Sorry your browser is not supported!

You are using an outdated browser that does not support modern web technologies, in order to use this site please update to a new browser.

Browsers supported include Chrome, FireFox, Safari, Opera, Internet Explorer 10+ or Microsoft Edge.

Geek Culture / The future of gaming! (No, really)

Author
Message
Pus In Boots
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Nov 2005
Location: S.M.I.L.E. industries
Posted: 24th Mar 2009 22:33
Link
Stop whatever you're doing and go over to IGN right now. There's an article about something called OnLive. Here's the link:

http://uk.pc.ign.com/articles/965/965535p1.html

Read it, but it's basically a server-based next-gen PC gaming service that let's their servers stream games like Crysis to your computer with no downloads!

Seriously, HUGE multiplayer shooter just weeks away!
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Robert F
User Banned
Posted: 24th Mar 2009 22:39
Link
That would have the worst lag in the world. Its pretty much pointless to. To play in HD you have to have a 5.0mb connection. I used to have 6, but now I have 75kb/s. I can plug that into my 360 and play without lag in HD


shes a brick HOUSE!
Back to top
Profile
Alucard94
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Jul 2007
Location: Stockholm, Sweden.
Posted: 24th Mar 2009 22:43 Edited at: 24th Mar 2009 22:45
Link
Quote: "A handful of us have played the game, at its highest settings, on a MacBook Air with the service. Not only is the game not normally available on the Mac (outside of running Boot Camp), but the MacBook Air is hardly a gaming device, and yet we were able to hop in and play it as smoothly as a nicely-specced machine."

That is pretty amazing I'm not going to lie. But wouldn't this just generally be quite pricey since they'd need a whole bunch of servers just to stream from? And honestly, if this works and is supported by everyone, it'll remove piracy and allow anyone to play any game and such and such, isn't it just worth getting a new internet connection? (If available of course)


Alucard94, the member of the future of the past.
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
NeX the Fairly Fast Ferret
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 10th Apr 2005
Location: The Fifth Plane of Oblivion
Posted: 24th Mar 2009 22:47
Link
I had a similar idea a few years back. I had no idea the internet could possibly be fast enough for it to be even playable though.

Back to top
Profile PM Website
Gil Galvanti
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 22nd Dec 2004
Location: Texas, United States
Posted: 24th Mar 2009 22:53 Edited at: 24th Mar 2009 22:57
Link
Wow, looks like an awesome idea, hopefully they can pull it off. What I don't understand is how they would have the computing power necessary to run an instance of the game for every person playing, because isn't that what they'd have to do?

EDIT: Maybe people should actually read the article.
Quote: "The current solution only introduces one millisecond of lag to encode the video, which alone is completely unnoticeable to you."


Not sure why people are acting like the developers haven't thought this through...

Quote: "Its pretty much pointless to. To play in HD you have to have a 5.0mb connection. I used to have 6, but now I have 75kb/s. I can plug that into my 360 and play without lag in HD"

I think you're forgetting about the fact that you don't have to buy a console or disc in the first place for this to work, so it's not exactly pointless...


Back to top
Profile PM Website
Satchmo
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 29th May 2005
Location:
Posted: 24th Mar 2009 22:54 Edited at: 24th Mar 2009 23:00
Link
Quote: "I had a similar idea a few years back. I had no idea the internet could possibly be fast enough for it to be even playable though."


Only 1.5MBps is required for SD, and though not as common, there are still some people who could stream the HD mode for games.

Edit: But Gil, it's not like every person who signed up for the service would be playing at the same time, and as well, every time someone purchases a game, more power would be payed for by that user.

Back to top
Profile PM
NeX the Fairly Fast Ferret
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 10th Apr 2005
Location: The Fifth Plane of Oblivion
Posted: 24th Mar 2009 22:58
Link
Quote: "because isn't that what they'd have to do?"


You'd only have to run the physics engine once instead of once for each player, for a start. I don't know enough about 3D to say but I'm guessing a lot of optimisation could be done there too. You could probably shave 60% of the total workload off doing this.

Back to top
Profile PM Website
Zdrok
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 19th Dec 2006
Location: Pittsburgh
Posted: 24th Mar 2009 23:31
Link
This seems like a nice idea. I would possibly buy it.

Wouldn't you have to buy the games, though?

