In the simplest terms, OnLive acts like TiVo for games. Instead of a using a console or PC to play games, OnLive utilizes a small set-top box and your internet connection to connect to remote server clusters and "streams" games to your TV or PC. Theoretically, this would allow gamers with unworthy computers to be able to run, say, Crysis at maximum settings. Why? Because the client machine isn't actually performing any of the processing. Game saves would also be hosted remotely under OnLive's model.
While the idea is certainly appealing on a surface level, there are many problems with it:
- Bandwidth.
- Pricing Structure.
- Remote Storage.
Does the average consumer have access to an internet connection that can allow uninterrupted streaming of content running at a video resolution of 1920 x 1080? The answer is a resounding no, and the amount of lag this would produce would essentially make the games unplayable.
How much is this going to cost? Do we factor in the price of turbo-internet? What happens if this does kill the console market and creates a monopoly wherein we have no choice but to pay OnLive whatever they ask for?
I really don't like the idea of my game saves being stored remotely. What happens if I cancel the service but want to play the game again? Back to the beginning, bucko. Massive server failure? You are fucked, sir.
There are many other potential benefits/risks to this idea, and I'd like your thoughts on what a service like OnLive could mean for gamers and the industry at large. Post a damn comment.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment