What do you think of OnLive Gaming system?

[OldSkoolBrian]

I recently had one of my Youtube Subscribers ask me what I thought of the OnLive Game system or Cloud Gaming.

I checked it out and think it's pretty stupid.. Just want to see if I am missing something about this.. I prefer the Good old games on the shelves.

Just want to see what some other opinions are on this new system?

[substantial_snake]

I think that Onlive has a lot of potential as a window to what gaming could look like in the future. However as it stands now its a fairly niche product for those who both have a really fast internet connection but don't want to be hasted by buying/building their own gaming rig or people who prefer a rental service over owning individual games.

It really solves a lot of basic problems with gaming like physical distribution of copies adding to overall costs, different hardware configurations all having to work with your game, piracy and DMR issues which can remove a lot of headache for publishers, developers, and gamers. The fact that competing services are popping up withing a year of Onlive's launch is a sign that the concept is not going away anytime soon.

I think like any "step" in gaming it will need time to develop before it reaches its full potential and if the Onlive idea can survive for 5 years I would call it viable at the very least. I personally fall into the camp of liking a physical copy of my game, however that does not mean that the industry is not going to change around my preference.

It reminds me of the argument against things like CD based media, 3D, wireless controllers, digital distribution, and every other new tech to the medium with initial problems. All of these things has huge detractors saying that they were stupid and would never take off but with time to develop they all have and are now industry standards and I feel that the Onlive model will join that list with time to mature.

Edit: I just realized this topic is probably better for modern gaming rather then classic.

[swlovinist]

I think that there is a market for this device, and recently won a microconsole at Pax Prime. I have previously played with the service and found it to be good, not great. Limited games is what I did not like about it. I still think that the service is a good one, just a bit before its time. This is what gaming machines will be going to, just not yet. For the non collector and gamer with limited space, this is the way to go.

[Satoshi_Matrix]

Onlive fails for three main reasons:

1. It's entirely depending on you having a crazy fast connection speed of 9 MBPS or higher. To get the kind of speed you need to live in a major city. Any rural folk are screwed.

2. Cloud gaming means nothing is downloaded, which means you in fact own nothing and are entirely at the mercy of what they decide to put on -and take off- the servers. What if I want to play an Onlive game in 10 years from now? Will the infrastructure still be there? What if I want to lay game x that I remember having such a great time playing? Will I be able to find it even in a few years?

3. You can neither sell your old games or buy used ones though digital only gaming. I don't know about you guys, but I buy the vast majority of my games used for a fraction of what they would otherwise be. I somehow doubt that though digital download services like this that games would depreciate in value and be anywhere near the great deals you can find on 8-12 month year old PS3 and 360 games now.


So no, I am not at all interested in Onlive and cloud gaming.

[Berserker]

Right now it's not viable for most people, but in the long-term I think it's going to end up being the future of mainstream gaming. It's probably not going to be OnLive that dominates it; they'll either be acquired or their formula will be copied by larger companies. After all, when cloud gaming takes over, these big console manufacturers aren't going to have anything to manufacture anymore, except for peripherals.

Again, the keyword is "long-term". When we have the infrastructure to support it, and when the bandwidth limitations are worked out (they're going to cut some deals eventually - there's too much money at stake), then it will happen. I'm not very excited about it, as I like owning my own stuff and having the basic rights that go along with that, but it seems like the writing is on the wall.

When it does become mainstream, there will be pretty strong arguments in favor of it, I think. When they start developing games for cloud systems, the requirements are eventually going to creep so high that most people couldn't hope to afford running them on their own hardware. Buying slices of cloud computing power is probably going to make much more sense to most people.

I think that there will still be some holdouts though - niches of people who still prefer to run their own hardware and don't mind being limited to less cpu-intensive games, but they'll be a shrinking minority. I'll likely be one of them, as long as I can afford it.

[retroguy]

I'm with Berserker. I like having a physical copy of something to show what I got for my money. Fortunately, even if Sony and Microsoft eventually bow out of the console business to do their own cloud gaming thing, Nintendo should still be there because they've said that the day they quit the console business is the day they quit the videogame business altogether and I don't see that happening anytime soon.

[Orion Pimpdaddy]

Nintendo should still be there because they've said that the day they quit the console business is the day they quit the videogame business altogether and I don't see that happening anytime soon.

If I'm correct, they said that during the Gamecube era, when there were rumors that Nintendo was going to leave the console business and make games for all the systems (like Sega). Technically, a cloud service is still a console, since there's a box, so I don't think Nintendo is against the idea.

I think we'll see see going to a cloud service after WiiU is done.