Yinzes better redd up this room and I'll buy us some jumbo.
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Gil Galvanti
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 22nd Dec 2004
Location: Texas, United States
Posted: 24th Mar 2009 23:46
Link
Quote: "You'd only have to run the physics engine once instead of once for each player, for a start. I don't know enough about 3D to say but I'm guessing a lot of optimisation could be done there too. You could probably shave 60% of the total workload off doing this."

True, but even if they cut it down to 1% of the total workload, that would still be a lot. Say you had 10,000 people playing a game at one time, you'd still need the computing power of 100 good computers, and that's just for one game.

Quote: "Wouldn't you have to buy the games, though?"

Obviously, it's not like if you bought the system they'd give you all the games too.


Back to top
Profile PM Website
Benjamin
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 24th Nov 2002
Location: France
Posted: 25th Mar 2009 00:02
Link
This is a good idea, I like a good 10 frames of delay before pressing forwards has any effect. It'll be just like in the good old days before games started using client-side prediction.

Multisync - TCP Server/Client Multiplayer Plugin (DBP/DBCe)
Back to top
Profile PM Email
AaronG
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 28th Oct 2006
Location: Millstone, NJ
Posted: 25th Mar 2009 00:06
Link
I don't like this... I don't like not being able to have a hard copy, and also what would happen with the modding industry? (assuming this took over of course)

In a way it's nice, but I like my computer because I built it, so since I did that work, shouldn't I reap the benefits of playing games? Haha.


Click above to sign up for the Axifer Designs Dev-Team!
Back to top
Profile PM Email
RalphY
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 6th Sep 2004
Location: 404 (UK)
Posted: 25th Mar 2009 00:12
Link
Would be no good for me, it's often slow just to load web pages here, let alone streaming gaming.

Quote: "You'd only have to run the physics engine once instead of once for each player"

How so? If I'm playing level one of Super Physics Deluxe and your playing level 2, it would still need two instances of the physics engine.


Oh boy! Sleep! That's when I'm a Viking! | Super Nintendo Chalmers!
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
NeX the Fairly Fast Ferret
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 10th Apr 2005
Location: The Fifth Plane of Oblivion
Posted: 25th Mar 2009 00:20
Link
Quote: "How so?"


Well, in multiplayer games at least...

Back to top
Profile PM Website
Satchmo
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 29th May 2005
Location:
Posted: 25th Mar 2009 00:24 Edited at: 25th Mar 2009 00:26
Link
Quote: "This is a good idea, I like a good 10 frames of delay before pressing forwards has any effect. It'll be just like in the good old days before games started using client-side prediction.
"

Obviously these would not be viable for someone with 500ms of latency, but someone with dial up or an evdo connection wouldn't be playing online games much anyways.

Back to top
Profile PM
Fallout
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 1st Sep 2002
Location: Basingstoke, England
Posted: 25th Mar 2009 00:27
Link
Actually, there is a serious difficulty in multiplayer physics engines, in lining them up. It's always really tricky to get two physics engines on separate machines doing the same thing, so both machines are consistent, and both players see the same effects. This would certainly solve that issue.

For multiplayer games, you would just have 1 single game instance, and then just render a camera view for each player. In theory, games like battlefield would have one game instance running, and output the HUDs and camera viewpoints for upto 64 players. It'd be much quicker than running 64 instances for the CPU (upto 64 times quicker), but the GPUs are still going to take the same sort of kicking.


Back to top
Profile PM
NeX the Fairly Fast Ferret
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 10th Apr 2005
Location: The Fifth Plane of Oblivion
Posted: 25th Mar 2009 00:36
Link
You might also be able to shed a load of headaches needed for verifying gamedata I.E. PunkBuster.

Back to top
Profile PM Website
Van B
Moderator
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Oct 2002
Location: Sunnyvale
Posted: 25th Mar 2009 00:47
Link
I think it's certainly the way forward for online shooters, I mean we already have Quake3 online, and BF Heroes online at some point in the future as well. It would be nice to have some real physics in a multiplayer game for a change, should be quite interesting if it takes off.

For single player games though I'd much rather have my own copy, no chance of lag, no extra cost. One other aspect could be that they use this to provide demo versions with no hassle, like play the demo online instead of downloading it. The advertising revenue in that sort of thing would be huge, imagine being able to go try some brand new games in your lunch break on any old cruddy PC you have at hand.


