The beginning of the end for consoles!

Not really. Microsoft and Sony are heading that way.

It wouldn't surprise me if in a few years down the line, DLC is the main way we get our games, as retail games become obselete.

They'll just follow steam's example.

Sucks for anyone without Live though.

I knew about this a few days ago, but I didn't want to post about it, in fear of expanding its popularity. I do not want this thing to succeed.

But yeah, it has a ton of issues. You need a 5mbps connection JUST to stream games in 720p. Resolutions above that are not available. That kind of a connection is very expensive, and cannot even be accessed in much of the US, let alone the places like Germany, Russia, Canada, and The UK, where that majority of PC gamers live.

Aside from connection issues, I don't know. Some people complain about upgrading their PCs (which you really don't have to do that often) but I enjoy it. Sure, I'll have to spend some money on it every few years, but I like it. I think Cheese called it "The nerd equivalent of fixing up a car."

This OnLive service threatens to make PC upgrading obsolete, and gives a macbook the same level of in-game visuals as my PC... and I don't like that. This could be the answer to bringing hardcore games to the mainstream, but do we really want that?

I think this system will fail. It will be "ahead of its time," and some other service will take advantage of the tech in the future. I fear that day as well.

Rasq wrote:I personally view consoles as a sort of aberration in the history of gaming, like trench warfare and military tactics. Eventually, PCs will win, once we fix the pirating issue.

You know, I never knew you were such a PC gamer. I mean, I knew you played on PC, but your thoughts on the entire industry seem to agree with mine... and that's scary. *shakes hand

As for piracy.... STEAM IS GOD!

Yeah I heard about this too. Still not sure what to think about it. I may have become a little biased because first my freaking oblivion disk breaks, and now fallout three! Why does the gaming industry not want me to play sandbox rpgs?! This could be solved had I bought them on Steam... but it still would take days to download! In this scenario, I'd say this cloud thing would be a step sideways, since the internet in my area is terrible.

As for the upgrade thing, I can see why you like it, but buying stuff for me is a real hassle. It takes me two hours to get to the closest pc shop or even somewhere that sells dishwashers. EBay's no real consolation since I can't use that card anymore. So basically, I make do with what I've got. Which in this day an age is still slightly ahead of the game, but falling fast.

Good point about bringing hardcore games to the mainstream audience. That has not gone well so far... Damn Fable 2 (which would otherwise be a good if not great game)

I always saw consoles as the one for friends. When we're bored at someone's, it's always been the xbox we've gone for. Just seems like most of the console folk have forgotten about that (except the wii, which still has a place in my home for this one redeeming feature despite the fact I haven't bought anything for it in a year)

Cheese wrote:except the wii, which still has a place in my home for this one redeeming feature despite the fact I haven't bought anything for it in a year)

You have a Wii? lol, all the time I've known you... I had no idea.

Cheese wrote:This could be solved had I bought them on Steam... but it still would take days to download! In this scenario, I'd say this cloud thing would be a step sideways, since the internet in my area is terrible.

Yeah, even most places in the US can't get 5mbps, the connection speed needed to project the game in 720p. The majority of PC gamers don't live in the US either. They tend to live in Germany, Russia, the UK, and Canada. Due to latency (right?) I don't think they'd get any service what so ever.

I'm also not sure I like the responsibility these guys will have. I've seen some suggesting this as the "one console future." However, I don't think anyone wants such a controled "one console future." These guys have control of everything on the service, how often they upgrade their hardware, ect.

Cheese wrote:buying stuff for me is a real hassle. It takes me two hours to get to the closest pc shop or even somewhere that sells dishwashers.

Do Tiger direct and Newegg deliver to Wales?

ReconToaster wrote:You have a Wii? lol, all the time I've known you... I had no idea.

I'm sure I've mentioned it somewhere Or at least my fandom of Smash Bros Brawl/Melee. Seriously, only game I ever play on the damn thing.

ReconToaster wrote:Do Tiger direct and Newegg deliver to Wales?

Never heard of them. So maybe.

We'll see what happens.

Frankly, I see it as just a smaller, disk-free console. How much can it handle?

Taken from the comic Ctrl+Alt+Del





So obviously OnLive is causing a pretty big stir in the video games community, and with good reason. It's a fascinating concept that could revolutionize gaming. However it also stirs up a lot of fears and concerns and doubts that are all perfectly legitimate.

The implications and possibilities (and possible failures) of a system like this are too numerous to explore completely here (at least within a reasonable amount of time), but I do want to share some of my thoughts on it, as well as concerns and what I've heard.

When it was first announced, my initial reaction was "Wow, that's amazing" followed immediately by "But I don't want to give up that much control over my games.". And I don't. I don't want to rely on so many X factors to access and enjoy my games. I don't want to rely on the OnLive service functioning, as well as the internet service to deliver it. What if I wanted to travel somewhere that doesn't have internet? I could take my console. With OnLive I'd be completely cut off.

I don't want to not "own" the game I'm paying for. I know more and more things are going digital these days, but there's still a lot of comfort in owning a physical copy of something you paid for. You know it's there when you need it. I imagine it's the same reason people purchase the Ctrl+Alt+Del collection books even though all of the comics are available for free online. Sometimes you want tangible stuff that you know can't disappear with an internet outage or a corrupt hard drive.

