backtop


Print 10 comment(s) - last by ThePooBurner.. on Jun 21 at 10:36 AM

OnLive Founding Members get a free year

Gaming is a huge business and many companies sell the hardware at a loss to get the software business on the back end. This is how Sony positioned the PS3 for a long time, though with each successive update Sony inches closer to profitability with the console.

The future of video games may not center around a console or a PC, assuming the gaming hoards have access to the internet at speeds to prevent lag and poor graphics with cloud-based offerings such as OnLive.

OnLive is advertising a Founding Members program that offers a free year of service to those who quality. After the first year of service, there member will be able to buy a second year of service at $4.95 per month on a month-to-month basis. OnLive states no purchase is necessary for the free year, but those chosen for the free year will have to put a credit card on file.

The free year is subject to availability and only a limited number of spots are offered in different regions of America. At launch OnLive will offer over 20 game titles including Assassin’s Creed 2, Prince of Persia: The Forgotten Sands and Tom Clancy’s Splinter Cell: Conviction from Ubisoft; Mass Effect 2 and Dragon Age: Origins from Electronic Arts; Batman: Arkham Asylum and Just Cause 2 from Square Enix; Borderlands, NBA 2K10 and MLB 2K10 from Take Two; Red Faction: Guerilla from THQ; Fear 2: Project Origin from Warner Bros. Interactive Games.

The service will get new games "constantly" according to OnLive.

OnLive was first demonstrated back at GDC2009. The service promises to stream high-end games from cloud servers to low end PCs and straight to TVs. Games that are offered on the service are some of the more graphically impressive titles that have been launched over the last few years. OnLive promises that the games can be streamed in up to 720p resolution at 60 fps. However, some early reviews of the service found issues with lag.

In September of 2009, OnLive secured additional funding to complete the back-end systems needed to host the games and announced that it was nearing a beta offering.





Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Hate to sound skeptical...
By Redwin on 6/18/2010 9:22:06 AM , Rating: 5
But if you're just seeing a streaming video, and the game is running on a cloud server, isn't some amount of lag between your controller input and the game receiving it and processing it inevitable? That's to say nothing of the return trip lag for the streaming video to get to your screen and let you see the effect of your input.

I'm sure it would work fine for some types of games, but for FPS's and particularly things like Guitar Hero, where even a few ms of lag from your TV's video processing is noticeable; I just don't see it being playable.

I'd love to be proven wrong though. $5 a month is awfully reasonable.




RE: Hate to sound skeptical...
By nafhan on 6/18/2010 9:39:55 AM , Rating: 2
I'd imagine it'll work OK for at least some people or they wouldn't be launching the service at all. At $5 a month, it'll have to be really bad for me to not at least give it a try.
Your experience will probably come down to how close you are to the nearest datacenter and your ISP. If you're the one with high ping times in online games, there's probably a good chance you'll have trouble with this, too.


By Patrick Canney on 6/18/2010 2:21:46 PM , Rating: 3
It is mitigated via a deal with local ISP's and On Live servers. So your lag is cut, but it still isn't the same as a local console/pc.

Still, I don't think it will have that bad an impact on lag compared to multi-player games we're already used to. Your controller input still has to get to the server, and the server is where it all happens anyway.

What concerns me most is a subscription model for on demand gaming, and how much it will cost. Essentially they are cutting out retail and downloadable content, so what do we actually own except some on demand gaming box.


A couple of things...
By MeesterNid on 6/18/2010 9:46:26 AM , Rating: 2
The service has "launched", but it's apparently something more of a protracted closed beta since there is no way to create an account or use it at this point.

I also thought I saw somewhere that the fee you'd pay for it was on top of having to buy a game license for the game(s) you want to play and that the Onlive fee was purely for their game streaming service. In that case it would make it much less compelling.




RE: A couple of things...
By ThePooBurner on 6/21/2010 10:36:04 AM , Rating: 2
As if playing a game at 720p on my 1080p monitor wasn't un compelling enough? Who wants to play games in streamed 720p? I like to play my games with every bell and whistle turned up so i can see the game it was meant to be played by the developers.


Lag concerns were not a factor in Beta
By Red Storm on 6/18/2010 6:57:51 PM , Rating: 2
I got to try OnLive during it's beta run, and I was definitely expecting some noticeable lag while gaming. However, I experienced no lag at all during the many times I tried it. It was pretty cool being able to play Crysis on a Bootcamp MacBook while still having good graphics. It's definitely a service aimed at those who do not have high end video cards or high resolution screens.

However, I personally don't see myself using OnLive much. I'm the kind of guy who buys a few games each year and plays & replays the hell out of them for a good while. Also, I love modding and that's just not possible with OnLive.

That being said, it definitely is a cool service, all they need is more games and a cheaper price (I may try and get in on this free for a year deal).




By ET on 6/20/2010 7:52:30 AM , Rating: 2
I think it'd be really appealing if it could allow games on netbooks via wifi. The current technical FAQ says that the service requires a wired network and a dual core CPU, though it does say that wifi is technically possible, and I remember there being a promise to go down to 1.5Mbps in the future.

I find the idea of an instant on game on any device really appealing, it's just that I want it to work reasonably even under suboptimal conditions. I don't mind losing some quality even just to be able to play a game on a netbook at a fast food restaurant or wherever.


By BubbaJoe TBoneMalone on 6/18/2010 9:42:30 AM , Rating: 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zpFzpF0msrU

If would be great if you can connect a controller instead of using the virtual controller.




Waiting List
By lukasbradley on 6/19/2010 8:47:21 AM , Rating: 2
In my book, starting a waiting list isn't the same thing as launching.




By skyyspam on 6/19/2010 7:28:15 AM , Rating: 1
There's simply no getting around their latency issue. I don't want to press the FIRE button, and wait .8 seconds to see the results. Internet + CPU latency = DEATH for OnLive.

Nevermind their crappy video quality...

Nevermind having to pay for a subscription AND...
-Having to pay for the games themselves...

Simply put, I'll pay for games via Steam. I can download the game, install it, and play it at my leisure, whether or not I'm connected to the internet.

If steam won't let me play offline, that's OK. I'll just download the game via some other method, and play it offline without digital content protection. Fuck humoring anyone.




"Google fired a shot heard 'round the world, and now a second American company has answered the call to defend the rights of the Chinese people." -- Rep. Christopher H. Smith (R-N.J.)

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki