×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

OnLive To Be Built Into Vizio Devices

Soulskill posted more than 3 years ago | from the still-going dept.

Input Devices 73

Gamasutra reports that cloud gaming service OnLive has reached an agreement with Vizio to integrate OnLive directly into the hardware manufacturer's TVs and Blu-ray players. "Vizio also announced that it will introduce ... tablets and smartphones based on Google's Android operating system that integrate the gaming service through its Via Plus ecosystem. OnLive is already publicly available for Apple's iPad, but that app is exclusively for spectating other people who are playing Onlive through PCs or the MicroConsole. Perlman said Onlive is coming to Vizio's mobile devices with playable games. ... Perlman also said that thanks to the open nature of the Android platform, manufacturers are creating more traditional game controllers for Android tablets. Some resemble a gamepad cut in half, where one half snaps on either side of the table screen, Perlman said. Certain Android tablets will also potentially work with Onlive's official controller, if the mobile device supports the appropriate RF interface."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

73 comments

The main point of onlive (1)

iwannasexwithyourmom (1804754) | more than 3 years ago | (#34762536)

Maybe it's just me guys, but I *thought* the main point of onlive was to allow users (read: me) to get close enough to your mother to penetrate her vagina with my penis. Am I wrong in that?

Re:The main point of onlive (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34762572)

I guess these kinds of comments are what happens when pointless crap gets posted this late at night. Only random trolls are around to leave any comments.

Re:The main point of onlive (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34762640)

Shut up, COWARD!

Re:The main point of onlive (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34762788)

Don't feed the trolls. Feed my nuts into your mouth instead.

Re:The main point of onlive (2)

uofitorn (804157) | more than 3 years ago | (#34762974)

No. These kinds of comments are what happen when taco gave Anonymous and 4chan all sorts of publicity starting a few months ago. The quality of discussion has decreased dramatically with the influx of new posters.

Re:The main point of onlive (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34763102)

I guess you weren't here 10 years ago:)

Re:The main point of onlive (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34764222)

Did you buy your UID? First, there were the "BSD is dying" trolls, then the GNAA trolls, then the "I ate bad shellfish and exploded in my pants" trolls, and now this. There's a reason why Slashdot has/had one of the best moderation systems out there -- terrible trolls have always lived under its bridges.

Shocking. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34762540)

Even the devices are vicious these days!

OR... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34762592)

Or hey! I could use this XBox thingie or this Wii or ANY NUMBER OF CONSOLES ALREADY OWNED BY THE TARGET DEMOGRAPHIC.

Cloud gaming: all the fun of the arcade but without the strange, sweaty man who comes by to empty the machine on Fridays (he's tapping your credit card once a month miles away).

Re:OR... (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#34768402)

Or hey! I could use this XBox thingie or this Wii or ANY NUMBER OF CONSOLES ALREADY OWNED BY THE TARGET DEMOGRAPHIC.

Which won't work if the specific game you want to play is available on OnLive but not on any of the major consoles.

Good for them (2)

Dutch Gun (899105) | more than 3 years ago | (#34762596)

Good for them, but I'm still saying way the hell away. This may appeal to the casual market, but I can't see myself ever wanting to use this service. It can never be as optimal a gaming experience as a local machine.

Re:Good for them (0)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#34762704)

No, but it can be quite close, plus with the pricing options that they've introduced it could be cheaper than a console. I don't personally think that it's going to be good enough for top tier FPS play, but for most people it will be good enough.

Right now the main thing holding it back is the corruption and incompetence that seems to breed in the telecom industry.

Re:Good for them (1)

Sinter (650182) | more than 3 years ago | (#34762740)

I'm a bit more than a casual gamer, having built my last two PCs, and I do completely understand your point of view.

That being said, but my friend who has just about as much interest in gaming, and only owns an Xbox 360 and a netbook, was able to try the free demos in OnLive. Within 5 minutes of mentioning it to him he was already playing a recent, current-gen game that looked fantastic on his (small for my taste) screen. Sure, there was a little input lag, and the video quality was still not perfect, but honestly I was really blown away almost to the point of being giddy about the possibilities this could present.

That is their target demographic.

Re:Good for them (2)

bondsbw (888959) | more than 3 years ago | (#34762890)

Have you actually tried it? In my experience, it's much better than you would think.

Let's consider the obvious lag issue. Did you realize that it actually removes common multiplayer lag? You know, the kind where you shoot at a guy and he doesn't get hit because he had moved 300 pixels to the left. That doesn't exist in OnLive since all the processing is done on the same network (maybe even the same computer) as the other gamers. In this respect, OnLive performs much like a LAN or even local game.

I'm not trying to ignore the click-to-response lag. It exists. But it really is minuscule, to the point that most people I know can't tell much difference over running the game locally.

Re:Good for them (1)

ToasterMonkey (467067) | more than 3 years ago | (#34763286)

Have you actually tried it? In my experience, it's much better than you would think.

Let's consider the obvious lag issue. Did you realize that it actually removes common multiplayer lag? You know, the kind where you shoot at a guy and he doesn't get hit because he had moved 300 pixels to the left. That doesn't exist in OnLive since all the processing is done on the same network (maybe even the same computer) as the other gamers. In this respect, OnLive performs much like a LAN or even local game.

I'm not trying to ignore the click-to-response lag. It exists. But it really is minuscule, to the point that most people I know can't tell much difference over running the game locally.

The round trip latency is the same, and on top of that your client can't extrapolate positions of moving objects or freely render player controlled objects so the perceived latency is worse. I'm not saying the latency isn't tolerable, but this method isn't gaining you anything.

That guy you missed by 300 pixels? Now you're looking at where he used to be instead of where an intelligent algorithm thinks he probably is. You'll have to mentally compensate for that latency now. You might get used to it after a while, if it is consistent. It wont be, and if it were, a computer algorithm still does a better job than your brain.

That's not correct (2)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 3 years ago | (#34763508)

For games to have no more lag than the transit to the Onlive servers, they have to be games that do LAN play or the like. While those exist, they aren't that common these days. Most games do client-server stuff. Now if Onlive hosted those servers, fine, but they don't. So say you are playing Bad Company 2. First you have to go to the Onlive data center where the game is processed for you, that then has to go out to the data center owned by gameservers.net, or whoever is hosting the given server you wish to play on.

What's more, even for LAN type games, low latency between clients would only apply if all people were talking to the same data center. That's not the case for people spread out. If someone is in CA and someone is in NY, they'll be going to different Onlive data centers, which will then have to talk to each other.

As for the interface lag, it'll depend on the kind of game, and how good your connection is to them. I'm not aware of any formal scientific research, but informal research on AVSForum seems to suggest that in the 4+ frames of lag category, interface lag is noticeable to just about everyone (and some people can notice less). That translates to about 67ms of latency. That's on the low side for the Internet, you need a good connection and a nearby data center to get that in particular with real data (remember the time it takes to transfer the data has to be factored in as well). It is doable, but not everyone can count on that.

However it gets worse because that lag adds to any monitor lag you have. Monitors aren't immediate. Most lag a bit. Real high speed TN ones are often only a couple ms, or sometimes even sub, ms, but many others lag a frame or two, or sometimes more. So if you have, say, a Dell 2407 which has 34ms of latency and you have a 80ms actual response time (meaning time from when you request data till the time you've completely received it) from Onlive you've got a total of 114ms of latency, meaning what you see on the screen will be about 7 frames behind of what is happening. You WILL notice that. If you play with it you may start mentally compensating, but you'd notice the improvement in a hurry if you switched to a system that didn't lag.

I've messed with situations with interface lag (VMWare over RDP used to not be able to virtualize the mouse cursor and so had interface lag) and you can learn to deal with it but it is far from ideal and when you go back to a low lag situation it feels SO much better.

I'm not saying Onlive is unworkable, I just question if the high interface lag, and low resolution (it only tries for 720p and with a 1mbps stream has bad smearing, macroblocking, and chroma resolution) is better than just getting a $100 mid-range graphics card.

more anti-consumer 'choice' in the market (4, Insightful)

epyT-R (613989) | more than 3 years ago | (#34762616)

lets pay full retail price for the game + monthly onlive subscription so we can:
1. get on a treadmill that gets harder and harder to get off each time a new game is purchased, because if a subscription is ever canceled all purchased games are gone forever.
2. get heavily bandwidth constrained lossy 720p video streams.
3. repeatedly peg bandwidth caps on our internet connections just by playing comparatively few hours of gaming a month.
4. get laggy input
5. lose control over yet another thing we're supposedly purchasing. (spare me the legal crap, games are presented as sales, not leases or rentals)

perhaps the terms have changed since the last time I looked at this, but I doubt it.

Re:more anti-consumer 'choice' in the market (3, Informative)

brjndr (313083) | more than 3 years ago | (#34762688)

1. get on a treadmill that gets harder and harder to get off each time a new game is purchased, because if a subscription is ever canceled all purchased games are gone forever.

[...]

perhaps the terms have changed since the last time I looked at this, but I doubt it.

They have changed, there is no subscription fee anymore.

Re:more anti-consumer 'choice' in the market (2)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 3 years ago | (#34763426)

They have changed, there is no subscription fee anymore.

To my mind the lack of guaranteed recurring income makes them more likely to go under, resulting in NONE of my games being playable...

I question if that is sustainable (1)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 3 years ago | (#34763462)

If they aren't charging a subscription, then all their money comes from game sales. Ok, but they only make a fraction of the sale price. A $50 game is going to net them maybe $25, and I doubt even that much as online/download sellers can't command as much of the cut as regular stores.

