Stick Online Forums

General => Off Topic => Topic started by: ARTgames on December 29, 2009, 11:41:35 PM

Title: that onLIVE stuff
Post by: ARTgames on December 29, 2009, 11:41:35 PM
http://www.joystiq.com/2009/12/29/onlive-technology-demonstrated-at-columbia-university/

Take a look at the video. It looks impressive. I think it could work. And even if it does not work that well if it cheaches of its going to change things. It could google the gaming market!
Title: Re: that onLIVE stuff
Post by: EpicPhailure on December 30, 2009, 12:05:10 AM
Watching the actual menu at work is pretty cool. By actual menu, I mean the main menu where the guy showcases how easy it is to switch from game to game and etc.

It looks awesome, but what's the estimated price?
Title: Re: that onLIVE stuff
Post by: Pat on December 30, 2009, 02:50:16 AM
My friend told me about the beta, I got all excited before I realised it was only for the US. It looks pretty cool but I can't imagine how many powerful servers you'd need for it.
Title: Re: that onLIVE stuff
Post by: Scotty on December 30, 2009, 05:10:02 AM
Just watched the entire video.  Definitely something to look forward to!
Title: Re: that onLIVE stuff
Post by: ARTgames on December 30, 2009, 12:03:55 PM
Think about it. If this gets popular then whats going to happen to the 360, ps3, wii, pc? Game makers would be more willing to stop those than work for this. Now i don't think this will kill the portable game market but that's only a matter of time until we get faster networks.

What i'm scared about is is are internet really good enough to support this, are they evil, and will they have competitors?
Title: Re: that onLIVE stuff
Post by: Lingus on December 30, 2009, 12:37:19 PM
That's what I'm worried about too. The connection speeds. My friend told me last night that they are considering doing the same thing for movies. In other words, rather than have a DVD, you would just stream the movie. Like you can now with Netflix. To me it just seems like a step backwords. They would be getting rid of BluRay and going towards something with worse quality than regular DVDs. The only way they could get it nearly close to BluRay is if connection speeds were much much faster.
Title: Re: that onLIVE stuff
Post by: ARTgames on December 30, 2009, 12:45:06 PM
Well in a way blue ray is the old way. Steaming is convent. And even if the quality is no ware neer its quality people don't care because streaming is good enough for most people. And the market with the people lives.

I don't mind. If the money goes into steaming and downloading then that gives the more of chance to just improvement. And i also don't like that idea of making thousands of disks and having thousands of trucks and air plains take them around the world. That seems so old fashion.
Title: Re: that onLIVE stuff
Post by: Jake on December 30, 2009, 12:48:22 PM
I have a hard time seeing a service like this take over gaming because there are too many flaws in it's design. It doesn't allow people to have physical copies of their game, any network lag at all can cause an annoying input delay that makes the game unplayable, and how is this company going to handle a massive amount of people? Are they planning on purchasing a few thousand super computers?

When fiber optics become the norm in people's houses, a system like this will be a little more plausible. But I still don't see how they're going to fix the other two glaring issues.
Title: Re: that onLIVE stuff
Post by: ARTgames on December 30, 2009, 01:02:11 PM
Quote from: Jake on December 30, 2009, 12:48:22 PM
It doesn't allow people to have physical copies of their game,
Yes people want that but convinces is more important. What if you dont want to own a physical copy? Just look at kindle, steam, itunes, xbox live arcade and game download, netflix streaming, and the list goes on. If that proves anything its that a market can work just fine without having a physical copy.

Quote from: Jake on December 30, 2009, 12:48:22 PM
any network lag at all can cause an annoying input delay that makes the game unplayable,
Thats what im most scard of.

Quote from: Jake on December 30, 2009, 12:48:22 PM
and how is this company going to handle a massive amount of people? Are they planning on purchasing a few thousand super computers?
they answer that question in the video.
Title: Re: that onLIVE stuff
Post by: Lingus on December 30, 2009, 01:12:56 PM
Steam is different than this. Steam is digital distribution. This is streaming/remote connection. With digital distribution you have the game files on your computer. Your machine is running the game. The specs of your computer determine how well the game runs. You can't do that with streaming like this...

I do agree that digital distribution is a good thing. I advocate Steam very much so. OnLive is different though.
Title: Re: that onLIVE stuff
Post by: Jackabomb on December 30, 2009, 01:16:09 PM
This looks really great. It reminds me of something my cousin told me about that should come out within our lifetime. It's supposed to practically destroy the gaming market, but I won't say more since I don't fully know what I'm talking about.
Title: Re: that onLIVE stuff
Post by: ARTgames on December 30, 2009, 01:16:43 PM
Quote from: Lingus on December 30, 2009, 01:12:56 PM
Steam is different than this. Steam is digital distribution. This is streaming/remote connection. With digital distribution you have the game files on your computer. Your machine is running the game. The specs of your computer determine how well the game runs. You can't do that with streaming like this...

Thats not my point. My point was to combat jake's point of owning a physical copy. Steam does not give you a physical copy but yet people still use the service. Thus proving to jake that people will buy stuff even if you dont get a physical copy.
Title: Re: that onLIVE stuff
Post by: Lingus on December 30, 2009, 01:23:02 PM
Okay, I see. And yes, that's actually still a concern people have with Steam. There are some people who just have to have the physical copies of their game. They are gaining the benefit of always being able to pop in that disc and install the game. They are losing so many more benefits that Steam provides.

It will probably be the same with OnLive. You are losing the benefit of being able to build your PC to spec, not worry about lag killing your ability to play a game, and not having the games installed on your computer. But you would be losing the benefit of not HAVING to build such a powerful PC in order to play the games. I can see this being a great thing for more casual gamers. They can take their PC that they built for every day use, without gaming in mind, and they should be able to play the more hardware intesive games.
Title: Re: that onLIVE stuff
Post by: ARTgames on December 30, 2009, 01:37:02 PM
There calming that they will have the most powerful hardware (they said they upgrade ever 6 months) and even hardware the consumer cant easy get or use (said something about ray tracking hardware).

