10325640
story
Comments: 316 + - Apple: OnLive Remote Gaming Service Launches In June on Wednesday March 10 2010, @07:08PM
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicapple.gif); width:52px; height:64px;
apple
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicgamespcgames.gif); width:60px; height:78px;
pcgames
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicinternet.gif); width:70px; height:73px;
internet
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicgames.gif); width:68px; height:77px;
games
adeelarshad82 writes "After eight years of development, remote gaming service OnLive is scheduled to roll out on June 17 for Windows and Mac. The company also announced its service pricing: users will need to pay $14.95 per month, which will allow them access to the service. However, the company did not disclose the price to rent or purchase games. 'It is partnering in this launch with publishers including Electronic Arts, Ubisoft, 2K Games, THQ and Warner Bros. Interactive Entertainment. The games will also include new releases like Mass Effect 2, Borderlands, Assassin’s Creed II, as well as a bunch of other titles. Perlman anticipates anywhere from a dozen to 25 titles to be available at launch time, and more after that, depending on how negotiations with other publishers proceed.'"
Related Stories
Why be difficult when, with a bit of effort, you could be impossible?
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2010 Geeknet, Inc.
Hmmm ... (Score:2, Informative)
I wonder how long before one of those partners throws a tantrum and pulls the plug in one (or all) of its servers when it doesn't get what it wants?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
What reviews of service? Stop spreading your garbage FUD. There were no reviews allowed due to the NDA for beta users.
The only review I ever read was done by a guy who wasn't authorized to use the service, using a friend's account, and played from twice the recommended distance to one of the game servers.
Half the time the servers refused to let him on because his lag was too high. And yet despite being 2000 miles away and being constantly warned of poor performance and lag by the servers, he *still*
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
What reviews of service? Stop spreading your garbage FUD. There were no reviews allowed due to the NDA for beta users.
The only review I ever read was done by a guy who wasn't authorized to use the service, using a friend's account, and played from twice the recommended distance to one of the game servers.
Half the time the servers refused to let him on because his lag was too high. And yet despite being 2000 miles away and being constantly warned of poor performance and lag by the servers, he *still* had a positive experience with several of the games.
These beta testers [arstechnica.com] disagree with you. Not FUD, Fact.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
We heard from many beta testers after our story went live, but few were willing to speak on the record... for the obvious reasons. One user did agree to give us his take on the service, provided we keep his anonymity.
Good job buddy. Keep up the excellent sleuth work.
What a steal! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What a steal! (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't think you understand that publishers have a much greater incentive to discount their titles just like they do on Valve's steam. You don't seem to realize that in retail the tail end of a game title's sales curve is completely leeched by used game companies like gamestop, who undercut retail prices by 50% and reap all the profits for essentially doing nothing.
As people have seen with Steam, when the companies don't have to contend with Gamestop they can lower their prices to very low levels to stimulate sales, knowing that they won't simply be undercut by used game stores.
Parent
Re:What a steal! (Score:5, Interesting)
None of that income goes to the primary market. People do not buy more "new" games because they've sold more used games. The budget rationale of human beings is not so rational. In addition the ones who buy used games are looking for good deals and cheaper-than-retail prices. Since Gamestop can *always* undercut retail no matter what retail is priced at, game publishers lose a huge chunk of profit to Gamestop. Again, this is why publishers are willing to price extremely popular games like Bioshock at $5 on Steam, but not at retail.
Game publishers have agonized over their sales data and research for a very long time. It's a phenomenon that has been pushing more and more of them into participating into a service like Steam, despite it being run, controlled, and ultimately monetized by a competitor.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
None of that income goes to the primary market.
The primary market already got its money on the first go-around. The primary market has no right to any income.
People do not buy more "new" games because they've sold more used games.
[Citation needed]
In addition the ones who buy used games are looking for good deals and cheaper-than-retail prices.
People always look for deals. What's your point?
Since Gamestop can *always* undercut retail no matter what retail is priced at, game publishers lose a huge chunk of profit to Gamestop.
You're missing numbers. There's a limit to how low Gamestop can go, as it has retail overhead. Furthermore, your "huge chunk of profit" is complete conjecture. Not to mention that it is complete conjecture over the price of an item YOU HAVE ALREADY BEEN PAID FOR.
