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

Reader Comments (86)

Posted: Jul 13th 2010 6:15PM c0bra95 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
For me to believe the no-lag claim, I would need understand the tech that makes that magic possible. Today, I don't (understand), so I don't (believe). If I press a button at home to act on game code running on a server out there somewhere, so that then this remote application can process the button press and send my PC an update, *there is going to be lag*, period. For there not to be lag, the relevant code must be getting executed locally, somehow. It's this "somehow" that needs to be explained. Until then, I'm on the sidelines watching.

Posted: Jul 13th 2010 7:02PM FraGNeM said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
@c0bra95

It's not magic. It DOES have measurable, non-negligible lag. The creators say so themselves.

That said, the impact of this lag depends upon your location and level of tolerance. I was in the cautiously optimistic camp, and now that I have the 1 year membership, I can say that I will not be interested in playing games on the service.

It's a huge, impressive technical feat, but the lag is just too much for me, and with my decent PC, the streamed, compressed graphics don't look nearly as impressive as games running natively on my PC, or even a console. That, combined with the pricing structure, has put me straight in the "do not want" camp, but I do applaud their attempts.
Reply

Posted: Jul 14th 2010 2:26AM Kyammi said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@c0bra95 It doesn't have latency, this Joystiq guy just doesn't play enough games to notice the difference.

Eurogamer's Digital Foundry did a much better article on OnLive. Much more accurate and reliable than this 'article'.
Reply

Posted: Jul 14th 2010 2:26AM Kyammi said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Kyammi I mean does. Whatever, I think you get my point.
Reply

Posted: Jul 13th 2010 6:18PM Undying said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Can't wait for this thing to fail.

Posted: Jul 15th 2010 2:22AM furrious said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Undying Yes, that will be great for the hundreds of employees with families and bills to pay.
Reply

Posted: Jul 13th 2010 6:18PM Sockdog said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
And so as PC gaming was dumbed down and fed to consumers as console gaming, so will console gaming to more consumers via the likes of OnLive. It will take just one deal to integrate this into cable/internet packages directly and suddenly that $200-300 console and $60 games looks very very expensive to a casual gamer.

Don't worry though, I expect it'll be a few years before console games are "tweaked" to compensate for the 100-200ms controller lag, maybe some auto-steer in your racing games or auto-jump on platformers. Anything to ensure the consumer is having a shiny happy time with their rental.

On a plus while the success of OnLive is likely to cannibalise the console gaming market I think it might have the reverse effect on the PC as the hardware costs reduce on even base level systems which can surpass console quality.

Posted: Jul 13th 2010 6:19PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
For some odd reason, I was able to play with a wireless connection for a few weeks and still can off and on. I don't know if it's faulty detection or what, but it still ran great. That being said, I am on a college connection.

Sad that people jumped immediately from "THIS CAN'T WORK EVER THEY ARE DUMB" to "HOLY CRAP THE PRICING IS SO TERRIBLE WHAT THE HELL". For people who don't own a console or a gaming computer, it's actually not a bad deal.

Posted: Jul 13th 2010 6:24PM FredFredrickson said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Why is the article written as if it is some kind of technological magic that makes games run on the writer's laptop? OnLive is just streaming a picture of the game running on an off-site machine. There's nothing mystical or crazy about that.

And I still think there's no way this will work for the masses. Most people don't have a solid-enough internet connection to do all the things they like to do while also running a non-laggy, crystal-clear OnLive stream. The stream is going to look like crap on anything bigger than a SDTV or a small laptop screen, and any hiccup in the stream will make it hard to play even a single-player game.

Sorry, but I'm still not buying it. I'd rather have the hardware available to me without laggy input / output, and I'd rather not pay a monthly fee for that.

Posted: Jul 13th 2010 6:57PM Haywire said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
Do what things they want to do? People don't browse the web and play UT simultaneously. And oh noes, it won't look perfect on a huge HDTV? If you've got a large, HD monitor, you've probably also got hardware powerful enough to run these games already, and this service isn't aimed at you.
Reply

Posted: Jul 13th 2010 7:03PM FredFredrickson said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
@Haywire

1. A single person might now browse the web and play UT at the same time, but most people who don't live alone will have other people like family members and roomates using the internet at the same time, and it's ridiculous to think that a single player game could be ruined by someone watching Netflix, Hulu, or YouTube in the other room.