Now so long as people buy lots of games and don't play any one game too much, that'll work fine. However if people buy games and play them to death, that'll screw them over. Their costs are not going to be low for this kind of thing. Bandwidth alone is substantial, in particular if they do end up offering higher definition streams as they claim they plan. Hardware is also a big deal, they can't pack things in like a file hosting service, games demand a certain amount of power, and higher end games can demand a lot particularly if they are to be played high detail, as Onlive likes to advertise.

So if someone buys a game and then plays it for 500 hours, which does happen with multi-player games, that is a real problem for them.

I think they plan to start charging a subscription if they can become popular. It is the only way I can see them staying profitable in the long run, unless they simply start limiting games and saying "You've played that enough, you have to buy something else now."

Re:I question if that is sustainable (1)

N1AK (864906) | more than 3 years ago | (#34764172)

I think they plan to start charging a subscription if they can become popular. It is the only way I can see them staying profitable in the long run, unless they simply start limiting games and saying "You've played that enough, you have to buy something else now."

What I find really odd is that I was interested in oneLive when I thought it was a subscription service. Then I lost interest when it turned into subscription + buying games at effectively full price.

Maybe the market is small, but personally I find the idea of paying a subscription to game rental service quite appealing. Having instant access would be a nice benefit of a one live style system. Sure I wouldn't own the games, but that is the point of renting so if the price is right I'm fine with that.

Re:I question if that is sustainable (1)

fimion (890504) | more than 3 years ago | (#34764194)

there is a subcription service that is in beta at the moment. $10/month allows you to play a catalogue of not as recent games. should be going live mid january.

Re:I question if that is sustainable (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34767026)

Maybe the market is small, but personally I find the idea of paying a subscription to game rental service quite appealing.

There are a few services that already do this. One I occasionally use is Metaboli. Although these require you to download games and run them locally. Whether that's an advantage or disadvantage is up to you, I guess.

Re:I question if that is sustainable (1)

tlhIngan (30335) | more than 3 years ago | (#34765962)

If they aren't charging a subscription, then all their money comes from game sales. Ok, but they only make a fraction of the sale price. A $50 game is going to net them maybe $25, and I doubt even that much as online/download sellers can't command as much of the cut as regular stores.

Ah, but OnLive can command higher premiums because of certain advantages they have...

First, short of some really idiotic coding or social engineering hack that gets you into the admin console of OnLive itself, the games are unpiratable. Since you pay full price for the game, that only gives you the priviledge (not right) to play that game on the OnLive service. So regardless of it's a PC game, an Xbox360 game, a PS3 game, everyone who plays on OnLive pretty much has to pay for it. Of course, there are elaborate sharing mechanisms you can do to split costs, but to everyone else, you're seen as one customer. So all the piracy stats for those games go to zero for OnLive.

Second, stats, stats and more stats. A marketer's dream. In-game ads? Cha-ching. The OnLive enabled versions can include stats on how many ads were shown and for how long they were visible onscreen (and the service can screenshot as well so the unreadable views can be removed from the time shown - so seeing billboards edge-on or at an oblique angle is free, but having the billboard large enough to take up a good chunk of screen is $$$$. Plus stats on gameplay itself, especially multiplayer... And hey, if you're suffering a cold streak, they can offer you remedial courses!

I'm sure developers love #1, and game companies love the possibilities that are open with #2, tnus ensuring OnLive will be able to extract money from both pots at once.

Re:more anti-consumer 'choice' in the market (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#34762716)

Actually, when Qwest isn't bogged down, it plays really well. Unfortunately, Qwest doesn't seem to know anything about being an ISP as I live within about 5 miles of a major node and I'm still stuck at 5mpbs with the best plan. Meanwhile folks in parts of the country with actual competition are getting 40mbps for just a little more than I'm paying.

But, when the stars align and the net allows it, the performance is more or less identical to PC gaming.

But, you're better off paying for a subscription or renting than buying through them. For the cost, it's better than gamefly. At least for those of us in the NW where gamefly doesn't seem to care about serving. 4+ days each way for games is completely unacceptable.

Re:more anti-consumer 'choice' in the market (1)

epyT-R (613989) | more than 3 years ago | (#34762862)

this post doesn't exactly sound like a standing ovation for the service. sure, in the future, average bw will increase, maybe even to the point where the net-cost is no higher than it is today. This still leaves the larger issue at hand: how much control should the vendor have over its products once they're sold? if gaming-as-service is the future, will it truly be superior to what we already have? I'm sure it'll be more convenient, but I'll trade a bit of that for the flexibility to extract a bit more value out of the products I buy (in this context, I'm talking about mods/maps/3rd party servers etc). Being able to even have the potential to play my titles years after the publisher/dev house has gone out of business (or simply dropped support thereby removing it from my thin client's menu) is also important to me. The thriving emulation scene is proof (to me at least) that there are many out there like me.

Re:more anti-consumer 'choice' in the market (1)

Z33kPhr3k (1047994) | more than 3 years ago | (#34762734)

What monthly subscription fee? It's free. Did you try it?