Again, this is why publishers are willing to price extremely popular games like Bioshock at $5 on Steam, but not at retail
[Citation needed] You're also disregarding instant updates, lack of inven
Re: (Score:3)
Welcome to the brave new future.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
You aren't buying games...
OnLive disagrees with you [onlive.com].
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It's the same with Netflix. Unless you are illegally ripping the DVDs. You aren't buying games, you are renting them.
Yes but Netflix only charges a monthly fee, there is no additional fees based on the amount of movies you rent. Except for BluRay, those are just $1 extra tacked onto the rental fee and it isn't per-movie.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Adding blu ray to your account now costs from $2 extra for the 1 disc at a time plan to $5 extra for the 4 disc at a time plan.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
it would be the same as netflix if netflix charged you on a per-movie basis in addition to the monthly fee. this alone will make onlive fail. I have lost *ALL* interest in onlive do to the pricing model, especially now that steam is heading for the mac.
Re:What a steal! (Score:4, Insightful)
It sounds like you are actually buying and renting. 15$ per month covers remote processing charges, not the games themselves.
Considering the data that must flow and the server procs that must run hot, $15 a month doesn't sound crazy. But at those prices, upgrade your darned video card.
Parent
Re:Not the point of onlive (Score:4, Informative)
Instead of you having to upgrade your computer every few years, and having to live with a sub-par gaming machine towards the end of its effective life cycle, onlive's servers will be continually upgraded to keep up with the games.
You are assuming that the onlive experience will be better than a sub-par gaming machine. It won't be.
A $600 desktop will easily be able to run crysis at a higher resolution and a higher frame rate, without the input lag.
Parent
Monthly charges AND per game (Score:5, Insightful)
So I'm paying $15 a month so that I don't need to have a fancy computer to play all the latest games. Except I'm still paying for the games.
So, say a $1000 computer will last me about four years. I'd save about $280 using this service, but I'd have to get all my games through them, I'd only be able to play when my Internet works (wait, are they Ubisoft in disguise?), and the quality of my experience isn't guaranteed to be as good as playing on a copy running off my own machine.
You know what? I'll *pay* that $280, and gladly.
Re:Monthly charges AND per game (Score:5, Interesting)
Lets say you've got $1000 bucks to spend. Internet connection we'll say is ~$30 a month. Thats for decent gaming speeds @ home. In scenario A, you grab a $200 computer and your total billing becomes $45 a month - so ~18 months of gaming.In the other scenario, 18 months of internet connectivity is $540. That leaves you $460 for a new Rig. Not a whole lot to deck out your machine.
Reversely, if you buy an 800$ machine, expecting it to last you 3 years, thats $800 + $540 so $1340 overall. If you buy a $200 machine, expecting to play for 3 years, thats $200 + 1620 so 1820 overall. Saving about 500 bucks. The only factors you as a user have to think about its how long you'll go between upgrades.
This OnLive System appears to work well for those who want to game during summer vacation but Buckle down during the school year - in other words: Short spurts of gaming.
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Four years out of a 1k gaming rig? I'm a cheap bastard, and I still spend $400 a year to keep just above minimum specs for the new engines.
Re: (Score:3)
Four years out of a 1k gaming rig? I'm a cheap bastard, and I still spend $400 a year to keep just above minimum specs for the new engines.
Really? My friend spend about $1000 bucks in 2005 or 2006 for a Quad Core from Intel and has upgraded the Ram Once and it's lasted him this whole time.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Does your friend also have a time machine? Because the first quad core was released Nov 2006, [wikipedia.org] the 2.667ghz Core 2 Extreme QX6700, and it cost $999 just for the processor. [wikipedia.org]. In terms of benchmarks, it's about half the performance [cpubenchmark.net] of a modern $230 i7-930 [microcenter.com].
Quad didn't become popular until the Q6600 was released April 2007 for $266. [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You're doing it wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
If you're paying $400/yr, you're not a cheap bastard. Sorry to shatter your world-view, but you really aren't.
I haven't spent a penny on my computer since 2007, when I upgraded it to what was mid-range then -- and it still runs new games just fine.
The simple fact of the matter is that most games have to run well on current-gen consoles, and current-gen consoles are stuck with 2005-vintage technology. So there's no reason to upgrade beyond a certain point, unless you absolutely have to play with every sing
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
They are what Ubisoft, EA, Activision, et. al. want the gaming world to become. No hard distribution channels, no consoles, no PCs, no DRM to fight with.
You go, buy a box, pay a monthly fee for the service and for the games. They retain 100% control and can fuck with you at will, since you have no recourse. Now you can hack the game. Now you can get a killer deal on the predecessor to the latest HOT SEQUEL and find out it probably sucks (or is awesome, but who cares about -good g
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Monthly charges AND per game (Score:4, Interesting)
You keep saying that and I'd really like to see where you get this information from, i.e. [citation needed].
Buying video games is clearly discretionary (purely entertainment), which means people are going to make such purchases from discretionary income. Selling things second-hand gives people more discretionary spending ability. It seems highly unlikely that at least some portion of this wouldn't go back into buying new games. After all, if they have games to sell, they must have bought them new at some point, right?
Gabe Newell seems to think that pricing isn't all that important. This is in regards to piracy, but it seems reasonable it would hold true for new games, as well: he's certainly not going to be discussing the second-hand market here. Video here [youtube.com] (statement at 5:25).
Also, there seems to be an element of circular logic here: games have to be sold at high retail price because many people aren't willing to pay that and instead buy it second-hand (at a lower price). Presumably this leads to publishers increasing the retail price to make up for the "losses" from the second-hand market, leading even more people to resort to the second-hand market. Nice self-fulfilling prophecy.
I don't think the cheap Steam sales demonstrate any kind of willingness on the part of publishers to lower their prices, given how new-release titles are still just as expensive on Steam (which, to the best of my knowledge, effectively prohibits re-sale). This only seems to happen for products that are effectively obsolete, and as a way to increase exposure for new products (e.g. Bioshock as you mentioned: what better way to get people interested in Bioshock 2 than to have them play Bioshock 1 just before its release?). This is more about the cost structure of digital distribution vs. retail distribution than anything else, i.e. it's actually feasible to sell a game for $5 and make money on it on Steam, whereas packaging and shipping a product and putting it on retail shelves for $5 just isn't going to happen. Retailers who have a large stock paid way more than $5 for it already and won't want to take a loss, and the margins on selling product at that price point would be too small for most publishers to want to bother with.
Parent
Re:Monthly charges AND per game (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I might be. I enjoy games but am far from a hardcore gamer. I've been completely out of the PC gaming world for many years, due to the annoyance of keeping my hardware up to date and my refusal to allow it to be compromised with malware like StarForce. If this service actually works, which I'm still hugely skeptical on, I'd definitely consider it for a reasonable price.
Also it's not really 1280x720 (Score:3, Insightful)
At least not in the same way your computer is. All video on your computer is sent losslessly, 4:4:4 to your monitor. Full colour resolution per pixel, no blocking of any kind, etc. Gives a very sharp image. This? Not so much. You aren't going to get great quality 720p video, even with the highest end codecs like H.264. It'll be ok, but plenty of artifacts (and that's at 30fps not 60). However they can't do H.264, even if they had infinite compression power, it takes a heavy hitter of a system to decompress,
Well good luck to them (Score:5, Interesting)
I just don't see this succeeding, especially after seeing the leaked preview article. The problem is that on top of the cost of the service, you have to have a good net connection. While it uses like 1mbps for the stream, you need more like a 10mbps connection to keep the latency low. Remember that you don't just have to take ping time in to account with data transfer, but the time it takes to transfer all the data. Ok well good connections cost more money and thus aren't so much the domain of the budget user which is their target user. I mean I've got a connection with low ping times and plenty of bandwidth, however I won't be buying since I also have a video card.
Another problem is that because of the compression on the video stream, you are not going to get the highest quality video, no matter what the settings on the host computer are. Part of their selling point is that you get the max quality of new video cards on your current system. No, not really. Looking at the gameplay vids you get more like mid to lowish quality video. Fine, but that isn't nearly so expensive. $100 will get you a video card that will look as good or better than what was shown, and that is not nearly such a barrier for entry.
Yet another problem is that their service requires you to be near one of their data centers, so that pings are low. Fair enough, latency can kill this, but that means their potential user base is less than it would be otherwise. There will be users who want the service and can't have it because their ping is too high. Some may even be near a data center physically, but too far Internet wise.
