OnLive Aiming To Become Netflix of Games

Old news. by saucercrab · 2011-02-01 21:00 · Score: 1

I had the Sega Channel back in '94.

Re:Old news. by Onuma · 2011-02-02 01:37 · Score: 1

Good point, but the Sega Channel seemed to be plagued by problems. Occasionally the unit would overheat, certain larger games were nearly impossible to download (Shadowrun and Phantasy Star IV come to mind), and had an lack of availability/support in many areas.

I hope, and expect OnLive to be implemented much more strongly than SC ever was. You may need their hardware and/or software to run things (not sure about their current implementation plan), but you can play it on your device - no need to specifically have a Sega Genesis in this case.

They're not the first to try, but they may be the first to succeed.

--
What else can happen when an unstoppable force collides with an immovable object?

hmm interesting by rainmouse · 2011-02-01 21:07 · Score: 1

If they can make it less effort to stream or download a film to watch than it is to pirate something then they may be onto something glaringly obvious that the big media companies seem to have failed to realise. However I suspect people may be subjected to DRM restrictions and too many hoops to jump through to cross that threshold of ease of use offered by many torrent sites.

Re:hmm interesting by commodore6502 · 2011-02-02 02:19 · Score: 1

>>>If they can make it less effort to stream or download than it is to pirate
Perhaps, but I still prefer to own games. That way I can convert them back to cash when finished with them. As example: I bought Final Fantasy 13 for $45 sale price, beat it, and then sold to to some guy on ebay for $53.
Made a nice profit. That happens with most of my games where I sell them for a few dollars more than I originally paid, so overall I am making money by owning (versus a $5 rental which I never get back).
On the other hand I might end-up like this guy, and
just go back to rentals: "Author Falls in Love with E-reader"
http://www.analogsf.com/2011_04/altview.shtml

--
Information wants to be expensive AND wants to be free. So you have Value vs. Cheap distribution fighting each other.
Re:hmm interesting by AmberBlackCat · 2011-02-02 02:54 · Score: 1

What they need to do is make it so you can pause, rewind, advance forward or backward a single frame, and take a screen capture as easily as you can with a movie played from a file on your hard drive. Also, they need to add the ability to edit the video and watch your new version of the video. And they need to guarantee you'll always be able to watch the current and your new edited version of the video. Then it will be as good as a video you have on disc.
Re:hmm interesting by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-02 03:09 · Score: 0

Made a nice profit. That happens with most of my games where I sell them for a few dollars more than I originally paid
Really? Profit happens when you sell something for more than you paid? Interesting concept. You are lying in that you normally purchase commodity video games and then turn a profit, but thanks for the definition either way, ass hat.
Re:hmm interesting by rwven · 2011-02-02 06:19 · Score: 1

It's FAR easier and faster currently to rent and stream/download a film than it is to pirate it. I have an Apple TV, a PS3, and an XBOX 360. I can fire any of them up, rent a movie, and be watching almost instantly. At most I wait about 30 seconds for initial buffering. The Apple TV renting experience is particularly, brainlessly smooth.
Re:hmm interesting by Mister_Stoopid · 2011-02-02 07:01 · Score: 1

I'd say the one step that makes renting on Apple TV more trouble than pirating is the "have an Apple TV" step. It's a weird almost-computer, almost-DVD-player, and I think for most people it falls squarely into the category of "I'm not buying it because I don't know what it's supposed to do".
Re:hmm interesting by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-02 07:17 · Score: 0

True, but $5 can be steep for a rental, especially with the proliferation of Netflix, Redbox, etc.
Re:hmm interesting by rwven · 2011-02-02 07:42 · Score: 1

Most things I rent on apple TV are $2.99 and new releases are $3.99. I don't really rent in HD though. the 5% difference in streaming video quality isn't worth an extra buck, haha.
Re:hmm interesting by rwven · 2011-02-02 07:44 · Score: 1

Well, then there's always the XBOX 360 or PS3 options.
My samsung TV is pretty new and has the app support as well. There are at LEAST five different apps that you can rent movies directly to the TV through. CinemaNow being my favorite. Of course not everyone has a samsung TV that can do this though.
Re:hmm interesting by hedwards · 2011-02-02 08:17 · Score: 1

Yes, but what was the cost of the console you used to play those games? For the cost of a PS3 at launch you'd get 5 years or so of play for that. With the more recent revisions you'd still get something like 30 months or so of play for that. And that's assuming you just buy the unit, the costs of the games are obviously going to increase that.
So, I'm failing to see any actual savings there versus renting via onLive.
Re:hmm interesting by wickedskaman · 2011-02-02 08:44 · Score: 1

~:-O That's mean!

--
Sand's overrated... it's just tiny little rocks.

First? But really... by Genocaust · 2011-02-01 21:16 · Score: 1

Is this plan new? I signed up for the "free monthly trial" of OnLive awhile back but it still required me to purchase (at retail prices) games in addition to the waived monthly fee. Why would I want to pay retail and a continuing monthly maintenance fee for a game, exactly?

--
It could be that the only purpose of your life is to serve as a warning to others.

Re:First? But really... by Shadis · 2011-02-02 01:59 · Score: 1

This is new. This is a $9 a month fee to play all you want to play. You then don't have to pay for any of the games that are part of this program. As long as you keep paying the $9 a month you can play any of the games as much as you want. You can still pay the 'retail' price for a game if you don't want to pay a subscription fee as well.
Re:First? But really... by hedwards · 2011-02-02 08:20 · Score: 1

You should keep current. They don't charge anything any more unless you want more than a trial of the game. They're charging $9.99 a month for unlimited play on a select number of games, and include service for those that want to buy a game from them.
What you're saying is what they said at launch, but as of late last year they were able to balance their books and provide service without making everybody pay a maintenance fee. OnLive: Just Play for Free!

Subscriptions, no thanks! by sd4f · 2011-02-01 21:25 · Score: 1

What is it with subscriptions, everyone wants to sell you a contract for a service. It's like as if they have a dire fear of actually selling you a tangible product. Besides, my internet isn't reliable enough to instantly stream low res youtube.

Re:Subscriptions, no thanks! by MattSausage · 2011-02-02 01:46 · Score: 1

Well, for what it's worth, you still have the option to buy the games outright. Again, it's on their service, so no disks or anything. But you do not have to subscribe. In fact, the way it stands now, not all games are available under the subscription plans.

So, you can pay retail-ish prices for the games, and play them from now until the service shuts down (however many years that might be), or you can subscribe and get a dozen or more games to play without restriction which may or may not be the newest most popular games on the service.
Re:Subscriptions, no thanks! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-02 02:05 · Score: 0

What is it with subscriptions, everyone wants to sell you a contract for a service. It's like as if they have a dire fear of actually selling you a tangible product. Besides, my internet isn't reliable enough to instantly stream low res youtube.
What is it with subscriptions? I take it you don't know much about business at all. Recurring monthly revenue is basically the holy grail of any business plan. It's much better to have a continuous flow of income than it is to have fluctuating income.
Re:Subscriptions, no thanks! by cheekyjohnson · 2011-02-02 02:14 · Score: 1

Yeah. That would mean that you actually have to work on more ways to earn money rather than just sit around and collect money from customers who pay you monthly.

--
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
Re:Subscriptions, no thanks! by jank1887 · 2011-02-02 02:30 · Score: 1

"What is it with subscriptions..."
money. like the gym membership you buy, keep, but don't use. It's a fixed, predictable revenue stream. Stability is key to long term growth of a business. being able to count on a steady income is a huge part of that. why not shoot for the business model that people have shown to be okay with (even if you aren't) and give yourself a chance at staying around.
Re:Subscriptions, no thanks! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-02 02:42 · Score: 0

Yeah. That would mean that you actually have to work on more ways to earn money rather than just sit around and collect money from customers who pay you monthly.
You seem to have that backwards. A subscription plan would require people to actually have to work to keep people wanting to pay a subscription.

Post Queue by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-01 21:30 · Score: 0

First

From the guy who brought you Xband and WebTV! by mykos · 2011-02-01 21:47 · Score: 0

After helping to develop Quicktime, Steve Perlman has made his living bilking investors and early adopters into technology that doesn't work. While Xband wasn't really his fault because bandwidth was lacking, he now has to contend with a greater technology hurdle:
c itself.

Check out youtube videos of any Unreal Tournament III match, and notice the inability of the player to hit all but the most stationary enemies. It's not going to work. Network lag + rendering lag + controller input lag + television input lag = an unplayable experience, unless you exclusively play turn-based strategy games.

Re:From the guy who brought you Xband and WebTV! by cheeks5965 · 2011-02-02 03:58 · Score: 1

It's not going to work. Network lag + rendering lag + controller input lag + television input lag = an unplayable experience, unless you exclusively play turn-based strategy games.
Yeah, lag is an initial concern, but in my experience has little impact for most games. I played through the entirety of just cause 2 and assassin's creed 2, and lag wasn't a problem. But it may be different for twitchier games like fps or racing. I recommend you give it a try and see if it's a deal breaker.

--
-- Flame me and I will happily flame you back. Bring it!

Steam by Etiko · 2011-02-01 21:53 · Score: 1

I feel Steam has a bigger chance of becoming the "Netflix of Games". Especially with Steam moving to the PS3 now as well...

Re:Steam by Barefoot+Monkey · 2011-02-02 02:15 · Score: 1

Isn't this what Steam is already ... ?
Not at all. Well, mostly-not-at-all - they'll probably end up with a similar delivery mechanism to Steam (and not persist with silly ideas like having the games execute remotely), but what this is really all about is the pricing scheme. TFA describes paying a fixed monthly amount to play anything on an entire catelogue. Steam gives you an indefinite subscription with after a seperate once-off payment for each individual game.
Re:Steam by nschubach · 2011-02-02 02:18 · Score: 1

Technically it's just Steamworks (not sure about voice chat) from what I understand of it...
I'd be flat lined if Steam brought their store to the PS3 along with cross game/platform voice and they let me use the apps in my PC library that have PS3 equivalents, but for the update coming it's just enough Steam (cloud, updates and multiplayer) to support Portal 2 from my understanding.

--
Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
Re:Steam by elrous0 · 2011-02-02 02:25 · Score: 1

Steam only works with PC's. OnLive works with PC's, and also as a stand-alone console. That's a big deal to gamers like me who left behind the PC a long time ago to sit our lazy asses on the couch and leave behind the upgrade race.

--
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Re:Steam by Barefoot+Monkey · 2011-02-02 02:31 · Score: 1

To clarify: What OnLive offers now is completely unlike Steam - when you play an OnLive game it actually runs on an OnLive server and sends each rendered frame to your computer through the Internet. That's great if you have an amazing Internet connection and a terrible computer; that's quite a technical achievement, but I don't feel that the advantages (low hardware requirement) compensate enough for the drawbacks (latency, heavy Internet requirement) and I personally think that a Steam-like delivery mechanism would be a better idea. Of course, then they'd need something like this pricing scheme that they're proposing in order to differentiate themselves from Steam.
Re:Steam by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-02 03:42 · Score: 0

Not even remotely. Steam = iTunes download, OnLive = Netflix streaming. You never have a copy of the media with OnLive, your box does no work (beside sending inputs and displaying output).
This has major pros and cons.
The case for:
1) Instant demo. OnLive can put a simple 5 minute timer on free play and give you a demo of any game in their library.
2) Piracy lockout. You just get the rendered output, not a download so there's no way to torrent.
3) Low hardware costs. You can play any game on a standard PC or on your TV with a $100 attachment.
4) Instant rentals. Couple of days worth of rental and you can play a game instantly and "return" automatically.
The case against.
1) Speed of Light. Lag, you need some prediction and other local hardware tricks to reduce the effects of lag, particularly in multi-player.
2) Ownership lockout. You never real own a title. They have some options to permanently have access to a title, but it is reliant on your ability to use their service.
3) High network costs. All the bandwidth costs of streaming video plus the latency sensitivity of online gaming.
4) Limited Library. They don't have nearly the library size of Steam.
I think OnLive gives a particularly good case for AAA single player experiences which the target audience would enjoy demoing or renting.
Re:Steam by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-02 05:36 · Score: 0

Steam has hardware and OS requirements, onlive doesn't, it can have consistent experience between different clients.
Re:Steam by nschubach · 2011-02-02 06:29 · Score: 1

Amusingly, the upgrade race is stalling (IMHO...) The games coming out are not really tapping into the performance of hardware today. I recently (August) upgraded my Core2Duo with 4GB and nVidia 6800GT that I bought in March 2005, but it still did everything I asked of it. Even though it was 5 years old, I gave it to a friend who still uses it. I expect my new machine (Corei7, 6GB, ATI5870) to last longer than that one did.
Granted, it's not the "10 year" plan of the PS2, but it's not like I have to upgrade video cards every year (ugh, so much money wasted in those days) to play the latest games with respectable performance.

--
Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
Re:Steam by Smauler · 2011-02-02 08:17 · Score: 1

Personally I play all my PC games at native resolution... 1920 * 1200. People often complain about their PC games running slowly in comparison to console games, not realising that in many cases they're running at 1/4 the resolution.

TACHYONS! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-01 21:59 · Score: 0

Regardless of what this topic is about, I just want to say that I gave Onlive a try, and it ended up being awful. Bad resolution, bad graphics, bad response times. The idea is great, but I doubt the worlds infrastructure is ready for it.

Re:TACHYONS! by True+Vox · 2011-02-03 00:52 · Score: 1

Well, while we're providing testimonials, I'll say that I too gave Onlive a try, and am a happy owner of two games (Just Cause & Red Faction), and might dip into this subscription service. I found the resolution agreeable (haven't tried it on my TV, but I suspect it'd be fine there too), the graphics were not as crisp as I'd like, but quite serviceable, and the response times, while "there", were nothing that interfered with my gaming (that I noticed).

--
"Gratuitous complexity is akin to chaos" - True Vox

From the man who brought you Xband and WebTV! by mykos · 2011-02-01 22:03 · Score: 2

Steve Perlman has made his living off of tech-deficient investors and hapless early adopters.

With Xband, he had to contend with limited bandwidth.
With WebTV, he had to contend with limited processing power
With onlive, he has to contend with the biggest hurdle of all: the speed of light.

Controller input lag + rendering lag + video compression lag + television input lag + stream decoding + network lag itself is not going to make for a great experience. Watch any youtube video with Onlive and Unreal Tournament III. Notice how the player is playing on the easiest settings and requires fairly stationary or predictable targets just to connect with a shot.

This system will be great for people who play facebook apps and turn-based strategy games, but everyone else is just going to be frustrated.

Re:From the man who brought you Xband and WebTV! by bondsbw · 2011-02-02 02:25 · Score: 1

Most people I know say that UT3 is definitely playable (and I agree), but those "Facebook" games are the ones that seem to experience the most noticeable lag.
In OnLive, there is a tiny amount of input-to-screen lag, but there is no gamer-to-gamer lag (the type where you're shooting one guy but he's actually 3 feet ahead of where he seems to be). So games that normally experience no lag like World of Goo seem to now be affected by input-to-screen lag, but games like UT3 actually have a reduced element of gamer-to-gamer lag and can be more playable than on a console.

--
All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
Re:From the man who brought you Xband and WebTV! by SixGame · 2011-02-02 03:19 · Score: 1

...so you've used it? I mean you clearly have experienced this lag in the games you've been playing in Onlive. Otherwise this is just speculation contrary to my actual experience and that of numerous journalists. I feel as a network engineer, a netcode debugger for multiplayer games, and a former pro CS player; I have a unique perspective on this particular claimed issue. Round trip latency, for me, falls within a 50ms to 100ms. It's noticeable to only the most competitive players, a large majority of FPS players will not be able to notice any input lag at all. With latency continually trending downwards, it will only be a short time before it's completely unnoticeable. I'd say that, while Steve Perlman's projects haven't been misleading to investors, they are simply a victim of timing. No matter how savy the CEO, you can't predict the future. WebTV's spectacular failure was largely due to the technology bubble leading up to the early 2000's. Perlman, however, was not at the company when things went south, but like many other tech companies, experienced fantastic success up till that point. WebTV was purchased by Microsoft in 1999 after Perlman personally met with Gates and described his vision. In my opinion. He may be ahead of his time, but his ideas are still relevant. Especially with the transition to XaaS, consumer grade solutions are becoming more cost-effective every day. When is that break-even point? Steve Perlman is still trying to get it, but he'll let us know when he does.
Re:From the man who brought you Xband and WebTV! by crossmr · 2011-02-02 03:50 · Score: 1

With latency continually trending downwards, it will only be a short time before it's completely unnoticeable
You don't sound like much of a network engineer. This is a physical impossibility. Any latency you notice is also likely to be doubled in a multiplayer game.
You might get 50-100 on some servers, but now you've got to start off with getting that to Onlive, then you have to get that to a server doubling it. Latency is only going to go up as ISPs jerk around with traffic, oversell subscriptions, and generally don't take care of their networks as well as they should. Even if onlive limits their multiplayer to inhouse to minimize latency, you're still dealing with lowered quality at a higher price. A gaming session that could die with the slightest hiccup. It just can't compete with a console, even less with a PC.
Ask anyone who has been the first to get service in a neighbourhood vs a year later how their service is. Now multiply that company wide.
Re:From the man who brought you Xband and WebTV! by AmberBlackCat · 2011-02-02 03:56 · Score: 1

