so essentially the video of the game that you are playing is streamed like the onDemand service you get thru cable and only the button presses are what's transmitted from your house?
Printable View
so essentially the video of the game that you are playing is streamed like the onDemand service you get thru cable and only the button presses are what's transmitted from your house?
The player has to react to the server's video output -- which is encoded, sent over the net, and decoded on the player's end.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frogacuda
Are you telling me every player is guaranteed to get every frame of video at exactly the same time? And the server is guaranteed to get control input data from all players at the same time/rate?
If you believe that you're clueless. If not, there are a lot of game sync issues to deal with in multiplayer. Either way you're wrong.
Yes. You send the input, OnLive's machines process it, and they send you back the video/audio data.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daitokuji
This entire service seems like a pipe dream to me at best, but I really do think you're mistaken.Quote:
Originally Posted by PBMax
There doesn't seem to be any extra hurdles presented by online multiplayer games. As far as this service is concerned, those games would be operating in a LAN environment or some kind of funky virtualization setup on the same physical machine. No players are ever sending input or coordinate data to each other, so there's no syncing issues present that aren't already present in a singleplayer game with this service. The end result would be similar to a normal online multiplayer experience, only (lol) with input lag added on top of it for every player.
So what happens if one player falls 5 frames of video behind?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sixfortyfive
What happens if a player receives video data out of order?
What happens if the server receives control data based on an out-of-date video frame?
More players equals more chance that they get out of sync, which has to be dealt with or it would affect the game experience for all players. This is a problem.
Why don't you say what you think would happen in each of these situations, as I'm not seeing any issues that aren't already present in a single-player setting (not that those aren't significant in themselves). I mean, the best answer I could give to any of those would be "the player doesn't see what's actually happening in real-time," but that's true of any game you'd run on this setup.Quote:
Originally Posted by PBMax
Let's all thank Eurogamer for bringing some sanity back into the equation: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/gd...y-work-articleQuote:
Let's say that I'm wrong. It's not completely unknown. I'm just a man (flesh and blood!) taking a pop at visionaries who reckon they have produced something truly epoch-making. But in order to make OnLive perform exactly as claimed right now, the company has to have achieved the following:
- 1. OnLive has mastered video compression that outstrips the best that current technologies can achieve by a vast margin. In short, it has outsmarted the smartest compressionists in the world, and not only that, it's doing it in real-time.
- 2. OnLive's unparalleled grasp of psychophysics means that it has all but eliminated the concept of IP lag during its seven years of "stealth development", succeeding where the best minds in the business have only met with limited success.
- 3. OnLive has developed a range of affordable PC-compatible super-computers and hardware video encoders that are generations beyond anything on the market at the moment.
At some point, Occam's Razor, along with an ounce of basic common sense, has to step in and bring an end to this fantasy, no matter how much we want it to be true. OnLive boss Steve Perlmen remains adamant: "Perceptually, it appears the game is playing locally... what we have is something that is absolutely incredible. You should be sceptical. My first thinking was this shouldn't work, but it does."
So let's put it this way - I can't wait to be proved wrong.
But they said 1ms round trip so it has to be true!Quote:
Originally Posted by epmode
;)
Why do you seem to think there needs to be any sort of "snycing" going on, beyond what is already processed via online play right now?Quote:
Originally Posted by PBMax
If I were to take my monitor, my mouse and my keyboard 200 miles away from my PC, and they were magically connected via a 200 mile long VGA cord and two 200 mile long USB cords, my PC would still handle online play in the exact same way. It would still send the video signal to me, and my mouse and keyboard would still send their signal back to the PC. Sure there would be a delay between the two due to the distance the signal is traveling, but the data transmitted to the server from my PC is going to be exactly the same. If there was lag I wouldn't "fall behind" or become "unsync'd", I would just have lag and say "omgwtf fucking laaaaag" like I do right now in counter-strike or warcraft or whatever.
This is a small example of why "games journalism" is so easy to scrutinize. They hype a lot of games months in advance, sing the gospel, and when the title releases, hand out high to mid scores but criticize it like all those past praises were baseless. So I can see why people are hard to believe when IGN, Gamespot, et al are claiming this it the real deal. They do the same thing with nearly everything.
LOL, how do you think this works, dude? That it shifts the output into the future to compensate or something? What "syncing" is going on with the video output? The whole concept is that it can complete the entire loop very very fast so the lag isn't noticeable. There's no way to "sync" the video with the controller input, that's an impossible thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by PBMax
If it can get it to one person fast enough that the lag is imperceptible, than it can get it to two, and if it can't then it's not viable for single player to begin with.It would skip 5 frames and they'd still be playing live. How could this service be remotely playable for anyone, SP or MP if it needed to "sync" like that?Quote:
Originally Posted by PBMax
Forget it man.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frogacuda
You're obviously content to believe their 1ms fairy tale, rather than actually think about the realities of how this would operate.
Yes, 1ms is a fairy tale. There will be lag. You still have no idea what you're talking about.Quote:
Originally Posted by PBMax
Blah, blah...Quote:
Originally Posted by FirstBlood
Here's all you need to say to convince Frog (cue OnLive marketing materials):
"OnLive connects you to game servers through the Internet, instantly sending your controller actions upstream and the results back downstream at blinding fast speeds."
1ms! OMG!
Frog is being optimistic, based on the numbers they quoted. Sure, Eurogamer just provided a good amount of evidence that would make one think "Ok, maybe those projections are a bit unrealistic", but that doesn't change that it still works. I mean they're demoing this shit live, it's not just made up.
People that believe the hype just believe that the lag won't be noticeable. They're not being unreasonable, they're just being overly optimistic.
On the other hand, the shit you've spouted about online play not "syncing up" or whateverthefuck shows a complete lack of understanding of technical aspects of the service.
That's the difference. So please, get the fuck out of here.
PBMax,
It's clear you have a rudimentary idea how this system works at best. The best bet for you right now is to re-read what frog and firstblood said, then contemplate it, then finally shut the fuck up before you make yourself appear even MORE stunned.
Lag is lag - just like now - instead of your system playing catch up - your frames will just "skip".
The point is that if it works for SP, it'll work for MP. You have done NOTHING to support your claim that MP requires some kind of special syncing other than huff and puff and call people stupid.Quote:
Originally Posted by PBMax
It might not work. There might be noticeable lag in SP. Which is what bbobb said. But you'll still be a wrong cunt because of the shit you were saying about multiplayer networking.I'm not even being optimistic, I'm just describing how it's supposed to work. If it doesn't work then it doesn't work, I personally have my doubts about its viability on a mass scale like everyone else. I was just going after PBMax's misconceptions with regard to "syncing" and multiplayer. The system doesn't compensate for lag by syncing, since that's not even possible in this kind of model. The only way it works (if it works) is by keeping the lag small.Quote:
Originally Posted by FirstBlood
Or it will fast forward like a video, which IS HAPPENING every now and then when I play NHL 09 over XBL.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spent
In LiveOn's case it just drops frames, though. If it falls behind, it's not going to catch up by downloading extra data and accelerating through it, so that doesn't work. Again, this is something distinct from multiplayer networking or traditional video streaming.Quote:
Originally Posted by kingoffighters
Moving on from the previous discussion, since either I'm not explaining my point well or I'm talking to the wrong audience...
This thing and ISPs with monthly bandwidth caps don't seem like they'll get along.
LOL
Heaven forbid you admit you just jumped the gun and misspoke, or didn't get it.Quote:
Originally Posted by PBMax
I didn't do either, although I probably didn't explain myself well enough to be clear. Regardless, I choose to bow out rather than get involved in a flame war.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frogacuda
Anyway, back to the subject of ISP bandwidth caps. From Joystiq:
"When questioned about it at a press event for the device last night, OnLive founder Steve Perlman didn't seem concerned. First, the console is rarely using the full 5 Mpbs. In fact, he said, it's often far less. Also, Perlman hopes that ISPs will give special consideration to OnLive as the service may well drive cable customers to upgrade their datastream."
This seems really contradictory to the current agendas of companies like Comcast.
Not sure about that. Comcast was only capping upload, right? And Advo posted some good info about what they're doing to offer more bandwidth at better prices.Quote:
Originally Posted by PBMax
No they put a 250gb download cap in place in October.
And Comcast would love a popular service that causes customers to upgrade their datastream. More $$$$$ = good. Plus it's not like the average user is going to have OnLive on at all times to eat up bandwidth, especially since it will probably end up being more about "bite-sized" gaming sessions than marathons.
*SWOON*
YES
A good point about game pricing and publishers brought up by Bill Harris at Dubious Quality:
Quote:
Let's go back to Dean Takahashi's article for a moment. Remember his breakdown of who gets the money when a new, $60 game is sold?