Finally there's the ever present lag issue. While the test showed some kinds of games to be playable, the lag is there and was noticeable in relation to a native system.
I just don't see this as having a big enough market. If they truly could deliver a gaming experience the same as owning a $1500-2000 system over low bandwidth net connections, sure. However they can't. They can (almost) deliver the experience of owning a $500 system with a $100 graphics card added on over a moderate bandwidth net connection to some areas.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Well good luck to them (Score:4, Informative)
Ars is citing the PC perspective article. That was the stupidest article to be citing, because the guy who wrote it wasn't authorized to use the beta, and was 2000 miles (twice the allowed 1000 mile maximum distance) from a game server. The service constantly warned him about huge lag issues and sometimes wouldn't even let him log on.
The author of the ars article, Ben Kuchera, purposely never mentioned this and made some hand-waving comments about how he'd round up some beta users who had negative comments about the service. Seriously, he never did. The entire ars article was totally unprofessional, and the PC Per article was repeatedly debunked as being worthless.
The fact that you're still spreading this FUD speaks to how you've already pre-judged the service and aren't interested in doing actual research or waiting for an unbiased and accurate review to find out what it might be like.
Parent
Greetings OnLive Shill/Fanboy (Score:3)
The reason why people aren't "doing actual research" is because OnLive doesn't allow it. They are being very locked down about the process. As such people have to get what they can get. If OnLive doesn't like it they are more than welcome to stop being dicks and open the service up to review services.
However, I suspect they know it isn't that great and are hoping to catch as many people as possible on launch day based on hype.
Don't like it? Then go tell OnLive (or the relevant person, if you work for them)
Re:Greetings OnLive Shill/Fanboy (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry but I do understand how it works, because I understand networking and video compression both very well. That's all it does. Input from the player's PC is sent to the OnLive servers, the game does with it what it will, the resulting image stream is then compressed and sent to the client PC.
As for ping time and bandwidth mattering if you don't understand, it means you don't understand networking. So, a ping is more or less a small (or zero) payload packet that you send to a server and get a response. Very low overhead. It represents minimum round-trip transit time. Meaning if you have a ping of, say 100ms, your computer will start receiving data from the server not less than 100ms from making the request. Ok, all well and good. However real data isn't 0 bytes. There is an actual data stream to transfer before you can use it. You have to get all the data. How fast that happens depends on the speed of your connection. so suppose your payload is 100kbits. On a 56k modem, it would take about 1800ms to transfer which with a 100ms ping would mean 1900ms from the time a request was sent. On a 1mbps connection, it would take only 100ms to transfer, total of 200ms. On a 100mbps connection it would take 1ms to transfer, 101ms total.
As such both ping AND transfer rate play in to what kind of lag you get with actual data.
That is one of the reasons why they are saying you need a bigger connection than the actual data stream, other wise the transfer of the video would add too much lag.
Sorry if you want this thing to be great, but there are real issues of the Internet and so on that they are contending with, things that PR speak can't make go away. You can't magically tell someone's connection to have less lag.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yes, I have watched video before. Here's something to try: Watch a video and then click the seek bar to a part you haven't downloaded yet. What happens? Lag. Your computer asks for the data, but it doesn't have it right away. As such your playback stalls until it can download the data it needs.
Same deal here. Yes, there will be video streaming continuously. The question of lag is how soon do I see video of my actions? I press a button, that press has to be sent to the server, processed, the screen compresse
Re:Greetings OnLive Shill/Fanboy (Score:5, Informative)
Dude, are you seriously...? Your description of lag is utterly idiotic. You obviously don't have a clue what you're talking about. With onlive you're basically streaming *video* and uploading your controller or keyboard inputs. Have you never watched a video before? Have you ever netflixed before? As for sending inputs it's the same as playing any game online.
It's not as simple as just 'streaming video'. Video is already complete and is just waiting to be sent. This is a game which needs to react and respond to your input. Your data needs to be sent to their server, which needs to process it, generate the game's response and send that back to you. Since turning your character makes the entire POV of the game move you've got to redraw everything at a full screen resolution high enough to make it a quality gaming experience. It's simply gonna suck.
