We’ve had a look at OnLive on a few occasions before, but other than some marketing spiel haven’t seen too much of it in action. OnLive is a games on-demand service which gives anyone the ability to play any game on their TV, PC or Mac via a broadband connection. The game is ‘hosted’ on a remote server which does all the processing and streams the game to your browser (via a tiny plug-in) or to an OnLive console (expected to be $99 or free with subscription) Apparently anyone with a connection greater than 1.5mbps will be able to play in SD, whereas users with 5mbps connection will get the full HD treatment.
I could spend ages taking about it, as I’m hugely excited by the technology and hope it will mean an end to buying a new console every 5 years or so (even more often if they break down, hey Mr. YLoD!) and then worrying about whether my expensive back catalogue of games will be compatible, of course where this leaves Sony and a possible PS4 isn’t known, but billions of dollars of possible investment in chip technologies may be put to better use exploring ‘remote gaming’ opportunities of their own.
Anyway enough talk – take a look at the vid below which at the 12min mark shows the OnLive UI, Crysis Wars running on a fairly low specced Mac at 720p 60fps and amazingly even iPhone connectivity.
Source: GamerTag Radio.
scavenga | 31/12/2009 01:55
Member
527 TSA Points | Member since: Jul 2009
I shudder at the whole thing, I really do.
TSBonyman | 31/12/2009 02:04
Member
920 TSA Points | Member since: Dec 2009
psycho-physical visual interpretation….. Oh yeah
BetaGhast | 31/12/2009 02:57
Member
550 TSA Points | Member since: Jul 2009
do. not. want.
arodmell | 31/12/2009 05:20
Member
214 TSA Points | Member since: Jun 2009
I don’t see this as being a bad thing at all. Whether its a PS3 or an Onlive Box I don’t care how I play my games as long as I can.
I think the tech has a long way to go and I think we will see the PS4 and X720 come and go before this takes off.
jenkosz | 31/12/2009 09:02
Member
31 TSA Points | Member since: Dec 2009
The downside is that they control the price of all the games.
cc_star | 31/12/2009 12:52
Team TSA: Writer
7737 TSA Points | Member since: Forever
I agree, hope there’s competing services.
bioniczain | 31/12/2009 09:51
Member
32 TSA Points | Member since: Oct 2009
woooooooooow holy son of a bitch
hazelam | 31/12/2009 10:11
Member
3850 TSA Points | Member since: Feb 2009
seems to work ok, and i chose my words carefully there.
seems to because all i’ve seen so far is videos, until i get my hands on it and try it personally then i can’t say for certain how well it works, and then there’s the issue of locality.
some areas have better networks than others, and some don’t have any broadband.
and what if everybody’s using this, can the network infrastructure handle that much data at the same time?
isps are already limiting people’s connections if they download too much, i can definitely see this falling foul of that, downloading a video is one thing, you download it once then watch it, but this will be a constant stream of video for as long as you’re playing the game, and for many people that will be hours at a time.
and despite some people’s assertions, even the best isp goes down sometimes.
if on live is all you have then, well then you better get a book out and start reading.
i could see this being good for mmos and other online games where you have to connect to play anyway, but most games i would prefer a physical copy that i can play whenever.
this is a good option but i can’t see it completely replacing the traditional console business any time soon, not until there’s 100% broadband coverage and the networks are outage proof, and that is a long way off.
at least with downloadable games you get a copy that cannot be taken away from you, say with on live or any other service like that, what if you like a game that nobody else does, are they going to keep that game on their servers for one person?
and they seem very US centric right now, how much support are they planning to provide outside the us?
with their thousand mile limit they can’t just have servers in the us like many online services do.
they’ll have to set up server centres worldwide, when even companies like sony are reluctant to provide servers for their mmos in europe where they don’t have the thousand mile limit, and the myriad of different providers on live will have to deal with for a region like europe if they plan to use their multi provider routing plan, so i don’t expect a start up company like this to provide much, if any, service outside the us for some time.
and i don’t know that it would interest me that much even if they did, call me a luddite but i still like to hold a disc in my hand when i pay money for a game.
all these systems seem to be heading in the direction of you not actually owning anything, they hold it all and you have to pay them whenever you want to use it, not something i’m that keen on.