The other point they are trying to say is that you can still play these games and not have a powerful system at your end. And for a lot of people that's all they want. The market of pc games that do that pc stuff is much smaller than the total gaming market. Just look at IW cod mw2 for pc. They dont care about pc that much at all.

Also this is much more economical for the game developers. For one it cuts out a lot of cost for them and stops piracy in they way we know it now.

And if this is good enough for most of the people who play games i don't see how the gaming systems today could compete.

These are the the points they say in the video.
Title: Re: that onLIVE stuff
Post by: Jake on December 30, 2009, 01:43:56 PM
Quote from: ARTgames on December 30, 2009, 01:16:43 PM
Quote from: Lingus on December 30, 2009, 01:12:56 PM
Steam is different than this. Steam is digital distribution. This is streaming/remote connection. With digital distribution you have the game files on your computer. Your machine is running the game. The specs of your computer determine how well the game runs. You can't do that with streaming like this...

Thats not my point. My point was to combat jake's point of owning a physical copy. Steam does not give you a physical copy but yet people still use the service. Thus proving to jake that people will buy stuff even if you dont get a physical copy.
I actually made a mistake in my post. I meant physical and digital copies of the game. Like Lingus pointed out, we will no longer have either with onLIVE.

I also watched the video for 25 minutes, and never found out how they're going to account for a massive amount of people. They explained how they're going to account for network lag, and although they're doing a terrific job, there's still so many problems. Even in the test videos, I saw frames being skipped and whatnot. DSL users are going to have a hell of a time playing games without their being a glaring input delay.

I really believe it's a great product, but it's definitely not for everyone, and never will be for everyone. I believe future services will be more of a mix between Steam and onLIVE where they give you the choice, which will give the majority of gamers the option and flexibility they want.

Needless to say, cable users with shitty laptops are about to be on cloud 9.
Title: Re: that onLIVE stuff
Post by: ARTgames on December 30, 2009, 01:58:46 PM
Quote from: Jake on December 30, 2009, 01:43:56 PM
Quote from: ARTgames on December 30, 2009, 01:16:43 PM
Quote from: Lingus on December 30, 2009, 01:12:56 PM
Steam is different than this. Steam is digital distribution. This is streaming/remote connection. With digital distribution you have the game files on your computer. Your machine is running the game. The specs of your computer determine how well the game runs. You can't do that with streaming like this...

Thats not my point. My point was to combat jake's point of owning a physical copy. Steam does not give you a physical copy but yet people still use the service. Thus proving to jake that people will buy stuff even if you dont get a physical copy.
I actually made a mistake in my post. I meant physical and digital copies of the game. Like Lingus pointed out, we will no longer have either with onLIVE.
Ok that's fine. But think about the roku box, nexfilx streaming, voodoo streaming, pay for view, on demand tv, etc. You also have neither here ether. And these services still work. Now will it work as well for the gaming market idk. It looks like it could.

QuoteI also watched the video for 25 minutes, and never found out how they're going to account for a massive amount of people.
27:02 in the video. "well how do we go and build millions of servers? well we leash the server actually....." and he goes on. watch the whole thing next time :P


Quote
there's still so many problems. Even in the test videos, I saw frames being skipped and whatnot. DSL users are going to have a hell of a time playing games without their being a glaring input delay.
seemed fine to me. But i will say the video they did have on the site was not that good to start with.

But another thing i knowdest was that a lot of the games looked like there were running on a lower stetting. but its beta.
Title: Re: that onLIVE stuff
Post by: Jake on December 30, 2009, 02:17:26 PM
I'm not saying the service won't work. I'm saying that it will lose it's appeal to a lot of people because of the lack of a digital or physical property. MANY people will still love it, but I think this flaw will be one of the reasons that onLIVE won't make a much bigger dent in the gaming market. PC gamers are gonna be the real haters.

I've already watched a few other long onLIVE vids. I apologize if i didn't watch all 40 minutes of this one before posting. Anyway, watched what he had to say and he said what I thought he'd say. They will basically split people between servers depending on how GPU or CPU intensive the application they're using is. This isn't enough if they plan on their service getting popular. We'll see.
Title: Re: that onLIVE stuff
Post by: Lingus on December 30, 2009, 02:20:27 PM
Quote from: ARTgames on December 30, 2009, 01:58:46 PM
Quote from: Jake on December 30, 2009, 01:43:56 PM
Quote from: ARTgames on December 30, 2009, 01:16:43 PM
Quote from: Lingus on December 30, 2009, 01:12:56 PM
Steam is different than this. Steam is digital distribution. This is streaming/remote connection. With digital distribution you have the game files on your computer. Your machine is running the game. The specs of your computer determine how well the game runs. You can't do that with streaming like this...

Thats not my point. My point was to combat jake's point of owning a physical copy. Steam does not give you a physical copy but yet people still use the service. Thus proving to jake that people will buy stuff even if you dont get a physical copy.
I actually made a mistake in my post. I meant physical and digital copies of the game. Like Lingus pointed out, we will no longer have either with onLIVE.
Ok that's fine. But think about the roku box, nexfilx streaming, voodoo streaming, pay for view, on demand tv, etc. You also have neither here ether. And these services still work. Now will it work as well for the gaming market idk. It looks like it could.
I actually don't think Netflix streaming is as good as having the DVD. I'm sure there are even more people that would be against the movie industry going towards streaming. There's so many video- and audiophiles out there that need to have the best quality sound and video when they watch a movie. I just don't see them being even remotely satisfied by streaming. Those products you mention are working now... but I don't think they will ever be the exclusive form of watching movies. Just like I don't see streaming video games being the exclusive way of playing games. Which is fine...
Title: Re: that onLIVE stuff
Post by: ARTgames on December 30, 2009, 02:40:06 PM
Quote from: Jake on December 30, 2009, 02:17:26 PM
I'm not saying the service won't work. I'm saying that it will lose it's appeal to a lot of people because of the lack of a digital or physical property. MANY people will still love it, but I think this flaw will be one of the reasons that onLIVE won't make a much bigger dent in the gaming market.

mmk. just making sure. I dont think it will. I think it will place a big dent over time. Thats just me tho. And i think thats a fair (yours) view that that will prevent it from doing such things.
Quote
PC gamers are gonna be the real haters.
Yup. there not too many of them also.

