive. Hopefully they dont mess up the business end of things. Too many great ideas, have collapsed under the weight of Man's greed.

ChickeyCantor2906d ago

Grey,

Crysis kinda runs heavy, point of demonstration made?

catguykyou2906d ago (Edited 2906d ago )

What this brings to PC gaming industry is this.

5: On the go gaming. - solves the problem of having to lug a rig around in order to be able to play your favorite PC games.

4: Reduced hardware cost. Imagine buying one system for the rest of your life? Besides the small subscription fee, you would never have to buy the newest 600 graphics card in order to enjoy the best in visual effects. (That doesn't include cpu, PSU, RAM, MOBO, etc etc)

3: No installs, almost instant pick up and play action.

2: unified social interaction. No more worrying about who is on what party chat program, adding 20 different friend names to 20 different friends lists.

1: Standardizing hardware specs: What makes consoles so great is for the most part, console game makers can design games to take full advantage of the hardware. With PC makers, they always have to keep the lowest common denominator in mind. If 60% of the market were playing PC games via services like onlive, game makers could design their games to take full advantage of the best pc hardware with little worry. You would see a massive boom in pc game visuals.

My point being, this is a potential massive boost to what was a slowly dying gaming market. With cloud computing, pc /mac makers can concentrate on making small, cost efficient computers that handle everyday tasks with ease because all the hard processing can be done remotely.

This has the potential to not just be a gaming machine, but a true: it only does everything console because it is not held back by hardware. It's the console that only gets better the longer its out. Hardware upgrades periodically. It has massive potential.

And to anyone who says this wont take away from the console market, think of it this way.

Mom goes on for christmas shopping. She has a choice. Buy a 300 dolor console that she knows will be replaced in 4 or so years (future proof my ass, the ps2 was future proof and all it means is that they will continue to push the PS3 after the PS4 comes out) or she can pay (*hypothetical pricing) 10 bucks a month for her kid allowing them to play 90% of the games that are on the 300$ console, that run and look better and she will never have to replace it. On top of that, she can easily have her kid play it on the pc, or any one of the tvs in the house. Not just games even, she can rent/buy movies, music, and who knows what else. I think the choice would be obvious.

Your everyday console owner would look at this and gladly give it a try. I mean the worst thing that could happen is you pay for one month and are out that months payment. If you buy a console and don't like it, you are out the cost of the console.

And to the people who are complaining about not having broadband. You are in the minority anyways. If you visit gaming sites like this and you don't have broadband, you either still live with your parents and thus don't pay for your stuff anyways or you don't take gaming too seriously anyways.

DeadlyFire2906d ago

I think OnLive has great potential. Just depends on the monthly or yearly subscription. I hope a yearly subscription is an option. I like the idea of mass spectating though. I can't imagine the type of language and crap being yelled at players in a baseball game or something though. Something like OnLive brings new development potential to the market though. It would certainly make bringing some games into the PC market so much easier for many developers.

I believe GaiKai and OTOY are going to be very big as well as OnLive. I can't wait to learn more about them at GDC and E3 2010. :)

+ Show (26) more repliesLast reply 2906d ago
Captain Tuttle2907d ago

I just became alot more interested in this.

whothedog2907d ago

Did you sign up for the beta, haha I did while watching this.

-Alpha2907d ago (Edited 2907d ago )

But I can't wait for this device, it certainly looks promising.

Of course MS, Sony, and Nintendo are all going to be there in response. I just don't think I will be able to handle 4 consoles let alone 1, but the future looks promising with OnLive.

Competition is always a great thing.

I can't believe how everything streams so well. I can't even go to my friend's list on my PS3 without having to wait for my friends list to load, yet this thing is running live plays of other gamer's games and videos.

If it holds up on release I will be absolutely amazed.

whothedog2907d ago (Edited 2907d ago )

@alpha male

LOL yeah Sony needs to takes some notes haha
Syncing trophies
Syncing friends
Syncing profile
Syncing syncing haha

Very smart idea, I love how he talks about perception too, for the people that watch the whole thing, I was very pleased after watching this and cloud computing seems to be the way of the future(for certain things)

I want this to get noticed because I would hate for such a great idea to get unnoticed. I do have small concerns for the device but in general I think it is a great idea.

Cenobia2907d ago

I can't watch the video because I'm at work (despite the fact that I'm not working), but are they actually considering competing with the other consoles? I thought this was going to be a PC alternative.

I don't see them going very far if they want to go toe-to-toe with Sony, Nintendo, and MS exclusive games. There may be some developer incentive to make games for OnLive, but they're gonna need a pretty big draw.

Perjoss2907d ago

@ Cenobia

ask your boss for something to do, your day will go by faster and you can go home and play some games :)

-Alpha2907d ago (Edited 2907d ago )

It is definitely not a PC-alternative only. He said it at the beginning: OnLive is a Games on Demand Service.

