Why Onlive will Fail Hard:

[VaporGuar]

1.) Millions of people playing online at the same time, with hundreds of games to choose from, some requiring pin point accuracy with 0 lag tolerance (like fighting games), even with the best servers, there's no way a California based server can possibly deal with a gamer from England without latency issues. Even with hundreds of servers scattered everywhere, the service will eventually crack under pressure because it relies completely on the internet.

2.) If my PS3 breaks on me, I'm the only person who has to suffer not being able to play, but I can still do so by using a friend's machine. If the OnLive service goes down, every single subscriber is basically in the dark, and there's no solution that the gamer can do on his own except to wait. There's far too much risk, especially since it's relying on nothing but internet connections.

3.) The internet is far from stable enough to support games that require 0 lag/latency tolerance. Almost everyone on this planet suffers from internet instability at certain points, and if the service provider is experiencing lag, everyone will as well, making the service unplayable.

4.) Bandwidth and internet speeds just aren't high enough for the vast majority of consumers. Think about it. The 360 has 29 million console sales, but just half of those are Live subscribers. There are a number of reasons why this is the case, chief among them:

A.) Not everyone has an internet connection.

B.) Not everyone has a fast enough internet connection.

C.) Not everyone is interested in using the internet to play games.

Onlive will not succeed.

[Phantom]

I think these points are pretty valid, on live is a scam and will fail miserably

[username]

Such pessimism.
1.) Ok, If there are gamers in England, then there are servers there as well. Europe all together has better internet connections then The States. There are things called Business Plans. There are people who get paid to do what you have done. Then there are people to solve those problems. If the amount of users raise, then the amount of servers would need to as well.

2.) You seem to dependent on you games. If onlive were to go down, repeat after me "The World Will Not End." You can keep your console, or your pc games, and if it goes down, and you're just jonezing for a fix, put one of those in. There is something called evolution, if people really like this, the execs at OnLive will figure out how to fix it.

3.) There are times of instability in the internet, but the internet is changing, bandwidths are increasing, and connection speeds are getting better. One must walk before running.

4.)There is a term in media studies, that is 'Niche Marketing.'
"Identifying and targeting markets not adequately served by competitors." from [http://www.america.gov/st/econ-english/2008/May/20080604000521eaifas0.386593.html]
Yes it is true that not every single person wants to use the internet to play games, great, but there are a lot of people who do. I realize that not everyone has a good enough connection to use this, but not everyone has a car, but roads seem to be doing pretty well.

[xinon]

I have some Facts:

First Person Shooters like CoD , Gears of War have a
Input Lagg 0.05 ms
Youre TV about 6ms or 8ms (can also be 2ms if you have a expensive Phillips TV)

Now the Lagg just to youre Internet Provider should be around 12ms with very good connection or more. Thats only to youre Provider not the Internet. So tell me how can there be so sure there is a ZERO Lagg Gaming possible `?


Calculate:
0.05 ms Game lagg
8 ms Display Lagg
25 ms Internet lagg to youre Provider r
10 ms Routing (like LAN condition) to Onlive Server

43,05 ms LAGG on Best Conditions !!!
You can feel it. If Onlive gonna be also a Internet Provider than it can be Possible but not if its a normal Service in the Internet Cloud.

Its a very very nice idea i like it but 5 - 8 years to early we dont have all fiberoptic cables in the world yet. I think its the Future but right now not possible. And i just telling about the Streaming the next problem is to have all the Servers for the subs.

peace

[B1553r]

My skepticism of the skeptics...

The only other time I see this level of outrage on the internet with regards to gaming is when people talk about DRM.

OnLive essentially has perfect and unbreakable DRM and I think that is driving the skeptics more than anything else.

Talk me down.

[ZULND3R]

1.) Millions of people playing online at the same time, with hundreds of games to choose from, some requiring pin point accuracy with 0 lag tolerance (like fighting games), even with the best servers, there's no way a California based server can possibly deal with a gamer from England without latency issues. Even with hundreds of servers scattered everywhere, the service will eventually crack under pressure because it relies completely on the internet.

2.) If my PS3 breaks on me, I'm the only person who has to suffer not being able to play, but I can still do so by using a friend's machine. If the OnLive service goes down, every single subscriber is basically in the dark, and there's no solution that the gamer can do on his own except to wait. There's far too much risk, especially since it's relying on nothing but internet connections.

3.) The internet is far from stable enough to support games that require 0 lag/latency tolerance. Almost everyone on this planet suffers from internet instability at certain points, and if the service provider is experiencing lag, everyone will as well, making the service unplayable.

4.) Bandwidth and internet speeds just aren't high enough for the vast majority of consumers. Think about it. The 360 has 29 million console sales, but just half of those are Live subscribers. There are a number of reasons why this is the case, chief among them:

A.) Not everyone has an internet connection.

