🚀 go-pugleaf

"noman" <no_m_an@zzzyahoo.yycom> wrote in message 
news:xn0gvrkx1159beq001@news.eternal-september.org...
> I was recently selected to use OnLive for an year without cost. Before
> I write my impressions on the overall experience, let me cover a bit of
> a background.
>
> Some of you may already know that OnLive is a new gaming service that
> went active a few days back. Instead of places selling download version
> of games like Impulse, Steam, GamersGate or Direct2Drive, the games at
> OnLive stay remotely on their servers. Those with fast internet
> connection, can then play the games online. OnLive servers send a video
> stream and the client application (running locally on the PC) takes the
> input through mouse/keyboard or controller and sends it to the server.
> If you have ever used a remote-control application like Remote Desktop
> or LogMeIn, then it's the same concept except that you can play games
> as well.
>
> The benefit is that computers that are behind the times can still play
> modern-day DX10/DX11 games requiring faster CPU/GPU, since the game is
> actually run on the remote side. Mac users or most laptop users can run
> high-end windows games. Someone on Windows XP can play a DX10 only
> game. The only requirements are dual-core CPU, ability to do 1280x720
> resolution and a 5mbps internet connection.
>
> On the flip side, there are a lot of things that don't make any sense.
> The pricing model is such that a subscriber paying $15 a month for this
> service, won't get access to any game, except for demos. The games need
> to be purchased separately with few pricing options. They can be played
> for 3-5 days while paying a rental fee of $4-8, or can be bought for
> unlimited access (which actually is limited till 2013 after which
> OnLive deals with the game publishers will need renewal) for a price
> very close to the retail price of the game. So you never own a game,
> but you pay almost full price, if you need extended access. Streaming
> over the internet with low lag can only work if you are closer to the
> server actually playing the game. 5mbps access means that one hour use
> will eat up 2.5GB, which can be an issue for those with usage caps.
>
> Above all, if someone wants to pay $180 an year for the service, and
> where the games need to be bought extra then why not just buy a graphic
> card like HD 5770 or GTX260, which would work great with most games.
> Gaming on laptop while traveling around the country may sound nice, but
> access to 5mbps wired connection isn't always there. I think the target
> market really narrows down to people who like to play high-end games,
> yet don't want to upgrade or have a gaming PC or a $150 console
>
> One way it can work is if they make a deal with cable/digital-TV
> providers, where the other company sells a higher-end TV/gaming bundle
> and include few games for free. The game servers can then be put not
> too far from susbscriber homes.
>
> In any case, as a promotion OnLive offered this founding member program
> sponsored by ATT, where the subscriber won't pay monthly fee for an
> year. I gave them my email and got an invitation few days later. So I
> created an account and logged in. Here are few things I noticed;
>
> * Even at the welcome screen while browsing through a list of games,
> the bandwidth usage is normally pegged at 5-5.6mbps. The application
> window is 1280x720, and the video stream is encoded with a tweaked
> H.264 codec. The video quality isn't bad, however going to full-screen
> (alt+ent) enhances the compression artifacts.
>
> * Games work a lot better than I imagined. It could be that I am just
> 20 miles from OnLive's location. A slight input lag is there, but it
> may not be too bad depending on the game.
>
> * Apparently OnLive client doesn't work with Logitech Dual Action
> gamepad. It may be that only XInput compatible controllers (like XBox
> 360 one)  are supported. Keyboard/mouse controls work fine.
>
> * The game menus are tweaked so that most graphic tweak settings are
> gone. I didn't see AA applied in any game. AF was also of low quality.
>
> * Some demos came with a time limit. I wasn't sure it was an OnLive
> restriction, or the demo itself had a limit.
>
> * Trine worked fine. Someone could be tricked into thinking that the
> game was actually getting played locally on the PC.
>
> * Few other puzzle games (World of Goo) worked great too.
>
> * Borderlands was where you could notice the input lag, but it still
> gave a decent experience. Graphic quality settings were toned down and
> there wasn't any AA. It worked fine though.
>
> * Just Cause 2 was a bit harder to control. Borderlands and Just Cause
> 2 both may have worked better on a gamepad, which could hide some of
> these latencies. It wasn't an option for me, since I far prefer m+kb
> controls for FPS.
>
> * During the 30-40 minutes, the performance was consistent.
>
> * I also got on-screen messages a few times, that a user had joined to
> view the game while I played. I don't understand the appeal, but
> apparently there's a 'spectate' option, that you can control.
>
> All in all, it did beat my expectations, but they were low to begin
> with. I still don't understand the pricing model or the target market
> they are after, and I think buying a decent graphic card (or a console)
> is a lot better way to play new games instead of spending money on this
> service. It does however work as advertised, and it may be a good place
> to check out demos. Those who like to play single-player games once by
> beating it in 3-4 days and moving on, may like the cheaper rental
> option. I can't see why anyone would buy a full game there at retail
> price.
>
> My 2¢
> --
> Noman
>
>