Health, Ammo, and bacon and eggs!
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Michael P
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 6th Mar 2006
Location: London (UK)
Posted: 25th Mar 2009 01:13
Link
Its a great idea but ahead of its time. Real download speeds just haven't improved enough for this to become hugely successful. I get around 150kb/s
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Pus In Boots
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Nov 2005
Location: S.M.I.L.E. industries
Posted: 25th Mar 2009 01:15 Edited at: 25th Mar 2009 01:15
Link
Quote: "
Wouldn't you have to buy the games, though?
"


You don't buy your games now?

To those whining about lag, the article says lag will not be a problem if your internet connection is good enough. If it's not, then you can hardly blame them for the resulting lag.

and Michael, there are no downloads involved.

"shoot at all the scripters you want, but remember that it is a sin to kill a programmer."
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Satchmo
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 29th May 2005
Location:
Posted: 25th Mar 2009 01:18
Link
Quote: "Its a great idea but ahead of its time. Real download speeds just haven't improved enough for this to become hugely successful. I get around 150kb/s"


That might just be the cap set by websites you download from, not your actual speed.

Quote: "and Michael, there are no downloads involved."


Yeah but streaming lossless had content from the net is no walk in the park when it comes to internet speeds.

Back to top
Profile PM
flashing snall
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Oct 2005
Location: Boston
Posted: 25th Mar 2009 01:29
Link
Thats pretty amazing. It seems like something not of this world...


I wish I had access to board 17.
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Benjamin
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 24th Nov 2002
Location: France
Posted: 25th Mar 2009 02:05 Edited at: 25th Mar 2009 02:07
Link
Urg.

Quote: "Obviously these would not be viable for someone with 500ms of latency, but someone with dial up or an evdo connection wouldn't be playing online games much anyways."

I'd be annoyed with even 50ms of delay, and I rarely get such low latency even when playing games on servers very close to me.

Quote: "
To those whining about lag, the article says lag will not be a problem if your internet connection is good enough."

It's nothing to do with how good your connection is, it's about the distance between you and the server and how fast the data is going to be able to traverse that distance.

Multisync - TCP Server/Client Multiplayer Plugin (DBP/DBCe)
Back to top
Profile PM Email
BMacZero
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 30th Dec 2005
Location: E:/ NA / USA
Posted: 25th Mar 2009 03:13 Edited at: 25th Mar 2009 03:14
Link
Quote: "it's about the distance between you and the server and how fast the data is going to be able to traverse that distance."


Which should be about the speed of light in a few years, at the current rate things are going . And at that speed, a round-trip from New York to Moscow takes about 0.05 seconds (5 ms of delay good enough for you?)

Sounds like a great idea to me, I do agree however that 1.5 Mb/s is a bit unreasonable for most people.



Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Benjamin
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 24th Nov 2002
Location: France
Posted: 25th Mar 2009 03:17
Link
Quote: "And at that speed, a round-trip from New York to Moscow takes about 0.05 seconds (5 ms of delay good enough for you?)"

Hmm... 5ms round-trip between New York and Moscow? I'll believe it when I see it.

Multisync - TCP Server/Client Multiplayer Plugin (DBP/DBCe)
Back to top
Profile PM Email
BMacZero
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 30th Dec 2005
Location: E:/ NA / USA
Posted: 25th Mar 2009 03:27
Link
Uh..'scuze me, that's actually 50 ms. Bad math on my part. Still, that is going halfway around the globe. With servers on the same continent it would be much less.



Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
dark coder
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 6th Oct 2002
Location: Japan
Posted: 25th Mar 2009 03:54
Link
Quote: "It's always really tricky to get two physics engines on separate machines doing the same thing, so both machines are consistent, and both players see the same effects. This would certainly solve that issue."


But this same 'advantage' can also be applied to the current way most games work. I.e. the server could just send realtime snapshots of the complete scene for every frame, you thus get identical physics to what the server can see(thus allowing 'real physics'), but more importantly you save an amazing amount of bandwidth. Besides, this method isn't really that far off what many games do these days, they just don't send physics snapshots for every frame(though they do send a lot). Assuming enough packets are sent and your latency is fairly low you shouldn't be able to notice the difference, especially with client-side simulation of it as well.

The main advantage is that it stops cheating/hacking as the clients have no direct access to the program so any aimbots and such would have to be incredibly advanced. The second, less important advantage is that clients wouldn't need good hardware, but this just shifts the problem elsewhere as the server would need to be amazingly fast. But other than these it's just a long list of disadvantages; As Ben points out, this is pretty much a step back in time to where there was no client-side input prediction, you wouldn't be able to play with people on the other side of the world smoothly, you'd have a fixed amount of delay between your inputs and what you see.

Back to top
Profile PM Email
Drew Cameron
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 30th Jan 2004
Location: Scotland
Posted: 25th Mar 2009 05:19
Link
I really dont see how this is going to profitable for the people running the service.

1 game running = 1 computer power required + bandwidth + electricity and running costs.

£40 or whatever people will pay per game...I dont see it covering it to be honest.

And I really dont see a huge advantage over hard copies the more I think about it, UNLESS they develop games that require amazing computing power to take advantage of this technology.

Imagine GTA 4 or something with film quality graphics done on a super computer (extreme example), and you could play it on a notebook...

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
RedneckRambo
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 19th Oct 2006
Location: Worst state in USA... California
Posted: 25th Mar 2009 06:00
Link
This is awesome. Would be so sweet if they can pull it off.

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Jeku
Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Jul 2003
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Posted: 25th Mar 2009 06:01
Link
What you guys are assuming is they'd make custom games for this device. I was picturing a server farm with thousands of instances of the game, each isolated from the other. That way they can have games that already exist, and the only bottleneck is the latency with the controls and the download speed.

North Korea 2007 Tour Pictures
Back to top
Profile PM Website
Gil Galvanti
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 22nd Dec 2004
Location: Texas, United States
Posted: 25th Mar 2009 06:08 Edited at: 25th Mar 2009 06:10
Link
Quote: "This is a good idea, I like a good 10 frames of delay before pressing forwards has any effect. It'll be just like in the good old days before games started using client-side prediction."

I don't understand why it's so difficult for people to understand the concept of 1 millisecond of delay, as quoted in the article. 1 millisecond != 10 frames, 1 millisecond = 1.6 frames at 60FPS, not even noticeable to the human eye. You are also all assuming that connection speed technology will not change when it's improving rapidly.

This is developed by professionals who know what they are doing, it's not a post by someone who's never touched game dev before on WIP Board with nothing to show. Already major companies such as EA and Ubisoft are taking interest in it and planning on releasing their games through it. It's like people are just trying to find something wrong with it.


Back to top
Profile PM Website
Benjamin
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 24th Nov 2002
Location: France
Posted: 25th Mar 2009 06:14 Edited at: 25th Mar 2009 06:16
Link
Quote: "I don't understand why it's so difficult for people to understand the concept of 1 millisecond of delay, as quoted in the article. 1 millisecond != 10 frames, 1 millisecond = 1.6 frames at 60FPS, not even noticeable to the human eye."

Good one, 1ms latency (well actually technically 0.5ms latency would be 1ms of delay, but the figure is ridiculously unrealistic anyway).

Multisync - TCP Server/Client Multiplayer Plugin (DBP/DBCe)
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Gil Galvanti
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 22nd Dec 2004
Location: Texas, United States
Posted: 25th Mar 2009 06:16
Link
Quote: "Good one, 1ms latency. "

Did you read the article?

Quote: "The first step in this was creating a video compression algorithm that was as quick as possible. The current solution only introduces one millisecond of lag to encode the video, which alone is completely unnoticeable to you. Obviously, a fast internet connection is required on your end to stream the gameplay video."


Do you really think they haven't thought something as obvious a problem as lag through after getting this far into the project?


Back to top
Profile PM Website
Benjamin
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 24th Nov 2002
Location: France
Posted: 25th Mar 2009 06:25
Link
Oops, just re-read it and noticed it said that about just the video compression, which isn't an issue. The delay between the feedback of user commands is going to be a large issue for the majority of people, though.

I'm sure they have thought of it, but I really don't believe it's feasible just yet. Not on a large scale at least. But it's a nice dream for developers, I'm sure.

Multisync - TCP Server/Client Multiplayer Plugin (DBP/DBCe)
Back to top
Profile PM Email
dark coder
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 6th Oct 2002
Location: Japan
Posted: 25th Mar 2009 06:28
Link
Quote: "Did you read the article?"


Did you? The article clearly states the delay is to ENCODE to the video, not ping to the server(how would you even put a fixed figure on that? ).

Quote: "Do you really think they haven't thought something as obvious a problem as lag through after getting this far into the project?"


Oh I'm sure they have, but remember that this solves the issue of PIRACY, and who's heavily backing this? Publishers. Who loses and whines the most about piracy? Publishers. As long as this stops piracy and still allows people to play games I'm sure any publisher would blindly back it.

