well you need 5mbps internet to stream 720p from onlive, so I assume it's around 5mbps. All of my 5mbps 720p tv shows look pretty good, so I don't know.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Onlive Release Date and Pricing (June 17th launch)
- Thread starter crackbone
- Start date
well you need 5mbps internet to stream 720p from onlive, so I assume it's around 5mbps. All of my 5mbps 720p tv shows look pretty good, so I don't know.
once the bugs get worked out and the quality matures to 1080p this would be a decent reason to get the service. if they keep prices reasonable the desktop computer will become thing of enthusiasts only. if i could play high end games on budget laptops instead of spending 1000$ more for a good gaming laptop i would do it.
also what would it cost to make a dumb console to run this service. all they would have to do is offer the ability to surf the net, word process and game from a dirt cheap console. a console you can never get a virus, slow down or require a PC tech for just 15$ a month i think tons of people would jump all over this. not the average [H] user but the normal person would see this huge advantage.
i would buy one for my parents in a heart beat so i dont have to fix their computer every time i go visit.
In a video a while back the guy behind Onlive said they would offer a extremely basic console to run this and that they could make it cheap enough to possibly just give it away when someone signs up for the service (I assume for at least a years service).
Last edited:
Thats excatly what this is, which is why its an excellent technology. Hell you can play crysis with one of those cheap laptops with 10 inch screens.
crisis this, and crisis that... 180 dollars + however much crisis costs = waaay too much to spend for a single video game, which is the only example people can come up with on here.
Do you know how much beer you can get for 200 bucks.
First of all, it's Crysis
Second 180+Crysis=$200 or $800 for gaming machine + Crysis. It's funny because this could be the best thing to happen to PC gaming since online multiplayer. Bring the mass market to the pc platform. I guess some people lack the ability to think critically and look at the big picture, so I don't blame you.
I don't see how this is a good thing for either the PC or the console market at all.
I think you're way out in fantasy land with this thing. No critical thinking involved with that level of delusion.
Onlive doesnt use high/very high setting and PC capable of playing Crysis on medum is much cheaper than 800$$.
Most people already have PC - to turn it into gaming PC is not expensive - just get new GPU and maybe PSU.
there was several review about it and all of them mention about input that and does not suit for fps game...
SixtyWattMan
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2008
- Messages
- 4,466
I was playing at 1280x1024 in 2004, I can't even imagine paying $15 a month to play at 1280x720. I'd rather have a Tabasco enema.
You're quick to label me, yet you provide no reason for your conjecture. I've already done so in this thread. If you can't read the thread, don't try and post in it.
Onlive doesnt use high/very high setting and PC capable of playing Crysis on medum is much cheaper than 800$$.
Most people already have PC - to turn it into gaming PC is not expensive - just get new GPU and maybe PSU.
I've already stated in this thread that this service isn't mean for people that are capable of doing that. Even so, you're looking at $300+ to be able to do what you said, that'd be like 1.5+ years of this service, and you still don't have to upgrade after that 1.5 years. Can the same thing be said for the former scenario?
Kaldskryke
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2004
- Messages
- 1,346
This is actually a really good question.
Typically when a video is compressed the codec has the ability to see not only the current frame that it is compressing, but also previous frames and next frames. This visibility helps the compression algorithm save a lot of data space because it can re-use data over time. Temporal compression is easily the most significant part of video compression.
This works fine for video files that are already recorded. However with OnLive there is no way to see future frames and this has a drastic effect on the efficiency of compression. The result is that a 720p OnLive stream would either look worse than 720p Youtube or cost more bandwidth. This was a major technical hurdle for OnLive.
OnLive's video compression algorithm tries to make up for this deficiency with "perceptual compression" where the parts of the video that are less important to the viewer get compressed more. A scrutinizing look at OnLive would probably see lots of compression artifacts and blocking in the corners and on the backdrops, but the hope is that when the user isn't looking for compression they won't notice it because they'll be focused on the moving foreground objects which get a less lossy compression.
I'd love to see some high-quality screenshots, but I haven't seen anything that provides a really good look at image quality.
I have read the whole thread and I conclude that you're full of it and not facing reality. There's nothing here that's superior to a PC or a console. You have not successfully made a case in concrete facts that proves otherwise.
How's that?
PrincessFrosty
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 6, 2009
- Messages
- 5,905
$180 a year i'd prefer to put towards a graphics cards tbh.