Thanks for the mini review.  I have been looking at this with great 
interest, although as far as I can imagine it simply won't work in most of 
the UK as 99% of ISPs have very low usage caps (30GB per month is very 
generous) and a speed of 3 mbps is considered fast in all but those 
locations with cable.

It sounds like an ideal casual gamer (console?) type thing though - if they 
can sort that terrible pricing model out! 

On 2010-06-24, Schrodinger <n...@way.com> wrote:
> Thanks for the mini review.  I have been looking at this with
> great interest, although as far as I can imagine it simply
> won't work in most of the UK as 99% of ISPs have very low usage
> caps (30GB per month is very generous) and a speed of 3 mbps is
> considered fast in all but those locations with cable.
>
> It sounds like an ideal casual gamer (console?) type thing
> though - if they can sort that terrible pricing model out! 

The market would (possibly) seem to be morons who will get a
2-year membership with their crappy new computer system purchase.

-- 
Neil Cerutti

Sheesh.  Who dumped money into this idea?  It's quite a gamble.

We've come a long way since buying cartridges for consoles.  And not
all in a good way!

-- 
Hammer

MetalGuru wrote:

> "Neil Cerutti" <ne...@norwich.edu> wrote
> >On 2010-06-24, Schrodinger <n...@way.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > It sounds like an ideal casual gamer (console?) type thing
> > > though - if they can sort that terrible pricing model out!
> > 
> > The market would (possibly) seem to be morons who will get a
> > 2-year membership with their crappy new computer system purchase.
> 
> This is the WebTV of video games, lol.  Destined to fail, no doubt.

I don't know how well techincally WebTV ever worked and why it failed.
In OnLive's case, I am impressed by the manner in which it runs all
sort of games. Only the FPS/TPS is where the lag bothers me a bit, but
it is still better than playing such games with a controller.

I just can't figure out the business plan. Schrodinger mentioned that
it can work for casual games with a better pricing model, but then
those games play very well on most PCs in the first place, and if
couch-comfort and bigger TV screens are concerned than consoles can do
that as well, with their online stores full of $5-10 casual games, many
of those same as the PC counterpart. Then there's this whole 5mbps
(2.5GB an hour) requirement that's a bit too much for most lower tier
broadband online plans in US.

Even if they somehow resolve the bandwidth requirement issue, at the
very minimum, they need to offer bunch of games with the $15 a month
subscription. They can even have couple of subscription levels, with
the higher tier having access to more of the recently released titles.
--
Noman

On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 19:13:16 +0000 (UTC), "noman"
<no_m_an@zzzyahoo.yycom> wrote:

[snip]

>All in all, it did beat my expectations, but they were low to begin
>with. I still don't understand the pricing model or the target market
>they are after, and I think buying a decent graphic card (or a console)
>is a lot better way to play new games instead of spending money on this
>service. It does however work as advertised, and it may be a good place
>to check out demos. Those who like to play single-player games once by
>beating it in 3-4 days and moving on, may like the cheaper rental
>option. I can't see why anyone would buy a full game there at retail
>price.
>
>My 2¢

I think this sounds cool. It somewhat overlaps what www.gametap.com is
already doing, the major difference being OnLives hardware actually
running the game.

That difference must give them a pretty large overhead, and that
creates the deal killer for me -its too expensive. I'd be interested
for access to everything at $15 a month, but what they're offering now
isn't worth it to me.