--$27 is retained by the publisher
--$15 is kept by retailers (plus all resale revenues)
--$12 is lost to piracy
--$7 goes to the game owner (through resale, apparently)
I know, that's $61, not $60. Those are the figures in the article, though, so it's as close as I can get (I assume it's a rounding issue).
Immediately, publishers are going to retain $19 more, because the piracy and resale markets go to zero. No one who uses this service can copy a game, and no one who uses this service can resell a game.
I promise you that publishers won't be giving $15 to OnLive for each copy sold of a game, because the publishers have 100% of the leverage here. OnLive is a new service, and if the publishers don't support it, it's DOA. Let's say that publishers agree to pay $10 to OnLive per copy sold (and I think that's an incredibly high guess).
So instead of keeping $27 from a $60 sale, publishers will be keeping $50. At least.
See where I'm going here? Publishers, at the same time they have been screaming that current piracy rates represent the apocalypse, have also told us over and over again that game prices would be cheaper if it weren't for pirates. They've also been screaming that the resale market is just absolutely killing them.
Well, if this service actually launches, we will all see if, to put it delicately, they were full of shit. They have every reason in the world to want this technology to succeed, and one of the ways it has a much, much better chance of succeeding is if they reduce the price on games sold through OnLive. I don't mean $5 off a $59.95 game--I mean at least $15, and preferrably $20.
I mean, they should, right? They're keeping $23 more per unit!
How much of a shot in the arm would it be if it was $20 cheaper to buy a game via OnLive? Hell, people would be falling all over themselves to sign up, even with an annual subscription fee. And unless the publishers have been lying to us all along, it should be easy to do, right?
So if this service launches and games are still being sold at $59.95 (no different than retail), then we should all raise our middle fingers in their general direction, because we will be getting screwed.
This is everything the publishers said they wanted. Now it's time for them to put up or shut up.
Can you really say every game is losing 12 bucks to piracy though? Fuck is the PS3 even modded yet, I don't think it has been. I don't think console piracy this gen is as rampant as PC piracy, DS and PSP not counting. Besides the point that just looking at revenue, the 12 and 7 bucks would still show up under the publishers revenue. Last gen with 50 dollar games publishers were getting around 35 bucks a game. I really don't see it dropping to 27 with a 10 dollar raise in game prices. I would wager publishers are getting 40 - 45 on every game sold. I'm sorry but this just seems like fishy fucking math IMHO to try and make this service seem like the end all be all.
Bill Harris has clearly not bought a computer game this generation if he thinks they cost $60. Nor does it make sense that they're losing money to piracy on a per-unit basis.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rumpy
I looked up the Dean Takahashi article and found a really good post from a programmer who works on compression in the comments section.
H264 can drop to some pretty low bit rates and the picture still looks great but you're a LONG LONG LONG ways away from doing H264 encoding on the fly. Even using Mpeg2 encoding, to get good picture quality with an HD signal you're looking at 15 - 30mb a second.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sean W on the Dean blog article
He's too pessimistic about bandwidth. I know rates with cable service fluctuate, but I very rarely dip as low as 2mb/s. I'm usually closer to 6-8.
Also, they did specify SD was 480p, so there's no need to speculate on the resolution, though that knowledge doesn't help the compression numbers add up any better.
I don't know why anyone would even think that if publishers can save money they might pass that savings onto the consumers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rumpy
I'm really annoyed by this honestly. Equating piracy to lost sales is BULLSHIT. Yeah, I pirate games, but only ones I don't care about enough to buy. And if I download something and like it a lot I'll buy it later. Games I pirate are never lost sales as I wouldn't have bought them in the first place. It's the same concept that the music industry has with music piracy and it's retarded.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shin Johnpv
I don't think they're quite counting every pirated game as a lost sale, but there's two major problems with the claim.Quote:
Originally Posted by bbobb
1) There is absolutely, positively no way to precisely measure how much is being lost to piracy. None. It's safe to say it's significant, but to quote an exact figure is impossible. To some extent you could argue that freeware and people pirating other games is costing you money too, but how do you prove it?
2) Even if you COULD quantify that number, dividing it up and saying that a portion of each game sale is lost to piracy is an illogical conclusion. No one actually takes the money you made out of your pocket on each transaction, there are just fewer transactions as a result.
