OnLive CEO On Post-Launch Status, Game Licenses 121
CNET has a lengthy interview with OnLive CEO Steve Perlman about how the service is shaping up almost a month after launch. Demand seems to have outstripped their expectations, and it required some quick server expansion to compensate. He also addresses a common concern among gamers — that the licenses for games could expire in three years. Perlman says, "It's less of an issue about the licenses evaporating, and more of an issue of whether or not we continue to maintain the operating systems and the graphics cards to run those games. If a game is tied to a particular Nvidia or ATI card, or if it's relying on a particular version of Windows with different drivers, we can't be sure that those will continue to be available as our servers age and need to be replaced. If it's a popular game that can't run on old hardware anymore, the publishers can do an upgrade for the game. Also, servers usually do last longer than three years, so chances are we'll keep running them. But we have a legal obligation to disclose what might happen. I think the probability of us pulling a game in three years is on the order of 0.1 percent. It's also highly unlikely that a game server will evaporate after three years, but we have to allow for that possibility." He also goes into future plans for expanding OnLive, both in terms of the content they offer and the devices they may support. The Digital Foundry blog followed up the latency tests we discussed with a full review, if you'd like an unbiased opinion of the service.
Re:Is it just me? (Score:2, Interesting)
Bandwidth required - 2.5 Gb / hour (so the average UK broadband customer would exceed their monthly allowance in less than 10-15 hours a month).
This is why I support them. I have no interest in the platform for myself, for similar reasons to many of the other /.ers, but if OnLive take off, then ISPs will have to increase their capacity to keep up with their demands.
Re:Utter crap (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes.
That one.
I mean if we want to cherry pick comments.
Just how much are you being paid for your comments today?
Let's quote a little more since you seemed to miss it.
In other words, it's a joke.
So yes, it does sound like a complete and utter failure.
and hey who could forget the paragraph immediately after what you quoted
So again, how much you being paid to astroturf?
Look at the big picture (Score:1, Interesting)
Comcast, AT&T and Cox **LOVE** this service / the idea of this service.
Get rid of net neutrality.
Sell different levels / quality of internet services (add this as a "Gamers pack")
Profit!
ISP then Subsidize OnLive so it can charge lower fees, OnLive profits.
Game companies release exclusive titles / blockbusters on OnLive, thereby reducing piracy in the industry, game companies profit.
Basically it's about control, and the ISP's will keep this service running. They only want big businesses to run games (I.E. *NO* home servers hosting or running a game). Think of how much Cox would love it if they could force Activision to pay a fee to let consumers connect to WoW? Or how AT&T would need money from EA Games to allow people to connect to the latest Battlefield game? This service stinks, but it's where the big ISP's want things to go. They also want in on the ground floor with OnLive (and subsidizing them) so they have more control over it than Steam.
Re:Utter crap (Score:3, Interesting)