Quote
I actually don't think Netflix streaming is as good as having the DVD.
yup. its not as good quality and you don't get the extras and you cant play it without internet. But those are all things that can be fixed with tech.

QuoteI'm sure there are even more people that would be against the movie industry going towards streaming. There's so many video- and audiophiles out there that need to have the best quality sound and video when they watch a movie.
Not really. The video- and audiophiles is a vary small percent. Normal people don't care nearly as much.
Quote
Those products you mention are working now... but I don't think they will ever be the exclusive form of watching movies. Just like I don't see streaming video games being the exclusive way of playing games. Which is fine...
There not now but are starting to become more and more digital. There are steamed events in movie theaters.

Now why i think all video games could go all streamed is because it could be better for the consumer and its really is better for the developer. Its and extream look but i think it could happen. Im not to sure about hand held devices but maybe one day. I think its a matter of connection advablilty and speed. I dont think its going to take over the indasty over night but i think it will cause damige if its succesful. just my prediction.

What you need to think about with streaming is that's its as i said in the past convent. Maybe all you want to see is a quick movie and you don't want to w8 for a disk or goto a video store or buy the dvd watch it once and let it collect dust. Think of all the movies you dont really care about owning but still would like to see if you have some free time.

Its funny how we had main frames computers, when to pc's, then were are coming back. I mean theres no reason why this hast to stop at gaming. cloud computing has many forms.

I think its fair what you and jake think. Its just that i have a different thought.
Title: Re: that onLIVE stuff
Post by: Lingus on December 30, 2009, 03:11:56 PM
I agree that this kind of thing has its uses. It's definitely convenient. I just don't think it will ever be the ONLY way of doing things. But who knows.
Title: Re: that onLIVE stuff
Post by: ARTgames on December 30, 2009, 04:28:18 PM
Quote from: Lingus on December 30, 2009, 03:11:56 PM
I agree that this kind of thing has its uses. It's definitely convenient. I just don't think it will ever be the ONLY way of doing things. But who knows.
And this is how i feel exactly! :D
Title: Re: that onLIVE stuff
Post by: JoEL on December 30, 2009, 05:23:16 PM
Australians won't have much use for this, as we have an internet download cap. You can only download a certain amount of gigabytes of data that you pay for. You can pay for a bigger cap sure, but it's expensive. I can see myself getting capped within a few days of playing this...in other words, it's completely useless.

Also they say this will over be how we get access to games in the future, you will not be able to buy an actual copy of the game from a game store, as they will not exist in this future.
Title: Re: that onLIVE stuff
Post by: Lingus on December 30, 2009, 05:32:12 PM
Quote from: JoEL on December 30, 2009, 05:23:16 PM
Australians won't have much use for this, as we have an internet download cap. You can only download a certain amount of gigabytes of data that you pay for. You can pay for a bigger cap sure, but it's expensive. I can see myself getting capped within a few days of playing this...in other words, it's completely useless.
I imagine that will change in the future. I've heard of that kind of payment model. In the end companies have to do what their customers want. And if most people want to be able to use unlimited bandwidth, then they will eventually provide it.
Title: Re: that onLIVE stuff
Post by: Chaos on December 30, 2009, 06:32:39 PM
You know Art, you seem to be making an awful lot of assumptions about the general population.

I said it the first time someone brought this up, and I say it again.  I think this is stupid.  I can see its uses for some people, but I have absolutely NO interest in it myself.  Give me cds, dvds, or what have you.  When this company goes bankrupt, as all companies eventually do, say bye-bye to your games.  I'll be sitting in my home playing all my old games whenever I want and laughing.

It's a nice service, but it will NEVER replace hard copies.
Title: Re: that onLIVE stuff
Post by: Jackabomb on December 30, 2009, 06:38:45 PM
Well, I see truth in chaos's point of view(how much of that is due to not wanting him to cream me like he did in the topic about the dog thrown off the bridge, I don't know), but one can rarely be correct when speaking in absolutes. I'm sure someone said, way back when, "Books are great for some people, but they'll never replace scrolls."
Title: Re: that onLIVE stuff
Post by: Chaos on December 30, 2009, 06:42:10 PM
Quote from: Jackabomb on December 30, 2009, 06:38:45 PM
Well, I see truth in chaos's point of view(how much of that is due to not wanting him to cream me like he did in the topic about the dog thrown off the bridge, I don't know), but one can rarely be correct when speaking in absolutes. I'm sure someone said, way back when, "Books are great for some people, but they'll never replace scrolls."

The difference with that is you can still hold a book in your hand as much as a scroll.  You never get to own any of these games, you pretty much get to pay people to play them.  !@#$ that.  If I'm going to pay money, I want to own what I'm paying for.
Title: Re: that onLIVE stuff
Post by: ARTgames on December 30, 2009, 07:11:15 PM
Quote from: Chaos on December 30, 2009, 06:32:39 PM
You know Art, you seem to be making an awful lot of assumptions about the general population.
please point out what they are.

Quote from: Chaos on December 30, 2009, 06:32:39 PM
I said it the first time someone brought this up, and I say it again.  I think this is stupid.  I can see its uses for some people, but I have absolutely NO interest in it myself.  Give me cds, dvds, or what have you.  

It's a nice service, but it will NEVER replace hard copies.
I have said that i dont like phycopys becase i feel they are wastfull. But i know why you want them. Im just trying to say why i dont think they will last. Time will tell.

QuoteYou never get to own any of these games, you pretty much get to pay people to play them.
And do you think for most people that is enough?
Title: Re: that onLIVE stuff
Post by: Chaos on December 30, 2009, 07:24:32 PM
Quote from: ARTgames on December 30, 2009, 07:11:15 PM
Quote from: Chaos on December 30, 2009, 06:32:39 PM
You know Art, you seem to be making an awful lot of assumptions about the general population.
please point out what they are.

QuoteAnd even if the quality is no ware neer its quality people don't care because streaming is good enough for most people.

QuoteYes people want that but convinces is more important.

QuoteThe other point they are trying to say is that you can still play these games and not have a powerful system at your end. And for a lot of people that's all they want.

QuoteYup. there not too many of them also.

QuoteThe video- and audiophiles is a vary small percent. Normal people don't care nearly as much.



Quote from: ARTgames on December 30, 2009, 07:11:15 PM
Quote from: Chaos on December 30, 2009, 06:32:39 PM
I said it the first time someone brought this up, and I say it again.  I think this is stupid.  I can see its uses for some people, but I have absolutely NO interest in it myself.  Give me cds, dvds, or what have you.  

It's a nice service, but it will NEVER replace hard copies.
I have said that i dont like phycopys becase i feel they are wastfull. But i know why you want them. Im just trying to say why i dont think they will last. Time will tell.

It doesn't even have to be physical copies.  Even with downloaded games, you can back-up the data easily.  With this, you get NOTHING.

Quote from: ARTgames on December 30, 2009, 07:11:15 PM
QuoteYou never get to own any of these games, you pretty much get to pay people to play them.
And you do think for most people that enough?

Do I think that will be enough for most people?  Yes.  Because people are idiots.

Let me point out one thing however:  Arcades are practically dead.
Title: Re: that onLIVE stuff
Post by: Lingus on December 30, 2009, 07:45:25 PM
Quote from: Chaos on December 30, 2009, 07:24:32 PM
Yes.  Because people are idiots.
Haha! Nice.
Title: Re: that onLIVE stuff
Post by: ARTgames on December 30, 2009, 07:57:10 PM
Quote from: Chaos on December 30, 2009, 07:24:32 PM
Quote from: ARTgames on December 30, 2009, 07:11:15 PM
QuoteYou never get to own any of these games, you pretty much get to pay people to play them.
And you do think for most people that enough?

Do I think that will be enough for most people?  Yes.  Because people are idiots.
That is a great counter augment. Because ever one is an idiot. that's not a an awful lot of assumptions about the general population now is it. Non the less you see what I'm saying.


Quote from: Chaos on December 30, 2009, 07:24:32 PM
Quote from: ARTgames on December 30, 2009, 07:11:15 PM
Quote from: Chaos on December 30, 2009, 06:32:39 PM
You know Art, you seem to be making an awful lot of assumptions about the general population.
please point out what they are.

QuoteAnd even if the quality is no ware neer its quality people don't care because streaming is good enough for most people.

QuoteYes people want that but convinces is more important.

QuoteThe other point they are trying to say is that you can still play these games and not have a powerful system at your end. And for a lot of people that's all they want.

QuoteYup. there not too many of them also.

QuoteThe video- and audiophiles is a vary small percent. Normal people don't care nearly as much.

non the less if people are idiots (accouding to your logic) then these would most likely all be true. I basd these assumptions off talking to people and from the data i get from podcast.

Tell me what you think about these staments. Tell me if you think there true or not?


QuoteLet me point out one thing however:  Arcades are practically dead.
not to japan. Non the less they fell to the convince of home systems. This still will be a home system. Or any ware you get internet sytem.

edit:
i just saw how many times i sayed "non the less". my bad
Title: Re: that onLIVE stuff
Post by: Chaos on December 30, 2009, 08:21:16 PM
Pay money to play a game Vs. Pay money to own a game.

Is there really any argument?

EDIT:  Incidentally, what I said is not an assumption, it's a fact.  People are stupid.
Title: Re: that onLIVE stuff
Post by: ARTgames on December 30, 2009, 08:25:35 PM
Quote from: Chaos on December 30, 2009, 08:21:16 PM
Pay money to play a game Vs. Pay money to own a game.

Is there really any argument?

Well you cant over simply it. And you left out the idea of renting. Just wondering have you seen the video?
Title: Re: that onLIVE stuff
Post by: Chaos on December 30, 2009, 08:28:07 PM
Quote from: ARTgames on December 30, 2009, 08:25:35 PM
Quote from: Chaos on December 30, 2009, 08:21:16 PM
Pay money to play a game Vs. Pay money to own a game.

Is there really any argument?

Well you cant over simply it. And you left out the idea of renting.

I can and did.  Am I wrong?

And no, I didn't.  Renting is paying to play a game.  Which is stupid.
Title: Re: that onLIVE stuff
Post by: ARTgames on December 30, 2009, 08:34:58 PM
Quote from: Chaos on December 30, 2009, 08:28:07 PM
Quote from: ARTgames on December 30, 2009, 08:25:35 PM
Quote from: Chaos on December 30, 2009, 08:21:16 PM
Pay money to play a game Vs. Pay money to own a game.

Is there really any argument?

Well you cant over simply it. And you left out the idea of renting.

I can and did.  Am I wrong?

And no, I didn't.  Renting is paying to play a game.  Which is stupid.

Chaos to start the main idea of this topic was talking about onlive. If your not going to educate your shelf about it then why talk about it? It seem like 1 word "renting" has gotton you down on the idea.

This is off topic but i do like the idea of renting.
Title: Re: that onLIVE stuff
Post by: Chaos on December 30, 2009, 08:44:34 PM
Ahahahahaha.  So because I disagree with your seemingly fan-boish love of this, I'm not educated about the subject, huh?  Despite this, you seem to be the one utterly failing to respond.  I'm loving how you have absolutely no answer to my objection.

You're paying a company to PLAY games.  Do you dispute this?

You do not OWN said games you're paying to play.  Do you dispute this?

If this company goes down the shitter eventually, you will be unable to play all these games you paid to play.  Do you dispute this?

Let me spell this out for you again.  I am talking about 'onlive', and I am talking about how stupid it is.  It will NEVER replace hard copy.  Do you dispute this?

So what leg, exactly, are you trying on standing on, here?  Cause as far as I can tell, you're trying to levitate, and only succeeding to roll down a hill.

EDIT:  Incidentally, I'm not being antagonistic, I'm being serious.  If you want to convince me this is a good idea, I want some bloody answers.
Title: Re: that onLIVE stuff
Post by: ARTgames on December 30, 2009, 09:04:24 PM
Quoteyour seemingly fan-boish love of this
Name calling really? we need to cool down. I dont have an fan-boish love on this. I just have a vary strong bleaife on what it might cause.

