Any OnLive'rs out there?

[MAG1270]

I was wondering if any of you people are using OnLive?

 

My gamertag is MAG1270. Feel free to add me.

 

It's currently US only but, despite me being in Denmark, I've made OnLive my main platform for gaming. Perhaps that should give you an estimate of how well it's working.

[Bjossi]

Never tried it, never will. My PC is more than capable of rendering its own set of frames.

[Luis]

How's onlive? Don't you have latency problems? How is the image quqlity? I'd like a real testimony from a person... Not eom webpage payed by the company to give a nice review

[DaftMink]

Two words, Bandwidth cap.

 

Playing games on Steam uses less bandwidth then streaming, and you own them as long as Valve's in business.

 

OnLive at least to me is a pretty dumb investment.

[Bjossi]

Isn't it pretty much going right against the current flow of data? Scientific computing is moving away from megaservers to home computers, because home computers are bloody powerful and forming a collective whole their output can make a megaserver/supercomputer look like a motion impaired snail. People don't need to have stuff rendered for them and sent across the planet, it is not only troublesome physically but it is simply uneconomical. It is much cheaper and better for the environment to just use local computing power and only use remote servers for data storage.

 

To me this is one of those opposite effects, like when it was believed computers would cut down on paper usage (Boy were they wrong.). Apparently as storage and computing power become cheaper and more mainsteam, strangely enough there is a growing demand for a jungle of server farms across the planet connected back and forth in a web that makes people's heads spin. One would think that this was not necessary when you can get 10 TBs of storage space for a month's salary or two.

[Lord Sinister]

Isn't it pretty much going right against the current flow of data? Scientific computing is moving away from megaservers to home computers, because home computers are bloody powerful and forming a collective whole their output can make a megaserver/supercomputer look like a motion impaired snail. People don't need to have stuff rendered for them and sent across the planet, it is not only troublesome physically but it is simply uneconomical. It is much cheaper and better for the environment to just use local computing power and only use remote servers for data storage.

 

To me this is one of those opposite effects, like when it was believed computers would cut down on paper usage (Boy were they wrong.). Apparently as storage and computing power become cheaper and more mainsteam, strangely enough there is a growing demand for a jungle of server farms across the planet connected back and forth in a web that makes people's heads spin. One would think that this was not necessary when you can get 10 TBs of storage space for a month's salary or two.

 

Actually I was under the impression that it was cloud computing that was up and coming, rather than home computers. I could be wrong though...

[MAG1270]

Never tried it, never will. My PC is more than capable of rendering its own set of frames.

You know, "never" is a long time. Why don't you give it a try? It's free. There are free 30 minute trials on all games and the PlayPack (the Netflix equivalent of games) is free for the first month; just remember to unsubscribe before it starts charging you.

 

And you know what is funny? Many people just like you have computers/consoles capable of running everything, and yet, they are using OnLive. They still use their computer/console, but they just love the idea of cloud gaming so much that they want to support OnLive.

 

How's onlive? Don't you have latency problems? How is the image quqlity? I'd like a real testimony from a person... Not eom webpage payed by the company to give a nice review

OnLive is great. I have noticeable latency because I'm far beyond OnLive's set "worst case scenario" at 1000 miles from their servers (I'm at 5000+ miles), and yet, I manage to enjoy their services. The image? Well, let's say for me it's good enough. It would be much better if I wasn't 5000+ miles away. I quickly just took a screenshot from Metro 2033, see for yourself here: http://i.imgur.com/BEw5w.jpg

 

But I'm not the best person to ask, as OnLive officially only are supported in the US and I'm not in the US. If you really want to see how it works, then you should try for yourself, but you could also see some videos made by Saieno which are great.

 

Video Review:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=addmpwcZ9Uo

Comparison of OnLive, PC and consoles:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-7_0rXB14E

Latency test:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-zu9VHWb0w

Unboxing of the OnLive Microconsole:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4f_DCCSqzk

 

It should be noted that these videos are a couple of months old, but OnLive has only gotten better since then.

 

Two words, Bandwidth cap.

 

Playing games on Steam uses less bandwidth then streaming, and you own them as long as Valve's in business.

 

OnLive at least to me is a pretty dumb investment.

Yes, I see how this is somewhat of a hindrance. Some of the latest reports from consumers that I've seen, showed that OnLive took 2.3 GB/hour. Personally this is no problem as I don't have a bandwidth cap, but there has been people urging OnLive to enable standard definition (Wii resolution) to help against bandwidth caps. OnLive has previously talked about standard definition, but sadly they have other priorities right now.

 

Isn't it pretty much going right against the current flow of data? Scientific computing is moving away from megaservers to home computers, because home computers are bloody powerful and forming a collective whole their output can make a megaserver/supercomputer look like a motion impaired snail. People don't need to have stuff rendered for them and sent across the planet, it is not only troublesome physically but it is simply uneconomical. It is much cheaper and better for the environment to just use local computing power and only use remote servers for data storage.

 

To me this is one of those opposite effects, like when it was believed computers would cut down on paper usage (Boy were they wrong.). Apparently as storage and computing power become cheaper and more mainsteam, strangely enough there is a growing demand for a jungle of server farms across the planet connected back and forth in a web that makes people's heads spin. One would think that this was not necessary when you can get 10 TBs of storage space for a month's salary or two.

 

Actually I was under the impression that it was cloud computing that was up and coming, rather than home computers. I could be wrong though...

It is, right now cloud computing is in.

 

But yes, you can say your home computer is getting more and more powerful as time goes, but from a consumer standpoint, upgrading can be very expensive. This is one of the main advantages of OnLive: if you can use OnLive now, you can use OnLive next year and next year again and so on...

 

And one thing I can assure you wont happen within the next couple of years, is locally rendered AAA gaming on a tablet. HTC has hooked up with OnLive to bring cloud gaming to their smartphones/tablets. They are working on getting the OnLive wireless controller to work with the HTC devices, and in fact, they already have. Here is a video of Steve Perlman (the CEO of OnLive) showing it in action:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OuUhraEsGf0 (jump to 2:36 for the wireless controller)

[Bjossi]

You know, "never" is a long time. Why don't you give it a try? It's free.

 

Two words: bandwidth cap. And I simply am not interested. I make enough money to spend a few hundred on upgrades every 3-5 years.

 

They still use their computer/console, but they just love the idea of cloud gaming so much that they want to support OnLive.

 

I do not understand the attraction. At all.

 

It is, right now cloud computing is in.

 

My hard drives can store all my emails and other data, my dirt cheap HD 5770 can play the newest games nearly maxed out. I can understand big companies renting out big server farms, but why would a consumer need this, or even want this? Maybe it is just the advanced user me not understanding how more casual computer users think. I feel better knowing of my data on my own hard drives + backup rather than floating around in the skies as "clouds (where the heck did that buzzword come from anyways?).

[Nagisa]

I use it on netbook sometimes. Unfortunately, it's useless in the only place it'd truly be useful which is on my mobile broadband (it's fast enough, but it sucks the bandwidth).