| Mail |
You might also like: WoW Insider, Massively, and more

Reader Comments (94)

Posted: Mar 24th 2009 10:03AM MemphisLeak said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
another example of business people not understanding technology.

Posted: Mar 24th 2009 3:43PM Discotheque said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
If this were any other person I would agree with you but believe me Rearden understands technology. Either he's been cooking up something for a long time, or this is just some elaborate april fools joke, which for some reason came abit earlier than April.

Reply

Posted: Mar 24th 2009 3:44PM Discotheque said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Whoops, I meant Perlman. Rearden's the bloody company name.
Reply

Posted: Mar 24th 2009 10:07AM arrrgh said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
quick press the E button! no wait, L!!

Posted: Mar 24th 2009 10:21AM Kamizar said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
This could be the best thing ever, or the worst thing ever, time will tell.

Posted: Mar 24th 2009 10:57AM Obienator said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Remember how much fun your 360 is when your internet is out? Now make it 10X worse.
So far I am not sold on this, esp since you need beefy internet to get 720p graphics.

Posted: Mar 24th 2009 5:57PM Alex R said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Exactly. This looks like it could be revolutionary but not if it needs so much internet tubespace to run well. At the minute I wouldn't even be able to run the SD version on my pathetic UK based 0.5MB connection. Especially from Tiscali - the world's worst ISP.
Reply

Posted: Mar 24th 2009 11:03AM Burritoclock said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
even "if!" the actual latency was 1ms between the time you press up and the actual character moves forward you have to double that as it would take another 1ms to send the image of the character moving forward to come back to you.

2ms keyboard/mouse lag in an FPS....???

Posted: Mar 24th 2009 11:28AM Slaziman said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
is nothing? pings of 150 ms are acceptable so 2 ms isnt gonna change anything.
Reply

Posted: Mar 24th 2009 11:43AM Burritoclock said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
my post cut off into an incomplete thought because I realized we are talking about a ridiculous gadget that won't materialize in the next 15 years in any remotely usable way...

Reply

Posted: Mar 24th 2009 12:02PM HTCEVO said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Wow man, did OnLive kill your mom or something?

I love how passionate people are getting about this. You haven't even tried it. Let's give it a damn try before we detest the thing as the worst thing ever made.



Sigh, then again these are the same idiots who said the xbox would never take off because it was a huge, ugly "pos" and coudln't stand up to Nintendo and Sony.

Right.. I'm sorry I forgot you guys are so much better at seeing the future..
Reply

Posted: Mar 24th 2009 12:33PM Burritoclock said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
- I owned an original Xbox, it was my favorite console of last generation.

- I'm not mad, I didn't even attack the makers of this thing, I just said arguing about it is silly because it will not be usable anytime in the next 5 to ten years, at which point it will most likely be competing with the Sony and Microsoft alternatives (Microsoft has openly TALKED about this being where they want to go, however they know it is impossible right now.)

- ISP speeds are no where near where they would need to be, the computing power required for any significant (read: profitable) user base would either require ginormous fees, cause bankruptcy, or not run the newest games at a high quality.

- It's not going to end the console war, the Microsoft / Sony alternative would STILL have exclusives you could only get on their services. In that scenario we would have to pay several monthly fees to be multi-console.

Assuming it were to take off it would only destroy the high end PC market, as most of the bleeding edge computer sales are for PC gamers, and it could potential be the final end all DRM the industry desires.

I am not on some personal war against it, I just don't believe it really has any potential. If they prove me wrong then wow cool, guess I lose or something.
Reply

Posted: Mar 24th 2009 11:31AM Slaziman said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
They could save hardware costs on multiplayer games since they only have to render 1 map, instead of each players computer rendering the map individually. So that might work out.

Providing single player games isn't going to be so easy though.

Posted: Mar 24th 2009 2:53PM dece said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
You obviously don't know what you're talking about.
That sentence isn't true even for 2D games, and those are pretty rare these days.
Reply

Posted: Mar 24th 2009 11:47AM Mr Khan said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
So does this mean its time for the great and heroic quasi-console war of Zeebo vs OnLive?

