Smigit Posted March 13, 2010 Share Posted March 13, 2010 Also I read they will use 5 servers to start off with, to distribute games. It will crash day one. I called it. Pretty sure that was 5 locations/data centers, not just five servers. I think they had five spread around the US to help maximize connection speeds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minifig Posted March 13, 2010 Share Posted March 13, 2010 $14.95 a month, plus an additional fee per game .. Explain to me why.. you wouldn't I don't know.. buy a console ONCE.. and go over to say, blockbuster, or hell sign up for Gamefly, and rent games for 8.95$.. to have them delivered to your door?. You won't compete with TONS of people hoping on the same service and clogging the tubes. Lets figure this out shall we? Lets assume.. Xbox 360 costs, 320$. 320$ divided by 14.95$ a month= roughly 21.40 months. So.. in .. say.. 21 1/2 months you can get yourself an Xbox 360. Now, you have 8 dollars and 95 cents to spend per month for Xbox 360 games to be delivered to your door via Gamefly, you get one for as long as you want. Tag on Xbox Live which is 49.99$ per year. OnLive costs 179$ per year NOT INCLUDING THE RENTAL FEES, plus as far as we know of, there's no voice support or anything else. And you can use Gamefly to play games on their site.. which is like OnLive. .. Need I go on? :blink: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qdave Posted March 13, 2010 Share Posted March 13, 2010 You guys are too quick to judge..give this thing a chance. Tharp Daddy 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smigit Posted March 14, 2010 Share Posted March 14, 2010 Explain to me why.. you wouldn't I don't know.. buy a console ONCE.. and go over to say, blockbuster, or hell sign up for Gamefly, and rent games for 8.95$.. to have them delivered to your door?. Not saying I like the fee structure but reasons may be you want to play PC games without buying a powerful PC so the console isn't really an option. You may also be on the road and thus this might be a viable option to play later releases on a laptop wherever you are. Thats two reasons I can think of anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justmike Posted March 22, 2010 Share Posted March 22, 2010 OK, I understand how this "may" not fully work yet. BUT, this is the core target of cloud computing. This type of system will work soon, even if it does not work now. Why buy computers if you can rent them for much cheaper? How could you eliminate not only packaging of any software/audio/video, but delivering, first time sales, re-selling, installing, upgrading, updating, and content downloading completely? This is the target of cloud computing. HD video and audio will be able to be streamed faster than I can do any of those things. Why wait for a PC to boot, if the software is sitting on an always on server being broadcast "live" whenever I access it? Why the need for patches, when the OS is patched itself when needed? Why let people download or buy physical copies of your software, when you would only need to upload the completed product one time, and it could be accessed/broadcast around the world with absolutely no risk of piracy? Why even have a need for 100mb internet connections "into homes"? If we can achieve "OK" HD quality with 5mb, what can we do with 10mb, or 20mb? All I/O devices would simply need universal ID's such as some future USB7, and could be assigned to a user or users. If OnLive even "almost" works, I can not believe that MS has not bought it yet. http://tv.seas.columbia.edu/videos/545/60/79?file=1&autostart=true With absolute power comes absolute responsibility, but no one is absolutely responsible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Decryptor Veteran Posted March 22, 2010 Veteran Share Posted March 22, 2010 Bandwidth isn't very important to OnLive, what matters most is distance from the server (too far away = unusable service, it's extraordinarily time sensitive) and the resource requirements on the server end. If you need a server for every player (1:1 match), then it's going to be very expensive (and a server capable of running multiple copies of Crysis running at 250fps is also going to be very expensive) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azies Posted March 27, 2010 Share Posted March 27, 2010 For those who are saying OnLive is garbage, reserve judgement, try it, and you're going to be blown away, trust me, I can't say anymore, but just trust me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boz Posted March 27, 2010 Share Posted March 27, 2010 The problem with their model IMO is that is unsustainable. Not only you need to pay $15/ month just for service, you will be probably getting games at like $5,99 or $9.99 for rentals and probably close to retail to have permanent access. Now there are several things that I have no idea how they will make work. 1. How do you buy games? Do you download them? Do they always have them on the server? Will you always have access to them game and if so how much it will cost them to maintain all titles over time. It seems that if you do it like that it's bottomless pit of servers and storage they need to have in order to cover a larger base. 2. Cost.. if $15/month .. after a year I could've bought an Xbox 360. In addition, even though games are pretty expensive these days when I get a game I get permanent game for $60. There's no limitations as to whether or not their service is down or if my cable is out temporarily. I've never really liked the idea of OnLive but not because they are what they are but because it just seems like a model that will not be able to work. As Decryptor says, the problem with all of this will be latency, connection speed etc etc.. the graphics are not going to be nowhere near the same as their back-end infrastructure processing so many instances of the games will be completely maxed out. I would probably try this just for the sake of seeing it in action but I wouldn't put in any longer term investments with this. I'm not sure this company will be able to survive as the costs they will have for expansion will be through the roof. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PGHammer Posted March 27, 2010 Share Posted March 27, 2010 Source: Joystiq The bolded part is very worrying. This service is charging $15/month to play a game at 1080p using cloud computing on top of the game's retail price. Essentially, it's the equivalent of renting a powerful gaming computer that can be built for $800 and also paying for a game. How is it better than what is available now? Not everyone can build their own PC (despite how easy it is in reality); also, there are those that choose NOT to do so for various reasons. Those are the sort of folks that are OnLive's target audience. However, they need technically-capable/literate folks like us to work out the bugs. Neowinians aren't OnLive's target audience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.KICK Posted March 27, 2010 Share Posted March 27, 2010 You guys are too quick to judge..give this thing a chance. +1, damn right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McCordRm Posted March 29, 2010 Share Posted March 29, 2010 Too quick to judge? Are you out of your ****ing mind? Just how long does it take you to shop? It's not like I need to dedicate a substantial amount of time researching whether a $15/month service charge is worth playing a game for. MMO= Understandable But TF2 or Oblivion? No way in hell I'd pay a monthly fee on top of the retail charge to play those. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts