We were promised cloud gaming nirvana
on June 17, and OnLive has indeed kept to its self-imposed schedule. The new service that allows you to play resource-hungry games via only your browser window has taken its first steps into the real (non-beta) world with an initial catalog of 23 games. It'll be free for the first year for those who showed faith early on and
pre-registered, or $15 per month for new bandwagon riders. Do let us know your thoughts if you've gotten onboard at this nascent stage: does it play fantastically well, is it close to spectacular, or is it just a pedestrian effort aiming to capitalize on geeks' lust for unbound gaming? We
have to know.
[Thanks, Mike]
Update: OnLive's site doesn't seem to have been updated to reflect the service going live (you can
sign up, but can't just jump in and play). It might be, therefore, that OnLive is booting itself up in stages, with only
the early birds getting the first bite.
posted June 18th 2010 4:28AM
@danielstanard Wow I have lower specs than you and didn't have much trouble with the same games. Interesting?
I prefer running games on my gaming rig
@MoonWalkerCTE
Of course nothing beats playing on your own high end PC, but if this works well enough to be able to play a bit of Dirt2 or whatever on my laptop whilst i'm working away then it's a nice service.
@Jimbob
Apart from in my home, I'm never on an internet service fast enough to make this worthwhile. You're not going to stream games from your home PC to a laptop in an internet face and get much out of it.
@Tes
Damn you spell checker...don't auto-correct!
@Tes
know the feeling - it will happily correct you, but it'll never check if what it suggests actually makes sense.
my old school mac's sentence suggester used to suggest "blow up the headteacher" whenever somebody typed "i want to" in its word pad
... sorry, will stay on topic now...
@Tes
Just because you don't, several million people do. When I work away the hotels often have 10Meg+ which is plenty.
@Jimbob I wonder what the latency's like though - that's going to be just as important.
@MoonWalkerCTE
Good call.
OnLive is an utter piece of crap, and I'm saying this from experience.
@MoonWalkerCTE
In fact, I'll elaborate just for the sake of explaining why I know it's utter crap.
I'd see 500-1500+ms lag during gameplay from a wired connection. The computer was an Envy 15, the connection to the router was wired, and the internet connection itself is FiOS. They supposedly have a hub outside DC, and yet I sit right outside DC and still got stuck with absolutely terrible lag.
What makes this worse is the video compression. Any dark scenes in Crysis were, for me, absolutely unplayable.
Cool, games on any platform. Oh wait:
http://www.onlive.com/support/getstarted
"Why am I only able to play Mass Effect 2 on a PC, but not a Mac? Will there be other Windows-only games?
Unfortunately, because of licensing restrictions, we can only offer Mass Effect 2 for play under Windows. So, if you do not have access to a PC, your only option to play it on a Mac is under Windows using Boot Camp or a similar system. We apologize for the inconvenience. OnLive has no other games in the pipeline that are Windows-only, and we do not expect to have any others."
Besides that snag, the service looks awesome. Let's not kid ourselves that this is some startup doomed to fail because the networks are poor today. Remember when Youtube started and our networks struggled?
This just needs the ISPs to get their hardware up to par so that we all can get under 50ms latency. The volume of subscribers will be huge for this once cable/TV companies who make nothing from consoles start bundling this with their service and the volume of users will far outnumber consoles. Plus, no piracy.
It will take a while but make no mistake, this will be the biggest game distribution method in the next few years. This can run Crysis on an iPad. No other development will do that for years to come.
@Bryant
It sounds like you've never used it, played it, or experienced it. First the program checks your internet connection (including latency) and won't even let you login if it is too high, and warns you if its almost too high. Second, Crysis wasn't even part of the beta (only shown in the last years demo videos) - but never reached the beta testing teams, and wasn't on any of the units at E3. Onlive works very well, and beta testers cannot comment or show screenshots, videos etc. but it works great even on low end machines if you have a good internet connection.
@ISEPIC
I agree. I've played all the games that were marked Demo during the BETA period. I also purchased Prince of Persia - Forgotten Sands. The playback was flawless. Never had latency issues. Tried on several different computers (including a wireless HTPC) and worked the exact same. When there is heavy network traffic the image quality is compressed further. However, I NEVER got stuttering. Which is something I can't say about playing on my local PC.
OnLive can be a huge success. I'm very happy with it so far.
no where on the site says how to actually sign up to play or a download area. that site fails
@audi2009
The whole idea fails. Even if they manage to get it to work properly and without severely degrading graphics and input response (which I sincerely doubt they will), the business case for cloud gaming is simply not there. From OnLive's perspective the investments in hardware and bandwidth are enormous, from the user perspective the benefits are minimal. Now that an xbox 360 arcade is $99 (with the $50 cashback offer) and a PS3 is $249, the OnLive subscription fees quickly add up to the cost of the hardware, which only leaves the benefit of not having to buy the games them selves. Considering you cannot choose which games you can play on OnLive, considering that you lose you license if you cancel the service, and considering you can pick up second-hand console games for $10, I'm hard-pressed to see the benefits of this service. You get less for more, and you lose it all as soon as you jump ship. Great idea guys :-S
@drange
And let me add, that if you want to play games on the go, there are much better options, like getting a handheld. In theory it all sounds great but I'd like to see anyone take their netbook on the road to play Crysis over 3G or over a slow public WiFi. It's not going to work.