Posted: Mar 24th 2009 12:57PM rullers said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Hope there will be few day trial.

Posted: Mar 24th 2009 1:36PM motang said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Sounds awesome, if they pull this off and price it right I am on board!

No install, no media to insert, just launch and play, and not upgrade!

Posted: Mar 24th 2009 2:55PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
*Waits for MS to sue them to hell for using "Live" in their name for a service that's kinda similar to Xbox Live. *

Posted: Mar 24th 2009 2:55PM Discotheque said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
If this is a success then we are witnessing the future of gaming right here possibly.

Posted: Mar 24th 2009 3:16PM advancedcaveman said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I really hate being able to play games when the internet is down. I mean, man when my internet connection stops working for any reason I’m always so pissed that I still have the ability to play games that I spent money on. Onlive now fixes that problem, just like how Microsoft Midori and other cloud operating systems will fix the serious problem of being able to still use your computer if the network is down…

I for one welcome the future were everything is totally dependent on a functioning internet connection and you have to pay a subscription for every single little thing instead of just buying it once. You can really tell that cloud services like Onlive are really meant to be beneficial to consumers. It’s defiantly NOT an experiment to see how much money companies can squeeze out of people who would otherwise suffer from buying software and games and experiencing the horrible frustration of being able to use them even when they’re experiencing internet problems.

Posted: Mar 24th 2009 5:12PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I really hate being able to play board games when the electricity is out. I mean, man when my electricity stops working for any reason I’m always so pissed that I still have the ability to play board games that I spent money on. Atari now fixes that problem, just like how Nintendo and other gaming consoles will fix the serious problem of being able to still use your board games if the electricity is out…

I for one welcome the future were everything is totally dependent on a functioning electrical connection and you have to pay a subscription for every single little thing instead of just buying it once. You can really tell that game consoles like SNES are really meant to be beneficial to consumers. It’s defiantly NOT an experiment to see how much money companies can squeeze out of people who would otherwise suffer from buying blocks and board games and experiencing the horrible frustration of being able to use them even when they’re experiencing electricity outages.
Reply

Posted: Mar 24th 2009 8:41PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@ JoeTheBlow

Your comment is funny, you say that this is the "stupidest idea i have EVER seen"..... the word 'stupidest' doesn't exist.

Having said this Americans use the word, so if you are American i take my comment back. However you mentioned the BBC iplayer so i am guessing you are British.

You have made one of the 'stupidest' comments i have ever read :p

I agree with Alex Sohn, look where Itunes ended up, the most popular mp3 player on a computer.

The hardware may not succeed, but i think there is great potential in the idea - others may capitalize where this 'onlive' may fail.

Posted: Mar 24th 2009 3:27PM Fox City said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
The whole idea and proposed execution of this is SO COOL, but we'll have to see how it actually works in the real world, I guess. Very neat idea, though- basically Netflix Instant Viewing for games!

Posted: Mar 24th 2009 4:23PM Bill Kutargi said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Hmm, look at it this way

UK - 137745 Square Miles
North America - 9450000 Square Miles

Total = 9587745 Square Miles
70% = 6711421 Square Miles (Presuming 70% of land mass is occupied by people)
Divide by 1000 (Cuz its gotta be within 1000miles)
Needs 6711 centres

Cost per Centre = £500000 (just a guess)
Total = £3,355,710,500

Ummm...

Posted: Mar 26th 2009 1:26AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Lol
Reply

Posted: Mar 25th 2009 10:23PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
That math is all wrong. A center would service people 1000 miles away, so that's like a circle with a radius of 1000. The area of a circle that big (pi times radius squared) is 3141592 square miles, so centers in the east, west, and middle of the country could theoretically cover the entire country.
Reply

Posted: Mar 24th 2009 4:45PM Rhamsey said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
very cool, but i cant get past the no lag idea.

