OnLine (essentially gaming on-demand)

It's a service that would (if it rolls right) let you play a game on their machines and then stream the live video back to you. Which also means no need for any sort of 2K PC. Just a good internet and a moderate at best PC or mac, since it's all through them.
There's not much to really say about it, so why not watch? http://kotaku.com/5181625/see-onlive-in-action 

This could be the biggest thing to hit PC gaming since 3d(?), PC rentals and even allow the play of non-pc games (ie xbox and ps3).

Cool idea, but I don't think we're quite there yet.

I saw this yesterday.

There wouldn't be mods, so I wouldn't let it replace my pc, but I can't run everything, so this would be great for playing those games I can't run.

The spectating feature is neat, I can see it getting used often.

I can't even begin to imagine your input getting to their server, and the output getting to you in an unmeasurable amount of time, but if it says it's true, I can't wait to actually try this out.

Also, Mac support means games on Mac. :3

Also, it's OnLive.

I saw this yesterday.

There wouldn't be mods, so I wouldn't let it replace my pc, but I can't run everything, so this would be great for playing those games I can't run.

The spectating feature is neat, I can see it getting used often.

I can't even begin to imagine your input getting to their server, and the output getting to you in an unmeasurable amount of time, but if it says it's true, I can't wait to actually try this out.

Ditto that brother.

Cool idea, but I don't think we're quite there yet.

True, I think we're going to need some good quality internet to get this looking as good as possible fullscreen?
Well, look at things like Hulu, sure, there's advertisements during the show (or a the beginning). Yet it's much more convenient than things like TV Links.
But other than that, this is a great DRM scheme, at the same time, not really screwing over the consumers. It would be nice if you could buy a real copy of the game and kinda add it to OnLine (like steam), and then you would be able to "OWN" OWN it. (And also install it locally)

This does look neat, but I don't like it for three reasons:
1. It's going to be full of shitty mainstream games by companies that only make dull-ass FPS games. Also obviously not taking advantage of retro/lastgen games, as online services like these would be great for that.

2. If you were to realistically use this as a gamer, you're going to chip away at your monthly transfer limit faster than you would downloading the same games off torrents. Also the fact that good (or decent in that guy's opinion) connections only exist in major cities, and everyone else living in small cities or towns are screwed.

3. Pricing. They promised reasonable prices, but really, they're probably going to ask for a lot due to the strain on their servers when it is released. Not only you will have a subscription, you're going to have to buy the games anyways, and also obviously buy the hardware portion. In the end it may end up being cheaper than most gamer PCs, but might be more expensive than a real console.

As much as they make it sound like, everything will be cheap and high quality, the ones raping your wallet will be your ISPs. If you have multiple computers, lots of consoles, and a large family like mine, then this wouldn't really be your kinda product. Something like this is reserved for people who live alone, in dorms, or mac users who won't buy anything that isn't compatible(everything else) with their mac.

2. If you were to realistically use this as a gamer, you're going to chip away at your monthly transfer limit faster than you would downloading the same games off torrents. Also the fact that good (or decent in that guy's opinion) connections only exist in major cities, and everyone else living in small cities or towns are screwed.

Unless you don't have a monthly transfer limit, because, you know, not everyone does. (lol comcast)

Comcast's is 250Gb a month. If you use that much playing games, then there's something broken.

You're streaming HD video and audio to your computer, but you're not going to go over 250 gigs.

2. If you were to realistically use this as a gamer, you're going to chip away at your monthly transfer limit faster than you would downloading the same games off torrents. Also the fact that good (or decent in that guy's opinion) connections only exist in major cities, and everyone else living in small cities or towns are screwed.

Unless you don't have a monthly transfer limit, because, you know, not everyone does. (lol comcast)

Yeah, comcast blows.   

I think it could either way, I never really thought about it's limitations too much. There seems to be quite a few of them....

This does look neat, but I don't like it for three reasons:
1. It's going to be full of shitty mainstream games by companies that only make dull-ass FPS games. Also obviously not taking advantage of retro/lastgen games, as online services like these would be great for that.

3. Pricing. They promised reasonable prices, but really, they're probably going to ask for a lot due to the strain on their servers when it is released. Not only you will have a subscription, you're going to have to buy the games anyways, and also obviously buy the hardware portion. In the end it may end up being cheaper than most gamer PCs, but might be more expensive than a real console.

As much as they make it sound like, everything will be cheap and high quality, the ones raping your wallet will be your ISPs. If you have multiple computers, lots of consoles, and a large family like mine, then this wouldn't really be your kinda product. Something like this is reserved for people who live alone, in dorms, or mac users who won't buy anything that isn't compatible(everything else) with their mac.

Agreed.

I believe there is a subscription fee, game fee (purchase?) and one of those misleading name fees that probably has to do with maintaining their equipment, like you said. <Which also really sucks for something like this; you should be able to just buy the game via OnLive and then play it. Of course they're going to charge you for the raw service, but if they have some sort of plan where you can "rent" x amounts of games for the entire month. I can see that working more than actually "owning" the game and still charging peoples additional fees AFTER the purchase and subscription.
I do think that if the industry shifted entirely to something like this, it would suck.

everyone will have limits soon 

You guys are lucky then, cause most people in Canada (Telus and Shaw) are limited to about 60GB per month with the top speed. Only major cities like Toronto and Montreal will have anything higher than that.

Out of the question for New Zealanders. I have a 10GB cap, it's ridiculous.

Out of the question for New Zealanders. I have a 10GB cap, it's ridiculous.

I would love a 10GB cap.

everyone will have limits soon 

Not if Animefan h-- oh, I'm already bored with the ensuing fiasco this statement would have caused.

This is retarded.

Let's assu,e your latency to onlive is about 50ms, which would be VERY good. Now they process it for whatever game, and in real time encode the resuling output video / audio / other shit for your client. That would take at least another 20ms. Now it's got to go back to you so let's add another 50. Already we're at 120ms, which would be terrible.

You can play some games with 120ms ping, but what's different is that for you, just the result of your actions is delayed. Your actual actions (you take a step, move your view, fire a bullet) is of course instant on your end. With this, everything is delayed. You fire a bullet and only hear it after a delay. You move your cursor and it only actually moves after a delay. Stupid stupid.


Here's the kind of lag LCD fags get and that's just a few ms, imagine well over 100.

You would have to be extremely picky. You can hardly notice that at all. Only until you take into slowmo is when you really even notice it. The guy speaking had even said that it would do this put it wouldn't be noticeable. With a good connection tho~

Also, under my assumption, you're not going to see the screen its actually playing from. So the whole time your just going to mentally assume its full speed since your eyes can hardly pick up the minor differences, and since it's going to be the same for all players, it evens that playing field leaving your own internet connect left to mess with your lag. Granted yeah, there will be lag, but the point is, you're not going to notice it in this way unless you see stuff in slow mo. lol

Like I said. We're just not there yet.

I just randomly stumbled across this article

http://news.cnet.com/8301-10797_3-10202688-235.html

The same people that made WebTV. That should be a little telling.

I didn't read it, I just randomly found it and posted cause to me it was just ironic to stumble on that a day after I found out what this thing even was. And from what little I did see before I posted it seemed to quote those videos anyways.

Holk's just mad that he got a new computer and now they're telling him that you can play games on low end Mac Minis.

Oh, it's not that. I think something like this would be awesome. Being able to stream console-only games to a PC is pretty much what I've wanted for a long time. I just get skeptical when I hear a product claiming to already be able to do such a thing. Especially when it is being made by the same company that created one of the biggest failures in internet history. One of the reasons that I would be against it though, is that it's removing ownership even farther from the consumer's hands. If you're paying for, and playing all of your games through this service, then if it happens to go down someday, you're screwed. It's a very similar thing with steam, but Valve has all of that Half-Life money to keep it going, and it's popular enough where people can be relatively secure in knowing that it will continue to thrive. This OnLive thing though, we just don't have the technology to realistically do this yet, so for me, it's sort of a "wait and see" kind of thing.

120ms

IS VERY NOTICEABLE

I was referencing the videos when I meant not very noticeable. In those videos, it wasn't bad at all until the slowmo. I don't know anything about computers basically, so 120ms probably is very noticeable lol.

Holk's just mad that he got a new computer and now they're telling him that you can play games on low end Mac Minis.

irock's just mad because a low end Mac Mini is better than his compute ;p