2. Owning an HDTV doesn't mean you've got powerful game hardware.

3. This service pretty much requires a high speed internet line, which will run about $40-60 a month, plus the service fees for OnLive itself, ($15-20 a month?), plus game rentals / purchases.

All of that is easily over $100 a month. Does that sound like money that a gamer on a budget is going to be willing to fork over?
Reply

Posted: Jul 13th 2010 6:26PM AirIntake said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I've heard there's approximately 150ms of lag. That might have been acceptable when I was playing MechWarrior 2 over Kali on my 33.6k modem, but sorry, that's completely unacceptable today. OnLive might play a good game of Civilization or Starcraft 2, but I'm certainly not going to be able to enjoy any racing or FPS with that lag, and fighting games and shooters would be impossible.

Posted: Jul 13th 2010 6:29PM davidjtate said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@AirIntake I played Borderlands on OnLive. I definitely noticed a TINY BIT of latency in my mouse, but the game was incredibly playable and my brain quickly compensated for it. Maybe some people won't be as forgiving as I am with the latency, but it was a non-issue for me (compared to their other issues, such as buying a game for full price that you can't play if you don't pay their monthly fee).
Reply

Posted: Jul 13th 2010 6:58PM FredFredrickson said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@AirIntake Now imagine that you're playing an online game that also adds 150ms of lag. Suddenly you've got 300ms of lag, and you might as well be playing the game on a 56k modem.
Reply

Posted: Jul 13th 2010 8:12PM Benjamin Gilbert said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@AirIntake Here's the latency test from Digital Foundry (Eurogamer): http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-onlive-lag-analysis. 150ms., it says.
Reply

Posted: Jul 13th 2010 6:27PM davidjtate said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
I tried out OnLive the first week it launched. Within the first 24 hours I was experiencing strange lag issues that inhibited my ability to play a game that I purchased an unlimited playpass for (despite the fact that my Internet connection meets their standards). That, frankly, will not fly with most gamers.

Add to that the fact that it's only free to play for one year, and you'll have to start paying monthly to access the service after that, and that if you unsubscribe from OnLive for more than 12 months, you lose your unlimited playpass for games, and I think the company has a huge issue on it's hands.

I don't know about everyone else, but I prefer to actually own the games I pay full price for. And to be able to play them whether I have full-speed access to the Internet or not. Seeing as most of the newer titles cost exactly the same on OnLive as they do for a console or PC, I'd much rather buy the Xbox 360 or PS3 version.

Posted: Jul 13th 2010 6:28PM MysticMaven said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I am also very impressed with OnLive. The games look great and are very responsive considering what's going on. I only wish I had a wired 360 controller to play with. Now all OnLive needs are more games and a better pricing model.

I think the technology going on here is awesome and I could see this being used for all kinds of media (movies, TV, etc)

Posted: Jul 13th 2010 6:30PM MysticMaven said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
BTW I love how most of the haters here haven't even tried it. Doesn't surprise me.

Posted: Jul 13th 2010 7:48PM Jacksy said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@MysticMaven I wish I could try it ..my 10mbps internet seems not to be fast enough, besides if you can afford an awesome connection then chances are you have a nice rig anyway, making this somewhat useless I suppose.. just my two cents
Reply

Posted: Jul 13th 2010 7:54PM Jacksy said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Jacksy also, imagine the next COD game or whatever multiplayer hit game that comes out in the future on onlive it might be completely unplayable! sure almost every platform suffers from lag but this method seems more prone to it IDK I could be wrong though.
Reply

Posted: Jul 13th 2010 6:53PM McDude said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
I predict this will:

- Take control out of the gamer's hands who purchased products

- Slow the progression of technological advancements because it will shrink the business of manufacturers who make parts for the cutting edge gamer


I don't mind spending a bit of cash every 5-6 years. A few hundred dollars over that span of time is a drop in a bucket, even for someone working a minimum wage shit job like me. It's definitely worth owning everything you paid for, cuz these guys are gonna nickle and dime you anyway.

