You know what, good for Steam to catering to the PC gaming market. I'm sorry if we all don't want to play Sims3 or WOW. There are more games out there, and just cause you're suckin' hind tit doesn't justify bitching since you're weaker than your adversary. If you're using integrated graphics.. I don't think you're worrying too much about where to get the latest and greatest games.
Steam is a great service, and On-Live won't be stealing any of there profits. I like what On-Live is doing but, theres a yes and a BIG fat No in my head. Give or take depends on the type of gamer. A poor gamer might take On-Live but a real gamer might not. Also what if ur friend is on Xbox does ur game on On-live connect with some of them, or PS3.. PC? I doubt it! So big No on On-live for me unless all my friends jump on as well, but i doubt they will.. The controller is a joke.
So if Steam is a monopoly that's bad but if OnLive or Gaikai (neither of whom can offer the resolution and response time of a local PC) become as big as Steam or bigger that's good? I love it when CEO's scream about monopoly and fairness when they are trying to become the very thing they are trying to destroy.
i would not use OnLive as my main gaming device because the clarity is not good enough, you can't compare a compressed video stream with a normal pc game, which, even at the same resolution looks 10 times better.
Funny thing is, Steam can't be a monopoly, because there's Games for Windows and the same dumb people making those statements are also digital games distribution services. So it's a blind shot at some lawyer buffet who can milk money out of Steam and make them less profitable so THEY get more people. Cheap tactics are cheap alright.
Besides, like stated above, we can't actually tell if it is a monopoly, cause it doesn't look like one at first hand: lot's of offers, cheap/store priced games and friggin' sweet deals every F'ing week. If that's a monopoly, then they aren't so bad when in the right hands. Just like Monarchies and Dictatorships; sometimes, with the right people, they're actually good.
i've been using steam since first release of Half-life 2
been loving it ever since, some of their steam sale weekends and thier bundles make for some good cheap gaming on titles i wasn't willing to pay full price for... take bioskock.. seemed cool, borrowed it from a friend who bought it for xbox 360... when it went on steam sale for 15 bucks one day though i was like hey good game for 15 bucks i'll take it keep the deal liek that coming and i'll be thier customer for life
People are ignorant. Nobody even knows the true definition of monopoly now. Unless steam is attempting to buy out all the game developers that use it or is attempting to buy out all the other services such as On-Live, GFWL, direct2drive, etc. Then it cannot be a monoply.
[citation][nom]v8toilet[/nom]So if Steam is a monopoly that's bad but if OnLive or Gaikai (neither of whom can offer the resolution and response time of a local PC) become as big as Steam or bigger that's good? I love it when CEO's scream about monopoly and fairness when they are trying to become the very thing they are trying to destroy.[/citation]
It's only a monopoly if it's the other company doing it
Other online game download services like Impluse (needed for Stardock products) sells many of the games that Steam does excpet for the Valve games. I use Steam all the time for the most part like it. I'm not happy having to always needing to be able to contact the Steam content servers to be able to play some games. Server availablity has been an issue from time to time.
Point being there are other companies doing this, but is is a requirement for Valve games.
awwww On-live wants the piece of that pie. He is just talking smack to try to convince users to switch to a streaming method. Secondly You can't compare games with netflix or streamed tv shows or movies service. Playing a game and watching is two different things.
Secondly You need to BE CONNECTED AT ALL TIMES. smartphones haha get real when the carrier's network sucks. And if you lucky might be able to have good signal strength for just a minute and its all crappy all over again.
The only thing onlive will become is another option NOT A REPLACEMENT. He also forgot to mentioned about console gaming. You won't see metal gear or Killzone series on onlive ever!.
Only thing I enjoyed from this article is the smack talking.
Seriously, if someone wants to play PC games, $600 will get them a perfectly good rig to play everything out there. If they think they are "gamers" and they buy something with integrated video, they don't deserve the savings of Steam! Long live Steam!!!!!
[citation][nom]jatala[/nom]"Gabe Newell seemingly recognized OnLive's achievements since its launch in July 2010, but said the distribution method is inefficient and expensive."So is this article an OnLive advertisement? I have no problem with Steam either. I actually rather have a CD/DVD all together, go ahead, call me old fashioned but hey, to each their own.[/citation]
I agree, I built a budget rig for about $700. I think Steam is great adn nothing like iTunes.
Onlive has some extreme disadvantages distance from the hosted servers greatly impact the latency at which the games are played on the remote pc, to the point it can be impossible I take this from experience. The service is lock at 720p running on dual core systems with nvidia 9800 graphic cards, in beta you could see and change the graphic settings of the system most games are locked to middle settings. The two services cater to different people but one has limits due to the provider one is limited by you.