Re:more anti-consumer 'choice' in the market (2)

epyT-R (613989) | more than 3 years ago | (#34762810)

yup. I fail to see the benefit for me. I do see the benefit for the publishers. even without a sub fee, I'm still eating massive bw and I lose control over the media.

Re:more anti-consumer 'choice' in the market (1)

Z33kPhr3k (1047994) | more than 3 years ago | (#34762846)

more bandwidth than netflix? lose control? you mean like when ubi servers are down?

Re:more anti-consumer 'choice' in the market (2)

epyT-R (613989) | more than 3 years ago | (#34762874)

sure.. or maybe onlive or the publisher has decided that one of your favorite titles isn't making enough money anymore, so they can it. What happened to xbox-classic's multiplayer?

Re:more anti-consumer 'choice' in the market (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#34768448)

What happened to xbox-classic's multiplayer?

Online is gone, but to the best of my knowledge, LAN still works, as does shared-screen.

Re:more anti-consumer 'choice' in the market (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 3 years ago | (#34764156)

more bandwidth than netflix?

I usually watch a movie once, so the bandwidth used* by netflix is indispensable. Just like buying a game online and downloading it.
Onlive uses way more bandwidth than it would be necessary if I simply downloaded and ran the game locally.

lose control? you mean like when ubi servers are down?

There's only a small number of publishers that require such online activation systems - most of the gaming market doesn't. I can live without their games, just as I can live without Onlive.
Besides, it has already been cracked, thanks to the game being run on your own machine, as opposed to this new system.

* I don't have access to netflix (you insensitive clod), but the point stands.

Re:more anti-consumer 'choice' in the market (1)

tapo (855172) | more than 3 years ago | (#34762806)

There is no monthly subscription fee, and you don't need to purchase games at full retail price - you can get them as rentals and try the first 30 minutes of any game for free.

Some people have no interest in picking up a $400 console or building a gaming PC. This service allowed me to demo all of their games, realize I liked Darksiders and Assassin's Creed II and how the service worked, and play them on any computer. Granted, some latency is there when you're using a high-precision device like a mouse, but plugging in a gamepad makes the issue disappear. Yet again, I'm in Boston and they say I'm connecting to Washington DC, so maybe this will get better if they deploy closer datacenters.

I've loved this service, and they haven't done me any wrong. They allow me to sample everything and play games immediately, even on my Thinkpad W500 with a workstation card that can barely handle Starcraft 2. Is it for everyone? No. But it works for me, and I'm sure if they build it in to cable boxes, blu-ray players and televisions, it'll work for a lot of people. I don't know what's 'anti-consumer' about not having to pay for game hardware, and being able to instantly rent titles that interest me.

Re:more anti-consumer 'choice' in the market (1)

epyT-R (613989) | more than 3 years ago | (#34762844)

..at some point, there needs to be a barrier of entry, otherwise said activity loses its value. I"m not saying you should go out and buy a console or game pc to try one game, but at some point the watering down of the experience just to get it into more hands ruins it for those who really do enjoy it. sure, today there's plenty of choice, but I suspect this method of 'delivery' will become dominant within the next 10 years, turning gaming into just another passive corporate-sanctioned experience instead of a thriving interactive 3rd party community that operates on its own terms. It's already being done with today's consoles, but stuff like onlive removes the control from the consumer altogether while potentially driving up his costs because of the extreme amounts of bandwidth involved. The only people who win here are the publishers and isps.

I've loved this service, and they haven't done me any wrong.

As they taught in health class, the dealer always says 'the first hit's on me.' come back to me when they're the only game in town.

Re:more anti-consumer 'choice' in the market (1)

Z33kPhr3k (1047994) | more than 3 years ago | (#34762854)

only people who win... and gamestop loses? i guess you think netflix streaming sucks too?

Re:more anti-consumer 'choice' in the market (1)

epyT-R (613989) | more than 3 years ago | (#34762894)

I'm not quite sure what you mean by 'only people who win.'

last I checked, blockbuster is moving away from disc rentals because netflix is pummeling them in streaming services. Brick/mortar places like gamestop are done. online streaming is the future, whether I like it or not. I just think it's unfortunate that most people decided to trade ownership for convenience. by ownership I mean control over when/where I watch/play/listen to my movies/games/music.

oh and netflix streaming does suck. its quality is worse than comcast's constrained 'HD'. Like onlive, it's convenient though. Like I said, today, other options exist, but I think the majority has decided that plastic discs are passe and it's unfortunate because it will kill these options for those of us who do prefer them.

Re:more anti-consumer 'choice' in the market (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34766406)

i see this complaint all the time about Netflix streaming quality... You know what? It really doesn't matter. The vast majority of Netflix streaming content is older stuff that unless it's been remastered and not just upconverted, won't look a lick better at 720p anyway.

No, I'm not some HD luddite, I've got a house full of large 1080p tv's and blu-ray players. You know what I've found? A crappy movie is still a crappy movie in HD. The visual eye candy is nice, but no amount of pixels can make a bad movie enjoyable.

