Is the lure of playing games like Arkham City or LA Noire on just about any tablet or smartphone enough to designate OnLive as a major player in the gaming industry?
I am officially old- this not an inovation I want. I want more big chunky, sexy bits of hardware! Oh... hi Vita :)
Not only that but I'm sure you actually like to own your games since you are "old" haha, like myself. I like to have a collection of my games and that way I feel like it is my property and can enjoy it even 10 years after I purchased it. Just like I still enjoy a lot of PS1 classics. OnLive takes that ownership out of your hands and at any given time they can remove games because their contract expires with....say....EA and can't agree on a new one and EA pulls all their games from the service much like Stars is pulling all their movies and shows from Netflix next year. So just keep these things in mind before anyone goes to support OnLive.
onlive is a service, and you have a choice to take it, or not, including me. I have onlive and now with the new tablet/smartphone app for it, I must say, it is a great service and a great option for people who a) Do not have monster PCs to play all the latest games b) people who do not care to own the hard copy of digital medium, and trust me, age has nothing to do with it. btw, I have a monster PC and I have a decent laptop, and having a 3 year old laptop that can play games it could never run on its own when I am on the road, is a huge bonus. Buying games will always be an option, to think otherwise is just daft. I have a very decent collection of old games and I will always cherish them, but as a geek, I always appreciate innovation and onlive is a great example of that, like it or not, this kind of service is here to stay, and a very good option for people who can find a need for it. The N4G hive idea that this kind of service is bad is just a sign of the maturity of most N4G users. A quick look at the alexa info on N4G's main audience just further proves this.
@Montrealien I agree 100% with that, some people give Onlive flak without even knowing how it works, or actually using the damned thing. Bunch of zombies.
Input lag (this can never be totally overcome). Low resolutions. Poor image quality due to high compression. Poor image quality due to low end hardware on Onlive's side, i personally tried top games like Batman Arkham City and it is running at very low settings and crappy framerates, in fact below even console levels. this is the rule not the exception for recent titles. Just that and the lag are major kickers as if i need any more reasons to dislike this service. No mods. No editing game configs. No editing game end of. Required internet connection to play- and it better be a fantastic expensive connection, if you have them available in your area. I don't and won't for at least 2 more years. This means wherever you go even mobile you better have good Wifi. You can no access to any games if your net is down or their servers are down for any reason. Worse of all, worst of the lot is probably this: it is possible and indeed likely you may no longer be able to play games after three years of being released because the service will remove them if your favorite game is no longer considered profitable enough. Ouch. Frankly these are some HUUUUGGGEEE problems with this service right now and for the forseeable future for most people. This is not the future of gaming absolutely NO WAY not in this current model. Maybe in a few years we can revisit this type of service, but for now it absolutely pales into comparison next to locally rendered games you can have greater control over on a console, handheld or a PC or a laptop, or tablet etc etc considering the cost of Onlive too then spread out over such a time you would be no worse off buying proper hardware, better off really considering the issues i raise. Onlive have no chance of taking any money off me, i am very happily sticking with my PC and gaming laptop for mobile gaming, home consoles and portables.
"it is possible and indeed likely you may no longer be able to play games after three years of being released because the service will remove them if your favorite game is no longer considered profitable enough. Ouch. " Hadn't even considered that, interesting point. +bubble
This is a terrible direction for gaming to go into, so please stop affording this potentially harmful service so much attention.
how can it be harmfull? I mean it is easy to throw out the idea that this kind of service is harmfull for the industry, but besides your emmotional attatchment to this idea, where is the proof that this can "hurt" the industry? Making more games available to people who could probably not play them otherwise can only help, the industry.
Because it places far too much power in the hands of the publishers and OnLive. They would control all access to all content at all times. You legally own nothing. It sets back consumer rights in the gaming industry to previously unspeakable lows. Look at the abhorrent way that EA are treating their customers over their Origin service. People get banned for no good reason, and when they get banned, that means that ALL of their purchases up till that point are null and void. All that money is down the drain, comfortably pocketed by EA with no assurance of service. It SOUNDS like a lovely idea, but the gaming industry right now is a toxic environment for a service like this. There would have to be a lot more transparency and laws drawn up around e-tail and Software-As-A-Service business models to protect consumers, because currently, the balance of power is far too lopsided in favour of the publishers. EDIT @below: Vigilante? I think you might want to get a definition for that one, "bud." It's not a doom & gloom scenario, it's an unfortunately frequent one: http://www.rockpapershotgun... I don't care if offending parties get banned for a few days. But denying someone a product that they paid for is dangerous territory. They can't even play singleplayer. They've basically destroyed the concept of ownership as we know it. This is not something you can dismiss so flippantly. It has serious consequences.
minor details there bud. Vigilante people like you are always good so I support your idea to protect us lowly gamers however I assure you, your doom and gloom scenario is a little exagerated. PS: Find me one person who was banned from Origin, for no good reason, and I will find you a good reason why they did. And if you are about to refer to the maximum Taco's dude story, well, that is a sorry situation, wich I will bet my life on will get resolved onces all parties get to the bottom of it.
I see why people won't like it, not having ownership is a good reason not to use the service, if that's the case for you then don't use it. But personally I can't wait to sit and play Batman arkham city, at work, on my mobile.as a gamer Why wouldn't you want that? Can't wait to go on holiday and be able to continue my game from the opposite side of the world. My only complaint for gaming on my mac is the resolution, when the native res of my mac is 1440 on a 27" screen playing games at 720 doesnt cut it so until it streams at 1080 minimum it will stay a mobile service for me.
No it's not. I want NOTHING to do with OnLive.
Ditto. Man the visual quality is TERRIBLE for me, and i have the uk average connection of 7mb/s. Its easily poorer than console and a world away from my PC. Besides the other faults this is a major one
7mb/s is very low compared to alot of other places. Damn, what's the prices like in the UK? and don't you guys have bandwidth caps too?
7mb/s is roughly the uk average, averaged across peak and off peak times. This is slightly behind the U.S.A (although i know it can vary massively state to state), and so well well short of the top countries. Investment is being made into an improved network but this is not going to happen where i live soon. I live in a smaller town of about 20 thousand people, it isn't exactly the middle of nowhere but the town is not nearly large enough for any company to show interest in laying expensive fibre down. The network should reach the small city 40 miles away of about 100 thousand people by the middle of 2012, and whether it continues down the line to us depends a lot on future investment. Lets just say i am not optimistic. It will definitely be at least 2 years before i can get anything better than 7mb/s, at this rate it could be even longer. Bandwidth caps exist, it depends on your plan. There are few 'true' unlimited plans available. I have fair use and i use maybe 50-100GB a month with no comeback from my provider on a fairly cheap deal, i heard that caps in the USA can be far harsher than this.
In my mind, there's literally no way to escape it, cloud based services are the future. Maybe upto a decade away, but OnLive certainly have a bright future.
Nope. 1. You don't own your games. 2. The graphical fidelity will be hindered by their desire to limit bandwidth costs 3. YOU DON't OWN THE GAMES!!! - aka if you stop paying, you stop playing...not a good way to game.
u can own the games by getting a play pass for each one running around regular pc prices.
You pay once per game. It's not subscription.
last i checked it streams the games too and if thats the case what heppens if you live in an area with limited amount of bandwidth per month or your area takes up that policy after a while, then your really screwed. ill take my colloection of plastic cases and cds anyday over streaming
Here's the thing. If you can use it, because you have the internet connection strong enough to, you can. If your internet sucks, you can't. That's it. lol It's not like anyone is forcing people to use this service.
ONlive won't really take many away from traditional gaming not until they produce their own ip or get some type exclusivity because each console has its own exclusives that really attract people to their service.
No thanks. Not going to happen anytime soon.
Well, after hearing what ISP's are planning on doing in a recent article, I don't see how this will ever succeed. ISP's are going to start charging for how much data you send so if you download your games, you're about to get screwed. Netflix and Steam are going to get screwed by this as well.
Nah it's obvious isps and the likes of Netflix will just work out deals for exceptions . ISPs know very well that without such services , their offers are far less attractive
They are already doing it in Canada and they haven't worked out any such deal up there. I don't see why it would be any different for us. The whole reason they are moving to that sort of system is to keep people paying for TV/Cable. Too many people are forgoing cable TV and just getinng their entertainment from places like Netflix, Hulu, and the network websites. If the ISP's start charging for the amount of data, people will be forced to pay enormous internet bills if they want to continue getting their entertainment online, thus, it'll be cheaper to pay for cable TV.
it's nice for those with macs and people with high speed reliable internet connections but i hate the fact that if your connection goes out the game stops
I don't have to take anything seriously. I don't have the connection or the access to have Onlive. I will stick to physical media until they are sure they worked out all the kinks and bugs and problems.
Wow. I can play games with a virtual keyboard that takes up half the screen on my tiny-screen mobile device, the WiFi on which makes the OnLive lag all the worse, besides? Better yet, I can pack a bluetooth keyboard in my bag, and be sure to have a stand-style sleeve for my tablet, and basically be carrying all the bulk of a laptop (but in several clunky parts), and then its only the lag/bad video quality issue I have to deal with... Amazing what can be done, if you're desperate for gaming, and laptops/PCs are illegal in your country... or something.
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.