B.) Not everyone has a fast enough internet connection.

C.) Not everyone is interested in using the internet to play games.

Onlive will not succeed.

1. In the press conference they stated that they would have multiple server-hubs across the united states (they have one in the east, west, and are building one in the midwest currently). Secondly (and I'm just relaying what they said) most of the games while actually being played don't require a HUGE amount of bandwith. I can't see it being any more than a whole bunch of people surfing the web.

2. How is this any different than when Xbox Live goes down for maintenance? Its annoying but its for the better of the community.

3. Unstable doesn't mean unplayable. Again, how does this differ from current online gaming in that if you have a crappy internet connection, you get crappy gameplay. Of course it wouldn't work if your internet sucks.

4.
a) this is obviously only appealing to online gamers, however you could always assume that more might make the switch to faster internet with the advent of this service due to its cost effectiveness in the long run (ie lack of true hardware).
b) true, again, see my point for a)
c) again true, but this obviously isn't aimed at those consumers. That doesn't necessarily = Onlive Fail. I am willing to bet that there is a pretty good base of people out there willing to give this a try (myself included).

[gronfors]

Ya, I find it interesting that you didn't bother to include that Grandmas won't want to play it

:/

And also, the requirements for your internet speed is quite low by today's general standards... If you have anything better than Dial-up, your good (not really)

[ZULND3R]

Ya, I find it interesting that you didn't bother to include that Grandmas won't want to play it

:/

And also, the requirements for your internet speed is quite low by today's general standards... If you have anything better than Dial-up, your good (not really)

do you honestly think that most people who have dial-up are interested in playing high level games? Chances are that people who are even interested in the service have a great deal of tech knowledge and at least have access to some higher level of an internet connection as well.

[Brian]

That is a great point Zulnd3r. Most people interested in playing games of this quality probably have a high speed connection. Those who don't can likely get one. If money is the problem and they can't afford to pay maybe $20 a month more for the connection than they probably can't afford to be playing these games anyway.

[ZULND3R]

That is a great point Zulnd3r. Most people interested in playing games of this quality probably have a high speed connection. Those who don't can likely get one. If money is the problem and they can't afford to pay maybe $20 a month more for the connection than they probably can't afford to be playing these games anyway.

I think that is the idea though. Rather than having people spend $1000's of dollars on new computer hardware. You could pump that money directly into the cost of Onlive+Internet Service+Games. It would definitely be cheaper this way.

[FTWrath]

All of you skeptics have failed to mention that the service doesn't require you to play online with other people.
You can simply play the single player version. I have tons of friends who don't play online because they don't like it. If you lag in single player... so does everything around you.
Everyone lags, its inevitable.
This console is 6 years in the making, I'm sure everything that could be tested has been tested.

[welshyboy619]

1.) Millions of people playing online at the same time, with hundreds of games to choose from, some requiring pin point accuracy with 0 lag tolerance (like fighting games), even with the best servers, there's no way a California based server can possibly deal with a gamer from England without latency issues. Even with hundreds of servers scattered everywhere, the service will eventually crack under pressure because it relies completely on the internet.

2.) If my PS3 breaks on me, I'm the only person who has to suffer not being able to play, but I can still do so by using a friend's machine. If the OnLive service goes down, every single subscriber is basically in the dark, and there's no solution that the gamer can do on his own except to wait. There's far too much risk, especially since it's relying on nothing but internet connections.

3.) The internet is far from stable enough to support games that require 0 lag/latency tolerance. Almost everyone on this planet suffers from internet instability at certain points, and if the service provider is experiencing lag, everyone will as well, making the service unplayable.

4.) Bandwidth and internet speeds just aren't high enough for the vast majority of consumers. Think about it. The 360 has 29 million console sales, but just half of those are Live subscribers. There are a number of reasons why this is the case, chief among them:

A.) Not everyone has an internet connection.

B.) Not everyone has a fast enough internet connection.

C.) Not everyone is interested in using the internet to play games.

Onlive will not succeed.


I dont think that it will fail. I feel these are questions they need to answer. Also currently only coming out in America? WHY!? Europe and Asia are also massive gaming areas and if you just leave them out you will miss out on profit BIG TIME! The current server may not be able to handle 3 continents worth of gamers however im sure they could have continental servers. we need answers! and because i live in England i wont be able to have the BETA to find the answers myself.

[ZULND3R]

I dont think that it will fail. I feel these are questions they need to answer. Also currently only coming out in America? WHY!? Europe and Asia are also massive gaming areas and if you just leave them out you will miss out on profit BIG TIME! The current server may not be able to handle 3 continents worth of gamers however im sure they could have continental servers. we need answers! and because i live in England i wont be able to have the BETA to find the answers myself.

They mentioned the possibility of expanding in the future in their press conference. Right now the system is only set up for the North American market but technologically I can't see why they wouldn't be able to expand, as long as the service proves to be successful.