I'm starting to think people will just adapt to the slower response times. It's working for the XBox Kinect.
Re:From the man who brought you Xband and WebTV! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-02 04:47 · Score: 0

Really? Have you ever even played an OnLive game? I have had the microconsole for a month, and I play practically every day.
I played through all of Batman: Arkham Asylum and am currently playing Price of Persia.
The lag, whatever there actually is at least for me, is so rare that it's unnoticeable, or certainly irrelevant, given the savings comparison to a Sony or Nintendo product. As a fairly casual, sofa-type gamer, his product is perfect for me. I doubt it would make a hard-core gamer happy, but then I doubt it's intended to do so.
No affiliation, just a happy customer.
Re:From the man who brought you Xband and WebTV! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-02 05:14 · Score: 0

Thank God you made this post again. After you made it the first time I was worried that you might not post the same thing again 20 minutes later without adding any new thoughts or information, but then you really came through for me.
Re:From the man who brought you Xband and WebTV! by tapo · 2011-02-02 05:34 · Score: 1

Or you could just, you know, play it. The service lets you demo any game free for 30 minutes.
While it clearly isn't great at games that require a twitch response, using a game controller masks latency very well. You simply don't notice it too much when playing on a PC with a 360 controller or their Microconsole. Third person action games are completely playable. I was able to go through all of Assassin's Creed II on OnLive (they gave it to me for free for signing up) and honestly, I had a pretty great experience. The fact that I could play it anywhere without worrying about hardware requirements or my saved game, was pretty damn neat. Just Cause, Trine, and Darksiders have also given me solid impressions of OnLive.
That said, the latency is fine for controller-based shooters as well, especially the slow-paced ones they offer (Bioshock, Borderlands). But won't replace me playing Bad Company 2 and Quake Live with mouse and keyboard on a high end machine.

--
"Joy is contagious," he said, peering into the microscope.
Re:From the man who brought you Xband and WebTV! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-02 05:37 · Score: 0

The service actually runs quite well on a good connection. The main problem I see with this is who wants to eat at a buffet with so little variety?
Re:From the man who brought you Xband and WebTV! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-03 00:52 · Score: 0

Oh, and also, any system like this will have to deliver content to consoles (which the console manufacturers already do). Otherwise, just who does he think is going to bother to pay for his service? Actually, if he can get people to pay for games like Mafia Wars we just may have a winner.

Gamefly by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-01 22:17 · Score: 0

I though Gamefly was the Netflix of games...

Re:GameFly by hedwards · 2011-02-02 08:34 · Score: 1

I tried gamefly, and quite frankly it sucked. I live in WA state and it would routinely take over a week for a game to make its way from their warehouse to my house. Which isn't too bad if I'm playing a game for most of the month, but if I found that I didn't like a game, I would be without a game for nearly half the month.

Netflix has more than a dozen movies by yotto · 2011-02-01 22:22 · Score: 1

They need to get a LOT more games, and more recent games, before this will ever fly.

--
Pulp Audio Weekly - Geek News and Reviews

Are they for real? by Pottsynz · 2011-02-01 22:24 · Score: 2

Unless their tech is based on magic there is no way they can get mass market appeal. No one is going to put up with games that feel unresponsive/laggy. Gamefly is a vastly better option.

Re:Are they for real? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-02 06:46 · Score: 0

people tolerate cellphones...unfortunately.
Re:Are they for real? by hedwards · 2011-02-02 08:24 · Score: 1

Gamefly sucks. You have to buy an expensive console then wait for at least a week between games. Sure if you're living in areas that they're taking seriously the wait isn't that long, but the period that I subscribed it was an average of a week for a game to get from them to me.
Also, there isn't any lag significant enough to cause problems, the requirements they have ensure that it's perfectly playable. The only times I've had problems with it have been right before the connection drops due to the ISP not being able to give decent latency.

it still sucks by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-01 22:36 · Score: 0

..and it's a waste of bw, but it does give the control freaks their wet dream.

Good, but.... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-01 22:36 · Score: 0

The technology is impressive, but you really become aware of the lag at times. Wi-Fi is a no-nonoises DSL line contention and youryour distance from the datacentre all play large roles in whether it's playable.

Not All OnLive Games Available for This Offer by mentil · 2011-02-01 22:39 · Score: 1

Only the special 'playpack' games can be played with this monthly flat fee, which is a portion of their total selection. Oddly, some games are available via the playpack but can't be otherwise played (purchased/rented) via OnLive.

--
Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.

There already is a Netflix for games by ildon · 2011-02-01 22:57 · Score: 4, Informative

It's called Gamefly.

Re:There already is a Netflix for games by Kildjean · 2011-02-02 02:07 · Score: 2

they mean streaming-wise as netflix's new model is going to be streaming content...

--
Nom de dieu de putain de bordel de merde de saloperie de connard d encule de ta mere.
Re:There already is a Netflix for games by slyrat · 2011-02-02 02:45 · Score: 1

they mean streaming-wise as netflix's new model is going to be streaming content...
Careful with statements like that. I may like the streaming ability of Netflix, but I certainly wouldn't do it without the ability to get the discs via mail. I like the better quality (especially with blu-ray) and the wider selection. I do think that if onlive joined up with gamefly there would be something really good going on.
Re:There already is a Netflix for games by HarrySquatter · 2011-02-02 02:46 · Score: 1

they mean streaming-wise as netflix's new model is going to be streaming content...
New model? Netflix has been doing streaming for over 3 years now.
Re:There already is a Netflix for games by MetalliQaZ · 2011-02-02 04:54 · Score: 1

Came here to say this.

--
"Here Lies Philip J. Fry, named for his uncle, to carry on his spirit"
Re:There already is a Netflix for games by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-02 04:54 · Score: 0

they also neglected to mention that onlive doesn't really work
Re:There already is a Netflix for games by SanityInAnarchy · 2011-02-02 09:42 · Score: 1

And if they want to stream game content to my system, that'd actually be innovation. Steam tried to do that originally, and it was almost awesome -- for some perverse reason, it would always pause downloads while playing a game, even a single-player game, so as not to lag you, but despite that, you could still have the next Half-Life level download in less than 30 seconds. Combine that with a huge local cache and I think it's a winner -- and Steam could pull that off.
The pricing model would be pretty cool, too, though I don't think that'd work well for me, as I tend to go months without playing any games at all.
However, streaming the game output to my system still just seems retarded. Even if it becomes feasible, it's still not something I ever want, even for multiplayer games. Whoever funded these guys needs to have it explained to them that "cloud" doesn't magically make something new and innovative -- sometimes, it just makes it retarded.

--
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Re:There already is a Netflix for games by JimboFBX · 2011-02-02 17:28 · Score: 1

Yes but they offer a "streaming only" option now and jacked the price up of getting DVDs in the mail.
And their streaming options were significantly more limited.

Steam by frecky · 2011-02-01 22:59 · Score: 1

Isn't this what Steam is already ... ?

Linux client by La+Gris · 2011-02-01 23:06 · Score: 1

This would be a boon for linux gaming and a real threat for current gaming PC market overall.

--
Léa Gris

Re:Linux client by HarrySquatter · 2011-02-02 02:48 · Score: 0

Because OnLive cares about your petty OS wars?
Re:Linux client by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-02 06:26 · Score: 0

GP didn't imply that they do, and you know it.
Re:Linux client by Aldenissin · 2011-02-02 14:27 · Score: 1

Yes, I called them and gave them feedback that I want Linux support. The nice girl mentioned that she knew a lot of the engineers used it, and she had even tried a flavor of Ubuntu herself. I made the comment that the thing holding people back from Linux was games and this would be great. I know they very well may not ever, but someone is missing that boat as it sails.
It isn't a war for me, as the "Squatter" suggests. It takes two to fight a war. If you refuse to play the game, you already won. I use Linux because it works for me, as where Windows doesn't.

--
Like a city whose walls are broken down is a man who lacks self-control.

Steam by korgitser · 2011-02-01 23:16 · Score: 1

... almost already did it

--
FCKGW 09F9 42

Countdown... by slim · 2011-02-01 23:17 · Score: 1

Comment explaining how it can't possibly work, from a games geek who insists on 100FPS with single frame latency, in 3... 2... 1... ... despite actual paying customers being satisfied with OnLive, from what I hear.

I even have friends in the UK using the US servers, finding the lag occasionally annoying but not a deal breaker.

Re:Countdown... by HaZardman27 · 2011-02-02 01:20 · Score: 2

I would say this service is acceptable for single-player or slow paced multi-player games only. I tried it out about a month ago; hopped on a single-player game, and the while the latency wasn't too bad for that particular game, I would never attempt a fast paced multi-player game. The resolution it renders at isn't exactly spectacular either. It ends up looking like a high quality Youtube video.

--
Apparently wizard is not a legitimate career path, so I chose programmer instead.
Re:Countdown... by icebraining · 2011-02-02 01:37 · Score: 1

Considering I can get 100FPS from my onboard card, it's not that much.