[LaughingMAN.S9]

i think you would be hard pressed to find a more skeptical person than me when i heard about onlive and its potential viability, like most of you i prefer physical media to digital, THAT was, until i actually tried it


i personally now love onlive, not because of the fact that i look forward to it and others like it replacing all physical consoles in the future (i dont) but because it saves me money!


i now currently own 10 games on onlive ("own" u get what mean), with the exception of deus ex which i paid full price on (but got a free micro console with it) i havent paid full price for a game yet, i either rent them for a weekend for a few dollars or outright "buy" them for 5 dollars using one of their deals, onlive as it stands isnt good enough to directly compete with the big 3, but when it is used to supplement the other consoles, its a fucking beast, i love this thing, i can basically game anywhere from my netbook which wouldnt be able to play anything ever if it wasnt for this


i can use basically any controller scheme i want, mouse k/b, onlive contoller, xbox 360 or dualshock or anything in between


in the 3 or so months i've had this, i've played at least 9 games i normally wouldnt have given a fuck about and touched otherwise (fear 3, just cause 2, borderlands, splinter cell, split second) all for about the price of just 1 game on ps3 sold for significant price drop, not to mention being able to try out any game on their service for a half hour b4 committing to purchase


their game selection is steadily improving with time, a couple high profile releases are on the horizon (arkham city, saints row 3, dead island) so before judging it and condemning it, give it a try, it costs you nothing, you might find yourself to be surprised

[buzz_n64]

If services such as OnLive become mainstream, I foresee the death of future video game collecting. So far, the PSP Go has proven that people are still not ready, but that will change. As a pure gaming option, it's ok, but at a collector's stand point, to hell with it.

[c0ldb33r]

...However as it stands now its a fairly niche product for those who both have a really fast internet connection but don't want to be hasted by buying/building their own gaming rig or people who prefer a rental service over owning individual games.

Agreed. I fit both of those criteria and really like online. I actually have a very capable gaming machine but still like onlive.

The games look really good (not perfect, but really good), the response times are quick and it's cheap. They have a $5 special every Friday and I recently got Batman:AA for 1 penny.

I'm sure they'll slow down the freebies and deals as the service matures, but for now it's great :D

[LaughingMAN.S9]

Agreed. I fit both of those criteria and really like online. I actually have a very capable gaming machine but still like onlive.

The games look really good (not perfect, but really good), the response times are quick and it's cheap. They have a $5 special every Friday and I recently got Batman:AA for 1 penny.

I'm sure they'll slow down the freebies and deals as the service matures, but for now it's great :D



i just bought arkham city for 35 dollars and a free came coupon which im probably going to spend on warhammer 40,000 space marine lol thank you onlive

[Berserker]

If services such as OnLive become mainstream, I foresee the death of future video game collecting.

I think it's going to die long before that. Cloud may take over in the long-term, but digital distribution is going to take over in the short-term. We're already in a generation where it's impossible to own physical copies of all games for any major console. My guess is that modern collecting may be possible for another generation, at best.

[j_factor]

Digital distribution hasn't even taken over yet and its days are already numbered. :p

[The 1 2 P]

I would love to try OnLive out but my slow ass pc most likely wouldn't be up to the task.

[sfchakan]

I'm looking forward to it being the norm. All of these big companies can become publishers and stop worrying about losing out on hardware.

Of course, it'll be a competition between service providers, unless one takes off like Steam and treats it's customers right.

[c0ldb33r]

I would love to try OnLive out but my slow ass pc most likely wouldn't be up to the task.
That's the point of onlive. You don't need a powerful PC, just a fast internet connection.

My old laptop was ~5 years old and ran it just fine with a xbox 360 controller plugged into it (you can use keyboard and mouse if you like).

[Jorpho]

I looked at it once a little while ago when they were giving away Amnesia for free. I already have a bazillion games that run just fine, but the blissfully flashy and unnecessarily ostentatious show of the interface brought a smile to my face. It reminded me a little of the old early days of multimedia. I guess you can get away with that kind of thing when you don't have to make sure your client software runs on the lowest common denominator.

[substantial_snake]

I would love to try OnLive out but my slow ass pc most likely wouldn't be up to the task.

The way I understand it Onlive works by streaming a 1:1 (with super fast connection) time video of whatever their shared computer is rendering to your screen. The only thing your computer does is run the Onlive client and stream the video, completely cutting out the need for expensive hardware. If your old ass machine can stream Netflix I would imagine that your could run Onlive. I don't have the service though so take that for what it is.

So basically your watching a video of yourself playing a video game. It that is not a meme in the making I don't know what is. lol

[Ze_ro]

Asking a bunch of video game collectors about cloud gaming is probably not going to get you the best response... We're probably the demographic LEAST likely to buy into this, for various reasons already stated. The folks who buy Madden every year and trade in their games a month after buying them won't share our concerns, and that's the group they want to get to. A large percentage of PC gamers have already given into digital distribution, and it's only a matter of time before people give into cloud gaming.

I'm not a fan of the concept, but I truly think it's the future of video games. There are a few technical issues that still need to be worked out, but the concept is absolutely perfect for publishers, as it not only eliminates the 2nd-hand market, but also makes DRM completely unnecessary, and gives them complete control over damn near everything (Ooops, we got sued over this license, pull the game!)

