OnLive 48 Mins Video Demonstration

[Darus Grey]

Hell I'd say 3 doesn't even justify an answer? Nearly every developer? Really?

Less than 1% is probably more accurate, and is an equally made up figure.

[Maguspk]

1: Because anyone who would be playing the games in the first place will quite possibly be a gamer, sure its a nice hook to snag new people but anyone with a background in gaming will have a console or have a PC already. And PC's are cheap as hell anyways, why not kill 2 birds with one stone and have a workstation and something you can game on. It's not hard, or costly

Sidestep, you admit it's a valid alternative you are just arguing based on your own preferences that a 'PC is better'. The fact remains, it's a valid alternative.

2: Any lag is noticeable, any game that isnt turnbased will showcase it, I dont care if it's only 80ms. You claim non hair trigger games, what games are those? Shit, even Tetris became hair trigger after a certain level. Most games now require a .5-1 second time frame to input certain things or get smacked around.

Any lag is noticeable? Wrong. The human brain can only perceive so much in a span of time and react accordingly. The reason <80ms isn't a big deal as others in the thread have noted, is because while some people can feel it, most can't and those that can are able to cope easily because it's so small our brains naturally adapt within seconds.

Also, basic math tells me that even if 'most games require .5-1 second time frame to input certain things or get smacked around', that is still only 1/6 delay on the time you have in a worst case scenario.

3: Because they know they can make a huge profit off it? Them making a profit doesnt actually mean we get anything in return.

This is where you fail. If they know they will make a huge profit, then they know it will garner an audience, therefore you are admitting it will be successful. If this is the case, then we can assume you are an idiot because you are trashing something you admit will be successful.

Hating, just to hate.

4: Yeah, the beta testers would never lie, they would never receive kickbacks or anything. Ever wonder why most MMO beta invites are given out to members of the press FIRST. Who are all the beta testers, do we have a list of each person and their background in gaming?

Yeah I guess we can all be conspiracy theorists.

I think this is hilarious. Just look at yourself, you're hating just for the sake of hating. You admit it will be successful, yet when asked whether you think this is a valid alternative for certain people you refuse to admit it. I seriously suggest you look at your position and consider why you are even hating so hard.

Once again, since I seem to have to repeat myself multiple times before it gets through the heads of people. I don't even care about OnLive's success nor am I 'white knighting', I am simply being the voice that isn't spouting hate like it's all I can do. I think it's a cool concept which could be the right choice for someone who doesn't care, or is ignorant, about a introducing a small amount of lag into their gameplay. I am not going to hate for no reason, I don't care because I won't be using it, but I also don't see the point in directing so much anger at a service which is not targeted at me. Ya'll are just some angry gamers doing what ya'll do best, hating on stuff for no good reasons.

[Meresgi]

Sidestep, you admit it's a valid alternative you are just arguing based on your own preferences that a 'PC is better'. The fact remains, it's a valid alternative.

FOR WHO?! Did you not understand my post? Anyone who would use this as an alternative wouldn't use it as they would have other options already THERE. Sure I guess it's fine if you go on vacation or something, or to a college and forget your console or your HD fries. Then yeah sure, amazing service.

Any lag is noticeable? Wrong. The human brain can only perceive so much in a span of time and react accordingly. The reason <80ms isn't a big deal as others in the thread have noted, is because while some people can feel it, most can't and those that can are able to cope easily because it's so small our brains naturally adapt within seconds.

This is about your reaction time + the lag. You don't have a reaction time of 80ms, but that added onto your human reaction time is what makes the difference.

This is where you fail. If they know they will make a huge profit, then they know it will garner an audience, therefore you are admitting it will be successful. If this is the case, then we can assume you are an idiot because you are trashing something you admit will be successful.

What's the cost ratio for companies on this? Does it cost less to go with OnLive then to port a game to 3 consoles? or to code dedicated server software? Most likely yes, so they will make a profit, even if it's a mild success or a soft flop. They don't need to make billions for it to be a profit.

Hating, just to hate.

The business model requires even less effort from companies, and could generate more profit, of course they would be on board. It doesnt mean it WILL be successful though, but i'm sure the cost/benefit is far worth the gamble for w/e pitiful amount of cash they might loss.

Yeah I guess we can all be conspiracy theorists.

