MustardCat on 16/12/2010 at 13:10
Bump. So anyone been using this service lately?
I'm in Germany right now, installed it on my PC and tried Dirt 2. The whole process took about 10 minutes. Didn't look that great, but not too bad compared to console games anyways, the lag was hardly playable. Might be ok on a turn based RPG or something...
What I was impressed by was how quickly I was able to install it and get into the full version of Dirt 2 to try it out, for free. If nothing else this service can be useful to those of us who want to see what the full game is really like before spending the cash.
Now I'm interested how well this is working for people back in the states? I suspect most of my lag is caused by being overseas... If you want to try it go to their website and sign up for free. (Very quick, doesn't even bother verifying your email address).
gunsmoke on 16/12/2010 at 15:50
Have you guys seen that they created an actual set-top console dedicated to their service (complete with a controller)? They must have it at least somewhat lagless, or else would they have spent all of the money on R&D and production/distribution of a console? Seems to me, if they were borderline or worse, they would have kept it like GameTap. Just an on-demand PC service.
I am actually rooting for these guys. It may not be the future of gaming and game distribution, but it is an interesting experiment at the very least and could be indicative of the direction the industry may be heading in the future.
Eldron on 16/12/2010 at 16:40
They'll never overcome the speed at which the packets can go to reach its destination, it has a hard limit.
That'll be their undoing I think, people will want to have a latency-free experience.
I mean, they have the right thinking, but in the wrong area, the console at which you retrieve your data at has to be powerful, that's where the calculation has to happen (due to input having to be instant), but your actual data can be stored anywhere, we're not limited at the amount of data we can send at any moment, just the speed at which one packet of it will reach its destination.
steo on 16/12/2010 at 16:45
Still waiting on that FTL broadband...
MustardCat on 16/12/2010 at 19:18
Are you guys in the states, have you tried it? I'm looking for some feedback from people who have actually used it recently, not armchair expertise. (No offense)
If you haven't tried it go to the onlive site, sign up, and try one of the games and give us real feedback please. It's a very quick process.
(
https://www.onlive.com/go/signup) https://www.onlive.com/go/signup
Jason Moyer on 17/12/2010 at 01:29
I signed up for a free account but can't connect since I only have 3Mbps DSL.
Fafhrd on 17/12/2010 at 02:46
I've messed about with it a bit. It works kind of okay over my wi-fi, though it has absolutely no tolerance for packet loss, and it works flawlessly on my work connection. They seriously need to expand their library, though.
And I really think it's time to put the 'no one will use it because of lag' statements to bed. The service is live. People are using it. In fact, enough people are using it and paying for rentals and buying games off of it that they were able to do away with the (asinine) subscription plan they were originally going to use, and are planning to implement a much cheaper, optional, subscription plan that comes with unlimited play of a chunk of their library.
Quote Posted by Eldron
I mean, they have the right thinking, but in the wrong area, the console at which you retrieve your data at has to be powerful, that's where the calculation has to happen (due to input having to be instant), but your actual data can be stored anywhere, we're not limited at the amount of data we can send at any moment, just the speed at which one packet of it will reach its destination.
Which would make it different than Steamworks+Steamcloud how, exactly? You'd still have to download tens of gigabytes of data to your local system in order to actually play the games, which, depending on your connection, could take hours. Yeah, Onlive has a bit of control lag, but it's not crippling (depending on your location in relation to the datacenters), but turning on a game is near instantaneous, and future-proofing is inherent in the setup. In your example you'd still have to upgrade the local hardware every once in a while in order to run the newest games.
Eldron on 17/12/2010 at 05:21
Quote Posted by Fafhrd
I've messed about with it a bit. It works kind of okay over my wi-fi, though it has absolutely no tolerance for packet loss, and it works flawlessly on my work connection. They seriously need to expand their library, though.
And I really think it's time to put the 'no one will use it because of lag' statements to bed. The service is live. People are using it. In fact, enough people are using it and paying for rentals and buying games off of it that they were able to do away with the (asinine) subscription plan they were originally going to use, and are planning to implement a much cheaper, optional, subscription plan that comes with unlimited play of a chunk of their library.
Which would make it different than Steamworks+Steamcloud how, exactly? You'd still have to download tens of gigabytes of data to your local system in order to actually play the games, which, depending on your connection, could take hours. Yeah, Onlive has a bit of control lag, but it's not crippling (depending on your location in relation to the datacenters), but turning on a game is near instantaneous, and future-proofing is inherent in the setup. In your example you'd still have to upgrade the local hardware every once in a while in order to run the newest games.
I didn't say it would be different, steam is pretty much the biggest gaming platform in this way atm.
Games played in multiplayer on a pc has the fortune to have client-prediction, the client can predict what will happen, so that actions appear as being instant.
Onlive doesn't have that feature due to how it works, it can never be predicted, since it never knows what's going to happen on the other side, the latency will always be there, and it will not be in favor for onlive.
The latency will never go away even, since that would mean breaking the speed of light, it'll never happen, the best case scenario would be if you had the onlive servers right in your room, then it would feel like you were actually playing the games properly.
june gloom on 17/12/2010 at 05:32
And if you're going to do that you might as well just fucking buy an Xbox.
Jason Moyer on 17/12/2010 at 05:42
OnLive is cheaper and has better games, so if you have the bandwidth it seems like a better alternative, really.