Posted: Jul 13th 2010 6:55PM FredFredrickson said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
Great idea - make people pay for games that they lose access to if they ever cancel their subscription to the service! /s

Even on the slim chance that this is actually successful, nobody is going to go for this kind of "ownership". Either the service needs to be free and you pay for games, or you pay for the service and the games are free. Who would buy games through OnLive knowing that once they lose access to the service, all their purchases are gone?

That is the same reason why Microsoft's DRM'd music service failed, and the same reason why it sucked for people when it did.

Posted: Jul 13th 2010 7:03PM leshrac55 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I live in a major city and have a pretty fast connection (20Mbps) and I found Just Cause 2 only marginally playable when I tried it. It did not feel very responsive, seeming to lag a bit (and seemingly doing so in a way that would over-exaggerate my controls, ie, turning left would turn too far left, etc). Maybe I need to give it another shot, as this was in the first few days of the service, but it definitely did not seem like something I'd want to pay for.

Posted: Jul 13th 2010 7:06PM Marked said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
From everything I've read, my biggest question is cost. And not game cost, but hardware cost on their end. As a user you are essentially leasing access to a very high end "gaming server" in a datacenter near you. Even a top-of-the-line machine I don't see being able to run more than 2-3 games concurrently (unless the fx settings are WAY down). how is $15/m (or whatever the fee turns out to be) going to even remotely cover hardware cost? Hell, if a user played a lot on high definition (and streaming video does add up fast), a datacenter could potentially chew through that much money just in bandwidth cost alone.

This is also very localized so "peak usage" is going to be the same for every subscriber to that center. eg; in your typical server, while you still have noticeable peaks, your east-coast people will be going to bed while your west-coast is still coming online. This, since you have to have a center near you, I see everyone getting off school and have say 80% of the users to your local center online at once.

Anyway, that's my rant.

Posted: Jul 13th 2010 7:26PM Xeno said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
@Sally Games you payed full price for.

Posted: Jul 13th 2010 7:30PM ch3burashka said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
FredFredrickson is a hater.

Posted: Jul 14th 2010 11:34AM FredFredrickson said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@ch3burashka

Being practical and skeptical doesn't make me a hater. Why should I have to fall in love with every new idea that comes from the tech world?
Reply

Posted: Jul 13th 2010 8:49PM Maulok said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
The lack of games is crippling my interest in the service. I have a free year, but there's nothing I don't already own on Steam or another platform, so there's no point in rebuying. That said, it totally works. I'm very impressed with how well, too.

How about a surprise announcement where they merge with Steam to solve the "lack of games" issue? That would rock my socks.

Posted: Jul 13th 2010 11:09PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
joystiq spam filter? or is it just "lag" and my 5 attempts to post part 2 will be actual spam

only time will tell....

Posted: Jul 13th 2010 11:10PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@(Unverified) god i hate you stiq board
Reply

Posted: Jul 14th 2010 12:02AM xc7x said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
so it works so long as ya don't like shooter games,umm,that's a big loss

Posted: Jul 14th 2010 4:51AM semisanity said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Ok, so it works. Now they just need to make it justify the monthly subscription price. I'm not going to pay for a monthly subscription just so I can buy SOME games at the same price I would in retail or on Steam.

Posted: Jul 14th 2010 5:01AM dantad said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Glad to see that this works. I would totally pay for this! Too bad it's probably never going to come to New Zealand :(

Posted: Jul 14th 2010 11:31AM enbadesign said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I can't justify spending $60 a month for a 10mb internet connection. I think $40 for a 6mb connection is insane as it is.

Also the state of PC gaming is pretty poor right now outside of MMOs, which I will not play due to the pay to play model. There just aren't enough good PC games to justify paying for a monthly service.

Then you have the crap graphics quality of OnLive. Yeah I'll sacrifice some resolution to send my TV signal through the internet on a slingbox but I won't sacrifice graphics in a game.

Posted: Jul 15th 2010 8:00PM Typicalgamer said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
sexy

Posted: Jul 16th 2010 5:04PM tumes said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Man I wonder if a web-only magazine "Joystiq" is going to support an online only service?


Featured Stories

Engadget

Engadget

TUAW

TUAW

Massively

Massively

WoW

WoW