Will ArmA 2/3 ever meet OnLive?

[Baff1 0]

What sort of interface do you get with Onlive then?

I think for most people on this forum, who clealry already own a gaming PC, buying a remote terminal that connects them to another gaming PC, isn't going to be seen as big winner.

It's obviously a solution to a problem that no one here has.

No reason why ArmA shouldn't work on Onlive however. Presumably if it used more resources than other Onlive games they could price it accordingly.

It would then just be a risk assessment. The cost of porting it over vs the expected revenues.

I didn't realise Onlive had actually launched. I assumed it had quietly died. I'd want cash up front to port any titles over to Onlive, unless it involved almost no work whatsover. Then they could have it for free.

Edited July 4, 2011 by Baff1

[jblackrupert 14]

It's still WebTV all over again.

Steve Perlman will build it up and then sucker some big company into buying it and laugh all the way to the bank.

A few suckers will be willing to shell out full price for games they don't take posession of or backup, accept the LAAAAAAAAAAG, The compression artifacts in the streaming video....etc. and then it will die under it's own weight when they can't keep it going because of the costs involved in running and upgrading it.

Then there are the ISP's... Unless they start getting a piece of the pie they're

not going to offer the QoS thats required to get even reasonable use out of it.

The only reason Youtube isn't dead is because google owns it and has the money

to keep it afloat until they figure out a way to make it profitable..

Just the free spectators alone will be a major hit to their pocketbook.

Edited July 4, 2011 by jblackrupert

[5133p39 12]

Just tell me one thing:

Let's say i buy a new computer each year, to be able to run any new game maxed out.

For Arma 2/3, such computer would be really expensive ...we're talking 3840x2160 (even with 100% 3D res its enough to bog down any gfx card on the market) combined with maxed AA, AF, max texture resolution, maximum view distance of 10km, maxed out postprocessing effects, max audio samples, and who knows what else.

Now how much do you think such computer would cost? $8000 ? $10000 ?

Let's say it's $7000 for such HW.

How would it be possible for OnLive to deliver such performance for a much lower price than that? (and as far as i am concerned, the overall cost for 1 year of such service would have to be a lot less than those $ 7000, otherwise i wouldn't be interested).

How could OnLive deliver the same experience for much less money?

...oh wait, i know, they are using crappy low resolution like 1080p (not to mention medium settings), ok, then i am not interested.

(for those of you nitpicking: yes, i have currently crappy and outdated HW as you can see in my signature, but something much better is already on the way).

On the other hand, there are many ppl, who run OA in 1080p, with medium settings and 2.5-3km viewdistance.

But even for those ppl, such service will be interesting only if it will cost much less than if they would actually buy the HW themselves.

How does the OnLive go around the laws of physics and math, to achieve same experience for much less money and still be profitable?

(also remember they must have some redundant HW ready in case of something dies, which is additional cost).

It just doesnt add up.

Please, explain this to me.

[dmarkwick 261]

How does the OnLive go around the laws of physics and math, to achieve same experience for much less money and still be profitable?

(also remember they must have some redundant HW ready in case of something dies, which is additional cost).

It just doesnt add up.

Please, explain this to me.

I'd guess that part of the equation is that the hardware will be utilised for close to 100% of it's time, whereas our PCs are utilised (let's say) for 10% of the time.

[jblackrupert 14]

It's 720p, the Microconsole I've read upscales to 1080p.

Beware of what you read about Onlive, they're on a campaign to stealth spam forums using positive "customer" reviews and sock puppet accounts

[PepperBelly01 10]

It's 720p, the Microconsole I've read upscales to 1080p.

Beware of what you read about Onlive, they're on a campaign to stealth spam forums using positive "customer" reviews and sock puppet accounts

Thats only for the time being until they come out with 1080p streaming. You gotta remember, OnLive is only a year old, and for how fast its progressed is pretty impressive. If I remember correctly the same can be said for Steam. Many PC gamers hated the concept of Steam, the relentless bashing and criticism towards the idea, yet look where it is today. OnLive managed to grow and accomplish more in a year then Steam did in 3 years.

I'm not trying to promote OnLive here. I only came to discuss the possibility of BIS games being made available through OnLive, which is completely possible, regardless of what you think. Now many of you are in doubt, and have your reasons which is personal and understandable. But trying to limit financial benefits towards a company that deserves so much more than its getting simply because your dislike towards something you aren't being forced to use is a little rediculous.