They need to demo the system to show users what its like before they pay a susbscription, i'd be all for testing that to see if they can really make lag free games, still the deciding factor for me, I simply dont think its possible. anyway not done in the UK so irrelevent really.
They need to demo the system to show users what its like before they pay a susbscription, i'd be all for testing that to see if they can really make lag free games, still the deciding factor for me, I simply dont think its possible. anyway not done in the UK so irrelevent really.
My biggest problem at this point isn't the technology, nor is it the pricing scheme, it is the pricing scheme combined with "buying" a retail game.
So if you subscribe to OnLive, buy a game, then later on unsubscribe, you can no longer play your purchased games? That is ludicrous, could you imagine if Steam did the same thing?
I dunno, I'd much prefer a tiered pricing structure like Gametap that gets you a la carte access to certain types of games depending on how much you pay for a subscription (ie - bronze for casual/classics, silver for cool but older games, gold for the newest or highest end stuff), either that or no subscription fee if you buy games. Subscribing to "own" games is crazy.
So if you subscribe to OnLive, buy a game, then later on unsubscribe, you can no longer play your purchased games? That is ludicrous, could you imagine if Steam did the same thing?
I dunno, I'd much prefer a tiered pricing structure like Gametap that gets you a la carte access to certain types of games depending on how much you pay for a subscription (ie - bronze for casual/classics, silver for cool but older games, gold for the newest or highest end stuff), either that or no subscription fee if you buy games. Subscribing to "own" games is crazy.
edifyingkarma
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2008
- Messages
- 1,464
*shoulders shrugged* Meh
Snowknight26
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 8, 2005
- Messages
- 4,435
Sure there is - you just delay the output by x number of frames, but that defeats the purpose as it's no longer low-latency.
heatlesssun
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2005
- Messages
- 44,154
On this I couldn't agree with you more.
I'm almost always right, I don't post just to hear myself talk.
This has to be US only as my first thought being a Canadian high speed subscriber is they barely give you enough bandwidth a month to say download more then a couple larger games off Steam (plus everything else you do in a month) so the constant streaming video (I assume that's how the tech works, they basically stream back a vid of you playing their PC remotely otherwise how else can it be done in a browser?) would eat up anything that Rogers gives you. It's almost as if the shrinking bandwidth limits are going the opposite way of everything streaming or downloadable but that's a discussion for another thread.
Naming is irrelevant, one game isn't worth 200 dollars, or 800 dollars, PERIOD.
Tell that to the people that own a pc just to play wow, have been paying subscription fees for years and have bought all the expansion packs. That adds up to well past $200 some people have definately paid $800.
However I see the best use of this being that you could play your games no matter where you were. I think the biggest thing holding it back is the subscription + having to buy each game individualy
RanceJustice
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2003
- Messages
- 6,659
Personally, I believe that services like this ruin it "for the rest of us". Much like DLC and DRM, if this sort of "Games as a service/subscription, you own nothing!" takes off, that means that more and more titles will only be released this way. Under the guise of convenience and for a huge sum of cash, this is basically selling away your right to ownership of content. OnLive isn't good for PC gaming. Everything is in the control of their company - right down to the quality and resolution of the games you play. Modding will likely be impossible. Everything is a passive interaction - from all data so far, you can't go into the Crysis folder they give you, and install the Mechwarrior Legends mod. You're supposed to sit there, dispense cash, and say "Thank you sir, may I pay for another?". Look at Ubisoft's abhorrent "Always connected" DRM - the only thing that allows the customer to "fight back", legally and technically, is the fact they own the hardware. With OnLive, this barrier is gone and now content providers don't even have to pretend to respect the customer!
This is a power grab, wresting the last bit of control the user has over his own gaming experience. Fight it now, show that PC gamers won't kowtow, or look to a future where other people make decisions about your entertainment, and expect you to cough up tons of cash for the privilege to do so.
This is a power grab, wresting the last bit of control the user has over his own gaming experience. Fight it now, show that PC gamers won't kowtow, or look to a future where other people make decisions about your entertainment, and expect you to cough up tons of cash for the privilege to do so.
TED
Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2002
- Messages
- 860
This isnt going to work for anybody that doesnt have an insanely good internet connection... I know my Crapcast connection drops/has terrible ping/ and is just plain funky sometimes. At those times any games I would want to play would be unplayable.
Kaldskryke
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2004
- Messages
- 1,346
We've never owned the content in games. I don't like the implications for modding either, but let's not imagine that we used to have ownership of games.
and you still haven't made a case, you just keep saying that i'm delusional, etc which probably means you have no case, realize it, and are trying to avoid the question.
