So let's say a business pulls the "phoenix" maneuver because they're horribly in debt, and it's a legal way of wiping out stocks you granted to creditors so you are no longer indebted to them. What about the other direction--pulling the "phoenix" maneuver when you've just started, just gotten your millions in funding from backers--you walk away with millions of dollars in the bank and zero obligation to your investors.
I still don't see how this should be legal. I understand why this is accepted (because without a comfort blanket like this, there wouldn't be the few people who try risky business moves because the consequence of failure might be too large).
Not really a solid business model in my opinion... at least not as marketed (to gamers). I think a cloud gaming service could be viable for casual gamers where titles are not as demanding. Farmville on the cloud... no problem, Skyrim on the cloud... BIG problem. The problem of course is that the online casual gaming market is quickly being tied up in social media tools (Facebook), not leaving much room for an independant.
The problem is, people don't want to rely on their internet connection to be able to play games. All this cloud gaming and cloud media makes me nervous because if your internet is down you gotta break out the board games.
[citation][nom]gamerk316[/nom]3Mbps is slow by todays standards. Can't believe parts of the country don't have 10-15 Mbit standardized yet...[/citation]
Lots of people don't even have 3Mbps. My last house I only had 1.5Mbps because that was all I could get.
This is the reason why OnLive and other cloud-based services are just not a viable solution for most people yet.
Can't believe parts of the country don't have 10-15 bit standardized yet...
Unfortunately in the Southwest where I leave 10 mbit is a pipe dream right now. With the distances involved and the population density in the area the best anywhere near me is 7 mbit, and that's on a good day. OnLive's service requires speeds that just aren't readily available for the vast majority of the country right now. I figure that the new company will fail just like the first.
It's a great concept. Who wants to upgrade hardware if you don't have to to play your favorite games?
I have 15Mbps and there was still often delay in the gameplay.
I tried it. I played NBA 2K12 on my laptop. It especially stinks for multiplayer gaming because of the delay/lag. It's neat that we're getting close to being able to run near-dumb terminals for gaming, but we're not quite there yet.
Hardware companies probably do not like the prospect of this becoming a way to game or compute in general. If I didn't have to, I wouldn't keep upgrading my PC every year to get the best performance.
I wish OnLive good luck for the sake of my pocketbook, but I can't support the idea right now. It's not there.
The problem with the infrastructure now days in the US is it is built, owned and controlled by the greedy services Providers. This means they can determine when and how they upgrade an area and mostly it is determined by profit not by need. This is very bad for the consumer and the growth of the internet.
I remember a Google Engineer once gave an example of how to remedy this problem by having third party own the infrastructure and be responsible to maintain and upgrade not based on profit but need. Then all providers are able to come in and provide their services on this network. This would not only increase roll time to new areas but it would also increase competition between providers. Right now, providers can hide behind the crap of “It cost so much to build out infrastructure” and also with them owning the network cause a lot of lock and key scenarios that end up being very bad for competition and the customer.
I believe this is what Google’s end game maybe in the testing out in Kansas City with them building their own Fiber network.
I honestly believe that OnLive is a good product and good idea, but again it is ahead of it's time. If it can hang on till hardware, software, and infrastructure evolve to the level that is need for this platform to truly shine. Then it will be great, but until then it will not be able to be considered a viable solution for any gamer.
I mean if you wanted sub-par graphics and crappy controls today you could just play on console.
I got the speed for onlive (30Mbps) but i too do not like the idea of having to be connected and my internet goes out which happens (Charter 0_0) But theres always a way as someone mentioned with a phone speed of 12+Mbps just tether your phone as a hotspot, connect to it wireless with your PC and bam you got internet all over again, although the single you get varies at my own house i can achieve 17Mbps off my GS2 which is really amazing.
I was able to play all of Borderlands GOTY with my friend over OnLive. While I never got any delay, any dip in bandwidth causes the resolution and detail to suffer, ie: the game goes blurry to compensate. I never had any problems with this (I think I had 8Mbps at the time, might have been only 5. I have 24 now) my friend often complained that he couldn't read any of the text because of the low bandwidth blur despite having the same bandwidth as me. However, he was on wireless and I was using a wired connection.
Recently I tried OnLive again using a wireless device, and I can never get good results despite my router being right next to me and using 802.11g. So, I guess the lesson learned is that the service sucks a hell of a lot more if you're playing via a wireless device. Tried an ethernet cord and see what kind of results you get.
[citation][nom]KawiNinjaZX[/nom]The problem is, people don't want to rely on their internet connection to be able to play games. All this cloud gaming and cloud media makes me nervous because if your internet is down you gotta break out the board games.[/citation]
I'm not saying you're wrong, but on the other hand, when you have "always on" DRM--take, for example, Steam (unless you didn't activate offline mode), you're still required to have an internet connection just to be able to play a game. Now, that gameplay is not dictated by your connection speed, but if you're without a connection you're still SOL.
OnLive--while I don't consider it that great--is probably what gaming will morph into in the future. I just think that OnLive is ahead of its time for a lot of reasons.
Also, I expect OnLive to shrivel up and vanish, and I couldn't imagine anyone dumping money into it in the future knowing what they pulled the first time around.