Back to top
Profile PM Email
Gil Galvanti
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 22nd Dec 2004
Location: Texas, United States
Posted: 25th Mar 2009 06:32
Link
Quote: "Oops, just re-read it and noticed it said that about just the video compression, which isn't an issue. The delay between the feedback of user commands is going to be a large issue for the majority of people, though."

If they released it now it might be, but like I said, connection speeds are rapidly increasing, so within a couple years this might be more feasible on a larger scale.


Back to top
Profile PM Website
Benjamin
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 24th Nov 2002
Location: France
Posted: 25th Mar 2009 06:34
Link
Well I'll believe it when I see it. Yes connection speeds are increasing, but higher bandwidth does not necessarily mean lower latency.

Multisync - TCP Server/Client Multiplayer Plugin (DBP/DBCe)
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Fallout
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 1st Sep 2002
Location: Basingstoke, England
Posted: 25th Mar 2009 10:45
Link
It occurred to me, this is just another example of us soaking up all the new CPU power/bandwidth we develop. Whenever we make a new CPU, we like to make our new coding twice as sloppy, and add 10 extra application layers, and drop all the efficiency we were coding with before. Then we soak up the new cycles, just because they're there, but only provide a mediocre performance increase to the product. This strikes me as being the same sort of thing ... now we're finally getting good quality internet bandwidth, let's use every ounce of it to provide the same service that we can already provide. It'll be mildly better in some respects, but 100 times less bandwidth efficient.

I've just gone off the idea.


Back to top
Profile PM
Toasty Fresh
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 10th Jun 2007
Location: In my office, making poly-eating models.
Posted: 25th Mar 2009 10:50
Link
Quote: "I get around 150kb/s "


Lucky you. I get the same, but evewhen I get capped the service usually goes down a couple days, and then averages at 27kbps.
Back to top
Profile PM Email
The admiral
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 29th Aug 2002
Location:
Posted: 25th Mar 2009 11:59
Link
You wouldn't be able to play if your internet was down or they had technical problems.

The admiral
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Bursar
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 17th Sep 2008
Location:
Posted: 25th Mar 2009 15:18 Edited at: 25th Mar 2009 15:29
Link
I think a lot of you are forgetting about how the internet works. You don't have a connection from your PC directly to the game server.

You connect to your ISP. Your ISP connects to their provider. They connect to the OnLive provider. The OnLive provider connects to the OnLive ISP. The OnLive ISP connects to their server.

Now depending on who you have for your ISP, and who OnLive use, there could be some serious traveling of data occuring.

Major providers have peering agreements with each other, but not all of them peer with the same people in the same place. For instance, my company in the UK has a net connection, and from us it goes to London. We have an office in Stockholm, and their connection is routed from there.

Unfortunately our provider only peers with the Swedish provider in New York. This means that our traffic goes from the office, to London, to New York, to Sweden. That's massive amounts of delay when I'm just trying to remote onto a server there.

Imagine how bad that's going to be if you're trying to play games!

If OnLive can get that sorted, then maybe they have a slim chance of success.

BTW, anyone remember the Phantom? That promised much the same thing and disappeared in a cloud of burnt VC funding.

Edit
Quote: "a 5.0 mbps connection is required for HD (720p)"

So presumably that means that 1280x720 is the max res that games will run at? You're not likely to have access to the Options menu where you can monkey around with the various graphical effects available in the game either.

Quote: "OnLive is hoping that even if hardcore gamers stick with buying games as per usual and playing content locally on their own high-end rigs that its service will be a great place for trying out demos as you won't have to take time to download anything."

Really? How are they going to make any money? They don't seriously expect I'll pay them a monthly sub just so I can play demos? I'd rather wait the 30mins it takes to download a few hundred meg and play it for free.
Back to top
Profile PM
Jeku
Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Jul 2003
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Posted: 25th Mar 2009 16:25
Link
Quote: "You wouldn't be able to play if your internet was down or they had technical problems."


Think of it like World of Warcraft. You can't play that if your net is down either.

Quote: "BTW, anyone remember the Phantom? That promised much the same thing and disappeared in a cloud of burnt VC funding."


The difference is the Phantom downloads the games to its hard drive. The OnLive systems are just dumb terminals. They *did* say that you can just use any old PC with an internet connection--- Linux, Mac, PC, etc. You don't even have to buy one of their "consoles".