So, please tell me how this could be bad for PC gamers?
Now, just for the hell of it, I'll refute your quoted post. Nothing has to be superior. This isn't for people who already own a gaming pc or know how to put one together. This is for someone who doesn't know how to or doesn't want to learn. The things that would be considered a problem for technical people, the people that this is marketed toward won't even probably notice.
Currently, consoles dominate the market, which means developers cater to them. This also means that as pc gamers, we have to take any crappy port with a smile on our faces because that's all we can get. If onlive is a sucess, it would mean that PCs would start to dominate the market, or at the very least, have a sizeable enough share to justify spening millions of dollars to develop exclusively for it. With that would mean more and better big budget pc exclusive titles that haven't been seen since the late 90s early 00s.
Now please tell me how getting more and better games would be detrimental to a pc gamer. I mean honestly, I'm trying to have a nice debate, but it seems like all you want to do is come in here and post a couple of sentences about how I'm wrong without providing a counter argument.
I never said it was, and I agree with you in that sentiment, but most people would probably like to play more than one game on PC. I can imagine so many people that would love this. You have to imagine the everyday user who doesn't even know what an OS is, all they want to do is play games. They don't want the hastle of worrying about upgrading, patching, installing drivers, etc. These people would be more than willing to pay $15 per month for that.
I also think if it survives it's first year, it will only get better. I would imagine this has some pretty good economies of scale, which could mean more servers located closer to individuals. Also with more broadband speeds would come better resolution and less compression. Remember, you have to start somewhere.
RanceJustice
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2003
- Messages
- 6,659
I consider that a problem in and of itself, as far as the law is concerned but lets think back to PC games (even consoles) several years ago...
Back when the entire game was on the disc or the cartridge, you "owned" it. You could resell the box to someone else when you were done. You could play it wherever you wanted, on any of your PCs. You could copy all the game data to your hard drive and play it from there. You could download the texture pack someone else made, and zip it into your texture folder. CD Keys weren't linked to some internet database somewhere, binding that copy in perpetuity to you, preventing you from selling it to another. The disc itself had ALL the information necessary to play the game, to completion upon it. Even when DRM came along much later, you were given both the "lock" and the "key" - with something like OnLive, you're not given the key at all - you ask Big Brother to let you in whenever you want to play.
Greedy entertainment companies have already destroyed the doctrine of first sale with slimy legalese, thrown the concept of fair use in the trash, decided it would be a good idea to rip content out to be sold later as DRM, all the while complaining about pirates and raising prices. The only thing that stops them from having the complete control over your PC that say, Microsoft does over LIVE, is the fact that its YOUR hardware not theirs. OnLive will change all that, and if it is successful that is where all the game studios are going to go and eventually you won't have any choice save between selling your soul to these greedy fucksticks, and not gaming at all.
Let me just run a scenario by you, and you tell me if it makes good financial sense.
Let's say I make a pc game and I decide that I only want to sell it in stores, and not through DD services, even though DD compose 60% of the market at this time (hypothetically). So instead of expanding my market with no extra work, I decide to be stubborn and lose out on millions of dollars. Does that make me a good businessman?
Onlive=ZERO PIRACY, that's right zilch nada nothing. You think publishers aren't hoping this replaces consoles and pc as the NEW STANDARD medium for gaming? Heh guess again. I don't necessarily care for this but I can see a ton of casual gamers who only play browser based games jumping on this. Netbooks, shitty cheap laptop/desktops in the avg persons house are the target and that untapped market is fucking retardedly big. Period the end.
Wrench
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2004
- Messages
- 10,863
I can live with drms. I can live with a subscription to an online service. What I can't live with is that I lose access to all my games if my internet connection goes down. Those of you that are for this are fools. You're willing to give up your money for no tangible product. I pray this service falls on it's ass.
Posted via [H] Mobile Device
Posted via [H] Mobile Device
RanceJustice
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2003
- Messages
- 6,659
Its also "good business" to dump industrial waste into a water supply to save money processing it (Paying X to grease some palms to create a flimsy "independent survey" is way cheaper than the Y it would cause to build a proper treatment center) , but that doesn't mean it is ethical or should be done.