I also don't like the idea of losing control over a game that I've bought. While I cannot honestly think of a time in recent memory where I chose not to patch a game because I didn't agree with the patch changes, I'm not sure I want to relinquish that option. I'm not sure I want to start playing a game, and then have it disappear because the developer decided it wasn't selling well enough.

So those are some of the things, right off the bat, that turn me off about the idea. They mirror some of the general concerns I've heard murmered about the concept.

"What about lag and internet/service outages?" Exactly. OnLive says they've developed new tech that all but obliterates latency but... honestly, haven't we all heard that before? The bottom line is, the service will be prone to hiccups and lag. Now most of us have come to accept this as a fact of life when we play multiplayer games online. But do we really want to introduce this variable into our single player experiences as well?

Additionally, not everyone has great internet speeds, and not everyone has uncapped bandwidth. These are additional speedbumps the service has to deal with.

However, there is incredible potential for a service like this. It's huge for people who can't afford the top-end gaming PCs, or who can't afford three different consoles just to play all the available games. That would be a fantastic advantage. Imagine it, having all games available through one service. How convenient would that be?

But who says there's only one service? Yes, OnLive is the first, but does anybody honestly think that, if this actually works, that other companies aren't going to launch their own versions of the service? Of course they are. And then this idea of a utopian, console-free, one-stop video-gamescape goes right out the window, because we're back to different services competing for subscribers, and competing for exclusive rights to various games. Want to play the new Call of Duty? Sure thing, it's on this network. Oh, but you want to play the new Starcraft? Sorry, it's exclusive to this other service.

And that's not even mentioning all of the companies who have built their business around asking us to purchase new hardware every few years. I cannot see nVidia or ATI lying down while a service says "Hey everyone, you don't have to buy a new graphics card, we'll run the game for you!". I can't see Microsoft saying "Sure, don't buy our console, we don't want the revenue from XBL, etc anyway."

I won't pretend to know the architecture of the intricate web of licensing and exclusivity deals that ensares the entire games industry, but I do suspect that some pretty strict arrangements would start popping up between developers and the console manufacturers. And I also know that a lot of development studios are owned by console manufacturers, or other publishers. I doubt Microsoft spent so much time and money acquiring a lion's share of the industry to turn around and let Bungie's new Halo game show up on a service that costs them console sales.

And Nintendo... Nintendo shits money and they've had an incredible case of explosive diarrhea for the last few years. What incentive do they have to license their titles to a start-up service that, once again, doesn't sell their hardware?

I agree that OnLive is a really novel idea. A streaming version of the all-in-one console we've all dreamed of. But it's an idea whose fate ultimately rests entirely in the hands of developers, and there are a lot of considerations and loyalties (and legalities in some cases) some of these developers have to come to terms with before they license their games to the service.

And the console manufacturers aren't just going to pack up shop, either. If anything, all OnLive will accomplish will be adding a fourth "console" option to the market. Which is actually really great, because as mentioned, some people miss out on some games because they don't have top-end PCs, etc.

However a lot of people seem to see this heralding a complete overhaul to the gaming industry, practically overnight. The "Death of the Console", and I just really, really doubt that. To be honest with you... I'd be surprised if it gets past being the Netflix of gaming. A great service, a great alternative... but not the end-all of gaming platforms.

After reading this, I think it'd be a great attachment for the next line of consoles that are bound to be out in the next three to five years, but I wouldn't want to relinquish my console just to play with a smaller system. If that was the case, I would have gone with the mini PS2 over the Xbox long ago.

Also, it's very true that competition will soon hit this market, making the system obsolete once Microsoft and Sony get their grubby hands on it. I don't know where it will go, but I have no problem with the way it works now, so this makes me more nervous than happy.

LP, you copied and pased that, correct?

Just making sure..

I just like to have my own hardware. While this service will probably fail, I see the concept being used by others... and I don't like it. I See it as something that could work amazingly... but I don't care. Everytime I think about it, it just kinda makes me scared. I DOES NOT WANT!!!

I dont either. It'd be WAY to inconvienent for me. (Has a modem. So the reach isnt very far.)

DL'ing from things like Steam would be total crap THB.
Maybe in the future when all place in the world have ultra fast fibre Optic cables.
NZ still doesn't have Broadband, we have something that is so insignificantly better than dail up, it is still considered dail up in the vast majority of websites. Our government promises us with ultra fast fibre optic cables by 2011 and heaps of people protest about how it doesn't help the main stream Business! Mother fucking idiot n00bs!

Its pretty cool, but nothing for MS to worry about!

ReconToaster wrote:
As for piracy.... STEAM IS GOD!

how? it does nothing to stop piracy and it does nothing to help it....so really...its like flat ground.....not god

NT wrote:how? it does nothing to stop piracy and it does nothing to help it....so really...its like flat ground.....not god

Actually, it does. In many countries, such as Russia, where games are hard to find, Valve has experienced HUGE drops in piracy rates after a game appeared on Steam. There are many honest people out there who would love to give to the people who create their games, but otherwise had no way of doing so.

You're right though. Steam does nothing to stop ass holes like you from pirating just for the sake of pirating.