Posted: Mar 24th 2009 4:55PM waruwaru said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report

Posted: Mar 24th 2009 6:31PM watership said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
That's almost a direct rip off of the 360 controller.

Posted: Mar 24th 2009 6:29PM Brendan H said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
From the article: "If we had to describe it in one sentence, we'd call it a new way of playing games online without having to buy titles"
From the way I understand it, you would still pay for titles. The service charge would be comparable with xbox live in cost, but that would just be the access to the content (also like xbox live). That said, you wouldn't have to pay for hardware unless you wanted the tv "microconsole" connection. While that's likely an added cost to go along with the subscription to the service, the cost should still be relatively low.
I hope it works as advertised. It'd be nice not to have to keep upgrading hardware just to have the most advanced games.
And can you imagine how this would change portable gaming? Theoretically, you could have a portable internet connected device (like an iPhone, even) and play the same "next-gen" games as you would on a console! You could go back and forth between your tv and your handheld, since it would access the same game saves and data!

Posted: Mar 24th 2009 7:04PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
And, yes, it can run Crysis.
I'm also pretty sure it can blend.

Posted: Mar 24th 2009 7:34PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
This is simply Impossible. I can only Just stream SD video, Though latency would be horrific, It takes more than 1 10th to go half-way across the earth and back again, And that's with a PERFECT connection, Lag in a game is "avoidable", But this is total latency, Imagine it taking almost half a second for your Rifle to fire after you press the trigger, So that removes the possibility of this being usable outside the US. Also, If this service would become as wdiely used as Xbox Live and it uses 10x The bandwidth, This would paralyze the broadband infrastructure of the UK.

Posted: Mar 24th 2009 8:34PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
looks wicked awesome! fantastic design and i think it will be a good console and looks even better than the wii and its even smaller!!! how does it get x-box games? is it from Microsoft?

Posted: Mar 24th 2009 9:33PM TheDrizzle659 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
This thing is a little confusing, I hook up one end to my Pc and the other to my TV and it lets me play games like Crysis no matter how crappy your PC is?

Posted: Mar 24th 2009 11:11PM Brendan H said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
The Drizzle, you don't hook anything up to your pc to play on your tv. You can use either a pc by itself, or use their "microconsole" for playing on a tv.
You're supposed to be able to play on virtually any pc with no additional hardware. You just download their software, which lets you access the games online. They stream the games to your pc, similar to how you get streaming video or audio on your pc.
The catch is that all the hardware processing that games normally need to run, which is usually done by the graphics card, memory and cpu in your pc, is done on powerful machines operated by OnLive. It's kind of like having a pc a thousand miles away, but your controller and monitor are still connected to it.
The "microconsole" piece of hardware in the pictures is basically like really low cost, low powered pc by itself. You connect it to your tv (instead of a monitor) and plug in your internet connection. It probably has a low cost, low powered processor (maybe an Atom), and a bit of memory. It doesn't need a graphics card or a hard drive either, which also keeps the size and the cost down.
Reply

Posted: Mar 24th 2009 11:50PM nickux said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I love that you can even use a Mac to play these games. Finally Mac users can get a chance to play some good games. My only concern is that they mentioned a Macbook Pro- I worry about Macbook users (especially owners of the ubiquitous white Macbooks with integrated graphics processors) Also.. I wonder if that OnLive controller will be bad and if you could play with a Dualshock 3 or something. We'll see. For now, I am officially excited!!

Posted: Mar 25th 2009 12:58AM enbadesign said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
This system can't work. Perhaps if you pay $200 a month for your internet connection. Anything under $60 a month wouldn't even be able to handle the bandwidth of the SD stream.

You can also forget about 1080p graphics or anything that resembles a decent resolution on a computer screen. You won't be able to appreciate the next gen graphics when you are showing a 640x480 compressed video feed through a browser plug-in.