Publishers are going to WANT to go to OnLive because games on demand means:

-No Piracy
-No Rentals/Buying Used games
-No paying money for discs
-No paying royalties to brands

This means money is split in two ways:

1) The majority goes to the publisher
2) The other half goes to OnLive

The problem is getting gamers to adapt to it because it's clear publishers are all up for it.

People are complaining about price, but I'm thinking OnLive can be a great long-term investment. No more upgrading to newer models seems like a great thing.

Anyways, I see lots of multiplatform games, though I'm sure they are not expecting to put exclusives onto OnLive.

So, the downside seems to be, ONLIVE IS ONLY MULTIPLATFORM games, without the exclusives that companies like Microsoft/Sony pay for.

I am loving how everything is truly LIVE in OnLive, and the service seems to blow Xbox Live (and of course PSN) out of the waters.

EVERYTHING is running in real time, you can WATCH people gaming WITHOUT annoying load times or going through different screens, you can capture the last 15 seconds of a game and upload them to OnLive as "Brag Clips", etc.

Now the question is, will this hold up once the masses have control of OnLive...

Let's not forget that with the next generation of consoles and possibly with this generation, MS and Sony can patch in features like Brag Clips, etc. but it's amazingly well done on OnLive.

AND!

OnLive seems to be forgetting the shift to motion play!

MS has introduced Natal, which seems great. Nintendo is going to do something, and Sony has 3-D gaming/their own motion control (which I frankly have doubts about-- I sincerely doubt Sony will market their motion controller well, but we will see).

Everything is simply shifting, and it's going to be great to see how gaming will stand once the dust has cleared!

ElementX2907d ago (Edited 2907d ago )

"This means money is split in two ways:

1) The majority goes to the publisher
2) The other half goes to OnLive "

That's not true, you forgot about marketers, the actual developers (it's rare for companies to publish their own software), plus you have royalties, other fees, you name it. My point is, it isn't that simple.

Furthermore, you state that a "majority" goes to the publisher. Majority means more than half, thus there can't be another "half" to go to OnLive, it would be a smaller portion.

inveni02907d ago

@Alpha

I don't think Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo are really going to try to compete much. They may have something going on, but they are, at their heart, publishers. And if they can double game revenue, they would easily snuff out any need for hardware revenue (besides gamepads, motion controllers, etc...).

Sub4Dis2907d ago

wouldn't surprise me at all if we heard one of the major players in the console game announcing they are pulling out in light of OnLive. i'm actually sort of blown away that MS or Sony didn't try to buy this company when they first started.

+ Show (6) more repliesLast reply 2907d ago
Raoh2907d ago

they need to consider making the box better, probably more expensive but worth it.

havent finished the video but will keyboard, mouse and headset be wireless?

i dont want to run a headset from my couch to the tv

Captain Tuttle2907d ago (Edited 2907d ago )

I think he said the headset would be Bluetooth like the PS3. I'd imagine you could use a mouse and keyboard wirelessly similar to the way it's used on a PC...you have a little dongle or receiver you plug into the usb port on the box. Not sure though.

whothedog2907d ago (Edited 2907d ago )

Also I don't know if you guys watched the whole thing yet, but he says they had to use their own type of controllers because of latency(end of video where Q&A), I wonder if that goes for mouse and keyboard too. If I remember correctly.

Sub4Dis2907d ago

he said proprietary if wireless. you can use any wired USB device.

Pandam0bile2907d ago

Wow. After watching that whole thing, it seems like they've aced just about every concern I had with the service.

It's actually really well thought out and looks like it works pretty damn well. Maybe now that publishers have this as a crutch, there will be less sh1tty console ports of games, and less delays in development.

One can hope.

TheIneffableBob2907d ago

Same here. I also liked how the CEO of the company really knew what he was talking about.

Elvfam5112907d ago

I hope they add a yearly subscription while having the monthly one.

Looks good so far
Hopefully you can use a ps3 controller without that much delay to it

Hutch23552907d ago

but what about when millions of people are all online playing at the same time. I don't think that tech is even close yet to be able to run a game of a server with that many people. with no lag. We will see.

matnum2907d ago

I states in the demonstration that the servers are leased to them, witch would indicate that if there were an increase in subscribers, and problems were apparent in the service they would be able and hopefully be willing to get more.
I foresee no problem with this issue, but yes, wait and see i shall.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 2907d ago
Omega Zues2907d ago

They actually came out with the beta. After then I can either be Hyped or Disappointed.

TheIneffableBob2907d ago

Watch the video. The beta released in September. You haven't heard about it because it's under NDA. I know a person who is in the beta right now and he says it works great.