Comments on: OnLive boss says people had “damn well better be skeptical”

By: elronathon

elronathon — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 14:46:11 +0000

@jeremycafe: there wouldn’t literally be a copy of a game dedicated to you paused somewhere…it would be the equivalent of a save state in an emulator I imagine…

By: jeremycafe

jeremycafe — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 14:23:23 +0000

What seems like BS to me is when the demo video he states you can go back to a paused state you were in when you last rented the game. There is no way in hell they are going to be able to store everyones games, and keep them running until they come back.

By: David

David — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 14:15:09 +0000

Personally I still want this to work so still keeping judgement till I see a real life test of the service.

By: timothydclark

timothydclark — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 13:28:07 +0000

Exactly. Why *wouldn’t* the big boys, most of whom are desperate for any new revenue stream, commit to it? Particularly as that commitment appears to amount to little more than not refusing the use of their IP. If Perlman announces that the likes of EA and Actiblizzle are willing to share the cost of the servers, you have my interest. Otherwise what are we talking – some DVDs and a smile?

By: Michael O'Connor

Michael O'Connor — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 13:23:34 +0000

He’s a luminary now, don’t you know?

GDC said so.

By: Captain Fruitloop

Captain Fruitloop — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 13:19:33 +0000

Is Dave Perry going to be putting out a press statement now, saying he thought of saying all that first?

By: Michael O'Connor

Michael O'Connor — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 12:43:16 +0000

What a pish poor arguments.

“We’ve got some big developers willing to put their games on our service, so it’s GOTTA BE GOOD, AMIRITE?”

Just wait till they stop supplying the games…

By: Tiger Walts

Tiger Walts — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 12:40:25 +0000

It clearly works, what remains to be seen is if it works on any sort of scale that it actually makes money. In the GDC demonstration the servers they were playing on were 60 miles away, so they were playing with the networking overheads that make up the bulk of lag for any connection.

Personally I can’t see how they could afford server farms that are running the most demanding games but what they will be good at is serving low CPU demand games that have lots and lots of assets, such as MMOs. A netbook doesn’t have the storage to run WoW but it could run a thin client app only a few kb in size. If Blizzard had specific servers located alongside the OnLive ones then the only lag would be that of the video stream to the user.

Assets would load from RAM which would be near instantaneous. Sure, you couldn’t use your add0ns but maybe OnLive could give you access to your own addOn folder which it merges into the instance of the game you are running.

By: sennasnit

sennasnit — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 12:33:47 +0000

“damn well better be skeptical”
You got that bit fuckin’ right Steve

By: deftangel

deftangel — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 11:43:58 +0000

It’s a no-brainer for the publishers to sign up, especially for PC titles. They’ve absolutely nothing to lose. I don’t see how that validates anything.

By: Syrok

Syrok — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 11:35:53 +0000

Speaking of cloud.
Could the one blocking the sun please go away!?

By: freedoms_stain

freedoms_stain — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 11:33:33 +0000

If it works at all it only works if you have a highspeed dependable broadband connection, that’s where the problem lies for most people.

That and lag.

By: Syrok

Syrok — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 11:31:46 +0000

“They damn well better be skeptical, because it’s a April Fools joke!”

By: G1GAHURTZ

G1GAHURTZ — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 11:31:21 +0000

“The only reason they’re going to do that is, obviously, they’ve gone through tons and tons of testing as well.”

Rubbish.