--
Dilbert RSS feed

meow mix by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-01 23:21 · Score: 0

meow mix is good on toast.

I took a look through their catalogue by Opportunist · 2011-02-01 23:26 · Score: 1

I have to say, they have a few very interesting titles on board. Unfortunately, most of those titles cost 5-10 bucks.

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.

Guess what... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-01 23:28 · Score: 0

First.

Finally by N1AK · 2011-02-01 23:34 · Score: 1

When I first heard of OnLive I thought the concept of a rent-a-game solution which removed the need for a decent pc or console was a great idea. Then I actually read about it, found out that the games had to be bought, the 'console' had to be bought, and then I had to pay a subscription to keep going. This completely killed any interest I had. The idea of 'buying' something then having to keep paying a subscription as well is still an absolute deal breaker to me.

I like playing the odd new game, but actually wouldn't care all that much about a rental service being a little behind 6-12 months. I've only just started Forza 3 (12+ months old), haven't opened Dragon Age: Origins, let alone actually bought Lego Batman, Batman: Arkham Asylum, any of ultimate alliance games. If a service like OnLive 'just works' tm, at £10pm I could see me moving away from buying physical media, and rent 'gaming' instead.

Re:Finally by whoop · 2011-02-02 03:28 · Score: 1

When I first heard of OnLive I thought the concept of a rent-a-game solution which removed the need for a decent pc or console was a great idea. Then I actually read about it, found out that the games had to be bought, the 'console' had to be bought, and then I had to pay a subscription to keep going. This completely killed any interest I had. The idea of 'buying' something then having to keep paying a subscription as well is still an absolute deal breaker to me.
Most of those points have been taken care of. The console is only needed if you have no computer (Windows, Mac at last). The original subscription has been canceled. It is much more akin to Steam now, without the need for your computer to be at all powerful.

I like playing the odd new game, but actually wouldn't care all that much about a rental service being a little behind 6-12 months. I've only just started Forza 3 (12+ months old), haven't opened Dragon Age: Origins, let alone actually bought Lego Batman, Batman: Arkham Asylum, any of ultimate alliance games. If a service like OnLive 'just works' tm, at Â£10pm I could see me moving away from buying physical media, and rent 'gaming' instead.
OnLive's main benefit is to people who don't want to spend money every year to keep their graphics card and CPU up to date. It runs on anything. This Playpack service is also voluntary. You can subscribe for a month, then not subscribe for a couple months, pick it up again when plenty of more games are added. Do what you want. Meanwhile, games you really enjoy can be bought (and they have had good sales (25-75% off) like Steam does) and played on the off months.
The original EULA and plans they had were ridiculous. But it has gotten better all the time. During the fall, my motherboard and power supply stopped working on my gaming PC. I would have been left quite bored with only my tiny EeePC and Solitaire if it weren't for OnLive.
Re:Finally by hedwards · 2011-02-02 08:27 · Score: 1

That hasn't been the case for quite some time. The base maintenance was eliminated some months ago and they've got both a single game rental system and an all you can eat plan for multiple games.
I really wish people would double check these sorts of things before spreading those views, because it's not accurate at this point and is somewhat less than helpful.

BIG problem is... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-01 23:36 · Score: 0

Do people really want to play their games at YouTube quality, and with occasionally pathetic latency (subject to the whims of your ISP)?

Re:BIG problem is... by Darknight · 2011-02-02 14:45 · Score: 1

Do people really want to play their games at YouTube quality, and with occasionally pathetic latency (subject to the whims of your ISP)?
No. Luckily OnLive doesn't have YouTube quality or pathetic latency, though, so your point is moot.

--
________________________________ ___ _________ __ _______ _ ____ __ _ __ Darknight / _ \___ ____

Slashdot is Down? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-01 23:44 · Score: 0

Zero comments three hours after a story posts, what's up with that?

Yawn by crossmr · 2011-02-01 23:45 · Score: 4, Insightful

How many times has onlive changed their payment plans in the last 6 months? How about the last week? This is just another desperate attempt for them to try and drum up business for a service which really has no market. The "game reviewers who will sit next door with a 100 MB fiber connection and give you a glorifying review" segment isn't that large.
With an increasing number of ISPs decreasing their caps, inconsistent service, and the slightest hiccup breaking a game, this service benefits no one beyond those who really want to play super high end turn based games and would rather pay more per month to play them over the course of a few years than it would cost them to build a machine to play the games in the first place. Everyone else is taking a massive crap shoot and basically wasting money on rentals.

All I really want out of this company is to know what they put in the water when they meet the venture capitalists.

Re:Yawn by Warskull · 2011-02-02 03:01 · Score: 2

You forget, you don't actually have to build a PC to play their games. Most of the games are available on console and actually look better on console than OnLive. So you can fork out $200-300 and just buy an X360 or PS3 and be able to play 90% of their library and tons of games they don't have. I think the biggest hurdle OnLive has is the changing PC marketplace. It used to be PC was the only place you could play shooters and had tons of big exclusives. Now all the mainstream games go cross platform and many PC games are ports from console. The exclusives for PC tends to be big strategy games like Civ and Total War or inde games (which usually have very reasonable system requirements and pricing.) So that's yet another reason OnLive was a bad idea.
Re:Yawn by Darknight · 2011-02-02 15:15 · Score: 1

How many times has onlive changed their payment plans in the last 6 months?

Zero times.

How about the last week?

Also zero times. This "news" is a bit stale, but they recently added a new monthly plan to play a smaller list of available games on an unlimited basis. The base package still carries no monthly fees, but it does have one-time "unlocking" fees for each game to either rent short-term or longer-term (which I agree isn't the same as BUYING them, since you depend on this service for access).

This is just another desperate attempt for them to try and drum up business for a service which really has no market. The "game reviewers who will sit next door with a 100 MB fiber connection and give you a glorifying review" segment isn't that large.
Ah, yes. The ubiquitous "This can nevar work unless you are In teh Servar room! IR expart on such tings!" post whenever OnLive is brought up. It works fine on a residential DSL connection. Would I play a tournament-level game of COD on it? No. But it works just fine for everyday use with a wide variety of games.

With an increasing number of ISPs decreasing their caps, inconsistent service, and the slightest hiccup breaking a game,

Sounds like you need a better ISP, stat. But brief hiccups in connectivity do not "break a game" on OnLive, in this case you would just drop some frames of video and continue on. Actually a better experience than if you were playing locally with a crappy connection when you'd just get bounced from the server for latency.

this service benefits no one beyond those who really want to play super high end turn based games and would rather pay more per month to play them over the course of a few years than it would cost them to build a machine to play the games in the first place.

Hmm, well, no. This service benefits anyone who wants to play an admittedly limited library of games of any genre on any Mac or PC with even an old embedded video solution - or for the price of a new console game play without any PC at all. Anywhere in the world with a decent broadband connection. Sounds like some people might get some use out of such a service. There is no way someone could pay more than the cost of a machine to play Crysis "in a few years". You could either "permanent rent" the thing for $29 bucks or even at $9.99 per month you'd be hard-pressed to buy a Crysis-capable machine "in a few years". And then you'd have access to a whole bunch of other games. Your math, it is illogical.

Everyone else is taking a massive crap shoot and basically wasting money on rentals.
In one sense, I agree with this sentiment. A user IS depending on the stability and future viability of OnLive for continued access to games which they have rented. Whether or not they are "wasting" money depends on one's opinion if it's a "waste" of money to rent anything. Say, a movie, or a physical game disc.

All I really want out of this company is to know what they put in the water when they meet the venture capitalists.
All I really want to know is who at OnLive stole your girlfriend and peed in your Trix? Don't get me wrong, the service has its challenges including the aforementioned (Permanent Rental != Buy) and I wouldn't - and don't - use it for my every day gaming needs. But it works as advertised, and quite well for what it is.

--
________________________________ ___ _________ __ _______ _ ____ __ _ __ Darknight / _ \___ ____
Re:Yawn by crossmr · 2011-02-02 15:43 · Score: 1

Zero times.
This is the third or fourth story I've heard out of onlive with a new pricing "scheme" in very recent memory.

Ah, yes. The ubiquitous "This can nevar work unless you are In teh Servar room! IR expart on such tings!" post whenever OnLive is brought up. It works fine on a residential DSL connection. Would I play a tournament-level game of COD on it? No. But it works just fine for everyday use with a wide variety of games.
They simply cannot provide the quality and responsiveness of an actual machine, it just isn't physically possible on most people's home connections who aren't next door to the server.

