Jump to content
  • entries
    940
  • comments
    5,894
  • views
    864,002

OnLive Lives?


Josh

2,283 views

 Share

When OnLive was first announced, I thought it couldn't ever work, because of latency issues. After my recent networking work, I think it might actually be feasible. We had fast enough response times that we could play lagless games with server-controlled physics, which is similar to the way OnLive works. A lot of our tests were performed with intercontinental connections, and of course those will have significant latency. We found that when playing within 1000 miles of the server latency was much less of an issue.

 

I'm sort of interested from a consumer standpoint. If I can just pay a flat subscription fee and have access to a lot of games, that would be pretty appealing. There's a lot of games I would be interested in playing that I don't want to fork out $50 for. If I was paying to use them as part of a package of games, it would provide a lot more variety for your money.

 

What do you think? Will OnLive change the face of gaming, or will it be a flop?

 

 Share

6 Comments


Recommended Comments

the way I see it, it could work, but for various reasons games will still be developed for the desktop computers, consoles and more.

Why? Because of the sport in computer building and customization, both hardware and software. Because of microsoft that have been spitting out money for their console and operating system. And probably mostly because of the subscription part of this deal.

Quite honestly, I would not want to pay a subscription costing perhaps 150 a month even if I got to play a dozen more games then the three I could buy in the store for that money.

I would still want the games on hard copies because I like to return to my games later in time, I also like to see them in my shelf, I like to be able to mod the games, and I like to be able to adjust my settings to what pleases me in accordance with my hardware.

 

Will onLive be a flop? hardly. I think it will be convenient for many people. But will it change the face of gaming? I hardly think so, but time will tell.

Link to comment

An idea that no one has tried: playing hundreds of video games on a remote networked computer. I don't really see the benefit of not owning / downloading games besides the installation. For some reason I like the 'tangible' bytes on my hard drive in case my internet dies. If I pay for a service, I like to keep my games.

 

I think they'll make a moderate profit, but the idea just sounds too good to be true if multi-player games already have lag.

 

 

I can't wait for your updated Network though!

Link to comment

The only real benefit in technology I see is that you can make games which use realtime raytracing, since they could put up a supercomputer to calculate the frames.

Link to comment

I don't know, there may be some more fundamental ways this changes the medium. It's kind of like a YouTube for games.

Link to comment

I think that's brilliant. The social aspect is mind boggling. Games are the only medium which deny you content if you're not good enough. This would allow anyone to see all the cool stuff you never get to see.

 

Compressing a frame in 1ms, fantastic. Never need to upgrade or spend half a grand every two years to play new games. To say I can see the appeal is an understatement. Buy shares now.

Link to comment

A steady 80ms or less lag time is required for this to work. I have broadband and it's very rare in any online game I play that I maintain that rate. If at any time it goes above that you will feel it and it will throw your game off. Also, there are certain kinds of games that I play in windowed mode while surfing the web on my other screen. Is this common? Probably not, but how many people have a network in their home? If a friend or family member is doing anything else like watching videos or downloading music or anything, this could severely hurt this system. Plus with the broadband companies starting to be all pissed about the amount of bandwidth usage and some charging more for what is used in a month and given the current infrastructure I can't see this company being a success. I think it's a great idea and if anything maybe it'll help push for better broadband infrastructure but I'd say to early.

 

Think of an anticipated MMO that has ever been released. This will have about that many or more online at the same time trying to play when it first comes out. These MMO games basically always crash and have so much down time the first week or 2. If that happens at all it'll be a bust. The people that had their doubts will leave and never look back and that would be deadly for this company. I think the only way they could make it is if they start small in select cities and restrict people to a certain radius in those cities until they can fix any stability issue that WILL come up. Then slowly expand over time. You don't want to piss off your entire user base instantly by having the servers crash right away which is almost a given. It just is. Not matter how much testing you do it's almost impossible to have enough hardware in place for the amount of load you'll get right away if you open it up to everyone. From a business stand point when you first open your doors for something like this you'll need more hardware than what you would need once you are settled in, simply because everyone will be using it when you open the doors. Once you are settled in the usage will be much more predictable.

 

On a personal standpoint, I would try this if there were enough titles to keep me interested. If the first week or 2 is nothing but server downtime and frustration I would cancel and almost never look back.

Link to comment
Guest
Add a comment...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...