Potential console killer OnLive to go live June 17
Summary
OnLive, a streaming video game service that, if properly implemented, could threaten traditional console makers.
Topics
SAN FRANCISCO--OnLive, a streaming video game service that, if properly implemented, could threaten traditional console makers like Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo, announced Wednesday that it will launch on June 17.
In a speech at the Game Developers Conference here, OnLive CEO Steve Perlman said that the service will go live in the 48 contiguous United States during the E3 video game conference in Los Angeles, and, at an initial price of $14.95 a month, will offer consumers the ability to rent or purchase AAA games from the likes of Electronic Arts, Ubisoft, 2K Games, THQ, and Warner Bros. Interactive Entertainment.
For OnLive to officially announce its launch date at GDC is appropriate, given that the service was first unveiled at the conference a year ago. At the time, gamers wanting to play full-scale console games were excited by the service's potential for obviating consoles like the Xbox, PlayStation 3, and Wii. According to OnLive, the service will work on most PCs or Macs via a browser plug-in, or on high-definition TVs via what the company is calling a MicroConsole adapter.
At GDC last year, OnLive said it expected its service to open to the public the coming winter. On stage Wednesday, Perlman admitted that the company is late, but said that since it's still winter right now, they will only be about three months late, and that the delays were partly based on wanting to make the service better than had been planned last year.
For more on this story, read Potential console killer OnLive to go live June 17 on CNET News.
Talkback Most Recent of 11 Talkback(s)
-
I'd need to be super impressed to drop the physical console.
I like HAVING the device - not having it on a cloud somewhere. Maybe I'm already a dinosaur. F!
Fark03/10/2010 01:48 PM -
If this is the same service ive heard about
If this is the same service ive heard about its a privacy nightmare. He was watching a wall loded with monitors watching what peopel were doing live,making fun of some poor soul for messing up too. It also isnt the first to rent games online,but it looks like the first one to spy on your gameplay,Live
Stan5703/10/2010 02:38 PM -
Isn't there already a service online for that
I must be missing something because there is Steam. Steam is a great service as you do not need CDs to play, your files are stored locally on your puter's harddrive and your ownership is tied to your login info preventing theft. Also there is Valve's anti cheat technology and basically an all around way to connect gamers online and the steam service is free. Just have to own games to play.
brad100003/10/2010 03:45 PM -
Google will buy them. Cloud gaming will be the end of the XBox.
Really, I am not Mike Cox.
DonnieBoy03/10/2010 03:49 PM -
AboveAverageJoe03/10/2010 04:31 PM -
Pliny the Elder03/10/2010 05:40 PM -
Awesome.
Except I can't afford yet another pay service.
People03/10/2010 06:30 PM -
I give 'em a year
Streaming gaming won't work. What they're talking
about seems like they're rendering games on their end
and sending rendered frames via the internet. There
only a VERY select few markets where ultra-low-
latency, high-bandwidth internet will even be
available (20ms would be about the highest it could
possibly go and still be usable). Portable play will
be pointless, because I've never seen a two-digit ping
from a cell phone and even Starbucks wireless has
their own share of latency issues. Even if the user
has a line that's going relatively unused, the very
nature of the service prohibits buffering (remember
RealPlayer in the 90's?). Finally, the UPLOAD
bandwidth to send out 60fps of 1280x720p video is
going to cost stupid amounts of money to maintain, and
again, it's not easily scaled.
The service won't scale too well, because the graphics
still need to be rendered somewhere, and it's not like
you're going to get one GTX280 that can render three
sessions of Crysis simultaneously. The best they can
hope for is that only a small percentage of their
users will be logged in at a time, but weekends will
always be a poor experience.
The rendering itself will again be an issue, since
they will need to either react to player input in real
time like current games do, or predict what the player
will do. The former brings latency back to the
spotlight, while the latter would involve lots of
wasted render time since players won't always need the
pre-rendered frames. This presents a catch-22 that
will be immediately noticeable to any serious
CounterStrike player.
The other way to do this would be to essentially have
the player download one map at a time, and have them
play that map before loading the next one. At this
point, unless the player is playing multiple games
within a month or is playing a brand new release title
that's being sold at sticker price, the green pastures
of video games under $15 for purchase Steam and
GoG.com (not to mention Amazon, Gamestop, and eBay for
physical media) are going to make the savings a wash.
Call me a pessimist if you will, but I have a stack of
video games in my room and a laptop with two graphics
cards. I game just enough to know that a system like
this would only work for an at-your-own-pace game like
Myst or The Sims, or a turn-based game. Games that
require trigger fingers like Unreal Tournament, Call
of Duty, and Bioshock?
This is old news and was covered on Slashdot a month
ago:
http://games.slashdot.org/story/10/01/22/0731247/OnLiv
e-Gaming-Service-Gets-Lukewarm-Approval. Read the
comments from Slashdotters, i.e. a fairly solid
representative of the target demographic, to see
exactly how many people think this is a GOOD idea.
Joey
voyager52903/10/2010 07:48 PM -
I have uverse, and it barely keeps up with TV and web access
I laughed when they sent me the offer for this. If my existing service has glitches just showing TV channels, I could only imagine how much the live gaming experience would suck.
terry flores03/10/2010 09:12 PM -
RE: Potential console killer OnLive to go live June 17
I cannot see this being a real big seller. Unless you have a
dedicated line for the computer in question I see problems.
In my house there are three computers, a PS 3 and a VoIP
phone sharing the bandwidth. I can only imagine using this
service when a phone call comes in. If people complain when
online multiplayer games lag, how much will they complain
when playing in single player mode? Yet another ?new?
gadget I have little, or no interest in.
Rick_K03/15/2010 12:25 AM -
No way is this a console-killer
I'm kinda surprised this is being labeled a console-
killer. They'd need to charge $5/month in order for
this thing to be financially competitive with
consoles. At their $15/month rate, it's only
financially competitive with high-end gaming PCs.
But really the best use this thing has is to game on
the road. Gamers that travel a lot for their job can
now play in the hotel without having to have a high-
end gaming laptop.
In other words, this thing is a luxury. It has a
niche market. I don't think it's a viable alternative
to consoles or gaming PCs.
Uncle Ebeneezer03/24/2010 07:01 AM
(nt)Talkback - Tell Us What You Think
Get it the way you want it
ZDNet Newsletters
Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox
Vendor Showcase
