By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming - The future of game: OnLive online game streaming.

@Damnyouall: I did understand what you are saying, did you ever play a PC game. Microsoft WIndows practically has a monopoly on PC gaming aswell and i don't hear anyone complain about that?

@TX109: You can also rend most games for like $4-$6 for up to a week, so you don't have to invest in anything. And really digital distribution is the future wether you like it or not. I guess you haven't ever tried Steam, it works really well already. Also IPhone games only aswell.

Also internet connection speed is skyrocketing, 5-6 years ago i was paying $50 for a 2 mbit/s connection, next month i'm getting a 200mbit/s connection for the same price. Here in my country we already have glass-fiber connections almost everywhere, witch support upto 10gbit/s already, so we will probably be getting speeds in the gbit/s territory in 2-3 years.

It's also a much more efficient way to run software, be it games or other programs(windows 8 is already going to be partily ''cloud based'' aswell). It doesn't make sense to have a gaming console in everey home if you can get the same games on a phone or similiar sized device in 2-3 years.



Around the Network
Damnyouall said:

This is not the future. I sometimes play old games on consoles from 20 years ago. I physically own them. I don't have to pay again to play them. Which is awesome.

Having to keep paying a monthly fee so you can continue to play games you don't own is not awesome. Especially since they can remove any game from their servers at any time. Which is what they will do, once a game gets old and is played by few people. Even less awesome.

Not being able to play without (fast) internet access: Least awesome.

 

Let's sum it up: Owning physical copies = Awesome. Not owning physical copies = Not awesome.


I agree with you, in my opinion this OnLive thing sucks. The free subscription will end next year or the year after, so you'll have to start paying a monthly fee. You also must pay for each game you get... but you really don't get to own the game, you only own the permission to play it. If you stop paying the monthly (or yearly) fee, you will not be able to play all those games you "bought". If the game you "bought" isn't popular enough and not many people play it, they reserve the right to remove the game from their server, and you would have lost both the game and the money you spent on it. Also, if you want to play a game you "bought", let's say... 4 or 5 years ago, you may find out that the game isn't on the server anymore because they considered it "old enough" to remove it from the server, so you'd have lost the game and your money (again).

All that crap doesn't happen when physical copies of your games, you can keep whatever game you bought for as long as you want and play them whenever you want, without having to pay a fee or internet connection. You can keep and play your games, forever.



A banner stolen from some site xD

Release Final Fantasy Versus XIII nowwwwwwwwww!!! lol :P

AnthonyW86 said:

@TX109: You can also rend most games for like $4-$6 for up to a week, so you don't have to invest in anything. And really digital distribution is the future wether you like it or not. I guess you haven't ever tried Steam, it works really well already. Also IPhone games only aswell.

Also internet connection speed is skyrocketing, 5-6 years ago i was paying $50 for a 2 mbit/s connection, next month i'm getting a 200mbit/s connection for the same price. Here in my country we already have glass-fiber connections almost everywhere, witch support upto 10gbit/s already, so we will probably be getting speeds in the gbit/s territory in 2-3 years.

It's also a much more efficient way to run software, be it games or other programs(windows 8 is already going to be partily ''cloud based'' aswell). It doesn't make sense to have a gaming console in everey home if you can get the same games on a phone or similiar sized device in 2-3 years.

i have done steam. it ok, but i still much prefer an actual copy of a game . and at least with steam i know my game will always be there and not randomly gone cuz the server shut down...and i don't have the money for an iPhone.

i guess my biggest problem is that its not a hard copy. believe it or not, people actually do like owning their own games. when you pay for these games on Onlive, you just buying a ticket to play them, not the actuall game. as well, how long you have the game  is mostly dictated by how long the service provider chooses to stream the game. if i find a game that is truly memorable to me and i want to keep around for a long time, im SOL if the service decides to end the servers for that game.

i still do not believe that this is the immediate future of games. but if it is, then im done with gaming as soon as all the major console makers pick this up. i prefer to own the games i buy. ill go retro and play all the games i missed in the past.