On Jun 24, 3:13 pm, "noman" <no_m...@zzzyahoo.yycom> wrote:
> I was recently selected to use OnLive for an year without cost. Before
> I write my impressions on the overall experience, let me cover a bit of
> a background.
>
> Some of you may already know that OnLive is a new gaming service that
> went active a few days back. Instead of places selling download version
> of games like Impulse, Steam, GamersGate or Direct2Drive, the games at
> OnLive stay remotely on their servers. Those with fast internet
> connection, can then play the games online. OnLive servers send a video
> stream and the client application (running locally on the PC) takes the
> input through mouse/keyboard or controller and sends it to the server.
> If you have ever used a remote-control application like Remote Desktop
> or LogMeIn, then it's the same concept except that you can play games
> as well.
>
> The benefit is that computers that are behind the times can still play
> modern-day DX10/DX11 games requiring faster CPU/GPU, since the game is
> actually run on the remote side. Mac users or most laptop users can run
> high-end windows games. Someone on Windows XP can play a DX10 only
> game. The only requirements are dual-core CPU, ability to do 1280x720
> resolution and a 5mbps internet connection.
>
> On the flip side, there are a lot of things that don't make any sense.
> The pricing model is such that a subscriber paying $15 a month for this
> service, won't get access to any game, except for demos. The games need
> to be purchased separately with few pricing options. They can be played
> for 3-5 days while paying a rental fee of $4-8, or can be bought for
> unlimited access (which actually is limited till 2013 after which
> OnLive deals with the game publishers will need renewal) for a price
> very close to the retail price of the game. So you never own a game,
> but you pay almost full price, if you need extended access. Streaming
> over the internet with low lag can only work if you are closer to the
> server actually playing the game. 5mbps access means that one hour use
> will eat up 2.5GB, which can be an issue for those with usage caps.
>
> Above all, if someone wants to pay $180 an year for the service, and
> where the games need to be bought extra then why not just buy a graphic
> card like HD 5770 or GTX260, which would work great with most games.
> Gaming on laptop while traveling around the country may sound nice, but
> access to 5mbps wired connection isn't always there. I think the target
> market really narrows down to people who like to play high-end games,
> yet don't want to upgrade or have a gaming PC or a $150 console
>
> One way it can work is if they make a deal with cable/digital-TV
> providers, where the other company sells a higher-end TV/gaming bundle
> and include few games for free. The game servers can then be put not
> too far from susbscriber homes.
>
> In any case, as a promotion OnLive offered this founding member program
> sponsored by ATT, where the subscriber won't pay monthly fee for an
> year. I gave them my email and got an invitation few days later. So I
> created an account and logged in. Here are few things I noticed;
>
> * Even at the welcome screen while browsing through a list of games,
> the bandwidth usage is normally pegged at 5-5.6mbps. The application
> window is 1280x720, and the video stream is encoded with a tweaked
> H.264 codec. The video quality isn't bad, however going to full-screen
> (alt+ent) enhances the compression artifacts.
>
> * Games work a lot better than I imagined. It could be that I am just
> 20 miles from OnLive's location. A slight input lag is there, but it
> may not be too bad depending on the game.
>
> * Apparently OnLive client doesn't work with Logitech Dual Action
> gamepad. It may be that only XInput compatible controllers (like XBox
> 360 one)  are supported. Keyboard/mouse controls work fine.
>
> * The game menus are tweaked so that most graphic tweak settings are
> gone. I didn't see AA applied in any game. AF was also of low quality.
>
> * Some demos came with a time limit. I wasn't sure it was an OnLive
> restriction, or the demo itself had a limit.
>
> * Trine worked fine. Someone could be tricked into thinking that the
> game was actually getting played locally on the PC.
>
> * Few other puzzle games (World of Goo) worked great too.
>
> * Borderlands was where you could notice the input lag, but it still
> gave a decent experience. Graphic quality settings were toned down and
> there wasn't any AA. It worked fine though.
>
> * Just Cause 2 was a bit harder to control. Borderlands and Just Cause
> 2 both may have worked better on a gamepad, which could hide some of
> these latencies. It wasn't an option for me, since I far prefer m+kb
> controls for FPS.
>
> * During the 30-40 minutes, the performance was consistent.
>
> * I also got on-screen messages a few times, that a user had joined to
> view the game while I played. I don't understand the appeal, but
> apparently there's a 'spectate' option, that you can control.
>
> All in all, it did beat my expectations, but they were low to begin
> with. I still don't understand the pricing model or the target market
> they are after, and I think buying a decent graphic card (or a console)
> is a lot better way to play new games instead of spending money on this
> service. It does however work as advertised, and it may be a good place
> to check out demos. Those who like to play single-player games once by
> beating it in 3-4 days and moving on, may like the cheaper rental
> option. I can't see why anyone would buy a full game there at retail
> price.
>
> My 2¢
> --
> Noman

I couldn't access this earlier, but here are my 2 cents on it.
I also tried the service, and had a similar experience, but I'd like
to add some comments:
 - Demos, the 30 minute restriction is an Onvia restriction.  You can
demo the game as many times as you want, but nothing gets saved, so
you'll be demoing the first 30 minutes of every game.  This works for
every game, no need for the developers to have a 'demo' version of the
game. You're demoing the real full game, but you can only play 30
minutes at a time, from scratch.
 - Spectator (arena):  It's much more than what you described.  To me,
this is the real 'demo' area. You get to see people play the game,
without the 30 minute restriction. So not only will you see the game
in action (and decide if you like it or not), you get to learn from
someone who's actually playing.  Another feature of spectating is that
you can cheer or leer the player. I got to watch a game of tower
defense for like 15 minutes, and at the end cheered the guy when
things were hectic but looking good, I assume people would like to see
that when they're playing (allowing spectators can be turned off in
the options)
 - I think the appeal is much more than for people with old computers.
Think about it. You would be able to play console games in your
computer. Except for exclusivity agreements, you theoretically could
play Final Fantasy XIII or Halo 3 or Resistance in your PC.  And why
stop with PCs? You could play it in a Mac (without any virtualization)
or even on a Linux PC (or who knows, iPads?)
 - The pricing model definitely needs a revision. Yes, there are
advantages to the service, but the disadvantages outweigh them, so
pricing needs to come down.  Also, they only offer 3 or 5 day rentals
in some games. Why stop there?  there should be a 10 day rental too.
Maybe a rent-to-own that if you decide to buy, what you paid renting
is reimbursed or something.
 - Library of games:  It's too restricted right now. For the service
to take off, it needs a much bigger library. I understand some EA
games were removed at the last minute prior to release for technical
reasons, but it needs many more games.

Wolfing wrote:

>  - Demos, the 30 minute restriction is an Onvia restriction.  You can
> demo the game as many times as you want, but nothing gets saved, so
> you'll be demoing the first 30 minutes of every game. 

It makes sense.

>  - Spectator (arena):  It's much more than what you described.  To me,
> this is the real 'demo' area. You get to see people play the game,
> without the 30 minute restriction. So not only will you see the game
> in action (and decide if you like it or not), you get to learn from
> someone who's actually playing.  

Yes, I did try this option and liked it. The user interface is
impressive, where you get to see dozens of small screens showing games
being played in real time.

>  - I think the appeal is much more than for people with old computers.
> Think about it. You would be able to play console games in your
> computer. Except for exclusivity agreements, you theoretically could
> play Final Fantasy XIII or Halo 3 or Resistance in your PC.  And why
> stop with PCs? You could play it in a Mac (without any virtualization)
> or even on a Linux PC (or who knows, iPads?)

Or a DX10 game on WinXP :) 

I'd rather buy a console and/or a mid-range video card, since the
OnLive experience can't match with playing the game locally on your PC
or console.

>  - The pricing model definitely needs a revision. Yes, there are
> advantages to the service, but the disadvantages outweigh them, so
> pricing needs to come down.  

I can think of only two workable pricing models;

1) Be a technology partner to ISPs/cable-providers, and let them sell
the service

2) Charge a monthly fee, but allow access to all games. They can create
a few pricing tiers restricting the amount of games available to each.
They can run a promotion where a game from a higher tier becomes
available temporarily to a lower one. I don't think selling individual
games will work.

My 2¢
--
Noman

Who in the world spent money on this?  You'd have to pay me to use
it.  Maybe 10 years from now when fiber reaches more homes it could be
viable.  Maybe.

On Fri, 9 Jul 2010 10:53:14 -0700 (PDT), "Mr. Stabby"
<dbat...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Who in the world spent money on this?  You'd have to pay me to use
>it.  Maybe 10 years from now when fiber reaches more homes it could be
>viable.  Maybe.

Well, a lot of places already have that. 3 years ago here.