Sounds like you need a better ISP, stat. But brief hiccups in connectivity do not "break a game" on OnLive, in this case you would just drop some frames of video and continue on. Actually a better experience than if you were playing locally with a crappy connection when you'd just get bounced from the server for latency.
There are many games where your delayed input will result in you dying. Yes, not dumbed down console shooters with recharging everything, but a genuine game, if your input is suddenly cut off, you will die/lose.
Hiccup in a racing game? Maybe you crash into the wall/another player/ etc.
Not everything is about multiplayer.

This service benefits anyone who wants to play an admittedly limited library of games of any genre on any Mac or PC with even an old embedded video solution - or for the price of a new console game play without any PC at all
Except you're left with nothing. You pay $10/month, $120/year and in the end you've got nothing. Buy yourself a console and you've at least got that at the end and you might even sell it second hand or keep it for posterity.

Anywhere in the world with a decent broadband connection.
Certainly not, now it's very obvious that you're a corporate shill/fanboy
You have to live within designated service areas, which means being very close to the server to start with. There are people in the US who can't even get service yet, let alone "anywhere in the world". As I fire it up on my local 100 Mbps Fiber connection somewhere in the world, I'm told "We've detected a high latency connection and cannot proceed". My ping to the ISP is under 10 ms. You're so full of it your eyes are brown.

There is no way someone could pay more than the cost of a machine to play Crysis "in a few years"
At the quality level at which the game is actually delivered to you? yes, you sure could. Crysis is already aging and no longer cripples machines. They aren't delivering a maxed out high quality video feed at a high resolution. You're getting a low quality video feed at a low resolution. Running crysis on those settings does not require an expensive machine. Even a console now can be paid for in a couple years at the current price and you'll be able to play whatever you want, whenever you want, at a much better quality level with better responsiveness.
Re:Yawn by Darknight · 2011-02-02 16:53 · Score: 1

Certainly not, now it's very obvious that you're a corporate shill/fanboy
Ouch, you wound me. Nope, neither, just someone who has used the service and actually knows what they are talking about, and not an "internet expert" such as yourself.

You have to live within designated service areas, which means being very close to the server to start with. There are people in the US who can't even get service yet, let alone "anywhere in the world". As I fire it up on my local 100 Mbps Fiber connection somewhere in the world, I'm told "We've detected a high latency connection and cannot proceed". My ping to the ISP is under 10 ms. You're so full of it your eyes are brown.
OnLive no longer restricts signups by service area. As far as I know, this was only true during the beta. I believe the way they handle it now is they allow anyone to sign up for a free account, but will bounce you if you can't connect within a certain time period.

Obviously I haven't tried everywhere, but I used the little OnLive console in a hotel on a vacation trip to Mexico and it worked fine.

Is this the same ISP you mentioned earlier as the one with the constant disconnects and bad latency to game servers? Now it's a 100 Mbs Fiber connection? Man, you seriously need a better ISP - one that has better peering agreements with backbones.

If you were to actually form opinions from research rather than your own preconceptions, perhaps those opinions would have basis in fact and thus hold more validity. All you can really fall back on is "This service sucks because I am an expert and it can't possibly work". Followed by "Anyone who disagrees with me is a fanboy and/or a shill". Next you'll be breaking Godwin's law. There is no need for ad hominem attacks because someone disagrees with your opinions by using facts.

As others in this topic and elsewhere have said: OnLive works fine, within its limitations.

--
________________________________ ___ _________ __ _______ _ ____ __ _ __ Darknight / _ \___ ____
Re:Yawn by crossmr · 2011-02-02 17:44 · Score: 1

OnLive no longer restricts signups by service area. As far as I know, this was only true during the beta. I believe the way they handle it now is they allow anyone to sign up for a free account, but will bounce you if you can't connect within a certain time period.

Which is more or less the same thing. Distance adds latency.
There is no way around it. More hops, more latency, more points of failure. All they're doing is opening it up on the chance you might get a low enough ping to the server to use it, but who knows if that would be consistent from day to day.

Is this the same ISP you mentioned earlier as the one with the constant disconnects and bad latency to game servers?
No, I was speaking of ISPs in general. We have constant stories on slashdot about ISPs introducing new caps and restrictions, and filtering traffic, etc.
Onlive chews a lot of bandwidth, just like Netflix does and there is already noise about ISPs pushing back against that. I then provided my specific connection information, which is a very good connection and pointed out that it doesn't work "somewhere" in the world, contradicting your claim that it worked "anywhere" in the world. Not everyone lives in the US. There is a whole big world out there.

Obviously I haven't tried everywhere, but I used the little OnLive console in a hotel on a vacation trip to Mexico and it worked fine.

You apparently got it to work once in a hotel in Mexico, so it works all over the world? You must work for Mythbusters.
The service sucks because with the technology and price point, it is just not efficient or a good value for anyone.

There is no need for ad hominem attacks because someone disagrees with your opinions by using facts.

What facts? Like the "fact" that this service works anywhere in the world?
or the fact that you claim they haven't changed their prices in the last 6 months? October 2010:
http://www.kotaku.com.au/2010/10/onlive-monthly-subscription-fees-are-dead/
subscriptions gone
December 2010
Subscriptions back
Then they also announced they want to get into movies
You wouldn't know a fact if if jumped up and bit you in the ass.
As for ad hominem attacks, let me redirect you to your oh so clever and mocking entry into this thread

The ubiquitous "This can nevar work unless you are In teh Servar room! IR expart on such tings!" post whenever OnLive is brought up.
I'm sure you can point me to where I claimed I was an expert in original post? It's ok, I'll wait while you go dig up some more "facts"
The fact is, the technology isn't there, you're overpaying for what you're getting, the company has no idea what it's doing or where it's going. They're lurching from one idea/pricing model to the other, like a drunken sailor desperately trying to attract customers.

Saves? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-01 23:46 · Score: 0

Anyone know if you can get your game saves if you end the service? I'd be down with it if I could, but if I lose my saves, I'm not sure how interested I am.

And yes, they are THAT important to me!

couldn't help it by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-01 23:55 · Score: 0

this one is a gamechanger

Broken? by Facebeast · 2011-02-01 23:57 · Score: 0

Are the comments broken? This story is showing 0 comments for me despite being on my RSS feed for an hour! Or does eveyone else here care for OnLive as little as I do. It's a nice idea but I have a really hard time believing their wild claims about not having any noticeable latency.

huh? by simondm · 2011-02-02 00:04 · Score: 1

I thought this service was generally accepted to have been a failure? If the technology doesn't work, what difference is different pricing models going to make?

Re:huh? by hedwards · 2011-02-02 08:29 · Score: 1

According to who is onLive a failure? I've been using it, I've got a couple games and the miniconsole and it works just fine. It's only going to get better as time goes by. I hear a lot of people claiming that it failed, but the subscription figures keep increasing and it's still able to pay the bills.
Personally, I do have a hard time using it, but mainly because Qwest sucks. Comcast isn't any better when it comes to latency, but that's going to improve over time. Even now it's quite playable and for those that are concerned with cheaters in their multiplayer games, it's more or less impossible to cheat.

not going to happen by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-02 00:12 · Score: 0

I have read the reviews and information on this service and I can tell you being a long time PC gamer them taking a huge chunk of the market is never going to happen.
To play games properly you need the right hardware a web streaming game experience is never going to replace that or even come close to it !!!
Maybe get back to me in 5-10 years when we all have giga-bit Ethernet or higher with unlimited bandwidth going into our homes.

If at first nobody cares ... by killdashnine · 2011-02-02 00:14 · Score: 1

just keep changing your business model!

Re:If at first nobody cares ... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-02 02:04 · Score: 0

Sounds like a smart move to me. If your business model doesn't work why stay with that business model? Adapt or fail.

different world requires different solutions by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-02 00:18 · Score: 0

Gaming is move more towards self contained, mobile devices. Remote rendering doesn't work for this scenario as it does not directly take advantage of the technology/features of the device. The devices are often tied to costly network plans where bandwidth is limited by deployment of the wireless technology and the technology itself. Onlive is dead in the long run.

Netflix on the other hand will eventually die as the studios work to cut out the middle man and work directly with the various providers (cable,telco, wireless). Cable companies are already building their online catalogs. Netflix = blockbuster (eventually). If you look at what has happened to Yahoo (formerly untouchable), AOL, MSN, and other content providers the only value left is what is unique to those services and much of that value moves to the cloud or third party services (flicker/twitter,facebook, etc) the services themselves become diluted. Netflix on the other hand has no unique offering, it simply leveraged a contract loophole and some existing technology to push forward with their brick and mortar business model. Congrats on that but where is the defense? Other than that, there is nothing unique about netflix. On top of this, the cable operators, and most wireless operators, already have working relationships with the studios and their business models more closely follow that of the studios/broadcasters.

In competition with netflix you already have OTT giants like AT&T and Verizon, consumer brands like Sony, Microsoft, and studio offerings like Hulu. Various approaches to the same problem which just goes to prove that technology is not the hurdle, only execution, awareness, cost, and convenience/access are.