I will say i do have a "fan-boish love" love to dislike the way we are doing things now. As i think its wastfull.

Your point is onlive suckes because of your not owning your own game. My point is onlive can cause a big dent in the gaming industry if it get successful.

Yes you are renting games. But they offer a service that in the video i think might be worth it. it does do more than let you rent games. And i have a feeling that if you saw the video you see why i might think the way i do. Yes you are a bit educated on it (my bad im sorry i made sound like you know nothing) but i think the video would help in prove your idea of it.

I see both sides. I know why some one might want to own a copy.

But this is really how i feel.
QuoteI agree that this kind of thing has its uses. It's definitely convenient. I just don't think it will ever be the ONLY way of doing things. But who knows.

Say what you want now. I just want people to take this topic and read all the post (yours mine every one else's) and come up with conclusion for there self's. you do hold up points people should see.

QuoteIncidentally, I'm not being antagonistic, I'm being serious.  If you want to convince me this is a good idea, I want some bloody answers.
Ill haft to w8 and see when it comes out. I'm not too sure my self if i would want this. There not even pricing out there yet.
Title: Re: that onLIVE stuff
Post by: Jake on December 30, 2009, 09:19:01 PM
Quote from: Chaos on December 30, 2009, 08:21:16 PM
Pay money to play a game Vs. Pay money to own a game.
You're making a valid comparison, but Art was right in stating that you over-simplified it. I can do the same thing to draw a seemingly accurate conclusion. For example...

"You can pay 1500 dollars to play high end games or you can use onLIVE and do it for much cheaper. I think we know the better choice."

Drawing a conclusion with limited factors yields inaccurate results.

Quote from: Chaos on December 30, 2009, 08:44:34 PM
EDIT:  Incidentally, I'm not being antagonistic, I'm being serious.  If you want to convince me this is a good idea, I want some bloody answers.
You're still being antagonistic.

Either way, there's a multitude of good things about onLIVE that I pointed out to you over MSN. To you, these features aren't redeeming of it's downsides, and thats fine. I share the same point of view. On the other hand, not everyone cares if they don't have a digital or physical copy of the game, because the benefit of playing high quality games on their old rigs is more than worth it, allowing them to save time and money.

It seems your lashing out at the service because it's a threat to gaming as we know it. Well sorry, but it's not. It's a great alternative (and if you can't see that then you've really blinded yourself into hating it), and that's all it is. Nothing more.

If onLIVE takes over gaming, it's because gamers wanted it to.
Title: Re: that onLIVE stuff
Post by: ARTgames on December 30, 2009, 09:27:05 PM
QuoteIt seems your lashing out at the service because it's a threat to gaming as we know it. Well sorry, but it's not.
I think it can if it gets big. Which is what i was saying.

Do i think it will ever get big? Well its hard to say. But i have a feeling of no because the internet not up to something that can support this.

edit:
QuoteIf onLIVE takes over gaming, it's because gamers wanted it to.
when you say that, who are the gamers? Do you mean hardcord people?
Title: Re: that onLIVE stuff
Post by: Jake on December 30, 2009, 09:39:06 PM
Quote from: ARTgames on December 30, 2009, 09:27:05 PM
I think it can if it gets big. Which is what i was saying.
It will never be a threat to gaming, because the gamers are the one's who tagged along for the ride. Unless your talking about gaming as we know it.

Quote from: ARTgames on December 30, 2009, 09:27:05 PM
when you say that, who are the gamers? Do you mean hardcord people?
Anyone who plays games. To be a little more general, I'm referring to the consumers. It is the consumers that choose whether or not onLIVE fails or becomes the next big thing.
Title: Re: that onLIVE stuff
Post by: ARTgames on December 30, 2009, 09:42:13 PM
Quote from: Jake on December 30, 2009, 09:39:06 PM
Quote from: ARTgames on December 30, 2009, 09:27:05 PM
I think it can if it gets big. Which is what i was saying.
It will never be a threat to gaming, because the gamers are the one's who tagged along for the ride.
I think i have misunderstood. Like i mean it will be the end to having powerfull hardware at home to play games. my bad.
edit:
does this help?
Quote from: artgamesAnd if this is good enough for most of the people who play games i don't see how the gaming systems today could compete.

Quote from: Jake on December 30, 2009, 09:39:06 PM
Quote from: ARTgames on December 30, 2009, 09:27:05 PM
when you say that, who are the gamers? Do you mean hardcord people?
Anyone who plays games.
ill replay to this after i understand what your saying.

Title: Re: that onLIVE stuff
Post by: Chaos on December 30, 2009, 09:50:17 PM
Heh.  Hehe.  HAHAHAHA!

Seriously?

Let me re-iterate:

QuoteI said it the first time someone brought this up, and I say it again.  I think this is stupid.  I can see its uses for some people, but I have absolutely NO interest in it myself.  Give me cds, dvds, or what have you.  When this company goes bankrupt, as all companies eventually do, say bye-bye to your games.  I'll be sitting in my home playing all my old games whenever I want and laughing.

It's a nice service, but it will NEVER replace hard copies.


Let me break it down:

QuoteI said it the first time someone brought this up, and I say it again.  I think this is stupid.

Note the "I THINK".

QuoteI can see its uses for some people, but I have absolutely NO interest in it myself.

Note the first part, then the second part where I say "I" and "Myself".

QuoteGive me cds, dvds, or what have you.  When this company goes bankrupt, as all companies eventually do, say bye-bye to your games.

Does anyone dispute this?  Considering I've said it numerous times without so much as a response, I'm going to assume no.  Which is good, cause it's pretty much a fact at this point.  Something I felt necessary to point out as to WHY I do not like it.

QuoteI'll be sitting in my home playing all my old games whenever I want and laughing.

See above.

QuoteIt's a nice service, but it will NEVER replace hard copies.

Once again, I acknowledge the fact that it has its uses, but state that will never replace hard copies (hard copies in this case either being cd/dvd, or digital backup).  Fairly straightforward stuff.

So, yeah.  When you try to argue with me about my position, try to understand it in the first place, yeah?