Taking into consideration the amount of CPU & GPU cycles the games listed in the article take, there will definitely be lag and stuttering and crappy frame rates and all the other stuff you get when your desktop computer doesn't have enough horsepower to play your game of choice.
Better update your resume because OnLive will be DOA before you know it. I sure hope they aren't trying to get people to buy annual subscriptions.
Parent
Re:Greetings OnLive Shill/Fanboy (Score:4, Informative)
It is not the same as playing other games online, the local client has many tricks to make lag less noticeable, this device will not be able to do that.
If you have a 50ms ping time, you will have 50ms between button press and action taking place. Lots of fun to play an fps that way, and forget about competing against folks with real computers.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
One review site that got sued for posting thoughts about the beta of OnLive basically said that the latency from the time you input a command to the time it shows up on the screen made 1st/3rd person shooter type games entirely unplayable. You would "overshoot" your target when trying to aim at something, and that problem is not solvable, end of story. REAL gaming systems render the client side with virtually zero latency from the controller, so when you let go of the thumbstick your cursor stops NOW. The O
guaranteed failure (Score:5, Insightful)
This will join cue-cat, divx, and broadcast.com in the tomb of ideas that suckered investors yet were non-movers in the marketplace.
Seth
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah... they might be just about competitive against PCs, but on a 4-5 year console lifespan they're not even in the same ballpark...
Cloud Computing (Score:5, Insightful)
I can't wait for this newest bubble to burst. Thin clients haven't really been embraced for office apps where 95% of the functionality can run in the browser and it will work reasonably well. How can you expect to compete with native apps on PCs where performance is cheaply had so long as you don't need to run at the highest settings...or on consoles which look almost as good? The problem for game companies is that many folks have realized that they can play year old games on cheap new hardware to great effect...after the game is reduced to 50%.
I don't see the market niche. Hardcore gamers won't touch it. Casual gamers will baulk at the $15/month by in BEFORE you get the privilege to buy/rent a game. So, who will want this unless the games are steeply discounted? $180/year could be well spent on local hardware upgrades.
Re:Cloud Computing (Score:4, Insightful)
I can't wait for this newest bubble to burst. Thin clients haven't really been embraced for office apps where 95% of the functionality can run in the browser and it will work reasonably well. How can you expect to compete with native apps on PCs where performance is cheaply had so long as you don't need to run at the highest settings...or on consoles which look almost as good? The problem for game companies is that many folks have realized that they can play year old games on cheap new hardware to great effect...after the game is reduced to 50%.
I don't see the market niche. Hardcore gamers won't touch it. Casual gamers will baulk at the $15/month by in BEFORE you get the privilege to buy/rent a game. So, who will want this unless the games are steeply discounted? $180/year could be well spent on local hardware upgrades.
Besides ... they'll have to contend with Valve's Steam.
Parent
Steam is different (Score:2)
Steam just sells you games to play on your system. You buy a game, Steam downloads it to your computer, and you run it. The idea with Online is that they run the game. You just have a little video playerish client that you use. You don't need to have hardware that can run the game.
Both online services, but different ideas. Onlive is for people who want to play games on a low end system. Steam is for people who want to play games on their computer, but can't find their pants to go to the store and buy them.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
but can't find their pants to go to the store and buy them.
Thank GOD for steam!
Broadband Cap? (Score:5, Interesting)
Has anyone heard how much this will eat into broadband cap?
and what internet speed is needed to play?
Their is one thing I know, I would not want to be stuck with a game that I cannot play till the start of a new month because I decided to watch a few youtube videos.
Mayday! Mayday! (Score:3, Interesting)
Do not want (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm probably missing something here, but why would I want to pay $15 for the privledge of buying software from OnLive?
Re: (Score:2)
you're not buying anything.
you're playing the games remotely.
the games are running remotely. hehe. As if that will ever work.
You're paying to play them remotely. No word on if rentals will cost anything over your monthly fee.
Seems doomed to epic failure.
a option for the ipad perhaps (Score:3, Funny)
Not a WOW player, would WOW be playable on a ipad using this service? WOW players are used to subscription services, whats a extra $14.95 a month if you can play WOW in the bath.
Can I HomeBrew this? (Score:5, Interesting)
If these companies are achieving moderate detail over the internet, how can I accomplish this on my LAN?
Re:What is this? (Score:5, Informative)
Parent