I'm sure by ThatsNotPudding · 2011-02-02 00:23 · Score: 1

ISPs will welcome this with open arms, and never think of extorting money from both ends - just like Netflix.

Outsourcing by Onuma · 2011-02-02 00:23 · Score: 1

I'm definitely not against this type of system. It can allow many more people who can't afford to keep up with PC and console gaming by changing their hardware every so often - the GPU is not client-side, so the users only need enough bandwidth to handle the video and I/O for controls. So long as the servers are maintained in many locations, so as to leave latency as low as possible for the majority of OnLive customers, I can see this being a very plausible approach for the future of gaming; especially casual gamers. Being able to access, yet not need to purchase, a multitude of titles is an attractive offer.

OTOH, it does make me think of how nearly everything is being outsourced nowadays. I'd still prefer my own machines which I can customize and build to my specs.

--
What else can happen when an unstoppable force collides with an immovable object?

Details? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-02 00:27 · Score: 0

How would this work? The article is short on details... Would you get to 'own' a game for a month, or would you only be able to have one game out at a time?

One question ... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-02 00:28 · Score: 0

... are they IPv6 compliant?

Which is cheaper? by commodore6502 · 2011-02-02 00:34 · Score: 0

Buying Final Fantasy 13 for $45 sale price, beating it, and then selling to to some guy on ebay for $53..... or renting it from netflix - I mean Onlive.

I think I'll continue buying-and-selling games. Nice idea though. Maybe someday I'll actually go back to renting movies/games like I did in the days of A-to-Z Video (they loaned-out Betamax, VHS, NES). But for now I like physically owning the item, so I have something of value to convert back to cash.

Of course I might end-up like this guy:
"Author Falls in Love with E-reader"
http://www.analogsf.com/2011_04/altview.shtml

--
Information wants to be expensive AND wants to be free. So you have Value vs. Cheap distribution fighting each other.

Re:Which is cheaper? by commodore6502 · 2011-02-02 00:40 · Score: 0

Test -
How come I can't see my own post? Or anybody else's posts? Odd.

--
Information wants to be expensive AND wants to be free. So you have Value vs. Cheap distribution fighting each other.
Re:Which is cheaper? by icebraining · 2011-02-02 01:43 · Score: 2

Unfortunately, publishers like EA are coming up with stuff like the OnlinePass, which must be bought by the person who buys your game, devaluing the second hand sale.

If you have purchased a used game and the code originally included has already been activated, you will need to purchase EA SPORTS Online Pass access from within your game by choosing PURCHASE ONLINE ACCESS from the Code Redemption screen.

--
Dilbert RSS feed

So I can spend 100$ and 10$ a month to .... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-02 00:40 · Score: 0

So I'm spending 100$ for a device I hook into my tv, so that I can spend 10$ a month to ..... buy video games at full retail price???? This is revolutionary?? I have a PS3, Wii, and PC for this, and for the first 2, I can ebay used games for less than this service is selling full passes for.

Netflix of games already exists by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-02 00:43 · Score: 0

Gamefly already allows all you can rent games mailed to your house for a monthly fee. Also, who wants to play games with a Blu-ray remote?

/. Future News by Even+on+Slashdot+FOE · 2011-02-02 01:00 · Score: 1

$A_GAME_COMPANY has managed to get OnLive's domains seized via the DMCA on the basis that they are violating copyright by allowing people to play games without buying them in the manner prescribed by $A_GAME_COMPANY's business model.

Re:/. Future News by R2D5 · 2011-02-02 16:49 · Score: 1

Interesting comment, but going to OnLive's website shows otherwise. Try ... http://www.onlive.com/

Uh, GameFly? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-02 01:01 · Score: 0

Pretty sure Gamefly is the Netflix of gaming, seeing as how they do the EXACT SAME THING (minus the online streaming part).

Not saying OnLive can't overtake Gamefly (cloud based content delivery could be the feature that catapults it ahead), but it is dumb to ignore Gamefly when it is a big player in the video game rental market.

Re:Uh, GameFly? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-02 06:58 · Score: 0

So Gamefly and Netflix are the EXACT SAME THING except different? OnLive made heavy references to the streaming part of Netflix being the most important issue because they feel that streaming will become more popular than physical media. I'd have to agree. I'd pay $20 a month if I could stream the entire catalog at HD quality (where available). Tech isn't quite ready for that, or OnLive, but it takes ventures like this to push that ahead sometimes.

blu-ray players? by larry+bagina · 2011-02-02 01:02 · Score: 1

Does this mean there will finally be some games for the PS3?

--
Do you even lift?

These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

Application Binaries != Media Codecs by seanalltogether · 2011-02-02 01:08 · Score: 2

I understand he's trying to draw an easy to quote analogy, but you can't just apply a magic codec to an application binary to turn it into a streaming game. The truth is that Steam is the Netflix of games, it's where everyone is going to buy their games now and gamers have the same love for Steam that people have for Netflix.

Re:Application Binaries != Media Codecs by HaZardman27 · 2011-02-02 01:36 · Score: 1

Wish I had mod points just for you mentioning the love gamers have for Steam. Some people don't understand the irrational attachment gamers form for their favorite game companies. Valve would need to seriously screw up to lose their fans.

--
Apparently wizard is not a legitimate career path, so I chose programmer instead.
Re:Application Binaries != Media Codecs by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-02 03:10 · Score: 0

it's where everyone is going to buy their games now and gamers have the same love for Steam that people have for Netflix.
That's quite far from the truth. A lot of people don't like Steam because of the client-overhead or the rent-only DRM. With Steam you pay full price to rent a single title, not a whole catalogue.
The central point of the comparison was paying a monthly fee to play all the games you want from their catalogue. That's closer to what services like Metaboli offer, although with them you run the games on your computer.
Re:Application Binaries != Media Codecs by rwa2 · 2011-02-02 03:15 · Score: 1

... Not to mention Valve's subliminal in-game product placement...
Louis:
Bill: Watch out for that leaking hot steam!
Zoey: Mmm, I loooooove Steam!
Francis (who hates everything): Yeah, Steam's all right.
(L4D Crash Course)
Re:Application Binaries != Media Codecs by JeTmAn81 · 2011-02-02 04:48 · Score: 1

S'funny, I don't remember buying my copy of Super Mario Galaxy 2 on Steam.

--
"Me? Lady, I'm your worst nightmare -- a pumpkin with a gun."
Re:Application Binaries != Media Codecs by hedwards · 2011-02-02 08:31 · Score: 1

Steam isn't a rental service though. It is a rental service in that they can revoke at any time your ability to play those games, but they don't sell games on a time limited basis. You can get a demo for some games, but you don't have the option to rent or play all the games you like in a given month.
That being said, I really don't see how Steam is anywhere near an appropriate analogy for Netflix.

Sadly, a bit too late by Drakkenmensch · 2011-02-02 01:10 · Score: 1

Where was this service two years ago when unlimited bandwidth broadband services still existed? Nowadays it sounds like a new way to put a direct funnel from my bank account to Comcast's.

Re:Sadly, a bit too late by whoop · 2011-02-02 03:27 · Score: 1

Let Comcast know. Switch to another provider. I'm running on mere 5Mbit DSL currently without missing anything from Comcast. Currently, the busiest I've tested it was simultaneously streaming Hulu, OnLive, and playing World of Warcraft. They all ran quite well.
Re:Sadly, a bit too late by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-02 05:50 · Score: 0

A good thing it's late then. Imagine the problems that would have occurred if onlive got out back then and had a lot of people sign up since "hey we got unlimited bandwidth. this should be interesting!"

Yup. Just like Netflix by wh1pp3t · 2011-02-02 01:11 · Score: 1

Keyword here is PlayPack.
The $9.99 monthly subscription will give acces to select games, not their entire catalog. So yes, they are definitely similar to Netflix, where your streaming options are limited to many documentarys (many of which are excellent) and older movies.
I actually purchased a few games through OnLive because I own a notebook -- the service works quite well. My gaming rig days are over, I'm not a DRM zealot and I will pay for convienence. And it is nice to just turn on a game without installing it (using my SSD space), waste some time, then turn it off and get back to work or family.

GameFly by BigSes · 2011-02-02 01:52 · Score: 1

I've heard of this "Netflix of games" already, its called GameFly. I'll keep their service and get first rate games delivered to my house, have the option to keep them for a good price, rather than streamed crap, thanks. Granted it costs more than their projected price, but its worth it to me.

Latency is too high for FPS games... by mnewcomb · 2011-02-02 02:13 · Score: 1

I tried it and it is noticeably slow to your reactions. The video quality is a little low but that didn't really bother me. It was the slight delay when I moved the mouse to when the screen actually responded.

I think some games are perfectly suited to this type of play style, just not FPS games.

Not too mainstream. by cheekyjohnson · 2011-02-02 02:20 · Score: 1

I just hope that this doesn't become so popular that some games are offered exclusively through it. I like owning the data, being able to modify the data, being able to play without an internet connection, being able to play my games even if the company goes out of business, and being able to play even if some random server I don't want to connect to is down. It might help people with poor hardware, and I respect that, but I just hope that this doesn't become the new form of DRM for paranoid companies.

--
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!

Re:Not too mainstream. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-02 06:10 · Score: 0

Just for a laugh, and because no one else replied, I'll pretend to be one of those software protectionist fashists who always pop up whenever a consumer thinks they own what they paid for and say the following. "You don't own the data. You purchased a license to use the product that $_megacorporation_x can terminate at any time."
That isn't my personal opinion, but it seems as though software publishers employ an army of goons whose job it is to troll the Internet and post the above. I don't know where the goons are today: maybe they're out sick or just out to lunch.
Re:Not too mainstream. by CronoCloud · 2011-02-02 09:11 · Score: 1

They say that You don't own the data, just a license to use it...that's been the case since the games of the 80's on the C64!

no for online to work as good severs will headend by Joe+The+Dragon · 2011-02-02 02:23 · Score: 1

no for online to work as good severs will need to be at the headends and even VOD has control lag. Also that 250gb cap will make on live realty suck once they up the PQ.

I hear that hot cable tv israel is working on a on live like system.

Biz Model NetFlix or Vudu by OldHawk777 · 2011-02-02 02:33 · Score: 1

Biz Model NetFlix or Vudu [ http://www.vudu.com/ ], which is better?

I have a PS3 (presently DS is best, repeat), Linux PC, Comcast DVR hooked to a 32" screen.

The PS3 now offers both NetFlix and Vudu. I checked both and decided to turn off my Vudu box and use the PS3 for Vudu service.

I chose Vudu because of the pay-as-u-go model and user interface was for me a better solution. The NetFlix monthly-fee would be a waste or me.

For online gaming I would probably pick a pay-as-u-go service provider before a monthly-fee gouger like Comcast.

At ~60yo, I am very intolerant of inflexible games, limited/fixed-avatars/view (mods/moves), no surprises (one time is enough), no kill/map/weapons... randoms/variations/options, time delays, audio/video-issues.... Unless the game service provider can figure out how to nationally/globally distribute/virtualize/containerize infrastructure and functionality to geographic/temporal-communities, and client-game-side app requirements and very fast small data-transactions for MMOG/Experience... They will not get me to use/subscribe.

--
Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?

Re:Biz Model NetFlix or Vudu by OldHawk777 · 2011-02-02 02:38 · Score: 1

For DS, OH21=Z21, 5th Avatar SL=129 (S=68.3, A=14.1...), I think is good for a 60yo gamer

--
Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?
Re:Biz Model NetFlix or Vudu by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-02 05:49 · Score: 0

At ~60yo, I am very intolerant of inflexible games, limited/fixed-avatars/view (mods/moves), no surprises (one time is enough), no kill/map/weapons... randoms/variations/options, time delays, audio/video-issues.... Unless the game service provider can figure out how to nationally/globally distribute/virtualize/containerize infrastructure and functionality to geographic/temporal-communities, and client-game-side app requirements and very fast small data-transactions for MMOG/Experience... They will not get me to use/subscribe.
Were you even trying to make sense here? I'm getting the impression that your favorite gaming system is the Nintendo TimeCube.

OnWhat? by bobbinspenguin · 2011-02-02 02:41 · Score: 1

I know it keeps getting pushed back and pushed back but here in the UK it doesn't really get mentioned outside of something like Slashdot. They're gonna have to do some serious advertising if they want people to pay attention here - especially if BT are gonna be the sole provider for it.

Possible if they ahve licensed Gaikai by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-02 03:09 · Score: 0

What used to be billed as a way to instantly play A+ games in your web browser without needing a video card or a great machine has now become something else:

http://www.gaikai.com/

Gaikai's original plan was to offer access to anyone to play MMO's, top tier FPS and other games through your web browser. They claimed that for one fee you would be able to pay one fee and have access to all the titles. This seems VERY similar but under another name.

Looking at gaikai's website now, you see that something has gone awry and this new company sounds like its offering the same product.

If only by Glarimore · 2011-02-02 03:14 · Score: 1

OnLive might have worked if US internet connections operated as advertised.

But they don't.

Re:If only by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-02 04:42 · Score: 0

OnLive might have worked if US internet connections operated as advertised.
But they don't.
The answer is quite simple - you guys just need UBB. Get everyone down to 25GB/month and you'll be able to game quite rapidly as eveyrone curtails their usage. It's your US regulator's fault for demanding that unlimited be unlimited and not some stupid non-limit like 250GB! If the market settled it, we ISPs won't need to upgrade our networks and we'd just cap everyone to 25GB with $2/GB overage charges, and you'd get all the speed you paid for, plus lower latency as our intertubes won't be so clogged up!
See? UBB is the solution! (not).

Gametap by Admiral+Frosty · 2011-02-02 03:43 · Score: 1

I know everyone's talking about Gamefly, but Gametap does the same thing for PC games. Monthly fee, and you can download all you want. I used it for a year, but lately I realized that Steams sales have been more lucrative for me. Spend $30 on a sale, and I'll have it for ever. Lapse my gametap sub, and it's all gone.

Onlive is good by ConallB · 2011-02-02 05:04 · Score: 1

Sorry to go against the grain of the generally held opinion that Onlive doesn't work but as someone in the UK who has tried the service out from my living room PC I have to say it is definitely a viable, workable platform for game delivery.

I know that it isint really all that hot for FPS's but neither are consoles with their auto-aim and limited input controls. Thats why i have a PC.

Meanwhile there are plenty of games that are pretty good, even with my 80ms lag to the us servers (lego batman just as an example). I enjoy being entertained by games, not by the frame rate or resolution.

And to pay 9.99 p/m for access to the current games on onlive is not really that steep.

When the service comes to the UK for real I will definitely sign up. Rather than buy a console which will become tomorrows trash!

--
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.

No HD Resolution by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-02 05:08 · Score: 0

Don't forget there is no way to get HD resolution, well at least not above 780p. Experience sucks, sure glad I never paid for it LOL.

Told Ya! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-02 05:34 · Score: 0

I predicted that they would get to the flat-pricing model over time. I was also the lone beta tester that was a disenting voice when everyone here was taking an enormous crap on OnLive.

Once again, "Slashdot fail" in action.

The World Of Tomorrow by westlake · 2011-02-02 05:44 · Score: 1

Vizio is adding OnLive gaming to it's Internet suite for the HDTV.
Which already includes thirty or so free and subscription services like Facebook, Netflix, Rhapsody, Pandora, Picassa and Twitter.

The geek needs to be paying attention.

His wife won't tolerate the mod or hack that bricks a $5000 investment in home theater hardware on Super Bowl Sunday. His kids won't take well to being cut off from on their online gaming and social networking accounts.

He'll be sleeping in the basement for real - and it won't be the RIAA that puts him there.

The PS3 supports a webcam and printer. The Internet "app" can be built into any piece of hardware. The Denon receiver that supports digital broadcast and satellite radio. The Samsung Blu-Ray player.

What matters is that the general-purpose PC and the "standards based" browser is no longer part of the equation.

Content protection - "rights management?" No problem. Flash animation? No problem. The licensed HVEC decoder that delievers 1080p video or better and multichannel theater sound at half the bit rate of H.264 or WebM? No problem.

The sponsor of the "app" can do anything he wants with any tool he wants.

The geek can fret and fume but he has no say.

_____

Vizio emerged from Walmart to become a major player in HDTV:

Nearly every Rhapsody function is included in the app, turning the Vizio into a celestial jukebox for subscribers (starting at $10 per month; the TV doesn't count as a "device" against your total) and begging for connection to an external audio system (analog and digital audio output is supported). Searches for artists, songs, etc., came up quickly, and autocomplete kicked in as we typed the first few letters. We assembled a playback queue, called up Rhapsody's channels and our own custom playlists, and enjoyed cover art on the big screen.
Vizio's secret weapon, found on no other TV remote we know of, is a full slide-out keyboard with dedicated keys for letters, numbers, and symbols, just like on a smartphone.
Best of all, it's included with the TV for free, not as an expensive option like some other Internet-friendly remotes.
The keyboard worked on all of the apps we tried, and although we found it more cramped and somewhat less responsive compared, say, with the keyboard on a typical smartphone, it's perfectly usable and makes Tweets, Facebook status updates, and username/password sign-ins so much easier than the standard remote/onscreen keyboard combo.
Bluetooth means the remote works without needing line-of-sight, and also promises future functionality. Although we didn't test it, Vizio says the TV can pair with other Bluetooth devices like a full-size keyboard or stereo headphones.

Vizio XVT553SV [Updated Oct 2010]

Re:The World Of Tomorrow by epyT-R · 2011-02-02 07:22 · Score: 1

His wife won't tolerate the mod or hack that bricks a $5000 investment in home theater hardware on Super Bowl Sunday. His kids won't take well to being cut off from on their online gaming and social networking accounts.
He should quit being a wuss, especially if he's paying the bills. Sexist gynocentrism be damned. If he's really a geek, the hack won't brick anything at all.

The PS3 supports a webcam and printer. The Internet "app" can be built into any piece of hardware. The Denon receiver that supports digital broadcast and satellite radio. The Samsung Blu-Ray player.
When sally asks for the $150 webcam and printer addons for her ps3, daddy geek says "we already have a printer for the computer. Use that."

Content protection - "rights management?" No problem. Flash animation? No problem. The licensed HVEC decoder that delievers 1080p video or better and multichannel theater sound at half the bit rate of H.264 or WebM? No problem.

When wifey asks/demands that he get her favorite show onto some non-aligned device made by a company that doesn't have an 'agreement' with the publisher, hubby geek says "That's why I told you to buy the disk and not the streaming 'service.' Tough shit bitch."

The geek can fret and fume but he has no say.
The day he has no say, is the day his family also has no electronic freedom.
Re:The World Of Tomorrow by CronoCloud · 2011-02-02 09:16 · Score: 1

When sally asks for the $150 webcam and printer addons for her ps3, daddy geek says "we already have a printer for the computer. Use that."
The PS3 has USB ports for a reason....try plugging in a regular non PS3 specific USB webcam and/or printer sometime.

Game nostalgia by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-02 06:45 · Score: 0

I might sign up if I could play older games (from NES, SNES, Playstation, etc.) I'm not a hardcore computer gamer, but sometimes I get a little nostalgic, and I don't find it worth the trouble and risk to go looking for and messing around with emulators and ROMs. Surely it wouldn't be too expensive to get licensing on games that are not in production anyway. Otherwise, there are plenty of free casual games on the internet.

Only for games in the same data center by Sycraft-fu · 2011-02-02 07:06 · Score: 1

While it is true that the actual game clients could experience little latency to each other, they can only do that if they happen to be in the same data center. Otherwise, they have lag just like any other. So if you live in California and connect to an Onlive data center there and you are playing against someone who lives in New York and connects to an Onlive data center there guess what? The clients in those data centers have lag to each other. No way around it. If you were to connect directly to the NY data center then you'd have a very large amount of interface lag since your ping to it would be high.

I suppose this is avoidable in some games that do peer to peer by forcing people to play only with those in the same data center, though that rather shrinks the market of people to play with, but it isn't for client-server games. For example if you want to play Bad Company 2 multi player you have to connect to a dedicated server, which is not in the Onlive data center, it can be anywhere. So you get the lag of going to the Onlive data center, and then the lag of going out and back to the server.

Also the client-server game lag can be dealt with to a large degree. There's all sorts of clever methods for predicting what is happening (a simple example would be to assume that if something is moving that it'll continue to move in the same direction) and to deal with things being slightly desynchronized between client and server. It works quite well (speaking as someone who plays a lot of games like that).

So I fail to see how this is any better. You potentially get less client to client lag but only for people in the same data center. Ok so you get more screen lag (which is by far the most noticeable), a much smaller player base, but less client lag... Wonderful. :P

Why all the haters? by novalis112 · 2011-02-02 07:31 · Score: 1

I suspect that most of the Slashdoters who are hating on OnLive actually just hate this Perlman fellow, and have never actually tried OnLive.

I've had a (free) OnLive since the beta and while I wouldn't pay money for it, it's not hard to imagine that lots of people would. When it works (which is subject to the whims of your ISP) it works surprisingly well and you quickly forget that it's a highly compressed video stream running at (for me) about 4Mbps. For RTSs, RPGs, puzzle games and the like (i.e., a very significant portion of PC games) it's quite usable. I tried a few FPSs on it, and they also ran well, but obviously if you're training for a career in Korea you'll be purchasing a copy for play on your local machine.

I've seen posts claiming it costs more then just buying a good gaming machine. I'd like to see some evidence for that. At 10$/mo. it's only $120/yr. Even if you only replace your gaming rig every 5 (gasp!) years, that gives you a measly $600 gaming rig. I think typical mid-range rigs go for more like $1,000 at the very least.

One negative comment that I will add about OnLive: Whenever they think your bandwidth has dropped too low, they'll automatically pause your game and force you to stare at a 5 minute countdown timer until you get booted entirely. Sometimes you get the option to reconnect, sometimes you don't. It "claims" to be testing your bandwidth to determine whether or not to let you reconnect. I've done a little snooping and it often seems that it isn't sending any data at all. This is a minor issue though which could easily be fixed.

Fact time by Caerdwyn · 2011-02-02 11:35 · Score: 2

First: disclosure. I worked at OnLive as an engineer for two years; I do not currently work there; I do not have any financial stake or equity in the company. I have a very active Steam account, a Netflix account which I use almost exclusively through streaming to an AppleTV, as well as an OnLive account. I do most of my gaming through a dedicated gaming rig running Windows.

Does OnLive "work"? Yes, very well, IF you have a high-quality broadband connection (you really need at least 5mbps for the best experience, though it will autoscale to deal with somewhat lower bandwidths). Video quality can be very good; though it is not quite the same as a direct video connection to a high-end gaming rig, for a large number of people it's good enough. The capture-encode part of the cycle is very fast, as is the decode-display part, typically in single-digits-of-milliseconds. All other latency is network latency, which brings up to geography and last-mile. You need to be within a few hundred miles of one of OnLive's data centers for the best experience. Your ISP has to not suck. The technology is certainly there, with the caveat of the geographical limitations. To be a mass-market success, OnLive will need many data centers. They aren't at that point yet; getting to that point will be a major part of whether OnLive truly succeeds, and major extended high-density metro areas will always come before rural. The idea of being able to play games that normally require a kilobuck computer, i.e. Crysis, on a cheapass computer with integrated video, is compelling for people who aren't willing or able to maintain and continually upgrade a dedicated gaming rig. Recall the recent announcement of Visio building an OnLive client natively into a TV. And if you need a demo of how little horsepower is actually needed... you can download an OnLive viewer for the iPad for free, and spectate on folks who are playing their games. (obviously, the latter is something best done over WiFi, for latency and bandwidth reasons, but the point is that a single-core ARM has all the oomph needed to get the job done. The client is truly lightweight.)

Do you "own" the games? No. Neither do you "own" an MMO; it's the MMO subscription model rather than the retail physical-goods model. Whether that's good or bad depends upon your outlook, which is not a basis of factual discussion; it's perspective. There are excellent arguments for and against, and I ask that people with a strongly-held opinion one way or another recognize that people with different opinions have different needs than themselves. For some people, the subscription model is ideal. For others, it just doesn't work. This isn't intended to be one size fits all.

Is it relevant to gamers with dedicated gaming PCs? To an extent. For some, the ability to play high-end games through legacy, entry-level computers (Shader model 2.0 or better and you're in!) is critical; there are far more people with such computers than dedicated gaming rigs. For others who own and maintain high-end gaming rigs, it's not a factor from a "what games can be played here" perspective. However, you just can't beat OnLive as an instant demo platform. Even if you have a liquid-cooled dual-580GTX SLI rig with an Intel Core i7 overclocked to 4.5GHz, there is value in the absolute immediacy of demos without downloads, install procedures, dealing with Starforce or SecuRom copy protection, pirated games coming with a "little extra software", and games of variable quality taking a dump all over your registry.

Can OnLive succeed? I think so, though they (OnLive) need to recognize that OnLive is no longer a technological play. The tech is there, and though OnLive has a substantial lead, it is inevitable that there will be competitors trying to solve the same problem which will eventually become "good enough". OnLive will sink or swim on non-technical factors: whether they can get the game publishers to commit

--
Everybody gets what the majority deserves.

Re:Fact time by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-03 08:48 · Score: 0

what they lack is games...
if they can get more games and new up to date games .. then I think I can see myself giving it a try ... until then gamefly it is

I've messed with OnLive since the beta by drfreak · 2011-02-02 12:59 · Score: 1

and I have to say I'm impressed with the technology. I have a good Cable connection so don't experience much latency even though they recommend not using wireless.

The service reminds me a lot of Netflix actually when they started streaming titles and there wan't much to choose from. The fact that Netflix has such a huge streaming library now is the reason it has become so successful and made many ditch the DVD service altogether. I hope OnLive continues to add new games, and they seem to be doing so. Being a Mac user at home, I'm always thankful for ways such as this service to access games I might not normally be able to, without install issues or wine. Hats off to them.

Slashdot Mirror

OnLive Aiming To Become Netflix of Games

146 comments