EDIT:  Additionally, I still haven't gotten an answer:

Quote from: Chaos on December 30, 2009, 08:28:07 PM
Quote from: ARTgames on December 30, 2009, 08:25:35 PM
Quote from: Chaos on December 30, 2009, 08:21:16 PM
Pay money to play a game Vs. Pay money to own a game.

Is there really any argument?

Well you cant over simply it.

I can and did.  Am I wrong?

Well?  I'm apparently wrong, but no one feels it necessary to explain how.  What, exactly, is over-simplified?
Title: Re: that onLIVE stuff
Post by: Jake on December 30, 2009, 10:01:49 PM
Quote from: Chaos on December 30, 2009, 09:50:17 PM
Well?  I'm apparently wrong, but no one feels it necessary to explain how.  What, exactly, is over-simplified?
I explained that in my previous post.
Title: Re: that onLIVE stuff
Post by: ARTgames on December 30, 2009, 10:11:36 PM
QuoteSo, yeah.  When you try to argue with me about my position, try to understand it in the first place, yeah?
ok ill tell you.

Quote from: Chaos on December 30, 2009, 09:50:17 PM

QuoteI said it the first time someone brought this up, and I say it again.  I think this is stupid.

Note the "I THINK".

QuoteI can see its uses for some people, but I have absolutely NO interest in it myself.

Note the first part, then the second part where I say "I" and "Myself".
That is fair and i will say i think i missed that.

Quote from: Chaos on December 30, 2009, 09:50:17 PM
QuoteGive me cds, dvds, or what have you.  When this company goes bankrupt, as all companies eventually do, say bye-bye to your games.

Does anyone dispute this?  Considering I've said it numerous times without so much as a response, I'm going to assume no.  Which is good, cause it's pretty much a fact at this point.  Something I felt necessary to point out as to WHY I do not like it.
I think thats true but that depends on a lot of things. Like why did they go bankrupt? If they whent bankrupt becase a compadter has a better poduckt and im already with them im fine. Yeah its true i loose my access to thoes game. Thats true of any service. Like my cellphone or my cable tv or my internet or my public works. If they go bankrupt i dont have it any more.

There are downsides to this stuff and i will say that. But i dont mind it to mutch. Ill move on to the next gamming thingy. I feel that the risks outway the benfits. other way around!! my bad. Most of the time i do get bord of a game and i dont mind loosing it after a while. thats just me thoe. It really matters who you are.

I will say it also matters how mutch the games cost and how mutch is the service. If its a lot than yeah its a rip off and i will not go for it. I dont know the pricing.

Quote from: Chaos on December 30, 2009, 09:50:17 PM
QuoteI'll be sitting in my home playing all my old games whenever I want and laughing.

See above.
Im not sure what you mean by that. Do you mean old games that were before onlive? Becase i will also still have those games. unless i sell them. But im missing your point here.

Quote from: Chaos on December 30, 2009, 09:50:17 PM
QuoteIt's a nice service, but it will NEVER replace hard copies.

Once again, I acknowledge the fact that it has its uses, but state that will never replace hard copies (hard copies in this case either being cd/dvd, or digital backup).  Fairly straightforward stuff.
That is true. But for some people they dont need that.
Title: Re: that onLIVE stuff
Post by: Chaos on December 30, 2009, 10:24:31 PM
I am something of a legacy gamer.  I own a bunch of DOS games from my childhood.  I own a bunch of NES games, etc. from my childhood.  I still play and enjoy these games, and maintain that some of these games are the best games ever made.  I am of the opinion that Super Mario Bros 3 is THE best game ever.  An NES game.  As my conversation on Scotty was just going:

QuoteScott says:
Think about it though, you may not "own" the game, but you do "own" the right to play them
Chris says:
Until the company goes out of business.
I'm sorry, but I'm not about to go and pay a ton of money to play games, only to lose all access 20 years later because the company died, and now lose 20 years worth of games.
I love my DOS games.
Scott says:
Ok... How many NES games do you own?
Chris says:
Right now?
Scott says:
and still play
Chris says:
That depends on your definition.
I still own every NES game I've ever had
I haven't technically PLAYED them
Because I have them as ROMs on my PSP
With an NES emulator
If you're including that
Scott says:
What I'm getting at, is that sure, Nintendo NES has gone under many many years ago, but how easy is it to still play them?
Chris says:
Excessively.
Very easy.
I play them all the time using an emulator.
Something that can't fix this things problem.
Assuming it replaces hard copies
Scott says:
So imagine how easy it'll be to get some of these games in one way or another 20 years from now
Chris says:
Which I maintain it never will
Not very, if no one can BUY them.
They all rent them from a shitty streaming service

Quote
Chris says:
It's the reason I didn't like the concept of Steam
Until you pointed out that they could release a patch for it or whatever and make it not require steam
If Steam ever goes belly-up
That's not something they can do with onlive.
Scott says:
That's exactly it
right
That I can agree
Chris says:
I don't have a problem with Steam
That was my only issue
Issue resolved, problem resolved
THIS?
Scott says:
And I understand
Chris says:
This doesn't have a solution like that.
Scott says:
I guess we'll just have to see what the subscription price is
if it's cheap, hell yeah I'll buy into it
Chris says:
As a supplementary service like Netflix, I can accept it.
Scott says:
if it's gonna cost me 50 bucks a month, !@#$ that
I'll have to cancel some of my pr0n subs to pay into that, and that ain't gonna happen!
Chris says:
But my argument is simply that it will NEVER replace hard-copy
(whether that be Cd/dvd, or digital data)
Scott says:
I wish we could ask them how they'd handle that
Chris says:
If they made this a service as is, but integrated a system like Steam were people could also download the games to run off their own computers
Hell, I would have NO problem with it.
I'd love it.


Assuming this company replaces hard-copy (something I maintain will NEVER happen), suddenly this company goes out of business in 20 years.  Now, 20 years of games are GONE from history, because there was never any hard-copies.  

Perhaps this post and those convos will shed a little light on my stance and dislike.