[Thogin]

They mentioned the possibility of expanding in the future in their press conference. Right now the system is only set up for the North American market but technologically I can't see why they wouldn't be able to expand, as long as the service proves to be successful.

I wish they will get China in the bag. Asia in general is good. Europe my friends you guys have always been F"uOk over on video games.

I think the target market should be Asia, since you know the economy not so healthy right now in The U S of A.

[core9a9]

1.) Millions of people playing online at the same time, with hundreds of games to choose from, some requiring pin point accuracy with 0 lag tolerance (like fighting games), even with the best servers, there's no way a California based server can possibly deal with a gamer from England without latency issues. Even with hundreds of servers scattered everywhere, the service will eventually crack under pressure because it relies completely on the internet.

2.) If my PS3 breaks on me, I'm the only person who has to suffer not being able to play, but I can still do so by using a friend's machine. If the OnLive service goes down, every single subscriber is basically in the dark, and there's no solution that the gamer can do on his own except to wait. There's far too much risk, especially since it's relying on nothing but internet connections.

3.) The internet is far from stable enough to support games that require 0 lag/latency tolerance. Almost everyone on this planet suffers from internet instability at certain points, and if the service provider is experiencing lag, everyone will as well, making the service unplayable.

4.) Bandwidth and internet speeds just aren't high enough for the vast majority of consumers. Think about it. The 360 has 29 million console sales, but just half of those are Live subscribers. There are a number of reasons why this is the case, chief among them:

A.) Not everyone has an internet connection.

B.) Not everyone has a fast enough internet connection.

C.) Not everyone is interested in using the internet to play games.

Onlive will not succeed.

1. They will add servers, it's not hard to understand...

2. World of Warcraft, the crackheads of online gaming, deals with this very issue every week and they still come back for more with few complaints. When the onLive servers go down, and if you have absolutely have nothing to do, you should take this time to take a hard look at your life and your priorities.

3. Again, World of Warcraft players have managed pretty well.

4. There are over 70,000,000 broadband users in the US alone exceeding 5mbps. Not everyone is interested in using the internet to play games is because there weren't that many online gaming services that attracted the masses, which is what onLive is trying to change.

[Jimex]

I agree that maybe, at this time, in 2009, its not going to work fantastically. But times are changing; bandwidths are getting bigger, speeds are getting faster, more and more fibre optics are being used. Europe already has 10mb+ as standard and it was only the other day a read about Virgin updating to upto 100mb. Its only going to get faster and more affordable in the coming years. Rome wasn't built in a day but, within the next 5-10 years, Onlive most certainly will be.

[Outlawed Toker]

You did a whole lot lot of repeating yourself Vapor.

1,3,4, and b are pretty much all the same problem you just figured out ways to word it differently.

And thats why its only open in the continental US to start off with. After spending 7 years in stealth development and using a huge budget, I have no doubt that they will know what they need to do and will have several server locations up all around the states.

[OnLiveNation.com]

I agree that maybe, at this time, in 2009, its not going to work fantastically. But times are changing; bandwidths are getting bigger, speeds are getting faster, more and more fibre optics are being used. Europe already has 10mb+ as standard and it was only the other day a read about Virgin updating to upto 100mb. Its only going to get faster and more affordable in the coming years. Rome wasn't built in a day but, within the next 5-10 years, Onlive most certainly will be.

Bandwidth is going to become a huge issue when ISPs start charging people for the amount of bandwidth they use. I know here in NY the major cable provider Time Warner is testing a pay per use bandwidth program in Texas that jacks up your price if you exceed a certain limit. Kinda like overage charges on a cell phone. If someone is playing OnLive for days on end this could become very very very expensive.

[B1553r]

Bandwidth is going to become a huge issue when ISPs start charging people for the amount of bandwidth they use. I know here in NY the major cable provider Time Warner is testing a pay per use bandwidth program in Texas that jacks up your price if you exceed a certain limit. Kinda like overage charges on a cell phone. If someone is playing OnLive for days on end this could become very very very expensive.

Comcast is 250 gig a month. That means you could stream the SD service 24/7 for the entire month and have no issue.

On the other hand, you would only be able to play the HD service on Comcast 24/7 for an entire week. Thats good enough for me;)

However, Comcast has repeadly stated, that their issue is with P2P traffic. That is on the public record. They have also said that if a "legitimate" service were to become available they would reconsider the cap.

Additionally, OnLive has already stated they have made transit agreements with ISP's to make sure there would be bandwidth. In otherwords, here is your example of why net neutrality is a bad thing.

So I don't think that will be an issue at all, once the ISP's get their cut for transporting all this traffic.

[Andrmt]

My opinion:

1) I agree. But only on the fighting games. Like rts games on consoles and race games on pc (without controller). Every gaming system as its weakness.

