Top
390°

OnLive's Future Looking Bleek?

DS writes, "After some technical difficulties which were the fault of my PC itself I finally got the OnLive digital game streaming service working. As a gamer who prefers wired internet anyways, I was able to use it before their Wi-Fi support was rolled out and it actually did work pretty nicely on my middle-end machine (NForce 750i Motherboard, Quad Core 2.66GHz Processor w/ 1333MHz FSB, 2GB PC1066 Ram, 1GB GeForce 9600 GT Video Card, 320GB Hard Drive). I checked out the set up and it was pretty good to be honest.

The only real complaint one could offer at this time is that the selection of games on OnLive is really pretty weak. They say it will improve, but so far I’m not impressed on that angle. However, I have some serious problems with the concept as a whole and wonder if this is even a good service for gamers, the industry, and OnLive as a whole.."

Read Full Story >>
dualshockers.com
Oculus Quest Giveaway! Click Here to Enter
The story is too old to be commented.
Ninferno3287d ago

i was never really a believer of OnLive's future anyway

Hitman07693287d ago

The problems it faces are mainly piracy, the lack of demand for such a service, the cleverness and high-tech focus of PC gamers as it is disabling the need for such a service, and the fact that other streaming game services have come and gone before and burned people for their money. I honestly don't think anyone cares about this service, sad to say because it is a very cool approach to the concept but it just isn't necessary for gaming.

TheIneffableBob3287d ago

Publishers are very much behind the concept of OnLive because it 100% eliminates both piracy and the used games market.

Hitman07693287d ago

@IneffableBob

but due to piracy and used game market no one cares or wants OnLive. You can have all the publisher support you want but if you don't get sales what's the point?

Zachmo1823287d ago (Edited 3287d ago )

Really what other streaming game services were there? I think you just made that one up to make you argument look better.

Actually dude can you bring those so called failed one up? Cause i'm actually interested in hearing this.

solar3287d ago (Edited 3287d ago )

i think its more OnLive's future is bleak because the tech is still not there. lag, 720p resolution, the subscription service, the fact you dont own the game doesnt sit well with PC gamers.

@hitman

what used PC games market?

f7897903287d ago

It's failed because barely anyone has fast enough internet for it. Having 3Mbps is fine for most people but not enough for the service.

Fred-G-Sanford3287d ago

I've had OnLive for months, but I hardly ever use it.

The main reason being that their game pricing is wayyyyyy out of wack.

They need a serious price drop on their games or they will not last very long, in my opinion.

inveni03287d ago

Once I learned that you need a 1Mbps UPLOAD speed to use OnLive, I knew it would fail. You simply can't get that speed of upload without going to a really high connection speed. While some people have it, there are many like me (who have DSL as our only option, meet the 5Mbps download speed, but are stuck at about.4Mbps upload with no other solutions). And the ones that CAN get higher speeds aren't willing to pay the extra just for that upload.

Plus, I would love to know why we need to be able to UPLOAD that fast. Aren't we just sending keystrokes?

HolyOrangeCows3287d ago (Edited 3287d ago )

1) Many of their games are a mere $10 less or the exact same price - You rely on their service, never really owning any games.
2) Takes a connection that most don't have
3) Low quality graphics/video quality
4) Slow reaction times
5) No exclusives what-so-ever
6) Lag/framerate/video quality spikes

Onlive is a broken concept; it's future was always bleak.

+ Show (5) more repliesLast reply 3287d ago
Reibooi3287d ago (Edited 3287d ago )

My two main issues with Onlive are as follows.

1 is the total lack of games.

2 is that the best thing about playing games on PC is that they are supposed to look better then anything else and with Onlive you can't mess with resolution or settings or stuff like that. Depending on what you play them on(screen size) the game may look like crap because of the capped resolution.

The idea is cool and the interface is great but pretty much everything else falls flat.

If the service allowed for everything being streamed to your PC to be maxed out and look as good as it could possibly look I think it would appeal to ALOT of people. You could buy a middle of the road PC and play games maxed on it. But as it stands that's unlikely to ever happen thanks to the state of the internet speeds in the US.

Hitman07693287d ago

You are absolutely right the selection of games is terrible.

nnotdead3287d ago

i would also add the pricing. just allow me to rent a game for $5 for a week. just a pure renting service i would be more inclined to use Onlive. with $5+ only giving you 3 days of renting, and paying full price is just stupid with the setup.

they need more games and better pricing(cheap renting service).

Eddie201013287d ago (Edited 3287d ago )

Personally I think it's a great service for playing games on notebooks and low end computers. The game selection is kinda small but they just launched recently and it will take some time to build a larger game library, just wish you could adjust the brightness, gamma and contrast in the app.

JOLLY13287d ago (Edited 3287d ago )

Well the Xbox's future looks good right now with 483,989 consoles sold last month... That's the 4th month it has been the best selling console in a row.

Shackdaddy8363287d ago

Why say that when we aren't even talking about xbox.

JOLLY13287d ago

I am just giving out facts. That's pretty impressive...

NYC_Gamer3287d ago

what does those sales numbers have to do with OnLive?

Shackdaddy8363287d ago (Edited 3287d ago )

Your giving "facts" that aren't relevant to the story.

BTW, xbox is NOT the highest selling console outside the U.S. which makes your statement false.

So, you not only lied to everyone but you also waisted everyones time who read that.

Thanks a lot douchebag

JOLLY13287d ago Show
+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 3287d ago
MNicholas3287d ago

but the infrastructure is simply not good enough at this point.

I took advantage of the trial and, on my (supposedly) 15mbps cable connection, it was pretty dreadful. I could have got used to the lag if it was consistent. The problem was that the lag varied so much. The graphics were better than expected but I'd have been happier with worse graphics in exchange for more reliable streaming.

What's more, since the internet has not been properly regulated in the US, actual vs advertised performance will continue to be vastly different.

Onlive, at this point, should be doing what I've been suggesting all along. Try to get hosted at the data-centers of ISPs like Verizon, Time Warner or Comcast. That will take away the uncertainty that the internet brings to it.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 3287d ago
dkblackhawk503287d ago

Hmm never thought of it that way...but my net sucks balls...

TheIneffableBob3287d ago

More games will come with time. The tech behind OnLive is pretty great and even if it does fail, the technology will be used elsewhere.

Sarcasm3287d ago

Sorry, OnLive was a failure when it was first revealed.

ReservoirDog3163287d ago

Never do this but isn't it spelled bleak?

branchedout3287d ago

I didn't wanna be the douche to say it, either!

But yeah, I was reading and almost choked on my coffee.

Certainly the submitter has had time to notice this!
But, I won't get my panties into TOO much of a wad.

Hitman07693287d ago

Actually it's spelled B134K but i'll let you both slide. ;)

Show all comments (54)
The story is too old to be commented.