EDIT:  @Jake:  No you didn't.  "Drawing a conclusion with limited factors yields inaccurate results."  What factors, exactly, am I excluding from my conclusion?
Title: Re: that onLIVE stuff
Post by: ARTgames on December 30, 2009, 10:31:46 PM
I will say that is true. All i will say is time will tell. To me its the memory that counts. I think halo Ce was the best game i ever played. I still have the game and to tell you i don't really like the game that much any more. But remembering the fun times i do still have and a i cant have that taken away (i hope). That's just me.

edit:
I'm also a little bit of a tree huger also as i said before. I don't like the idea of making thosands of physical copyes of stuff and ship it every ware. I would not mide as much if it all was recycled some how but its not really.
Title: Re: that onLIVE stuff
Post by: Jake on December 30, 2009, 10:34:33 PM
Quote from: Chaos on December 30, 2009, 10:24:31 PM
EDIT:  @Jake:  No you didn't.  "Drawing a conclusion with limited factors yields inaccurate results."  What factors, exactly, am I excluding from my conclusion?
Mind if you tell me what conclusion your trying to draw then? Were you simply making the post at face value, in which case paying money to own the game is better? Or were you alluding to the fact that onLIVE is an inferior service to actually buying copies because you pay to play and not own.
Title: Re: that onLIVE stuff
Post by: Chaos on December 30, 2009, 10:38:38 PM
I still whip out my PSP and start playing Super Mario Bros 3, and it's what, nearly 20 years since that game was released?  Do you know how frustrated I'd be if I couldn't do that because entire generations of gaming vanished from history?

@Jake:  Face value.  Paying money to own a game is better than paying money to just play it.
Title: Re: that onLIVE stuff
Post by: Jake on December 30, 2009, 10:46:46 PM
Quote from: Chaos on December 30, 2009, 10:38:38 PM
@Jake:  Face value.  Paying money to own a game is better than paying money to just play it.
Oh, then obviously I'd agree to that.
Title: Re: that onLIVE stuff
Post by: ARTgames on December 30, 2009, 10:52:22 PM
QuoteI still whip out my PSP and start playing Super Mario Bros 3, and it's what, nearly 20 years since that game was released?  Do you know how frustrated I'd be if I couldn't do that because entire generations of gaming vanished from history?

But do you really think that would happen? I don't. They would probably archive the stuff for that reason.
Title: Re: that onLIVE stuff
Post by: Chaos on December 30, 2009, 10:56:48 PM
Quote from: ARTgames on December 30, 2009, 10:52:22 PM
QuoteI still whip out my PSP and start playing Super Mario Bros 3, and it's what, nearly 20 years since that game was released?  Do you know how frustrated I'd be if I couldn't do that because entire generations of gaming vanished from history?

But do you really think that would happen? I don't. They would probably archive the stuff for that reason.

And when the company goes bankrupt?  What do you expect they do with it all, release it on the internet as freeware?  Somehow, I don't see that happening.
Title: Re: that onLIVE stuff
Post by: ARTgames on December 30, 2009, 11:02:31 PM
Quote from: Chaos on December 30, 2009, 10:56:48 PM
Quote from: ARTgames on December 30, 2009, 10:52:22 PM
QuoteI still whip out my PSP and start playing Super Mario Bros 3, and it's what, nearly 20 years since that game was released?  Do you know how frustrated I'd be if I couldn't do that because entire generations of gaming vanished from history?

But do you really think that would happen? I don't. They would probably archive the stuff for that reason.

And when the company goes bankrupt?  What do you expect they do with it all, release it on the internet as freeware?  Somehow, I don't see that happening.

Its better than what we are doing how. Wasting all these recourse's to make all this hardware and game disks and them shipping them every ware. We are going to run out one day of the recourse's to do this. And we are not recycling them if we are storing them.

I think that some one will step in and take those games and store them or if they are old realises them. This is getting into a tuff zone and is almost worth of a topic in its self. Im done for today but i will come back to this topic tomaro.

edit:
QuoteChris says:
If they made this a service as is, but integrated a system like Steam were people could also download the games to run off their own computers
Hell, I would have NO problem with it.
I'd love it.
I really did not read the chat logs. But if anything i do like this.
Title: Re: that onLIVE stuff
Post by: Lingus on December 31, 2009, 01:38:55 AM
All I have to say on this is that Steam SHOULD have taken over for standard PC games distribution. It is SOOO much more cost effective for game developers to digitally distribute their games via Steam. But, this hasn't happened. And I don't actually see it happening. Simply because enough people have the same mindset as Chaos does.

Now if Steam can't even put the standard game distribution model out of business, I don't see how an even more extreme version will do it. You'll have not only the people who want physical copies of the game not wanting it, but you'll also have people who at least want a digital copy stored on their own machine. If you can't even do that, there's no way the entire gaming industry will switch over to this technology. They would be losing out a massive section of their consumer base.

We can't argue that some people will gain benefit from this technology. But we can argue that it is most likely not going to end gaming as we know it...
Title: Re: that onLIVE stuff
Post by: ARTgames on December 31, 2009, 06:37:48 PM
yeah ok. I did take quite a big of an extream look at this stuff. And with some of my other thoughts of aside (tree stuff) i do like how things are and i want PC gaming, blue ray, PS3/xbox/wii gaming to still be here.
Title: Re: that onLIVE stuff
Post by: VolcomPunk on January 03, 2010, 01:05:24 PM
Quote from: Chaos on December 30, 2009, 10:56:48 PM

And when the company goes bankrupt?  What do you expect they do with it all, release it on the internet as freeware?  Somehow, I don't see that happening.


I saw interest in this topic, being an avid gamer myself. As well, I do take interest in games of the previous generation(s). But you talk about all of these companies going bankrupt. I don't believe that any company really goes bankrupt, so much as having their products replaced by something more modern. For example, the Atari was replaced by the Nintendo, and the Nintendo was replaced by the Sega, and the Sega was replaced by the Playstation, and so on and so forth. But even though the Nintendo company had their biggest product replaced, the company itself still runs strong to this day. But that was just a point I wanted to make. I do believe, however, that onLive will go bankrupt only because it is being replaced by a more technologically advanced system. onLive differs from most systems because it is run completely by a server, which costs money to run. When it starts to lose customers, it starts to lose revenue because there are less people paying to play, which would mean the company would be unable to pay to run the server due to the lack of money. This would cause the company to shut it down, which, simply put, would mean bye bye to onLive.