North Korea 2007 Tour Pictures
Back to top
Profile PM Website
the_winch
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 1st Feb 2003
Location: Oxford, UK
Posted: 25th Mar 2009 21:47
Link
The only time I've seen dumb terminals work well is with a text only interface. The ones I've used with a gui always lag annoyingly and that's on a lan.

I think it's wise to be sceptical when someone claims to have something with massive commercial value yet target a pretty niche market.

By way of demonstration, he emitted a batlike squeak that was indeed bothersome.
Back to top
Profile PM Website
Bursar
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 17th Sep 2008
Location:
Posted: 25th Mar 2009 22:50
Link
Yeah, I'd also lay odds on the fact the 'demo' they saw was quite carefully staged. It likely connected to a local server they had at the show, running gigabit switching.
Back to top
Profile PM
Monk
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 25th Sep 2008
Location: Standing in the snow =D
Posted: 25th Mar 2009 23:06
Link
Don't some ISPs have a max download limit per month, thus if you're constantly streaming to a server at 5 meg / sec then you'd quickly run out of download and run out of internet connection...

Back to top
Profile PM
Robert F
User Banned
Posted: 25th Mar 2009 23:21 Edited at: 25th Mar 2009 23:24
Link
Quote: "I think you're forgetting about the fact that you don't have to buy a console or disc in the first place for this to work, so it's not exactly pointless..."


You still have to buy the game... So yes, instead of a disc, you would buy the game virtually.

I would much rather just buy a console.

Someone brought up WOW, this has lag to. Now imagine a playing COD. I love to play WAR on CODWAW and that has like 18 players with grenades and bullets flying everywhere. Imagine playing this online, while its streaming to your pc. You know you also have to have a subscription to get this. So you will have to pay for:

-Subscription
-Game
-High Speed internet

I see no point at all in this. Why would you buy the game AND pay for a subscription when you could just buy the game for pc or mac and play it online?


shes a brick HOUSE!
Back to top
Profile
BMacZero
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 30th Dec 2005
Location: E:/ NA / USA
Posted: 25th Mar 2009 23:28
Link
Quote: "I see no point at all in this. Why would you buy the game AND pay for a subscription when you could just buy the game for pc or mac and play it online?"


Because now you can play it on highest settings from absoultely any computer, no matter how horrible it is. You could go over to your friend's house and play it without needing the disk, having to install it, etc. You wouldn't have to install ANY games on your computer, they'd all be stored on some server somewhere.

I see lots of reasons this might be a good idea.



Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Robert F
User Banned
Posted: 25th Mar 2009 23:29
Link
Quote: "Because now you can play it on highest settings from absoultely any computer, no matter how horrible it is. You could go over to your friend's house and play it without needing the disk"


Not if he doesn't have the modem thing that comes with it. Whats the difference from taking that and a disc?


shes a brick HOUSE!
Back to top
Profile
Satchmo
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 29th May 2005
Location:
Posted: 25th Mar 2009 23:31
Link
Thats not a modem, its an optional terminal to use the thing on your tv. You don't need it.

Back to top
Profile PM
Robert F
User Banned
Posted: 25th Mar 2009 23:34 Edited at: 25th Mar 2009 23:44
Link
Quote: "Thats not a modem, its an optional terminal to use the thing on your tv. You don't need it.
"


Ahh, I see... lol

Anyway, explain to me how it will stop ALL lag, because like I said, I have 756kb/s and get NO lag on COD. Even on the highest crap. 18 people shooting at once, NO lag, even playing on HD. According to onLive details, you have to have 5 mb/s internet to even play on HD, and you don't think there where be any lag. I HIGHLY doubt it.

Plus, if they found out to stream with out any lag or loading and crap, then why isn't it spread around the world on regular videos online. You don't think ANYONE would figure out to make the video load instantly.


shes a brick HOUSE!
Back to top
Profile
Jeku
Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Jul 2003
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Posted: 25th Mar 2009 23:55
Link
Quote: "Because now you can play it on highest settings from absoultely any computer, no matter how horrible it is."


And again, this seems nothing more than a glorified press release. I'll believe it'll handle Crysis on max settings for 1000 simultaneous connections when I see it

North Korea 2007 Tour Pictures
Back to top
Profile PM Website
Back to top

Login to post a reply

Server time is: 2025-06-08 01:19:24
Your offset time is: 2025-06-08 01:19:24