Re:more anti-consumer 'choice' in the market (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34763018)

lets pay full retail price for the game + monthly onlive subscription so we can:
1. get on a treadmill that gets harder and harder to get off each time a new game is purchased, because if a subscription is ever canceled all purchased games are gone forever.
2. get heavily bandwidth constrained lossy 720p video streams.
3. repeatedly peg bandwidth caps on our internet connections just by playing comparatively few hours of gaming a month.
4. get laggy input
5. lose control over yet another thing we're supposedly purchasing. (spare me the legal crap, games are presented as sales, not leases or rentals)

perhaps the terms have changed since the last time I looked at this, but I doubt it.

Now to challenge you.
1. First off, there is no monthly service. Please stop attacking a product without researching it.
2. How is this worse than what hulu, Netflix and youtube can do?
3. If it's bandwidth caps, that's your ISP's fault, not OnLives. Go back to my hulu, Netflix, and youtube statement.
4. What laggy input? I don't know what your mileage is, but it's pretty 1-to-1 for me. Sounds like you're just repeating all the rumors that were spread.
5. Onlive gives you a very huge window of playing the game. 3 years is a huge amount of time to finish the game you want to play.

Re:more anti-consumer 'choice' in the market (1)

epyT-R (613989) | more than 3 years ago | (#34763168)

1. I wasn't sure, and I said as much. even so my other positions stand.

2. streaming is the future, unfortunately. plastic disks will eventually die out, taking with them the ability to control the media you purchase.

3. Nothing I can do about it, so it's not my fault either. In the case of gaming, what worked rather efficiently before (clientside executable at the very least) is replaced by a gluttonous bw sapping kludge.

4. if you're posting here, you must have some kind of idea how latency works on networks. I have tried the service before, and it DOES lag significantly.

5. this dodges my point entirely.

Re:more anti-consumer 'choice' in the market (1)

whoop (194) | more than 3 years ago | (#34763612)

2. streaming is the future, unfortunately. plastic disks will eventually die out, taking with them the ability to control the media you purchase.

Let's see, Slashdot has been around what, a dozen years or so? What has completely disappeared in PC gaming since then? The loss of floppies? CDs and then DVDs were a hell of a lot more convenient than 10 floppies. The better tech won. Are there still holdouts refusing to buy one of these magic plastic disc machines?

OnLive has its uses. If you don't want to, you're going to still be able to buy your PC parts and consoles.

Why is it that this site is so full of extremists? For every widget that comes out, everybody goes to the extreme, "Well, this is the end for X, only this new widget will exist from this moment forward." Hell, you can still buy buggy whips if you really want to.

Re:more anti-consumer 'choice' in the market (1)

Somebody Is Using My (985418) | more than 3 years ago | (#34763780)

6. Can't add mods or enhancements to a game. Counterstrike would never have existed in a world where everyone plays on OnLive

7. You can only play games OnLive allows. Indie games like Minecraft? You won't find them. AO-rated games? Might tarnish OnLive's reputation so they are gone too.

8. Competition to OnLive (because if it takes off, there will be competition) will fragment the player-base. You play Quake on OnLivebut your friend has Quake on the competetion, LiveOn. Sorry, no deathmatch for you two.

9. Can't re-sell your games. It's a service, not a sale, so if you bought a stinker you lose your money forever.

10. Online-advertising becomes easier for developers. Now Lord British wants you to go on a quest of find 5 Bottles of Pepsi.

Basically,

Re:more anti-consumer 'choice' in the market (1)

DisKurzion (662299) | more than 3 years ago | (#34764764)

To address your points:
6: Big whoop. Stated from the beginning that they were aiming more for a console experience, not a PC experience.
7: There are a bunch of Indie games on Onlive:

AaaaaAAaaaAAAaaAAAAaAAAAA!!!
Braid
Madballs in Babo: Invasion
Shatter
The Ball
The Maw
Trine
World of Goo

In fact, Onlive was the #3 contributor for Humble Bundle 2: http://www.humblebundle.com/ [humblebundle.com]

I'm sure there are more on there, but those are the ones that immediately come to mind. I'm sure if Notch approached Onlive, they would have no problem adding Minecraft once it is out of beta.

8: News flash: already a problem with consoles. People manage somehow.
9: Can't resell your PC games already. Publishers are already looking to eliminate console resale as well. Probably a moot point by next console gen.
10: Whatever. If they can make it subtle, and the ad crap doesn't physically touch my machine, I don't care.

Re:more anti-consumer 'choice' in the market (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#34768496)

6: Big whoop. Stated from the beginning that they were aiming more for a console experience, not a PC experience.
[...]
9: Can't resell your PC games already.

Aiming for a console experience includes the ability to resell games.

There are a bunch of Indie games on Onlive

What's the procedure that a studio is supposed to follow to get a game in?

Re:more anti-consumer 'choice' in the market (1)

DisKurzion (662299) | more than 3 years ago | (#34781584)

Late to reply, but figured I will anyhow:

Aiming for a console experience includes the ability to resell games.

See my point 9...I bet you a nickel that the next gen of Xbox/PS/Wii will do everything in their power to eliminate resale.

What's the procedure that a studio is supposed to follow to get a game in?

Apparently that would be to send them an email or call them saying 'I am a developer':
http://www.onlive.com/corporate/plugin [onlive.com]

Re:more anti-consumer 'choice' in the market (1)

grumbel (592662) | more than 3 years ago | (#34764220)

Yeah, but you also gain a lot (as other have mentioned, no monthly fee):

* no more installing games, just click and run
* games become portable, play on every computer even potentially iPhone and iPad
* the console costs only $99
* savegames automatically carry over
* potential for gaming on Linux
* no DRM software that installs on your computer
* perfect piracy protection
* future potential to run regular PC apps everywhere
* free 30min demos of the full game

Yeah, you do lose ownership of the games, but with DRM and DLC all over the place you kind of do so with regular games too. Its not that you can sell a game you registered on Steam.

Of course OnLive is still young and nobody knows if it will catch on or if it will fail, but I am pretty sure that a service like OnLine will become rather important in the not so distant future.

Portability (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#34768592)

games become portable

OnLive games won't run on the bus or train, unlike DS games, PSP games, iPod touch games, and laptop games.

even potentially iPhone and iPad

Service for an iPhone or iPad costs at least twelve times what I pay Virgin Mobile USA for my current phone. I can't foresee a lot of people on budget voice plans (e.g. Virgin's $60 per year for occasional use) upgrading to premium phone service just for games, especially with the monthly transfer caps that the carriers have enacted.

perfect piracy protection

Is it piracy for me to program a game with the same rules as an existing game? I know some companies that seem to think so.

Onlive has changed my life! (3, Funny)

mykos (1627575) | more than 3 years ago | (#34762828)

I, for one, am glad to see that Onlive is going to be included in a tablet. In fact, it should be included in every device with a display!

Before Onlive, I was throwing away over $50,000 per year on expensive consoles and PC upgrades, which is an average amount that any family can spend on gaming every year. Not only that, but I couldn't run games even on my netbook or portable devices like I can with Onlive!

When I saw how low Onlive's prices were compared to the $50,000 a year it costs to maintain my consoles/PC upgrades, I knew right away that this was the service for me.

Now for a low monthly fee*, I can get great Onlive service with zero latency whatsoever in all the latest games. It seems that Onlive has conquered the laws of physics!

Be sure to pre-order the Onlive MicroConsole like I did. I'm very certain it will be a big improvement on what is already a great Onlive experience!

*Games sold separately

Re:Onlive has changed my life! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34762870)

You're being sarcastic, right? I tried their shitty ass service on my laptop, but my graphics card didn't support shader 3.0 and I couldn't use it. Why would I need shader support when they are streaming the game to me as video? I tried on another PC and found that Onlive is the biggest piece of shit ever. The input lag is awful. The images are compressed to shit. It eats up a ton of my bandwidth which will really suck later when ISPs start charging based on usage.

So I decided to spend $1,200 on a i7 quad core, 12gb ram, AMD 5870 GPU gaming rig. All my games are free, all play on max settings, and I own my games even though I didn't even pay for them!

Re:Onlive has changed my life! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34762878)

Roflwut? How do you expect to play Crysis if you won't spend at least 6 figures on hardware?

Fuckin' noobs!

Re:Onlive has changed my life! (-1, Redundant)

DDLKermit007 (911046) | more than 3 years ago | (#34762988)

Uh wut? I just stopped believing everything you said once you said you spend $50,000 a year on upgrades. Either you're a moron or you're, a liar, or you work for OnLive. $10,000 could be believeable, but you're numbers are so out there, no one's going to do anything but mock you.

Re:Onlive has changed my life! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34763024)

woooooooooooooooooosh

Re:Onlive has changed my life! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34786802)

or mock you...whoosh

Re:Onlive has changed my life! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34763450)

50k on consoles and pc upgrades? ...the fuck?

Re:Onlive has changed my life! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34763456)

woooooooooooooooooosh

This exact comment has already been posted. Try to be more original... (What... fine.)

woooooooooooooooooosh

News for geeks^H^H^H^Hconsumer, PR that matters (1)

Rosco P. Coltrane (209368) | more than 3 years ago | (#34762860)

Company X makes deal with company Y, determined to bring easily accessible Z to market. News at 11...

Re:News for geeks^H^H^H^Hconsumer, PR that matters (1, Funny)

game kid (805301) | more than 3 years ago | (#34762910)

My favorite part was when company X, maker of inherently closed game-service-by-cloud system, lauded platform P's openness.

convergance.... (1)

ducomputergeek (595742) | more than 3 years ago | (#34764004)

My TV went kaput on Xmas eve so I bought a new one last week. I found a good deal on a 58" Plasma without the bells and whistles like Netflix built in for $1100. 5 years ago I used a Mac Mini hooked up to my TV to watch TV & Movies I purchased over iTunes.

Now I use my XBox360 mostly for streaming Netflix in HD.

I didn't spend $2000 or $3000 on a new TV because I figured it's only another 2 - 3 years to where the XBox services are built into the TV and it's all "cloud" based or whatever. I figured I'd save the money now and wait and see what is out in another couple years.

I'm pretty sure that by 2015, I won't have a computer in my house like I do now. Already it doesn't get much use these days. I do my surfing and facebooking on my iPad. I have a docking station for writing long emails for the iPad. But even then I answer more emails on my phone than anything these days.

Re:convergance.... (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 3 years ago | (#34764514)

Amusingly, the only way I'd buy an OnLive device is if it were also a Netflix player, with as much buffer as a PC, because it would let me get a noisy PC out of my living room. I'm not willing to pay for Live Gold, so no Netflix on the 360. The 360 is horribly noisy anyway. My current plan is to go to some Google TV device that has it, but I'm waiting for prices to sink.

Re:convergance.... (1)

adolf (21054) | more than 3 years ago | (#34773708)

I find that the PS3 works wonderfully for Netflix. I like it better than the Silverlight viewer on a PC.

Buy yourself one that's old-and-busted from Ebay, if you're feeling cheap and don't have any desire to play Blu-Ray movies -- the hardware is pretty solid, but the Blu-Ray lasers died young in a lot of older units, which brings the market price down for those which are useful as HTPCs. And they're far quieter than the 360's default drone, unless provoked by a hot room in the summer, and even then it's not so bad.

PSN is free, Netflix is a free download, and it just works. Up until Christmas (when my lovely wife got me a new PS3 that had a working blue laser diode), I was doing just this, while also PS3MediaServer on another box on the network for other media (uTorrent + RSS feeds).

I also had a decent (and quiet!) Dell D620 laptop next to the TV for a long time as an HTPC, but I gave up on that because I couldn't find a combination of OS and software that I liked at all, especially when using an infrared remote, while the PS3 was simply very easy and (again) just worked. I don't mind hacking on stuff, in fact I enjoy it, but I want the results to be somehow better than the easy alternative, and they weren't.

Except, of course, we're talking about OnLive. Woops. I guess I skipped right past that bit, since it seemed like such a sham. ;)

Re:convergance.... (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 3 years ago | (#34774134)

My current Netflix player is a Gateway GT5475E (IIRC) with a 2 GHz Athlon 64 X2, upgraded from 1 to 2 GB of RAM, with maybe a 160 GB disk and an 8600 GT, I think. This is the $125 garage sale machine I'm always blathering about, the 20" LCD I got with it is on my desk. I have a DVI to HDMI cable hooked into my 1080p HDTV because if I use another connector combination then I have to force 1080p and scaling does not work as perfectly... but it all works very well save that I've already had that machine seem to be taken over by a dark influence and had to reload it once.

A friend has been using Virtualbox on a similar system, with Windows XP, to play Netflix on her Linux system. For a lark I installed VMware Player and VMware vCenter Converter (I might be leaving out part of that product's name) on my Ubuntu Maverick desktop which has a Phenom II X3 720 and a GT 240, then Firefox and Silverlight, and tried out Netflix, which promptly failed. I dug for a moment and found that the Virtualbox extensions were still installed, removed them, and Netflix works fantastically here now.

I use Compiz with Expo and four desktops with reflection etc turned off, and when I zoom out Netflix still looks great. I also recently removed pulseaudio to see if ALSA has improved to the point where it's no longer necessary as many have said (it now only buys you per-application volume control from a single interface) and it seems to be working nicely for me for a change; whatever the cause, the audio worked without hassle.

The next step is to test this VM in VMware player for Windows on the target host, and see what the performance is like there... I want to feel safe surfing the web on that machine, but I won't do it in Windows even with all kinds of fancy extensions; I have that stuff installed so that when I download a runtime or something I'm not instantly owned, but I've had the system taken over even when using noscript and I am fairly selective about which domains I will enable. It was likely from a traitorous system on the local network, though, like my lady's Dell Vostro 1500 (ugh) running XP.

I love how XP is an emoticon.

Re:convergance.... (1)

adolf (21054) | more than 3 years ago | (#34788478)

I'm not sure if I should feel happy or sad that I haven't used Linux on the desktop for a few years now, after about a decade of just-about exclusive use.

Playing Netflix with some VMWare goodness sounds like fun, but I can just view it natively with 7 or the PS3.

I take it that you're a Linux user, primarily, and that's cool and all...but for me, the plate has turned. It used to be that the best and most reliable way to rip a CD, for instance, was with cdparanoia on Linux. But that hasn't been developed for years, allowing EAC to do a better job (potentially) under Windows.

And then there's video codecs. It used to be that it was a pain in the dick to use various video codecs under Windows, whereas mplayer made it easy, but the k-lite codec pack has fixed that.

And video acceleration has always been better with Windows, for the most part. I know, it's all courtesy of closed-source drivers that may or may not support my stuff in the future, but so what? The OSS community has abandoned me on my own (previously-well-supported) video hardware enough times that I don't care anymore. The simple fact is that when hardware gets old or unusual, folks stop updating support for it -- whether commercially or pro-bono.

Linux has EXT3/4, which is OK, but as cool as ReiserFS is I don't dare touch it with a 10-foot pole since the one man with a good understanding of it began to rot in prison (THAT sure was a fun thing to explain to the boss when it became time to migrate the mail server to a new filesystem). Meanwhile, NTFS seems to have grown up just fine with limited or zero compatibility issues, either backward or forward. (And honestly, I'd prefer OS/2's HPFS on either platform for general use, but the years have made that pointless.) And ZFS isn't useful eitherwhere.

Linux sound support sucks. I paid for a proper DSP on my sound card, and I intend to use it. With a Creative Labs card under Windows 7, I can use the stock drivers to apply some carefully-adjusted parametric EQ that makes my old and crappy Realistic(R) speakers sound perfectly fine. And with a Creative Labs card under XP or 2k, I can do a whole shitload more with the (free!) KX Audio drivers: Before I moved, I had a box dedicated to this. It ran a 2.1 audio system, or a 2.0 audio system alongside a 2-way bass guitar rig, and I could switch between configurations easily with mouse clicks and without cable-swapping, and it was all processed in hardware. Linux? There's a stub or two, here or there, but nobody's ever really bothered to develop anything hardware-based kit that is actually usable. Everything else Linux is completely CPU-based, and therefore sucks.

Hell: I paid 4front Technologies for their Linux sound drivers, with addons, back in the day. And I still get better support from free (as in beer) Windows drivers. I want to believe. I just don't.

Linux still supports more networking gear than Windows does, and does a few more special tricks with them (especially with regard to multiple IPs per MAC, VLAN, and various multiple-SSID WLAN fun, along with fornications thereof) but I'm not doing that with Linux. So, I don't miss it with Windows.

(This post brought to you by Sobieski Vodka. Ignore the plastic jug and the low price, it's a lovely and clean adult beverage, made from a particular Polish rye and distilled not so much, but it's good.)

Time to dispel some ignorance (1)

deathtopaulw (1032050) | more than 3 years ago | (#34764934)

Guys:
-There is no monthly fee
-Only the brand-new games are full price, and the store has sales as often as Steam does.
-The latency issues are gone, give a demo a try. It is literally flawless.

and the BIGGEST point that no one seems to understand:
-The ENTIRE SERVICE can be upgraded indefinitely. After they fleshed out the latency issues they've been steadily increasing graphics quality, both in-game and the compression. You fucking morons seem to think it launched and they did nothing to improve it afterwards. Stop jumping to ignorant conclusions.

Re:Time to dispel some ignorance (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34765250)

So when do they plan to improve on physics to kill that input lag ?

They Keep Changing Their Tune (1)

killdashnine (651759) | more than 3 years ago | (#34765112)

After watching OnLive struggle with gaining market acceptance, this is probably their best bet but people who want quality gaming experiences will stay away. They dropped the subscription fee probably out of sheer terror that they'd fail miserably. Now Android and TVs? Ultimately it looks to be headed to hotels to replace that crappy system you often find to entertain the kids. Sadly, no matter what they do there's the TANSTAAFL principle. Someone has to pay for all that computing power in carrier hotels throughout the US, plus you have crackdowns on bandwidth at the end-user level. Give it a couple more years and we won't hear any more from OnLive.

Re:They Keep Changing Their Tune (1)

slim (1652) | more than 3 years ago | (#34765544)

plus you have crackdowns on bandwidth at the end-user level. Give it a couple more years and we won't hear any more from OnLive.

Maybe they should take their technology to a country with a decent broadband infrastructure?

Great for casual games, meh for the hardcore gamer (1)

Lashat (1041424) | more than 3 years ago | (#34767798)

However, the lag seems now, OnLive's biggest challenge will be to maintain playable connection speeds as the player base grows in number. Ask the millions of console/pc gamers out there now. Server load always is a problem and the OnLive solution does not address this.

Hmm Vizio keeps sneaking up on the big guys (1)

grapeape (137008) | more than 3 years ago | (#34768900)

Wow between this and yesterdays announcement that they will have sub-$300 3d tv's by the end of 2011 it looks like maybe the others should start taking Vizio seriously. I have Vizio in my bedroom that I picked up cheap...figured it was garbage but at a good price...so far it has outlast the samsung I had the living room and actually has what at least to me appears to be a better picture than the one that replaced it. I really dont see OnLive taking over the consoles any time soon but for the casual crowd it may make quite a dent.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...