2) If your PS3 breaks, you have to wait some weeks. If Onlive "breaks" you will have to wait some hours.

3) Probably when they say you need 5Mb to play in HD, they have some tolerance. But to be sure we will have to wait and see.

4)I started with a internet connection of 512kbs, Two and a half years later i have now 6.1MBs and i pay exactly the same. internet speeds are rising. When the ps3 came out not everyone could afford a console so expansive...

Also, "a half" is alot. And, as you said, some people don't care about online games or DLCs (Onlive is not only for multiplayer).

a)True...

b)...now

c)Again, Onlive is not only for multiplayer games.

Idk if this will fail or not, but its a good oportunity to change the way games are played and technology works. Imagine in the future have your own pocket supercomputer through this, with the desktop and everything running on a server and connected to a wireless internet conection....

[Yin-Yang]

Onlive = Fail 110%

I will bet my house on it. Be prepared to see the streets filled with protesters.

[Jimex]

Onlive = Fail 110%

I will bet my house on it. Be prepared to see the streets filled with protesters.
Do you go to the effort of finding fan community's of a product and take the time to go through the account setup process just to post unintelligible hate with no evidence or worthwhile points of view to back it up.

What a sad little life you lead.

[Yin-Yang]

Do you go to the effort of finding fan community's of a product and take the time to go through the account setup process just to post unintelligible hate with no evidence or worthwhile points of view to back it up.

What a sad little life you lead.

Ahh seems as though I found myself a tough guy who is not capable of critical thinking. My son, if I live a sad life, then yours must be misearable.

Unintelligible? (Holding off my anger)
]
Son, do you know what can happen if this thing actually becomes sucessful? I will give you 1 whole day to think of something up without the help of the internet and depend soley on that peanut brain of yours. Hopefully you can expand your knowledge if you think for once in your life.

Would you like fries with that?

[Aph0ticShield]

I have some Facts:

First Person Shooters like CoD , Gears of War have a
Input Lagg 0.05 ms
Youre TV about 6ms or 8ms (can also be 2ms if you have a expensive Phillips TV)

Now the Lagg just to youre Internet Provider should be around 12ms with very good connection or more. Thats only to youre Provider not the Internet. So tell me how can there be so sure there is a ZERO Lagg Gaming possible `?


Calculate:
0.05 ms Game lagg
8 ms Display Lagg
25 ms Internet lagg to youre Provider r
10 ms Routing (like LAN condition) to Onlive Server

43,05 ms LAGG on Best Conditions !!!
You can feel it. If Onlive gonna be also a Internet Provider than it can be Possible but not if its a normal Service in the Internet Cloud.

Its a very very nice idea i like it but 5 - 8 years to early we dont have all fiberoptic cables in the world yet. I think its the Future but right now not possible. And i just telling about the Streaming the next problem is to have all the Servers for the subs.

peace

Here are some other facts - Xbox Live has much more latency than 43.05ms. Second - 43.05ms is NOTHING! This is .04305 seconds. Almost anything below 80ms is imperceptible to the human!

Another thing is that the servers won't just fail with too many people. They have investors that are prepared to pump in the cash that is needed in the short term until the cash flow is available. They have also promised one GPU per person. Well I can guarantee that they only need one GPU per every 5 people people because less than 1/5 of people will be playing at one time. If the subscription is $20 a month, they will get $100 per every 5 people. This is probably the price they can buy those GPUs in bulk. In only a few months, they could have enough cash to be running without investors.

Over 71% of US citizens have over 2mbps. (Remember, Onlive requires 1.5mbps at advertised, but really only 1.2mbps.) It also will not suck up bandwidth as much as some think. The HD stream averages 2-4mbps not 5mbps (This is your providers advertised price.)

[ZULND3R]

Agreed, Onlive isn't going to be a huge of a bandwith suck as some people seem to think it might be. Don't get me wrong, you'll need a decent connection, but honestly I think a lot of people have a more capable connection that a lot of people realize.

[B1553r]

And I know from talking on xbox live....

More people that you think will be happy with sd...

[Aph0ticShield]

Haha... I like that you know so much about people by talking to a few on xbox live.. lol

[B1553r]

Haha... I like that you know so much about people by talking to a few on xbox live.. lol

Mods we have a troll...

Please mods, don't let trolls ruin this board!

On Edit: Giving you the benefit of a doubt.

I have spoken with probably a 1000 different people on xbox live over the last 3 years. Out of politeness I will not make up my statistics on the spot. But I would say it is something like half of the people play on a SD TV.

And I still think it sucks that you decided to flame me rather than politely disagree and tell why you thought differently.

[Deya]

Reagrdless if Onlive fails or not, this forum is called "Onlive FANS.com". If you aren't a fan, GTFO.

[curtdbz]

Yeah there isn't a point to come to a fan site to bitch.