Gameguru Mania

[ggrobot]

OnLive founder and CEO Steve Perlman recently showed off the game-streaming technology\'s applications to a group of students at Columbia University in New York. GamertagRadio snagged a video of the event (feel free to jump to the 12-minute mark to check out the OnLive user interface):

Read more...

Source: GGMania headlines
GGMania.com - Daily Gaming and Tech news

[darknothing]

So for those of us that have bandwidth restrictions, me, 55$ = 61gb upload download.

how much bandwidth would it use to play a game for 1hour of game-play....

[nowayout]

C'mon 2010 and bandwidth limit... change Your ISP

[Neosapience]

Here's the main problems this system will have -

1. Lag - It will be noticeable, especially if you have a less than perfect internet connection. If you have a shared connection, you're going to get lag every time someone hogs your bandwidth (only real solution is a router with QoS).

2. Inferior to PC gaming in every way - Onlive's only competition will be consoles. PC games offer user created content, game customization (think CFG file editing, etc...) much higher framerates and resolutions, as well as a lag free single player experience.

3. Monitoring - Every game you play will be monitored. Private gaming will not be possible.

4. Rental Only - You will no longer 'own' any of the games you play. No more trade-ins or reselling.

5. Monopolization - Since this will centralize gaming, there will basically be no competition between consoles. This could eventually lead to price gouging by Onlive (unless someone else develops a similar service).

6. No Piracy - While this will be a good thing for game developers, many people will not use this system simply because they will not be able to 'mod' it or pirate any of the games.

I really don't see Onlive taking off, at least not any time soon. It may eventually be a good option for portable gaming, but only time will tell.

[nb411]

What's wrong with "No piracy"? Are you saying there will be less users to play against online because pirates will be absent? Bit of an odd criticism if so.

My major concern is the centralisation aspect of this service. Most of the reason I enjoy PC gaming is for the hardware aspect. You get to put together a system that you have researched and purchased individual components for, which is a process I enjoy and find satisfying. If you are ever dissatisfied with the performance of a game there is almost certainly something you can do about it, given that your pockets are deep enough. You need not be constrained by 'frozen in time' console hardware or Onlive's lastest marginal cost calculations i.e. cost of upgrading hardware vs. increase in sales generated. They will always seek to deliver a visual quality (and therefore experience) that is optimised according to their costs in a way that maximises profit, not user experience.

I do view Onlive as the consolisation of PC gaming that will mitigate all the advantages and interesting aspects of being a PC gamer, like modding and pushing 300fps if you want to for example.

Realistically though, the reason this idea from Onlive has arisen in my opinion, is because PC games are not very profitable due to rampant piracy, at least compared with console game sales. It is the illegitimate users that are unwittingly fueling their own demise.

[Neosapience]

[nb411]

I know that bandwidth is an issue. The point I was making is that of flexibility that PC users enjoy by having control over their system hardware.

Bandwidth will be a limitation as well as hardware employed by Onlive.

As for your points about piracy, I am aware of piracy induced by regional exclusion. If you can't buy a game locally, then there is an incentive to pirate it. That implies a 'decent' internet connection (for torrents), and since people are mostly interested in multi-player games, it stands to reason that the pirates have access to online purchasing of games and will require the internet to play (though not necessarily to verify), even if installing the game from a burned disc. This was one of the great innovations with Steam, since it opened up the market to Russian gamers for example.

Furthermore, if people don't have adequate internet connectivity at home, then they can still order games by post, even from other countries. I think then, that there is very little standing in the way of obtaining games legally, the people who do it by in large would fall under the following categories: can't afford it, don't want to pay for it, ignorant of legitimate sources to obtain from.

Finally when you say, "It simply has too many issues that people will not like." Just keep in mind the initial response to Steam. How many people liked it or even thought it was a good idea? Now look at it. I do see that Onlive has big potential in future because once the technical issues are dealt with (a matter of improvements in technology over time) there are a hell of a lot of pros as I think most people will see it.