The guy doesn't even factor in development costs, nor does he come up with a convincing way that $7 ends up in the consumer's hands from trade-ins since that's a complex issue. Long story, he's full of shit.It's competitive, so it stands to reason they would pass some savings on, obviously not that much though since that's based on bogus numbers to begin with. The problem is that retail gets very pissy if you get bold about this, so as long as they have leverage it won't happen.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nash
Bill's using console game prices in his discussion because I think the article he refers to is using that as an example (he plays everything btw, lots of PC in what he plays). OnLive is considered a PC like format so I can see how that's weird to start off, but it's assuming that OnLive works and takes off, changing the whole way we get games. It's a screwy angle to start the topic, but I thought it was worth mentioning and haven't seen it brought up yet.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frogacuda
If he's talking console games, then he's forgetting license fees, and either way he's neglecting manufacturing and distribution costs... it's really not a very good argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rumpy
The Wii and 360 are fucking simple to mod. In the case of the Wii though, there aren't enough "hardcore" Wii gamers, let alone games worth getting to really make a dent in what Nintendo is doing. As long as those millions of casual people keep bying a couple crap games here and there, they can build a planet out of their income. MS on the other hand tends to already attract the modding populace since they have more of the games people actually want.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shin Johnpv
And it's a MS product so the hackers run head first into it.
I still think it's silly with all the games I buy because I like and having next to no time to play/finish them all, that there are people who do THAT plus go through the effort to pirate games they don't even like, because they ain't paying for that shit.Quote:
Originally Posted by bbobb
For reals, when does entertainment hit critical mass and people are "done" buying/pirating/collecting stuff they wouldn't even buy/play/finish anyway?
I'm wondering what the ISPs think of OnLive. They've been tossing around the idea of tiered data streams for a while, so I have to assume that they would see big dollar signs with this, what with all the bandwidth such a system could gobble up. They could make a bundle if this turned out to be the future of gaming.
Are people so cheap they'd go through a monthly sub for a potential lag fest instead of dropping $400 every five years? That's on top of paying for an ISP that can handle the bandwidth. Plus no physical copy / no chance of resale... it just seems like a bad deal all around even if it works as promised.
In its infancy, yes, but the potential in general is pretty considerable. I think this will actually catch on more with non-gamers if they allow you to use PC application using similar technology. A lot of technophobes would love remotely renting a computer that someone else will always maintain.Quote:
Originally Posted by AaronChance
Also, if they do go the console route, it'll probably be multiple consoles, so the "three systems in one" appeal will probably work for some people.
In theory, I love the idea of it. They upgrade the hardware at the other end, no more console upgrades. But it seems too good to be true.
Wow. This is a pretty big win for OnLive. I still think it has an uphill battle, but I didn't even expect it to get this far.
Have you tried it? It's actually pretty rad. The interface is slick and the games play perfectly. It's free to sign up, give it a try.
The Mini Console is $66 during E3 too: http://www.onlive.com/game-system
So $66 to buy something that plays games uglier than shit I already have?
Pass. This sounds like shit for dumb people who don't know better or don't care. I am neither of those types of people.
You don't have to have the mini console to play the games. You can use your mouse and keyboard just fine they are PC games.
Do they look as shitty as the old Assassins Creed video comparisons?
I was watching people playing Borderlands last night and it looked better than the 360 version.
Doesn't say much, to be fair.
lol true. But the Just Cause 2 demo ran really well. If that means anything.
That I'd be interested in comparing, I play it with everything ultra high, 16x AA at 1920x1200 and it runs like a dream.
I'd be interested to see how this stacks up.
Now I'm interested too. If you check it out let me know how it goes.
I'm curious to try this at $66 just to see if it works on my fiber connection from Japan. No one else has bought one?
you don't have to buy the console that they sell to try the service. It works fine on any PC and it's free to sign up. You just gotta pay for the games.
Have a shitty PC? Consider OnLive.
Have a good PC? Play games on your good PC.
done
Pretty much.
Finally tried this out. VERY nicely done, better than I expected. Saw a bit of stuttering in the framerate but I don't have the fastest internet connection either.
Services like this are going to be big in the future. Universal PC/Mac gaming without having to worry about specs, installs, hard drive space and configuration issues? That's good shit. And they will continue to improve resolution and framerate as bandwidth increases and their technology improves.
I may just buy the mini console to throw them some support.
I could see this being really cool for some kinds of games, but I'm very skeptical when it comes to fast action games. What games have you tried, and how bad was the latency?