I'm going to make a prediction right now and say OnLive will almost certainly fail... but it will be followed by other systems that will iron out the kinks thanks to being backed by much larger companies. I also foresee each company having their own competing service, at least in the beginning (think Steam vs. Origin vs. etc). If Valve is smart, they're already looking into some way to integrate cloud gaming into Steam.

--Zero

[Rickstilwell1]

The way I understand it Onlive works by streaming a 1:1 (with super fast connection) time video of whatever their shared computer is rendering to your screen. The only thing your computer does is run the Onlive client and stream the video, completely cutting out the need for expensive hardware. If your old ass machine can stream Netflix I would imagine that your could run Onlive. I don't have the service though so take that for what it is.

So basically your watching a video of yourself playing a video game. It that is not a meme in the making I don't know what is. lol

Watch a video of yourself playing a video game? Haha I do that all the time already when I capture virtual boy footage and hook the camera's output to the TV so I can actually see what I'm doing in the game.

Myself I believe it's impossible to collect every game in existance anyway so why does it really matter if the ability to collect brand new games stops? And even if you only "collect" games for franchises you like, PC is one platform where there are so many games that collecting physical copies of every single game ever made for it would be nearly impossible as well. Maybe what will happen is OnLive could kill disc format PC gaming but console gaming would still exist. That sounds more likely than it taking over gaming completely.

[c0ldb33r]

I'm going to make a prediction right now and say OnLive will almost certainly fail... but it will be followed by other systems that will iron out the kinks thanks to being backed by much larger companies.
I don't think Onlive will fail, I think it will be bought. I think Steam will buy Online so they can sell Steam games to those that can't properly run Steam games on their gaming PCs, or want to play them on TV, ipad, etc... It really is a no-brainer move for Steam.

Also, I remember reading once that Steam was very interested in Onlive.

[retroguy]

There are a few technical issues that still need to be worked out, but the concept is absolutely perfect for publishers, as it not only eliminates the 2nd-hand market, but also makes DRM completely unnecessary, and gives them complete control over damn near everything (Ooops, we got sued over this license, pull the game!)

See, this is the exact reason I've always been opposed to digital distribution of anything (games, books, movies, music, whatever). If some executive decides to take something away, it's essentially gone for good. At least if there are physical copies out there the ones who want the media in question can still find it.

A good example of this is "Revenge of Shinobi". Spider-man and Batman are two of the bosses in that game, right? But there were copyright issues, so later on they released a different version of the game without those two characters. If that had been an Onlive game, the original version would have been lost forever, but because it's on a cartridge, it's still possible to track it down.

I'm going into the future kicking and screaming.

[portnoyd]

I think it's pretty worthless. Just because you can cloud something doesn't mean it should be clouded.

[j_factor]

Asking a bunch of video game collectors about cloud gaming is probably not going to get you the best response... We're probably the demographic LEAST likely to buy into this, for various reasons already stated. The folks who buy Madden every year and trade in their games a month after buying them won't share our concerns, and that's the group they want to get to.

They'll be concerned that they can't trade their games in anymore.

[Gamevet]

I just put together a nice mid-range PC in January. It can pretty much run anything I throw at it.

I haven't really spent a lot on games either. In the past 6 months, the most expensive game I've bought was Crysis 2 for $40. I paid less than $15 for Metro 2033 and bought several titles from Half-Price Books for under $8.

PC games aren't as expensive to buy as they are on console, so I have no need or desire to use Onlive.

[Robocop2]

As I have no intrest in PC gaming; I don't honestly think about OnLive much at all. I could see the benefit for the space concious non-collector but it doesn't really trip my trigger either way.

[eskobar]

OnLive is one of the brightest ideas that became reality, if you have a really fast connection the service works really good and it's cheap. I know that many collectors cannot be interested in the service but quite possibly because they haven' tried it yet.

Many great games may never be a part of OnLive but i hope the service lives long and more companies support a similar technology :D

[Press_Start]

The biggest problem for Onlive (and cloud technology/digital distribution in general) is the big telecom companies. If and/or when they start "insisting" more on limiting data cap plans like AT&T last year, it'll either hinder progress thanks to a narrowing of the market to a niche selection that can afford doling out the cash for high-end unlimited data AND games in a crippling economic recession or choke the life out as a viable game option altogether.

[Ze_ro]

They'll be concerned that they can't trade their games in anymore.
I only know a few people who trade their games in, but when they do, it's more often to get rid of something they don't use anymore, and make a couple of bucks in the process. Getting their money back isn't that important to them, especially when they're trading in old sports games and "a couple of bucks" really is all they're getting.

I think most of them won't notice or care, frankly.

--Zero

[AMG]

I'm not interested in Onlive at all personally. I have no interest in paying top dollar for games I don't really even own. Physical copy or bust for me.