                                                                                                  

I agree with you guys, owning a physical copy of a game is much better for us. But that's exactly the problem, it might be better for us, but software publishers are way better off with digital distribution. And they are the ones who make and provide the games, so in the end they will probably make the switch to digital distribution, wether we like it or not.

Also i just measured and Onlive is only using 5 mbit/s of my connection(less then 10%) while playing a game, just think about how good it would run if they could utilize 100 mbit/s.

Also it works with a 360 controller, including force feedback. :P



I'll pass on this crap



Around the Network
AnthonyW86 said:

I agree with you guys, owning a physical copy of a game is much better for us. But that's exactly the problem, it might be better for us, but software publishers are way better off with digital distribution. And they are the ones who make and provide the games, so in the end they will probably make the switch to digital distribution, wether we like it or not.

Also i just measured and Onlive is only using 5 mbit/s of my connection(less then 10%) while playing a game, just think about how good it would run if they could utilize 100 mbit/s.

Also it works with a 360 controller, including force feedback. :P

hmm yes well, like i said, if the switch to DD becomes standard for all publishers, ill be done with current gaming. i dont like the idea of not owning an actuall copy of a game i buy. Onlive especially, since you dont even own the game you pay for.



                                                                                                  

I hated the idea of cloud gaming now, and I still hate it.

Physical media for the win. Imagine if the classic consoles were cloud based. Then I wouldn't have my awesome Megadrive or SNES or N64 collections.

The day game makers goes DD only is the day I leave gaming.



I LOVE ICELAND!

I was reading more to it and they have an rental system 

 

Really this is where Onlive should focus on. 

People would buy this to be there rental service. Either free on PC or that cheap console is an great thing to have if you have an kick ass internet along side your console of choice. Because what you can do is that when you feel like trying or checking out an game, you turn on on live and you do rent it for a few days which they offer. And then you will probably finish the sp games. 

But the bonus is you dont have to go into those pain in the ass rentals or the download consuming rentals as well. 

 

As an Rental service its sounds fantastic. But for an steam type service i dont know. even with steam you own it as you download it onto your PC. i am wondering how long this would last. I would feel better if they team with SONY or Microsoft.



Of Course That's Just My Opinion, I Could Be Wrong

I tried out a trial of AVP today with OnLive. It seemed to work but I did notice a slight bit of lag. I don't think I'll be using the service until it become more established and internet speed go up a bit more.

The list of games at present is also a bit mediocre. It'll need to build up a lot more before they start bringing in new users. Not sure the pricing scheme is quite right yet either. 

Personally, I think it's too early, but I do think this or something similar is the future. OnLive at least seemingly have a head start on everyone else. I'm not sure they'll last long when Sony, Microsoft, Ninty and Valve decide to try it out though.



TX109 said:

i have done steam. it ok, but i still much prefer an actual copy of a game . and at least with steam i know my game will always be there and not randomly gone cuz the server shut down...and i don't have the money for an iPhone.

i guess my biggest problem is that its not a hard copy. believe it or not, people actually do like owning their own games. when you pay for these games on Onlive, you just buying a ticket to play them, not the actuall game. as well, how long you have the game  is mostly dictated by how long the service provider chooses to stream the game. if i find a game that is truly memorable to me and i want to keep around for a long time, im SOL if the service decides to end the servers for that game.

i still do not believe that this is the immediate future of games. but if it is, then im done with gaming as soon as all the major console makers pick this up. i prefer to own the games i buy. ill go retro and play all the games i missed in the past.

You know, people said exactly the same thing about music and movies. Yet music seems to be almost only digital download/streaming and movies seem to be heading in that direction. Hard copies won't go away all together, but I get the distinct feeling digital download/streaming is going to be huge.

And are you really going to give up a hobby because you don't like the distribution method? What happens when all your physical retro copies break/scratch/degrade?