Post by Racssirt on Mar 30, 2009 15:39:34 GMT
www.onlive.com/
OnLive... my opinion? It's good and bad. Obviously this has caused alot of discussion amongst all gamers as it could essentially completely change the way we know gaming. The question is, is that a good thing?
There's always good and bad points to things, but this is certainly a puzzler. On the one hand, it could turn out to be absolutely awesome. I mean, how good would it be to only have to use one service and get every game created? Sure, awesome idea. However, relying on one service could be a nightmare, what if for instance, the servers go down? Or you go somewhere without internet connection? Previously you could take your console with you, whereas OnLive relies on a connection. It seems like giving up too much control to how you want to do things.
Some people like having everything digital, others prefer to actually have a physical case and disc which they have purchased and own. It's a personal preference, because digital copies can easily be severed by a corrupt hard drive or somesuch, but physical copies can get scratched from use. OnLive doesn't give you a choice, it forces everyone to go digital which, depending on how you look at it, could be a good or bad thing.
Lag. We all hate it. OnLive promise new stuff to prevent it, but it's been said before. We'll have to wait and see how it turns out, but nothing can be certain.
One service to get everything would be so convenient and amazing. Imagine the case of people who can't afford to get top-range gaming PC's, or don't want to pay out for three separate consoles? Score another point for OnLive. But, who says there's only going to be one service like this? Once people catch on at how good it all seems, other companies will start doing their own services and competition between them will start again. "Final Fantasy 14? Sure, we have it. If you want the new Mario game you have to use the other service though."
Also, what about the companies themselves? They're not just going to suddenly give up everything they earn by saying, "Don't buy our new graphics card/console/game, use OnLive instead," are they? It could still be excellent, but my opinion is that instead of being the thing that unites all gaming into one, it's going to be the 'fourth' option so to speak.
It may seem like I disagree with the idea from what I've just said, but I don't. Don't get me wrong, it's an epic idea and the concept is excellent but in reality, it's unlikely to work. Kinda like Communism Some people expect it to be the death of all consoles and whatnot, but to me, it just seems like a good alternative.
Opinions peeps, I want to see what you all think.
Cheers, Raccy.
OnLive... my opinion? It's good and bad. Obviously this has caused alot of discussion amongst all gamers as it could essentially completely change the way we know gaming. The question is, is that a good thing?
There's always good and bad points to things, but this is certainly a puzzler. On the one hand, it could turn out to be absolutely awesome. I mean, how good would it be to only have to use one service and get every game created? Sure, awesome idea. However, relying on one service could be a nightmare, what if for instance, the servers go down? Or you go somewhere without internet connection? Previously you could take your console with you, whereas OnLive relies on a connection. It seems like giving up too much control to how you want to do things.
Some people like having everything digital, others prefer to actually have a physical case and disc which they have purchased and own. It's a personal preference, because digital copies can easily be severed by a corrupt hard drive or somesuch, but physical copies can get scratched from use. OnLive doesn't give you a choice, it forces everyone to go digital which, depending on how you look at it, could be a good or bad thing.
Lag. We all hate it. OnLive promise new stuff to prevent it, but it's been said before. We'll have to wait and see how it turns out, but nothing can be certain.
One service to get everything would be so convenient and amazing. Imagine the case of people who can't afford to get top-range gaming PC's, or don't want to pay out for three separate consoles? Score another point for OnLive. But, who says there's only going to be one service like this? Once people catch on at how good it all seems, other companies will start doing their own services and competition between them will start again. "Final Fantasy 14? Sure, we have it. If you want the new Mario game you have to use the other service though."
Also, what about the companies themselves? They're not just going to suddenly give up everything they earn by saying, "Don't buy our new graphics card/console/game, use OnLive instead," are they? It could still be excellent, but my opinion is that instead of being the thing that unites all gaming into one, it's going to be the 'fourth' option so to speak.
It may seem like I disagree with the idea from what I've just said, but I don't. Don't get me wrong, it's an epic idea and the concept is excellent but in reality, it's unlikely to work. Kinda like Communism Some people expect it to be the death of all consoles and whatnot, but to me, it just seems like a good alternative.
Opinions peeps, I want to see what you all think.
Cheers, Raccy.