I never said OnLive would replace PC gaming, and I never said ArmA would be exclusive to the service. So why most of you are getting worked up over something you don't have to take part in is beyond me. Most people don't have the money to spend on expensive PC hardware. So by having the ArmA games on OnLive would allow for a broader audience to get to experience this incredible game. Its the closest thing gamers will get to a console experience with ArmA.

Edited July 4, 2011 by PepperBelly01

[dmarkwick 261]

So why most of you are getting worked up over something you don't have to take part in is beyond me.

Welcome ;) :)

[Beagle 684]

Although personally I don't think I'd ever rent virtual games, I do think the idea has merit. As streaming technology increases (and it will, there's too much money to be made by it) it might even begin to make more sense than maintaining your own PC.

Do you know that there are still lots of areas even in such underdeveloped and poor countries like germany where even money cant buy you more then 150kb/s simply because the old telephone copper cables cant transmitt more. Al that fast internet blahblah is for the few big cities only.

[vohk 10]

Now many of you are in doubt, and have your reasons which is personal and understandable. But trying to limit financial benefits towards a company that deserves so much more than its getting simply because your dislike towards something you aren't being forced to use is a little rediculous.

I feel consoles have somewhat disproved that argument, sadly. I am currently unconvinced that Arma2/OA could be ported in their current form to a service like OnLive. If it were to happen, what almost inevitably follows is you end up with two completely different games, or one branch of development that is neglected in favour of the other. The hostility you're getting is from one part your mildly excessive praise of OnLive and two parts your advocacy of shifting development focus to what is perceived as an inferior, and let's be honest- unproven, platform. Most PC gamers can think of at least a few franchises that have suffered after spreading to consoles. It isn't something that engenders warm, fuzzy feelings.

Do you know that there are still lots of areas even in such underdeveloped and poor countries like germany where even money cant buy you more then 150kb/s simply because the old telephone copper cables cant transmitt more. Al that fast internet blahblah is for the few big cities only.

Same problem in much of rural Canada.

[jblackrupert 14]

There are third world and developing countries with superior internet then Canada.

I'm sure Rogers, Shaw, Telus and Bell will have a thing or two to say about streaming games.

If Youtube didn't have billions of dollars and high priced lawyers it would have been throttled to hell and back when HD first appeared.

Edited July 4, 2011 by jblackrupert

[PepperBelly01 10]

The hostility you're getting is from one part your mildly excessive praise of OnLive and two parts your advocacy of shifting development focus to what is perceived as an inferior, and let's be honest- unproven, platform. Most PC gamers can think of at least a few franchises that have suffered after spreading to consoles. It isn't something that engenders warm, fuzzy feelings.

Thats the thing, it doesn't take a huge amount of effort and time to port a game over to the OnLive service. It has been said by the community manager, Matt Jensen, that developers can port their games over using their SDK in a couple of days.

I apologize if I gave off the vibe of being a fanboy of any type, I own every system, and built my own gaming PC. This was just merely a topic to discuss the possibility of BIS going onto another platform that simulates a console experience to be available to those who can't afford expensive hardware.

Edited July 5, 2011 by PepperBelly01

[metalcraze 290]

I'd guess that part of the equation is that the hardware will be utilised for close to 100% of it's time, whereas our PCs are utilised (let's say) for 10% of the time.

You just rent yourself resources on a set server with enough of them for, say, 4 people (of course they may handle more due to aforementioned lowest settings in old-hardware games but just as an example)

Think terminals like, say, some banks may employ where a server has several accounts and sends an image to worker's station which only requires a controller and a monitor - this system OnLive tries to use for games. And obviously there is a catch.

So $40 bucks a month is more than $10. However the catch is that you get only 1/4 of processing power too. And that's why games made for a heavily outdated hardware run at lowest settings there so any really weak hardware will handle several of them at once. Like I think a $500 PC will have absolutely no problem running 4 instances of Dirt 3 at lowest settings and low resolution - so in the end $40 + money from game rents bring in profit - also because when working with such games there is no need to upgrade servers at all.

But it really cheaper to just buy some old PC and it still will work better.

Edited July 4, 2011 by metalcraze

[enad 11]

Its the closest thing gamers will get to a console experience with ArmA.

Aaaaaand no one that plays ArmA would wan't that to happen.

ArmA 2 Free brought in enough idiots, I can't imagine what would happen if they opened it up to more audiences. :man3:

*BIF needs to fix that dancing man, his background does not match the new forums color*

[Devil Dogs SF 13]

^ This

[solidsnake2384 10]

I couldnt believe how white the original background was. It always hurt my eyes.