I have no problem with digital distribution, just the way that many companies are doing so these days. S2 Games (Savage 2, Heroes of Newerth) has one of the best digital distribution methods I've seen. First of all, the games themselves have no DRM. There's no limited activations, no connection to the internet, no CD checks, nothing! Furthermore, they actually allow the full client to be freely distributed. This cuts down on their own hosting costs - they actually distribute via a torrent, and FileFront, FilePlanet etc.. are free to host it if they wish. Players can play the single player, tutorial, or LAN modes absolutely free. The only cost comes in if you wish to buy a Prime key, which is the "full game" consisting of the online mode, official servers, stat tracking, recording, and more. Sure, they know there are ways around it if you were a really determined pirate, but its low price combined with features that players want, like Linux and Mac clients mean that many people buy. This model could theoretically work with any game that is primarily "online mode" focused.
For single player games, I suggest looking to Mount and Blade. They provide a fully working demo that's locked to level 7, and then give you the key to unlock it if you purchase.
There are plenty of companies out there that have found a customer friendly way to get their product out there, but for many greed prevents this. For instance, some games have digital only editions that cost as much or MORE than their boxed editions. The digital could be $30 instead of $60, in deference to the fact that those sales go directly to the developer (and don't have to pay MS or Sony for the privilege, additionally) , saving the costs of production, distribution, and the retailer's cut, but no - They would rather squeeze every little penny out of the unaware public. You can only do that so long before some people wake up.
OnLive is an example of "Wring them all dry" business models - overtly controlling, and the antithesis of the honorable, customer focused models I spoke of earlier. I will support these other companies the best that I can, and not give one cent to the Ubisofts and OnLives of the gaming world, but I worry that the average consumer is not going to see the big picture, which will be damning to the rest of us who do.
Firstly, this is my first time posting but I have spent a very long time observing the forums, but have only just gotten around to creating an account.
For those who may not know, OnLive is the completely online gaming-on-demand service expected to be available in the U.S this year.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OnLive
I'm posting this because I want to try get an understanding of how people feel about the service, I figured hard forum would be the best place to ask because of the strong collection of enthusiasts that can be found here.
Personally I do feel quite unsure, even though this service is supposed to eliminate a lot of the costs of equipment and other expenses for consumers, there is a certain desire shared among many people to be able to collect a physical object, or even to have a tangible asset that can be sold or traded.
but I have spent a very long time observing the forums, but have only just gotten around to creating an account.For those who may not know, OnLive is the completely online gaming-on-demand service expected to be available in the U.S this year.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OnLive
I'm posting this because I want to try get an understanding of how people feel about the service, I figured hard forum would be the best place to ask because of the strong collection of enthusiasts that can be found here.
Personally I do feel quite unsure, even though this service is supposed to eliminate a lot of the costs of equipment and other expenses for consumers, there is a certain desire shared among many people to be able to collect a physical object, or even to have a tangible asset that can be sold or traded.
Intel_Hydralisk
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2005
- Messages
- 4,743
What about... lag?
I have a 6 mbps connection, but it's hardly ever at 6. Streaming a 720p video is almost always a no go... and 480p is a toss up (and not possible during peak traffic times...). I'm also assuming that the game you're seeing will be at 24-30 fps.
The "skepticism" section of that wiki article pretty much summed it up for me.
I have a 6 mbps connection, but it's hardly ever at 6. Streaming a 720p video is almost always a no go... and 480p is a toss up (and not possible during peak traffic times...). I'm also assuming that the game you're seeing will be at 24-30 fps.
The "skepticism" section of that wiki article pretty much summed it up for me.
heatlesssun
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2005
- Messages
- 44,154
OnLive is definitely an interesting concept ant in time with it running on enough clients and offering a ton of titles, OnLive could be quite successful.
Actually a forum like [H] may not be the best place to get a feel for how well this service might do because we a HARDWARE enthusiasts and as such OnLive isn't offering us much. I know I could be interested in it if it offered something for the $15 per month besides just the right to rent and purchase games. Perhaps some sort of previews or trials or demos or something besides nothing.
Personally for now I'm not intrested.
Actually a forum like [H] may not be the best place to get a feel for how well this service might do because we a HARDWARE enthusiasts and as such OnLive isn't offering us much. I know I could be interested in it if it offered something for the $15 per month besides just the right to rent and purchase games. Perhaps some sort of previews or trials or demos or something besides nothing.
Personally for now I'm not intrested.
Oldie
Mean Old Administrator
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2004
- Messages
- 21,888
You obviously haven't seen marketing bots. The grammar here is way to good.
I would like to see Onlive pull this off to be honest. The potential for evil is there, but there's also the potential to radically change PC gaming, and give some value adds that aren't possible otherwise.
Of course there's a trade-off, but the potential for cool stuff could be worth it.