To summarize, onlive is supercomputer server farm that you connect to, play the games there and they are streamed back to your computer. They advertise this as lag free due to their new fancy schmancy algorithm.
I would imagine it would take years for this to really catch on...its an awesome idea: LAN play over the internet. I am very curious.
The gaming world is abuzz on the internet with this news. Frankly, if it works the way they are saying it will, gaming as we know it will change. I have been following some discussions where people are so confident that it will work they are hailing it as the next wave of gaming.
I read a review on this. I can agree that this may change gaming as we know it but there are some big limitations to it. First off, to get SD gaming you need to have a 1.5Mbps connection. For 720p HD play you'll need a minimum of a 5Mbps connection. The problem lies in the implementation of broadband in the US. There's not enough connections that are of the proper speed to really support gaming like we're used to on a console.
Case in point being games that are coded for 1080p. If you need better than double then bandwidth of an SD game for 720p, imagine what you'd need to 1080p. I'm betting a minimum of 10 or 12 Mbps. Given that most places in the US can't even support a descent 3 to 5 Mbps download because of infrastructure issues, I wouldn't see this being a complete replacement for a console.
Also, in the review it specified that you needed to have a server farm with 1000 miles of your location. This shouldn't be that big of a deal as they are planning 5 server farms, unless you're more than 1000 miles away from a server farm for whatever reason. Either way I still think that the roll out of broadband access to support this technology is what will be lacking the most.
I'm not sure if I'm a fan of the likely business model either. While it likens it's self to Live and the purchase or renting of games, it seems that they're going for more of the monthly subscription plus the cost of games, rather than a yearly option. In addition, PC gamers would be outraged to have to pay for the game to keep it and then pay for a service to play it. I realize that WoW addicts and the like to pay a monthly service but those are what I would consider a special group of PC gamers. The rest, like RTS guys, would be outraged to have to pay for a service just to play they're favorite game. Not to mention that they cannot mod it or upgrade to the latest hardware to get better frame rates or a higher graphics setting.
I think this is a cool idea but I'm not sure how long it'll last past the new and shiny thing phase.
Last Edit: Mar 25, 2009 19:04:31 GMT -8 by FrkUout
I am a complete skeptic. I don't think they will pull off the "no lag" claim, not in a million years.
However this fits right inline with where the media world in general is going. Everything is online these days, and sooner or later that is the only way it will be. But we are still years away from that happening, and we may never see complete online media since there will always be a need for offline content. What happens when you go on a trip with some buddies and you want to play casual split screen in a hotel room (case in point I am always doing that..., and yes I realize that there is internet in hotels, but most are not sufficient for gaming)? Then you are out of luck if your only access to game is online...
If they stick to the major city markets they might do fine. There are advantages to it. Such as was explained to me today, the cost of the games could be a lot less as the developer will not have to worry about marketing, publishing for multiple platforms and all that. They just make it and everyone with a PC or Mac or the adapter box will get it.
It does give non-pc gamers the ability to play pc games, such as crysis which couldn't be ported to a console. And vice-versa for the PC guys with console games.
I'm still skeptic about the pricing and such. Also, the cap on the frame rate is not cool either but I know they did it to cut the lag.