[metalcraze 290]

This was just merely a topic to discuss the possibility of BIS going onto another platform that simulates a console experience to be available to those who can't afford expensive hardware.

I'm sorry what's this mystical "console experience" I keep hearing about? I know that consoles limit you to their 6 years old hardware, the lack of mods, the lack of dedicated servers, the inability to have many people playing in MP and subpar controls for shooters which ArmA is, so why would a PC gamer want a "console experience"?

What OnLive 'simulates' is a 7 years old PC hardware plus an extremely subpar picture quality. Are you telling me many people are unable to afford something as "expensive" as this?

I mean Athlon 64 X2 and GeForce 6800 will run games at a much better quality and FPS than OnLive currently does - and they are 6-7 years old now.

Edited July 5, 2011 by metalcraze

[NeMeSiS 11]

Although personally I don't think I'd ever rent virtual games, I do think the idea has merit. As streaming technology increases (and it will, there's too much money to be made by it) it might even begin to make more sense than maintaining your own PC.

Bandwith will increase allowing for higher resolution streaming, however unless we distort time and space pings will not decrease (much) so we will be stuck with laggy controls. :p

[Beagle 684]

Bandwith will increase allowing for higher resolution streaming, however unless we distort time and space pings will not decrease (much) so we will be stuck with laggy controls. :p

Bandwith is not increasing and bandwith is not a free good without any limitation. bandwith was good in germany when only 25% of the people had access...now its 75% and the old telecom net fails more and more often leaving us with low bandwith despite the 20000mb/s claims of the providers.

I see this depending on time...best Bandwith in my village is Monday at 10:00pm...worth is saturday or Sunday 18:00h...the more people the less bandwith for all.

the problem has grown to a point when IT firms introduced night shifts for remote updates and stuff liek that because at night the connection is more stable and faster.

Edited July 5, 2011 by Beagle

[xxbbcc 6]

Onlive is like buying a house, having to pay rent to live in it and then not having the right to sell it.

Suckers are going to love it.

^ This.

[OrLoK 20]

hullo all

I know nowt about onlive, so ill keep my mouth shut about that.

But cloud computing is going to be a big part of future computing.

Id adore to be able to stream any game/software I own to my netbook, but using the power of either my home machine, or even better a monster rig at some service centre in Slough.

Not owning the software (physical or virtual (and lets not get into the "you dont really own any software" debate :) )) is a definate no no for me.

It's somethin I want to see in the future but the infrastructure for the mass market isnt quite there.

Tbh i dont have an earth shattering point to make, I just wanted in on this thread.

rgds

LoK

\/ That.

[Leon86 13]

Id adore to be able to stream any game/software I own to my netbook, but using the power of either my home machine, or even better a monster rig at some service centre in Slough

Try the "streammygame" program, doesnt seem to be developed anymore but it works ok for most games, although you get a little extra lag of course.

[STALKERGB 6]

Hmm, I think half the point of OnLive has been missed, yes you can "buy" games on it but I think it is actually an excellent system for providing demos to users, saves you having to DL something for an hour just to see if it's any good or not.

[dmarkwick 261]

Hmm, I think half the point of OnLive has been missed, yes you can "buy" games on it but I think it is actually an excellent system for providing demos to users, saves you having to DL something for an hour just to see if it's any good or not.

A very good point.

[NeMeSiS 11]

Bandwith is not increasing and bandwith is not a free good without any limitation. bandwith was good in germany when only 25% of the people had access...now its 75% and the old telecom net fails more and more often leaving us with low bandwith despite the 20000mb/s claims of the providers.

I see this depending on time...best Bandwith in my village is Monday at 10:00pm...worth is saturday or Sunday 18:00h...the more people the less bandwith for all.

the problem has grown to a point when IT firms introduced night shifts for remote updates and stuff liek that because at night the connection is more stable and faster.

Cool, i have stable 100Mbit up and down at my place. ;)

(Though technically i am just a lucky bastard, however stable 12Mbit+ isnt really strange around here, unless you live in some crappy village)

[xxbbcc 6]

Hmm, I think half the point of OnLive has been missed, yes you can "buy" games on it but I think it is actually an excellent system for providing demos to users, saves you having to DL something for an hour just to see if it's any good or not.

You have a valid point there but that's not a working business model - especially since the games (according to others - I don't follow the game market anymore) are somewhat older.