According to this it does, but then again thats one of those "tech blogs" that are always calling the most stupid ideas to ever get funded "the next big thing" On the other hand we have this experience from a guy who managed to get into the closed beta, and well is not as great as they say. The problem I see with remote-play services is that the technology is still too underdeveloped to support it. Is like Xband, remember that one? the idea behind it was great, yet only in the last years we've finally archived easy-to-use online multiplayer. Back then even a Genesis game had problems dealing with phone lines speeds. I dont want to trash this because its actually a good idea: having this service means I no longer have to spend my time building and configuring a PC for games, nor throw money away in rapidly deprecating hardware that will be old in less than 2 years. And instead of splurging $1,500 in a decent gaming laptop I can have all the games I want wherever I am in a regular laptop, a netbook or even a phone. Problem? for now thats all fantasy: they're working on an iPhone version, which sounds good for RTS (specially if its the iPad) but bad for everything else, and lets be honest streaming QVGA video to an iPhone these days is no technical feat. Yet these guys are having trouble streaming 720p video, which for a PC gamer is less than minimum resolution. The guy on that review tried to use the service on a netbook with ION graphics and the client would not let him even try. It also doesn't works on WiFi, so good luck getting it to work through a congested 3G line... Obviously OnLive doesn't like this (exposure) so they demanded all videos about the lag on the service be removed from youtube and the like. As for the lag problem, this part is interesting OnLive CEO: If you are more than 1000 miles from an OnLive data center, then the round trip communications delay (“ping” time) between your home and OnLive will be too long for fast-action video games PCPER response: While I understand Perlman's intent here, that is a blanket statement that just can't apply 100% of the time. In a world where my computer has to talk to 14 different systems before it reaches pcper.com, any of those could cause a delay even if I am 100 miles from the physical server. The same is true for OnLive customers. Does being closer tend to help? Sure. Is it a guarantee of great performance (or bad performance outside 1000 miles)? Nope. Thats the kind of BS you should avoid when catering to an audience with above-average technical knowledge... I can see this working in Finland, Japan or Korea where they have 1Gbps lines, but in the rest of the world? this guy has a 20Mbps line and still can't play the game properly.
HOLY CRAP! I made a little background check on this guy Perlman, and guess what? He was the co-founder and CTO of Catapult! the guys behind the Xband! Its a small world...
You won't be playing 3DHD games via this any time soon, for sure. But, having worked over VNC a lot, which is kinda similar, I think it might kinda work if you keep the resolution low (say, you're playing on a nedbook) and the content is compression friendly (that is, stuff like camera rotations are baaad, but if you have for example a side scroller (so parts of the picture can be reused in betwen frames...). In short, Rage or Tomb Raider = no way, Command & Conquer = possibly, Castle Crashers = fine.
If this service ever does get out of beta and released I highly doubt it will catch on. Nobody talks about it, except negatively. DRM haters (like myself for most things) will not buy this.With how much money you'd end up paying for this service you probably could have built that nice desktop you wanted. You can build a good computer for $800.
True, they need to work on the pricing, and I don't like the DRM either. But, maybe try thinking of it as a kind of "demo hardware" - not as in "is this graphics card worth it", more like "is this game worth upgrading my PC for". I can see myself paying for a few days of access to a new title in that scenario.
I would expect controls would have highest priority, and the video second. Expect varying levels of heavy compression.
If you have to actively shut down negative comments about your product, rather than let it ride on it's own merits, then it was a crappy product to begin and they know it won't work.
I disagree on that since at $14 a month is the same than paying for Live, except that you dont need to buy a console or PC and (in theory) would get the best graphics available at the time instead of a watered-down version like you do with consoles. However I dont like how the "buy a game" system works, since if OnLive goes down like XBand did, will one be able to keep the games? I dont think so... Word, but you have to admit that a lot of people like to throw shit at things for the fun of it. And sometimes good stuff gets borked for that, like the Dreamcast which was a great console but got buried under a wave of negative comments about its possibilities. The irony is that at the time it was getting the best games available...
It very much works, having used it. The video compression is downright awful at times though, pushing out 720p or so. It is a neat service though, especially having a year free for early subscribers and a free game. At the very least, it makes demoing games nice, since no download and all that.