@drange all of that is meaningless if they get a large enough partner. In the UK, I think Virgin are interested in dealing with them.
If my current TV/Cable and internet package comes with onlive for an extra subsidised cost of £10 - £20, then I am happy. This is possible, becasue Virgin need to compete with Sky that have all the sport channels here. I'd rather pay for the gaming and not have the sport, I can go to the pub for that.
Lots of people say that gamers wont pay to play, PS3 player laugh at xbox players who pay for the 'same' service of playing online. Now PS3 is offering a plus, paid service, not to nice, but because they need to make more money from it.
I say, give it time and they will find/modify how we pay for it.
@drange Crysis? lol come on, get real now. There are loads of great games that will work fine on this system, Its not all about bloated graphics.
@drange you are forgetting some of the major upsells to onlive, instantly rent a video game, buy it cheaper than retailer, etc. Even if the performance is slightly below par, renting games etc instantly without wasting bandwidth/time downloading is amazing. Plus for PC gamers, never have to spend a dime upgrading hardware, this stuff will run on a p3 pretty much. Sure an xbox/ps3 is cheaper nowadays, but games sure aren't. No doubt onlive will have cheaper rental fee's than blockbuster. The $15 / month is minimal, if you rent 5 games a month at $3.00 each (for example) from onlive, you are already saving more than the cost of the subscription so in the long run it can be insanely more cheaper.
@Stepup
Crysis is just an example of a game that needs a big rig. If you're going to be playing bejeweled you don't need a cloud gaming service anyway...
The way I see it:
1) If you're going to rent a set-top box from OnLive and pay the subscription fees, you'll end up paying more than you'd be paying for a console, to get less (graphics quality and input lag will be better on a console, and you're not going to move around a set-top box either)
2) If you're going to be taking your games on the road, you'll be severely limited by the network you're on, and the hardware you have with you. Playing an FPS on a 10" netbook, and streaming the graphics and input over public WiFi or 3G, not going to be pretty. The hardware is anything but ideal for it, and you'll inevitably get graphics and input degradation. Just taking a handheld or a real laptop and run your games directly on that makes a lot more sense to me.
3) You're going to be using this at home, over a super-fast network, with a setup that has good gaming ergonomics but not enough CPU/GPU power for heavy games, and you don't want to pay for the game licenses, which is why you use OnLive.
Only use case 3 makes a little bit of sense to me, but not much, seeing you can pick up a moderately decent gaming PC or a console pretty cheap, so the service should have great performance and very sharp pricing. As in: less than the price of a console/low-end game pc over its lifetime + a few games, suppose ~$700 in 3 years = ~$20 a month. I simply do not see how OnLive would be able to make a profit this way, seeing that they need to have a server farm within a range 150 km to get good latencies (they admit this themselves) and these + the bandwidth don't come for free either.
So summarizing: I simply don't see a business case and I predict them to be out of business as soon as their VC capital runs out and their 'partners' find out there is no money to be made.
@jpilon
Good point, but you don't actually need a cloud gaming service to implement a rental model. It'd be much easier to partner up with Valve and build a rental service around steam, based on a subscription model. Much easier, much cheaper, and higher quality for you customers. The only thing OnLive would have over something like that, would be the ability to play on low-end hardware. But I'm still extremely sceptical about that 'advantage', now that hardware is dirt cheap and even the lowest-end PC's run so many games right now.
@drange I really don't see your problem with this. Not everybody can afford a $700 system and another $50 for each game. Look add $700 and then another $50 for every game that onlive offers and that's $1,700. Do you know how long it'll take an onlive subscription to reach that? 9+ years, and that's for just the 20 games at launch, when more titles are added, you can bet this will be more popular than building a gaming pc yourself or buying an alienware. Now, that Internet speeds are reaching 50mps, which is still slow compared to other countries getting 70mps down, we can support this. I'm sure even on a 10mbs down setup can run this. As a Mac user, I see this as a way to avoid buying windows. As a Linux user, I see this as a way to avoid buying windows. Although, I probably won't sign up because I'm not into games enough, I can't help but think this is a good thing. The need for a $1000 pc to play games is ending.
@Cold Dead Fingers
Sure, if you assume you have to shell out $700 + $50 per game it's a great idea. Likewise I can assume the service will be $100 a month to support my own argument. Now go find a store and see how much a PS3 or an Xbox 360 are (hint: under $250), and how many games you can get for under $20 (hint: about every game that's over 6 months old).
At $20 a month you will have spent over $700 on OnLive within 3 years, which gets you a console or an entry-level PC and around 25 games if you shop intelligently. Now, just to make sure you don't get me wrong: I have no problems with OnLive, I just think it's a stupid idea that will never be economically viable. The pace technology is progressing, you don't need to have an expensive system just to play a few games.
@Cold Dead Fingers
Oh and by the way: if you subscribe to OnLive, you not only pay the subscription fee, but you still also need to pay for the game license, probably not all at once but smeared out over the time you're playing it.
@drange Dude, stop being a jackass. Do you work for Gaikai or something? At $5 a month and with renting instead of buying it's SIGNIFICANTLY cheaper than buying a console or gaming rig (besides, not all PC games are available on a console anyway).
Just because YOU don't see the value in such a service doesn't mean others won't. Your gross exaggerations are just showing how much of a douche you are.
If you have a gaming rig this service is NOT for you. End of story. It's for people who have low end computers or laptops that can't otherwise play these games. Hell, the rental option itself is gold for those on a tight budget. You don't have to deal with GameFly or Blockbuster and it's still cheaper than a Steam sale or used copy.
There are a lot of advantages to the service. Too bad you're too closed minded to see them.
U kno who will really benefit from and keep cost low....gamefly or any rental service by selling this...and keep the business model
Indeed...internet goes down, I cant play any games!!! *few minutes laters* Heeere's Johnny!
@Warzone
Need ze edit button! later*
Same with high end rig and UK dont get it until 2011.
@Warzone You're going to put an axe through a bathroom door so you can get to your wife?!
I met a guy who recently got a job with Live, well back in Dec in SF, he was really excited, they are all massive gamers and really want this to work and want to port (that was his job) as many of the best games as possible, I hope this works as well as it should, would be ideal for a lot of gamers.
I think gamers should get behind this service and hopefully it will get better and better. I dont understand people who say they like games but think this is crap? If you like gaming then this is another way to do the thing you like.
@Stepup Because gamers know crap setups when they see them.
I'm not paying $15/month on top of full retail for games to never own my games, or play them if my Internet is out, or lose the ability to play them if I stop paying for the service, for whatever reason.
Seriously, it's a dumb service because you are perpetually renting your full retail purchases.
It's because I love gaming so much that I'll never buy into this service.
@ModernTenshi04
Agreed. There is a fundamental problem with buying games and not really owning them with the service. I see that as the real issue with buying into it.
@Duke This is not an isue for onlive, it is an issue with the game publishers. Onlive is providing a way to play those games from anywhere on anything.
It is not impossible to see, just like with DVD/Blueray a time when buying a physical game you get a 6 month/year subscription to something like this.
This is just the start, one of the first companies to offer this.
@Stepup This pos service won't be replacing anything anytime soon. Crysis 2 on my PS3? Won't need to upgrade anything or get behind a stupid service for that.
@Stepup
I don't follow you at all here. It is an issue, no matter if you blame publishers or Onlive - it is the Onlive service we are talking about, and people don't like to "buy" a game to not actually get it if they cancel their monthly bill. That really isn't so hard to expect.
@Duke
So rent the game from OnLive instead. And how is this any different from buying an MMO? If you stop paying the subscription fee you can no longer play it even though you bought it.
It's not for everyone but there is a space for it with casual gamers.
I see this as more likely to work if built into a set-top box like Ruku or even something Comcast or another company rents out. Through a dedicated PC it just doesn't make sense.
http://www.professorhobo.com/2010/06/18/grays-anatomy
@Elwood731 Yeah true, I also see it working as a service hotels offer. In all the major chains have TV's that let me 'rent' a movie for the night. If I could pay for a game in my room after a meeting, that would be great. I would rather play a game than watch some crap film.
Shame i live in Australia and my internet wouldn't be fast enough. Either that or it would cap it.
.5 to .75 second delay. Fail.
@SirHellRaizer
Laaaaaag, even before multiplayer lag.
@Tristan
get killed before you even know you've spawned :)
know the feeling *cough*mw2
@SirHellRaizer
A few reviews i've read have said that whilst the lag on multiplayer FPS's is too high less demanding games such as racing games etc are OK.
@SirHellRaizer since when does 80ms lag equate to 0.5 to 0.75 seconds. I think you need to go back to school (or buy a calculator). There are 1000ms in a second, so the lag is 0.08 seconds.
@Den
80ms for you packet to reach the server in an FPS is bad enough, as you can get owned within that time. But 80 seconds for the mouse to even move on the screen?! Just LOL.
@SirHellRaizer
That's terrible. Half a second to 3/4 a second delay?????? That throws all FPS games, sporting games, action games and fighting games down the blunder.
I knew the lag would kill it.
@SirHellRaizer
human visual perception is 5–100 ms your not missing much
@RBRat3
That is reaction time, you could react 8 times before the game updates. Hmmmmmm??
It on the iPad iPad
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zpFzpF0msrU