Tried this out and it works really well. Surprised how well done it is actually. My only question is how do you increase the resolution? It looks pretty low, 480P maybe? Everything else runs fine. Everything is really playable and doesnt seem to be affected by lag at all. I tried a few FPS games and I could kill shit no problem.
I too gave this a shot, Just Cause 2 wasn't terrible, and shit if I had like a laptop or something this could be fun for when I'm on campus, but it's not even a fraction of as nice as the game runs on my hardware. I don't see anyway how it ever could be; bandwidth aside, they can't upgrade all their machines as quickly as home PCs are capable of being upgraded. So even when the internets is fast enough that you can stream it perfect, their rendering won't ever catch up to a home PC, it might get close, but it won't ever actually catch up.
Nice for people who don't want to build a gaming PC though.
This is a huge market. Also, imagine once they get into mobile apps, etc - being able to access your games on any device. Got a screen and internet connection, play your games.Quote:
Originally Posted by Opaque
It also looks like they're launching a Netflix Instant-style subscription service for certain games for $10/month.
I'm aware of that but I'm interested in only the mini-console's performance. As other people said, this is clearly the future of gaming so even though I have the games available, I just want to try it from a tech perspective.Quote:
Originally Posted by Anal Kaboom
Hope they can keep the game price's reasonable since PC game prices fall to the sub $15 level very quickly.
I'm in the US now trying out OnLive on my parents' crap cable connection (Charter). Ninja Blade was quite jerky and bordered on unplayable but oddly enough Metro 2033 and Unreal ran decently enough (around 30fps) in 720p but still noticed a decent amount of artifacting in the feed. The arena feature is pretty neat.
Just tried this on Fios amd it works surprisingly well. Downloaded, installed and made an account in less than 5 minutes. I played some fear 2 and the only weird thing was that my mouse wouldn't highlight menu options when I was directly over them. If I was just below what I wanted, it would highlight it. Colors looked kinda washed out and the resolution didn't seem all that high. Didn't notice any lag in gameplay or artifacting and it loaded fast. My computer cam definalty run in better on it's own but this is some wild tech going on here. The potential for this is pretty crazy, it just needs some maturing. I really like the UI too.
man now I want to try it out even though I don't need it.
The free PC/Mac demo goes to the end of this week I think. It's worth trying just to see it in action.
Yeah the free play Netflix-style subscription service is great. Just needs MOAR GAMEZ.
Tried the micro console from my place in Tokyo and while it gives a high latency warning, it actually plays better on this connection than at my parents' place in the US. But like others said, my PC can play games like Metro 2033 at full specs where OnLive can't.
I finally pulled the trigger on a MicroConsole, they're giving you one free (plus full access to Metro 2033) when you preorder HomeFront.
http://blog.onlive.com/2011/02/25/pr...homefront-now/
I also like that games are instantly available on midnight of their launch day.
I figure I'll hook it up to my 26" CRT HDTV and it should look pretty good. Hooking it up to the 56" DLP would produce super ugliness I imagine.
How much is Homefront? $60?
It's $50.
I was close to getting this over the holidays, but for $50, getting the microconsole, Homefront, and Metro 2033 is too good a deal to pass up.
Maybe I'm blind, but where exactly on the site can you preorder Homefront and get the micro console? I'm not seeing any link in the page on the main site or the blog. All I can find is the store site which lists the micro-console for $99.
Services like Steam & GOG are good since you get the game stored on your system when you buy them. With Onlive, purchasing a $30-50 Full Playpass doesn't put a copy of the game on your HDD. Onlive has nothing to sell you. You can have an "unlimited rental" of F.E.A.R. 2 for $20, or just get your own copy off Steam for the same Jackson.
If a game gets pulled (licensing... Aliens vs. Predator especially could go MIA later), you're SOL and the money you spent on its FP is kaput. Internet outages or slowdowns (happens even with cable sometimes) will ruin it for you. If you quit- the money you spent on Full Playpasses is wasted.
Sega Channel was fine for "cloud gaming", since you paid just for the subscription.
Sega Channel ruled.