I pay $44 a month for a 3mb cable connection from Cox that craps out all the time. That is 3mb under the best circumstance. Real speed is less than the dedicated 768 dsl line I had a few years ago. I probably have half the city sharing the same pipe, including nearly everyone in my apartment building. The network traffic is so intense at some times that it just overloads the server and everything needs a reset. I really am not willing to pay more money a month for the internet just to support gaming. I know a lot of people are in the same boat.

The other big issue with this system is that it doesn't matter how fast the OnLive serivce is when it has to go through your ISP to get to you. Unless you get a direct line to the server you will never get a decent gameplay experience. How anyone thinks this will actually work is beyond me. It doesn't take much logic to understand that the service can't work with our existing infrastructure.

Posted: Mar 25th 2009 3:41AM McDude said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
This has to be someone's April Fool's joke. Fuckin retarded.

Posted: Mar 25th 2009 8:18AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
It's funny that people with shitty connections come with comments like "this will be a total failure" etc not seeing that within 5 years you will look back on your connection and think, wow man, how could I ever play with that shitty connection? Remember 33.6kbps modems? That was only 10-15 years ago.... Personally I live in Sweden and am enjoying 100Mbit/s for approximately 30$ a month. I'm sure people in south korea and Japan have similar price points, and by the way I have no monthly cap, we used to have that...wait for it...10 years ago.

Once America catches up to the rest of the world this will be commonplace for everything, but until then I think OnLive definately should try to focus on Europe (at least north europe) and East Asia. I embrace this idea and cannot wait to try it out! I hope it scales with your connection, so if you have 100Mbit maybe you could get 1080p :D

Posted: Mar 25th 2009 8:35AM Pojomofo said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Onlive could do for games what iTunes did for music

Posted: Mar 25th 2009 8:47AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
That's pretty ambitious. I think it is going to be impossible to play internationally, though.

Posted: Mar 25th 2009 4:54PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I feel sick at reading these comments! It seems that everyone here has a 512Kbs connection... Come on! Fiber is coming out and you still have such a shit connection!?

I am too a bit skeptical about this, but it seems like an awesome idea, i pay for a 8Mbs connection, on a bad day it at 6Mbs. But what important here is that they don't just get fucking servers on the US...

Posted: Mar 26th 2009 4:34PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
And WHY would anyone want this? Let's see... I can buy or rent a game and play locally on my PC or console of choice and it just works.

OR, I can buy or rent a game, plus rent a PC to play it on that they'll host for me and I'll be dependent on both our Internet connections to stream video to me and send my control inputs to them with almost zero lag tolerance. Network problems anywhere along the way? No games- at all.

Where do I sign up for this service?

Posted: Mar 27th 2009 5:09AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I would not be surprised if Microsoft has already offered huge sums of cash to onLive and are planning to take the company over few months before onLive goes live. Could the next generation of Xbox be called Xbox onLive or maybe even the Xbox 360 with a firmware update, since the web plug-in is only 1mb. More I think about it, this seems like a great business model for Microsoft, they would be able to offer games on demand and also offer games from physical media, this will help ease gamers into the transition of digital distribution and have options for those who are not ready (no internet, no credit card, fear and so on...).

Maybe this was the plan for onLive, create innovative technology and make money on selling its intellectual properties and patents. The technology seems to prove its possible, but onLive will have to sustain a monumental infrastructure and fund a huge advertising campaign for few years until it gains momentum, and a company like Microsoft with its huge dedicated user base and unlimited funds may be better suited to move the service forward and sustainable. The founder of onLive also developed the webTV which had the same business model as onLive (cheap and accessible computing for a specific need) which was also sold to Microsoft.

Featured Stories

Image

Silver Lining: I Am Alive's unfeeling world

Posted on May 25th 2012 7:30PM

Image

Game Of Thrones and the paradoxes of adaptation

Posted on May 25th 2012 5:00PM

Engadget

Engadget

TUAW

TUAW

Massively

Massively

WoW

WoW