and if this did totally replace the own your own hardware market, not just this service, but this and others like it, then where is the new hardware going to come from?
if they’re only selling a few hundred cards for these servers instead of the, i don’t know how many but more than that i bet, are they going to keep spending the millions developing new cards to try to outdo the opposing card manufacturers?
are intel, amd and ibm going to continue spending billions developing new chips? well they might because businesses will still need on site computing.
but they wont need new graphics hardware.
like i said, could be great for mmos and the like, means everybody gets the best experience, and nobody can hack the game, but for most gaming applications i’ll stick with my expensive hardware and discs that are in my house and i don’t have to pay anybody to play, except british gas of course for the electricity
hazelam | 31/12/2009 10:13
Member
3850 TSA Points | Member since: Feb 2009
wallotext tm
cc_star | 31/12/2009 12:51
Team TSA: Writer
7737 TSA Points | Member since: Forever
they lease the equipments so its scalable with the amount of users they have.
Would it beyond the realms of possibility for the UK to have a data centre, we are after all the 2nd biggest consumer of videogames in the world (when the economy is straight) A data centre on the German/French border would also be able to serve the majority of both countries along with the Netherlands & other central European countries, and that is job done – the majority of Europe covered with 2 datacentres, which is less than they’ve allocated to the US East coast and the population covered would be much greater, so the business model could stack up even better.
hazelam | 31/12/2009 15:46
Member
3850 TSA Points | Member since: Feb 2009
they could do it fairly easily, yes, but will they?
when they have to deal with several countries for each data centre they may do what many us companies do when it comes to dealing with europe and simply not bother, or offer a bare minimum type service.
i could see them setting up a data centre in the uk, put one in the centre asomewhere and that’s almost all the uk covered, but it might be a different story in mainland europe.
but who knows, maybe sense will prevail and they’ll see how many potential customers there are in europe.
and there’s still the issue of how isps will handle the bandwidth demand a service like this requires, i suspect it will fall outside what many isps classify as fair usage.
many isps will throttle high bandwidth users.
and imagine if this completely took over from consoles and pcs?
could the internet handle millions of hd streams flying all over the world, and it’s not just the players but spectators too.
this kind of service could have a place but i don’t see it replacing what we have now, at least i hope not.
this is my view anyway.
amiga_dude | 31/12/2009 13:19
Member
108 TSA Points | Member since: Aug 2009
The biggest problem will be ISP will start charging per GB. Then this all start’s to sound very expensive.
Yes I know some ISP are already but watch as these charges start to rise dramastically.
MrTwP | 31/12/2009 21:26
Member
70 TSA Points | Member since: Jul 2009
urms… correct me if im wrong but… say you have onlive, a laptop and a computer on all using internet… wouldnt the internet connection equially spread out, so itd be hard getting HD if your a famly
LoveToPanic | 01/01/2010 10:55
Member
9 TSA Points | Member since: Oct 2009
It is a really good idea but onLive is flawed in many ways and although a lot of people will most likely subscribe too it, i think the majority of people will stick to consoles such as PS3 and Xbox because of the other functionality they offer aside from just being a gaming console.
cc_star | 01/01/2010 12:02
Team TSA: Writer
7737 TSA Points | Member since: Forever
Excellent point,
I couldn’t live without my Blu-ray player
Dex | 01/01/2010 18:57
Member
9 TSA Points | Member since: Dec 2009
Never liked the sound of this really. I like the soon to be old-fashioned console wars, and physical discs.
I wouldn’t want to have a huge game collection to be the responsibility of some third party and only available if i keep paying a subscription.
If this becomes really successful it could be an abrupt end to loads of thing that i’m used too ._.
hunterstryfe | 03/01/2010 20:02
Member
560 TSA Points | Member since: Feb 2009
that’s me out then, seeing as my internet bandwidth at it’s max is waaaaay less than 1.5 mbps lol
beeje13 | 04/01/2010 21:57
Member
23 TSA Points | Member since: Jan 2010
alright, let’s say 2 million people are online on the OnLive network at one given time, how on earth can they get the computing power for 2 million games at once? They’ll have to have triple the power of the world’s current best supercomputer (no way any computer or server can run 2 Crysis’ HD 60fps!).They also don’t have the Brand power like microsoft or Sony.