It's not a theory, its a common practice. Do you believe all those games with max ratings from IGN are the real deal? Do you just go off and buy w/e you're told is great because you're a consumer whore? Most people do, that's why this practice is in effect. Pay off the reviewers and guess what, your review will help to garner some sales no matter how shitty your product really is.


Point of fact is, this service might be worth it to a small handful of people who for some reason don't have a console of any kind, no friends with one and no PC of their own(which I doubt in this day and age).

Is it an amazing thing? No.
Is it worth the hype? No.
Would anything be lost if it was suddenly scrapped? No.
Will it benefit the industry in any way/shape or form? No.
Will it hurt the industry? Yes.

[Maguspk]

FOR WHO?! Did you not understand my post? Anyone who would use this as an alternative wouldn't use it as they would have other options already THERE.

Where are your customers who are using the service coming from if nobody would consider using this?

This is about your reaction time + the lag. You don't have a reaction time of 80ms, but that added onto your human reaction time is what makes the difference.

No It's really not because ping in the case of onLive is the same as ping is any other game, the only difference is you are only used to a ping in multiplayer games (usually small <80ms) but in onlive you'd have this with single player games too.

What's the cost ratio for companies on this? Does it cost less to go with OnLive then to port a game to 3 consoles? or to code dedicated server software? Most likely yes, so they will make a profit, even if it's a mild success or a soft flop. They don't need to make billions for it to be a profit.

Hating, just to hate.

The business model requires even less effort from companies, and could generate more profit, of course they would be on board. It doesnt mean it WILL be successful though, but i'm sure the cost/benefit is far worth the gamble for w/e pitiful amount of cash they might loss.

Exactly you're right, it's a very smart model because companies know people will both choose it and it will ease the burden of publishing in lots of cases. It also helps to fight piracy because small indy developers could develop strictly for it (see: World of Goo, Braid) and avoid all the piracy that goes on with their games.

It's not a theory, its a common practice. Do you believe all those games with max ratings from IGN are the real deal? Do you just go off and buy w/e you're told is great because you're a consumer whore? Most people do, that's why this practice is in effect. Pay off the reviewers and guess what, your review will help to garner some sales no matter how shitty your product really is.

I don't even know what you're going for here. If we can't trust reviewers what are we to do, simply buy nothing or everything? There is no other way to subjectively narrow multiple choices down to feasible ones other than to assess how one compares to another based on your tastes and preferences. I hope you don't get excited when you hear about a game announcement because that's just stupid, you should only make your opinion about something after you've wasted your money on it, lol. The only realistic solution to this is demoing the product and since you haven't demoed it then you should have no opinion at best.

Point of fact is, this service might be worth it to a small handful of people who for some reason don't have a console of any kind, no friends with one and no PC of their own(which I doubt in this day and age).

Is it an amazing thing? No.
Is it worth the hype? No.
Would anything be lost if it was suddenly scrapped? No.
Will it benefit the industry in any way/shape or form? No.
Will it hurt the industry? Yes.

Is it amazing? It doesn't have to be, the PSN or XBL stores aren't amazing they simply offer alternate ways to do things such as download movies, classic games, or even currently published games. These alternative are stupid by your logic, why not play them on a Blu-ray player or the original console? Lag can't be the only reason for hate on OnLive; the model otherwise, if they can reduce or sidestep noticeable lag, is practical.

Won't benefit the industry? You couldn't be more wrong. Do you even know how many people only own an XBOX and don't play PC games or vice versa? OnLive would be a way for those developers to hit markets which they otherwise cannot sell to due to the high investment gamers have to make in order to play their game (i.e. buying the initial console). Do you honestly think every person interested in PS3 exclusives has a PS3? There are plenty of people who would gladly use OnLive to play something like Demon's Souls instead of having to front the 300 bucks to buy the console just to play a few games they want to try out.

And finally you say it's going to hurt the industry without any proof whatsoever? How do you even suggest this will hurt the industry? If I make a shitty car tomorrow that doesn't even fucking roll on it's own four wheels how is it going to hurt the automotive industry?

Think.

[Darus Grey]

No It's really not because ping in the case of onLive is the same as ping is any other game, the only difference is you are only used to a ping in multiplayer games (usually small <80ms) but in onlive you'd have this with single player games too.

How many times do you need to be corrected on this? YOU ARE WRONG.

You clearly lack an understanding of how the internet works, why do you insist on spouting this misinformation?

[Meresgi]

No It's really not because ping in the case of onLive is the same as ping is any other game, the only difference is you are only used to a ping in multiplayer games (usually small <80ms) but in onlive you'd have this with single player games too.

Why the fuck would anyone want a ping on their single player games?

Exactly you're right, it's a very smart model because companies know people will both choose it and it will ease the burden of publishing in lots of cases. It also helps to fight piracy because small indy developers could develop strictly for it (see: World of Goo, Braid) and avoid all the piracy that goes on with their games.

Sure a lot of people pirate games, but most people, if the game is actually good purchase a copy as well. I know I do this all the time for any PC game. They don't know people will choose it, they are putting a gamble on if people will. But they know that even if it does flop, the money lost on the endeavor will be nothing compared to how much they could make if by chance it does succeed beyond expectations.

Won't benefit the industry? You couldn't be more wrong. Do you even know how many people only own an XBOX and don't play PC games or vice versa? OnLive would be a way for those developers to hit markets which they otherwise cannot sell to due to the high investment gamers have to make in order to play their game (i.e. buying the initial console). Do you honestly think every person interested in PS3 exclusives has a PS3? There are plenty of people who would gladly use OnLive to play something like Demon's Souls instead of having to front the 300 bucks to buy the console just to play a few games they want to try out.

And finally you say it's going to hurt the industry without any proof whatsoever? How do you even suggest this will hurt the industry? If I make a shitty car tomorrow that doesn't even fucking roll on it's own four wheels how is it going to hurt the automotive industry?

What games that come out nowdays are not multi platform? Most people who game at least own a PC AND 1 of the nextgen consoles, if not 2 of them. It's not even a huge investment anymore as the consoles can also function as blue-ray/HD-DVD players as well. Making them worth the cost. People who would be interested in Demon's Souls already probably have the console to have heard of it. I find it very hard to believe that even if they don't own a PS3, they don't have a friend who has one. Also Demons Souls is one game I would not care to play with a ping.

I've already said how it will hurt the industry. It's a gimmick service, it will allow companies to to push through shit products to just tack onto OnLive and make a quick buck. The industry isnt furthered by games like that. Look at Activision's CEO. He stated that to him, games are all about profit to the shareholders and not about fun.

I can understand that from a business view, but coming from a gamer background I hope he fucking gets hit by a bus. Gaming currently is too popular for its own good.

[Maguspk]

How many times do you need to be corrected on this? YOU ARE WRONG.

You clearly lack an understanding of how the internet works, why do you insist on spouting this misinformation?

Nah, I'm right, there will be a ping on single player games around 80ms input lag in a worse case scenario. If you think otherwise, you're 'spreading the misinformation'. I think you are thinking I said multiplayer there or some shit, but no, l2read.

I think you get it Mersegagai, there will be a people who use the service willingly at the cost of the ping it introduces because it is not a detriment to them. That is the only point I wanted to make, that it is an alternative and not a total fail waiting to happen as people wanted to make it out to be. It doesn't matter if you would never choose it, there are people who will, that's the point. Whether or not that aligns with one's philosophy on 'how gaming should be' or how devoted to the game a publisher should be is irrelevant, my only point was that this was an alternative.

[Darus Grey]

No, you clearly have no conception of the differences between input lag and server-client lag and why they are different, and why one is really bad compared to the other.

We've been through this already, stop pretending.

[Kaisha]

Could always just wait and let him see it for himself rather than arguing all day long when it's clearly a brickwall situation, until more further results of the process come out and give more credentials to one side.

[Priran]

http://img163.imageshack.us/img163/9...rfecttachy.jpg

[Meresgi]

Anyone though that would willingly accept a ping of any kind in a single player game I would have to smack with a brick until they stopped breathing.

[Kerberoz]

It's not even a "ping". A ping wouldn't be so terrible. You'd just have to compensate. This is 80ms of input lag, which means every time you move your mouse or press a button, it's won't register on the screen for 80ms. Absolutely impossible to use a mouse like that, so you're pretty much stuck playing... racing games and RPGs. FPS? RTS? Fighter? Action? Nope, all require mouse movement or reflexes.

[Meresgi]

Racing games nowadays require some good reaction too, so cancel those out. A lot of RPGs have gotten rid of turnbase action so yeah, I guess you could play some FF7.