Mind you, this is only my opinion. I don't believe this to be the absolute truth, because anything is likely.
Title: Re: that onLIVE stuff
Post by: ARTgames on January 21, 2010, 06:55:36 PM
http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=859
review. There a lot more out there and i think it would be cool if you link to them!
Title: Re: that onLIVE stuff
Post by: Jake on January 22, 2010, 11:50:09 AM
Quote from: ARTgames on January 21, 2010, 06:55:36 PM
http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=859
review. There a lot more out there and i think it would be cool if you link to them!
That review was done under less than optimal conditions. He was twice as far away from the data centers as they want you to be, yet was still able to play the games with a relatively low input delay, which I think is amazing.
Title: Re: that onLIVE stuff
Post by: Lingus on January 22, 2010, 03:52:53 PM
I'm still curious if being closer to the servers wouldn't give you some kind of latency. It has to. Internet just isn't that fast yet... well, for a majority of people. I'm sure faster broadband will be more widespread some time in the near future, but I don't think it's there yet. Some people will be able to play at optimal conditions... but a large majority of people might not.
Title: Re: that onLIVE stuff
Post by: ARTgames on January 22, 2010, 05:04:55 PM
kind of impressive for first gen stuff. Are internet will just get faster (i hope) and if this stays in business it will also.
Title: Re: that onLIVE stuff
Post by: Lingus on January 22, 2010, 05:09:53 PM
I'm curious how much your graphics card affects performance. You can't have a crappy card. There has to be some kind of minimum or recommended requirement... I get how the CPU and memory can be low, but you still need some kind of graphics (not that it will use your graphics card to render, but you still need something decent to display the graphics at high enough resolution and color depth).
Title: Re: that onLIVE stuff
Post by: ARTgames on January 22, 2010, 05:32:03 PM
Well if you can play back video fine then you should be ok. Anything made in the last 4 years should have no trouble. They can get it to run on a iphone if that means anything to you.

Quotebut you still need something decent to display the graphics....color depth
That's like asking if a gas station is pay at the pump. That's nothing to worry about.
Title: Re: that onLIVE stuff
Post by: Lingus on January 22, 2010, 05:49:23 PM
Yea, I guess that's true. Any computer made/bought in the last 2-3 years should be able to handle it I would think.

Here's another article:

http://kotaku.com/5181300/onlive-makes-pc-upgrades-extinct-lets-you-play-crysis-on-your-tv

The "micro console" is what catches my eye the most. As well as this quote:

QuoteThe micro console is expected to be priced competitively, "significantly less" than any current generation console on the market and potentially "free" with an OnLive service contract.

Guess it depends on what the monthly fee would be.
Title: Re: that onLIVE stuff
Post by: ARTgames on January 22, 2010, 05:53:14 PM
yup i remember seeing that micro console a long time ago when i first heard of onlive. Its how they going to get it on the the tv. Also thanks for the article.
Title: Re: that onLIVE stuff
Post by: Lingus on January 22, 2010, 06:00:12 PM
Btw, here's a response article to the original article you posted: http://games.venturebeat.com/2010/01/21/onlive-gets-a-bad-review-from-beta-tester-confesses-it-cant-beat-the-speed-of-light/

Kind of redundant, but confirms that the test that guy was doing should not be used as any kind of basis for how well the service would work under optimum conditions. There's a link to an explanation by the Onlive chief executive as to why your location is important. It's pretty obvious info, but clearly needed to be said for some people...
Title: Re: that onLIVE stuff
Post by: ARTgames on January 22, 2010, 07:46:26 PM
Thats blogers for you. Its not like he said nothing...

QuoteThere is a chance that OnLive is only selecting beta members that are on ISPs close to their current data centers and as I live outside that area that could affect my experiences with cloud-based gaming.  I'll touch on that where necessary.

also thank you for posting more articles about it.
Title: Re: that onLIVE stuff
Post by: Lingus on January 22, 2010, 08:37:47 PM
Yea, I mean, he said that, but he still went ahead and did the test and wrote his review making certain claims. If he was going to take that into consideration in the first place he shouldn't have said anything about the latency issue, or not even done the review in the first place. I want to read a review of someone who legitimately gained access to the beta and are within the accepted range. Until then we aren't getting an accurate view of the system anyways so what's the point?

Either way it is what it is. It's all really interesting, but until we see it in practice I think most people won't be convinced. It's not just that this guy was out of the range of service, we also don't know how it will hold up to having thousands of people accessing it. Even if they have more data center locations, we still don't know how it will handle the load.
Title: Re: that onLIVE stuff
Post by: ARTgames on January 22, 2010, 08:52:55 PM
QuoteI want to read a review of someone who legitimately gained access to the beta
Then don't read it. I red the article in the context of he was out of rang and i took that into account while i was reading it. He said that 2 games work really well and the last one was ok with game pad. Now i know how its going to work if your out of rang. Just think of how it works in range.

But any way that's why i asked for more articles.
Title: Re: that onLIVE stuff
Post by: Lingus on January 23, 2010, 03:32:56 PM
Quote from: ARTgames on January 22, 2010, 08:52:55 PM
QuoteI want to read a review of someone who legitimately gained access to the beta
Then don't read it. I red the article in the context of he was out of rang and i took that into account while i was reading it. He said that 2 games work really well and the last one was ok with game pad. Now i know how its going to work if your out of rang. Just think of how it works in range.

But any way that's why i asked for more articles.
I think you missed my point. I wasn't saying I didn't want to read a review of someone who didn't legitimately gain access to the beta. I got the same thing out of it you did. But as to the part of your quote that I bolded, my point is I don't want to have to think of how it works. I'm sure there's plenty of people who have legitimate access. I want to read their review of it and see how it actually works. Which is why I was also looking for more articles. I just didn't find any like that...
Title: Re: that onLIVE stuff
Post by: ARTgames on January 23, 2010, 07:18:06 PM
Oh ok. I just misunderstood.