Is OnLive going to rule over all game concles?

calvin_0i been using pay phone during my whole childhood.

FYI, theres about 3 payphones per 8KMs or so over here.
Usually the nearest payphone is the one near my house, WHOLE lotta useful that is eh

OnLive died fast huh?

Replying to #42

I spose so

Krusha · #41FYI, theres about 3 payphones per 8KMs or so over here.

big deal...... kid now days are spoil.

How is it dead?

Everything Onlive promises could work in a perfect world with perfect internet. They claim to have eliminated lag with a new revolutionary compression. If that's true than the only real problem would be downtime. Both on the our side and theirs. I really WANT it to work. I think the complete lack of hardware limitation they are trying to introduce would free up developer limitations and improve graphics in a revolutionary way.It does worry me that for each user online, they would have to have a stronger than average PC. From an economic perspective it looks like they will lose money even if it does work, since it would take a long time for the consumer to pay for the hardware that Onlive has to invest in. They'll more than likely have a low capital to liability ratio.Oh yeah....SEGA CHANNEL!

I don't get the British connection speeds... The house has a 20Mb line, and what you see below is what my laptop pulls from a wireless connection... Is that why my upload speed isn't even a tenth of my download speed?Anyway, OnLive will never really work... As has been said, there are just too many things that make it generally unviable. I said elsewhere, OnLive had better auto-backup itself every hour or so and have at least ten back up generators hooked up to its servers... The repercussions of them losing not only our save data but our purchase history as well... It's just unthinkable. Digital Distribution is fine, but only if you're actually downloading the thing and not having it streamed to you.OnLive is basically the same as Remote Play, except that it isn't your PS3 you're hooked up to.

Replying to #47

Only urban/suburban areas can get speeds like that. If you live in a rural village like I do you're lucky to get 5Mbit in some cases. Additionally, most ISPs actually resell BT broadband, and BT does not have equipment capable of more than 8mbit. Your connection is cable, which if you're in a cable area you can get any speed your provider offers. Most broadband is ADSL, which is actually distance limited; the further you are from the exchange, the lower your speed, and if you're more than about 5 miles away from the exchange you can't get ADSL at all. I live about 3.5 miles from my local exchange, and as you can see here:http://www.samknows.com/broadband/exchange/SSBRIthere isnt much choice of providers on my exchange (Note: BT resellers are not counted, the only ones shown are LLU, which is the only way to get more than 8mbit ADSL) Be/O2 are the only ADSL provider that offers 20mbit. I currently get between 1.5 and 2mbit.

To add to what Loonylion said broadband in the UK should be classified as a narrowband service, this is due to very poor infastucture and the legacy of a BT monopoly on phone provision. As far as I know all local exchange telecom networks are controlled by BT, therefore all intenet providers who do not use cable must rely on the tragic BT networks. There are very, very few places in the UK with a proper fiberoptic network in place.As to the question, I think OnLive will do ok assuming it can market the product to the right people, but I suspect that the very people who they would like this product to appeal to are those on the most basic of internet connections, I think they underestimate the power of lag.

tiscali have their own fiber network, and LLU uses non-bt equipment. It's not narrowband though, that refers to the technology.

My problem with OnLive is that if it's as successful as it could very easily be, then only Nintendo will be the company to go under.
Microsoft were incredibly successful before the XboX, during the XboX and will be after the XboX. They have Windows fgs...
Sony are a general entertainment company, so even if they lose one of their major branches, they'll survive with Walkmans and BluRay and their incredibly successful movie company who has rights to most Marvel films.
Only Nintendo are done for really if OnLive takes off, and that's debateable due to the sheer success of the DS, DS Lite and DSi.OnLive really doesn't have anything to destroy the console market. As someone who's invested a good £500 in PS3 and games, i'm not going to get rid of it any time soon. OnLive isn't in a position where they can deal with the console market, less they get the Big 3 to give them titles but let's face it, They aren't going to give in to a new competitor that easy...

Nintendo are a very successful games developer. The majority of money made from consoles is from game sales not from hardware. I doubt the future of any of these companies will be seriously damaged by OnLive.

That's true but surely all of Nintendo's current projects are focused on the wiimote and motion controls. If OnLive suddenly got a mass chunk of the market, Nintendo would have nothing non-handheld for a year or two as they'd have to convert their current ideas or start developing entirely new games so Ninty might lose quite a bit of cash at that point.
But I imagine it would drive Ninty to make the hardcore sequels we all want to see, Starfox Kid Icarus etc.

If Nintendo goes down wouldn't many of the popular game series' go under too?

Replying to #54

Not a huge number. Possibly not any depending on how nintendo is structured internally (in terms of organisational structure).

Replying to #55

Well Pokémon wouldn't as they have gamefreak
Mario also seems to be having it's own group too

I'm sure the heads at Nintendo would give Miyamoto full rights to his MANY brands for him to do as he pleases with them.I'm sure they'd do it with all the big brands but as Miyamoto is behind a good number of them I felt he'd need a mention to get the idea across properly (name-dropping =) )...