OnLive Will Stream Games From Your Steam Library

Status
Not open for further replies.

twelch82

Distinguished
Dec 8, 2011
182
0
18,680
OnLive's business model is not viable in the US, and probably won't be for at least 20 years - and that's being optimistic about it.I think they should refocus their streaming expertise and try to get a jumpstart on the in-home streaming market which will probably be a big deal in a few years' time.
 
They have the right idea essentially this enables you to play games without much hardware except perhaps a good internet connection and a subscription. However, will be a hard sell at the current moment as others have said bandwidth being the big thing right now for 60+ fps gaming.
 

DrBackwater

Honorable
Jun 10, 2013
362
0
10,810
If live can tailor to the pc community ways to make pc users stream to their tv situated in lounge room witht he option to go live for those who have the noted laptops or underpowered setups would be awesome.I stream all my movies from my pc, but cannot stream to my pc unless I have a 60ft long hdmi cord and a controller that's so non-existent. it exists but live should build a level of business to cater to.Hardcore couch gamers who need a break from the keyboard.And those who need the live service that can stream form the servers.
 
I was in the Onlive BETA, and received a free game years ago. I think Onlive is absolutely awesome, but there are some serious flaws to the whole system.

I played assassins creed through this service years ago and I could not really see any discernible lag, but for a competitive shooter this service would be a deal breaker unless it offered near-zero latency. Another major issue is Internet is the United States alone. I have a 50mbit/25mbit FIOS Internet connection with no caps so I am lucky, but a lot of people have slow connections and caps which will be hit hard fast. I was only using 5mbit to 7mbit of my connection while trying to game on Onlive again today too. Let's say you have a 10mbit internet connection with a cap of 250GB a month, you will hit your cap in 50 to 60 hours of game play for the month, not good! There are a lot more flaws like in this whole thing that make this a no go.

There are some really amazing features though like brag clips, watching live plays, instantly starting any game on any device without a powerful system, gaming anywhere in the world, and more! To be honest though, the service feels much worse than it was four years ago in performance, and design. Onlive now feels really sluggish, things are hard to navigate and ugly, it's been 4-5 years now and everything looks like it's 480P to 720P with no AA still. The service feels worse than when it originally released.
 

teh_chem

Honorable
Jun 20, 2012
902
0
11,010
I really like the idea of game streaming technology, like OnLive (played during the beta--my experience was only so-so, but of course, it was still in development).However, $15/mo for a game streaming service...I guess I'm not the target demographic, it's too pricey for me; I don't buy a lot of games in a year, definitely less than $180 worth. I acknowledge that there are people who spend a lot on games each year who might find this appealing (discussions of 'owning' the game aside, being able to re-sell when done, etc. aside).But here's the thing for the Steam game topic. If I've already purchased a game on Steam, I then have to pay the subscription fee to also stream that game with OnLive? I know it takes their bandwidth, processing, and resources to enable that, but I couldn't see paying twice to play a game, where one of those payments the game purchase and the other is a monthly recurring cost.
 

daekar

Distinguished
Apr 7, 2009
83
0
18,630
And when the court struck down Net Neutrality, this dream died. If they're actively throttling Netflix and YouTube, what makes anyone think that this won't suffer the same abuse?
 
Sep 22, 2013
482
0
10,810
OnLive's business model is not viable in the US, and probably won't be for at least 20 years - and that's being optimistic about it.I think they should refocus their streaming expertise and try to get a jumpstart on the in-home streaming market which will probably be a big deal in a few years' time.
Exactly what I've been saying since they started. I *wish* the internet infrastructure was there (along with the dumb pipe service deals) to support such a model, but it just isn't and won't be for a long time.That said, I still feel strongly that streaming games is a novelty that most avid PC gamers won't find that appealing. We like our hardware, we like to run the game locally, we like our graphics. All of these things go out the window with streaming. And input lag? There's only so much even a fiber connection can do when the server is thousands of miles away.The only appeal I see is "enabling" those without a real gaming PC to play these games, and for that, a console make more sense when it's an option, and when it's not, I doubt this oddly niche crowd will be enough to keep this company afloat.
 

gallidorn

Distinguished
Jan 23, 2009
104
0
18,680
The problem I see is many people will need to upgrade their internet speed and then add another $15 for the ability to stream Steam games through OnLive. OnLive was STUPID to charge $15 per month, because you will get less people using your service, than when it was free! If OnLive was smart, they would offer the service for FREE and then charge a small one-time fee of $1.00 per Steam game that you enable for streaming through OnLive.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.