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

Reader Comments (32)

Posted: Mar 15th 2010 11:08PM Dr Blight said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
"According to Perlman, OnLive's lowest end server resource offers twice the GPU performance of the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3"

Not very impressive. I'd rather have Fermi-based cards in an SLI config.
Reply

Posted: Mar 15th 2010 11:09PM gonintendo said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
yeah my 8800gt from 2007 had twice the power of the 360
Reply

Posted: Mar 15th 2010 11:34PM RKN said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
You mean "has" right? : )
Reply

Posted: Mar 15th 2010 11:35PM Haggard said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Well, he did say lowest-end resource. And he's talking PR here, to people who still think "unleashing the power of the Cell" is akin to splitting the atom.
Reply

Posted: Mar 16th 2010 1:45AM Kyammi said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
The comment itself is BS if the beta and business logic is any indication at all.

Burnout Paradise at < console settings at < 60fps with massive compression does not equal 2x the power of 360 / PS3.
Reply

Posted: Mar 15th 2010 11:10PM BrianH said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
so, monthly fee, full game price, and unable to change settings?

well, if the settings aren't already set at the max possible, it's even more of a failure now.
Reply

Posted: Mar 15th 2010 11:13PM Dr Blight said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I doubt they'll be at max settings, because they'll want to reduce server-side load. My guess would be 1024x768 on midrange settings.
Reply

Posted: Mar 15th 2010 11:13PM BrianH said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
also, never noticed it before, but what's with the onLive brand name?

i though MS had a trademark for Live or things like it, if they don't, then they will kill themselves once they realize all the casual consumers will liken OnLive to microsoft things like xbox live and games for windows live and anything windows live related.
Reply

Posted: Mar 16th 2010 1:27AM JamesHks said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
watch getting on the high graphics servers costs extra
Reply

Posted: Mar 16th 2010 8:29PM demon said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@JamesH: Considering they're charging you a monthly fee, plus you have to buy/rent games separately, I wouldn't be surprised at all if this was the case. Maybe not right away, but after a couple months, as they start getting desperate for better ROI, I expect it'll happen. Don't think it'll save them, though.
Reply

Posted: Mar 15th 2010 11:11PM Special Agent Steve said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I'm not completely sold on the idea just yet- I really want to see this thing in action (or have my beta account activated) :*(
Reply

Posted: Mar 15th 2010 11:13PM Ezio Auditore da Firenze said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Reply

Posted: Mar 15th 2010 11:34PM RKN said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Depends on how high the settings of the games are. Would they offer the ability to pay more per month to access "better" servers, "better" hosting computers to increase the settings of your games? What would happen if I try to change the settings in a game, OnLive would block it how?
Reply

Posted: Mar 15th 2010 11:35PM Dr Blight said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
By not offering the option in the menu. Microsoft's done it sometimes by blocking features on Xbox games when you play them in a 360.
Reply

Posted: Mar 15th 2010 11:47PM finnith said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
That would be a pretty awesome revenue stream if it could work. How exactly do they handle having to upgrade the specs though?
Reply

Posted: Mar 15th 2010 11:59PM BananaBoat said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
That would require some code rewriting, which I'd assume would mean the publishers would need to be on board with it. I'm not sure if I've heard whether or not that is the case yet.
Reply

Posted: Mar 16th 2010 8:51AM Optimaximal said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Well, the companies are obviously on-board before this even leaves the ground - special versions of games are written for the service, they couldn't just waltz down to Game and buy a copy of **INSERT GAME HERE** and run that.
Reply

Posted: Mar 16th 2010 12:18AM Dafrety said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I would hope they'd at least allow you to change some things. For example, NFS:Carbon had this terrible motion blur. You could turn it off on the PC version, which also gave a nice performance boost.
Reply

Posted: Mar 16th 2010 12:24AM NightElve said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I'm unable to foresee how onLive could have at least a small success.

All the gamers I know they like to build their PC Gaming Rigs or they just like to play on their consoles (Included myself).

Reply

Posted: Mar 16th 2010 12:32AM Obienator said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
So lemme get this straight, in a world where I still experience lag and occasional disconnects of my internet. How will this ever work if the WHOLE game is created server side?

If my internet suffers ANY hiccup I am shit out of luck and can't play anything.

Fail!
Reply

Posted: Mar 16th 2010 1:25AM acceptablerisk said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
As much as I am skeptical about the OnLive business model, I am super curious to know exactly how their stuff works on the back end. Provided it works as well as they say, it's certainly an impressive technological feat.
Reply

Posted: Mar 16th 2010 2:08AM Sage009 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Their stats and performance estimations suck.
Everyone knows this will be the next Phantom
Reply

Posted: Mar 16th 2010 8:24PM demon said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Well, it's sounding like they'll actually have the service available - more than Phantom ever managed. However, I imagine utter failure will creep up and claim it within 6 months tops.
Reply

Posted: Mar 16th 2010 4:10AM McDude said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
If you can't change graphics settings, I assume that all means you can't make use of any user-generated content? Would a service like this becoming the standard better the overall gaming experience, if this is the case?
Reply

Posted: Mar 16th 2010 6:53AM seemoneh said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
No
Reply

Posted: Mar 16th 2010 8:26PM demon said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
User-generated content will be right out. I expect for multiple reasons, that this will not be setting a new high bar for visual quality.
Reply

Posted: Mar 16th 2010 7:46AM MrGutts said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Sooooo,

How many games do you think I will be able to play in a month before Comcast or AT&T kick me off their network for exceeding the bandwidth cap they have in place now for the entire country?
Reply

Posted: Mar 16th 2010 8:39AM Scuffles said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Sorry but I for one HATE BLOOM and not having the option the turn the bloom the hell off, can be tossed onto the ever growing pile of "wow this sucks"
Reply

Posted: Mar 16th 2010 11:09AM Clownzilla said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Bandwidth caps will be a major problem for this service.
Reply

Posted: Mar 16th 2010 12:15PM Guspaz said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
While this is expected (and not a problem), there are some graphical features that some of us would like to do without. I often find myself disabling motion blur and film grain in games. Not because I need any extra performance, but because I can't STAND motion blur in games, and I find film grain distracting and annoying.
Reply

Posted: Mar 16th 2010 2:07PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Looks to me like OnLive = more buck for less bang. At $15/month, you’re buying a new console every 18 months, plus you still have to buy the games, and you can’t sell the games used to get any of that money back. On top of that you can only play at 720p30, you will have some latency across the Internet, and you will be subject to various Internet issues (e.g. outages, bandwidth caps, etc.). So I’m paying more for the console and the games, and I’m getting less resolution, more latency, less reliability, etc. I prefer Spawn Labs’ approach. The have a box you can hook up to your console or PC gaming rig. Lets you play around your house or across the Internet, alone or co-op with friends, record video clips, no subscription fees. Have your cake and eat it too…
Reply

Posted: Mar 17th 2010 12:22AM McDude said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I like the current setup: having hard copies of things, so in say, 10-20 years or so when I wanna load up a game, I don't have to worry bout a policy change with the company or their whole service just going kapoot completely. When I own something, I wanna own it. I don't want someone telling me how, when, or where I play...or that I can't change some settings or any one of the bogus things I'm sure haven't come up yet, but will.
Reply
Sorry, you must be logged in to leave a comment.

Featured Stories

Engadget

TUAW

Massively

WoW