You pre-order Homefront in the Onlive App. It then immediately e-mails you a code to redeem Metro 2033 for free. Then, when Homefront ships, you will get the link to redeem your free microconsole.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shou
I think their $XX/month "play as much as you want" service is where this is headed. At least, I hope it is. I can't see myself throwing down $50 on virtual ownership of games too much, but they do run pretty good deals on games quite often and really, how much different is it than buying XBLA games? Agreed that since the service is so new you're kind of taking a flyer on the games you buy but as long as I get my fill of the games I buy I don't give a shit.Quote:
Originally Posted by gameoverDude
I see not having physical media as a benefit at this point. Less shit to clutter my house.
I loved SC. Blowing through Phantasy Star IV in a week rocked. So did playing some imports which I wouldn't have been able to throw the cash down on back then (that $80 a pop didn't come so easy to me at the time). Unlike OnLive, SC used YOUR own hardware to play the game with no lag. The only knock was that games over 32 Meg had to be cut down in some way- such as Super SFII dropping part of the lineup.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rumpy
If OnLive can do something more like Sega Channel where game data is streamed into your PC's RAM, that'd be good. Each game would have a special modified EXE that would go to a server for data rather than pulling it from HDD, but would still put the saves on your system.
The XBLA/Steam game sits on your HDD and you can generally play it offline. Though it's not on physical media it's still your copy.Quote:
Originally Posted by K3V
Until MS/Sony deletes a game off your device or doesn't allow you to re-download something after you delete it from your drive.
Guess what - I also can't watch Netflix Instant movies without an Internet connection either. Doesn't mean there isn't value in the service, it's just a different way of consuming media.
Got the Microconsole yesterday and played Homefront for a little while. I can't believe how much better-looking and smoother the experience is with the system instead of just using the PC app. The controller is pretty comfortable, although I haven't tried using the media recording buttons yet, so I'm not sure how easy they are to use during gameplay. The FPS-heavy lineup doesn't have a lot of stuff that interests me right now, but for $50, I got the ability to play two games as much as I want, a controller, a nice HDMI cable, and an ethernet cable - definitely worth it for that price.
That would be amazing. I'd use it to rent PC games essentially and buy the ones I want to see at full resolution and settings.Quote:
Originally Posted by K3V
The PlayPack system is up and running, and the first month is free if you want to check it out: http://www.onlive.com/games/playpack
Quite a few games in there (admittedly quite a bit of filler) but I'm going to keep it for a while to play through the games I want and see how much gets added.
Also: I am pleasantly surprised with the Microconsole. Visuals look much nicer than playing through the Mac client, the controller feels good and even the packaging is really well done. Bonus points for actually including the HDMI cable and a rechargeable battery pack.
That's very cool. I own an embarrassing number of those, but if the list continues to grow, I'm going to have to jump in I think.Quote:
Originally Posted by K3V
New games added to the PlayPack today: Mini Ninjas, Tomb Raider: Legend, Hitman: Blood Money & Just Cause.
Pre-order Red Faction Armageddon and get an Onlive Game System and Red Faction Guerrilla for free:
http://www.onlive.com/go/red-faction-armageddon
I now own two Onlive game systems.
Talking to myself here, but if anyone's interested you can get Amnesia: The Dark Descent for free until midnight Eastern tonight on Onlive. Just head over to the Amnesia game page in the Marketplace and enter the promo code "THANKYOU" in the available field and click “Apply Promo Code” just before purchase.
How long until you launch On-Live Dome?
Fuck, just saw this. I'll run home and try it now.Quote:
Originally Posted by K3V
Anyone have this thing hooked up through wireless? I get 18mbps over my wireless so I'm not too concerned about it, but wondering how well it works vs being hardwired.
I thought I read that the mini console had to be hard wired, Not so?
You can use a wireless bridge.
For its price, this thing is seriously awesome. I have a 28mps connection and I'm connected to the console using a 85mbs PowerLine and it runs as smooth as butter. A framerate stutter here and there, but aside from that, it's unbelievably playable, more so than I ever expected it to be. Anyone with a spare $50 and likes neat technology should do themselves a favor and pick this up with one of OnLive's preorder deals, between that and the PlayPass, I can't recommend it enough.
Also, the Red Faction demo kicks ass. I pretty much hated the last one (for good reason), but had a damn good time for the 30 min they let you play.
What have I been saying, bitches.
OnLive is coming to Android tablets (phones?) this fall and it sounds pretty cool. http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2386388,00.asp
Now that's pretty awesome. Imagine using that on the Xperia Play with the physical controls.
I'm really impressed with the leadership behind OnLive, some really forward thinking dudes.
The last Red Faction was a lot of fun, I haven't read anything good about the new one.