OnLive/Steam Founders Slam Each Other

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
on another some what related topic I would find it interesting to see how ISPs will respond to On-Live's streaming game service since they are already QQ'ing about Netflix taking up tons of bandwidth?!?
 
As long as steam gives me good offers on games, I don't care if it is a monopoly. Although, it does seem that steam is to digital PC games what Walmart is to retail, at least in terms of size.
 
[citation][nom]TommySch[/nom]They are not gamers.[/citation]

Agreed. Lower your settings, buy a console, or stop playing games altogether.
Intel "graphics" are simply not.
 
It'd really be nice if CEOs dropped the schoolyard attitude and got back to actually trying to run their companies.

Steam and OnLive really aren't even directly competing. They're in the same industry but offer two different products for two different kinds of people. Steam customers are not OnLive customers due to lag/graphics and OnLive customers won't be Steam customers due to hardware restrictions.

OnLive is just as much a "monopoly" as Steam is, because they both offer a type of product that no one else is offering with their success rate. Neither really have that firm a stranglehold on those industries. The cloud gaming arena is still wide open, OnLive just put their foot in first. A competitor with better capabilities could easily overtake their sales. Steam's real advantage is that they have plenty of high profile devs supporting them. Steam's sale prices are great, but can you say the same for the "normal" prices? When I buy a game from Gamestop, I'm also paying for the disc, packaging, manual, employees and business expenses. Steam has business expenses of their own, but should a digital-only copy from them cost the same as a packaged retail copy? I think if another business could get PC devs behind them like they back Steam, they could offer cheaper base prices and give Steam some competition.

The real monopoly here is the business model that both services compete against, brick and mortar stores. Buying all the competition out and using their names as puppets, then fixing all your prices to lower the buyback rates of used products, that's a real monopoly. Gamestop will not be missed.
 
onlive's new concept isn't competing with valve... pc gamers want a pc to game on, not a $100 box that streams games... onlive will bring pc gaming to the masses ie XBLIVE and PSN, pc gaming is done on a pc not a streaming box.
I'm building my new gaming rig 10 years later. 1st build was amd socket A with a thoroughbred core and a geforce ti4200, AMD sucks now, so i bought a i72600k and a gtx460. Intel FTW.
 
[citation][nom]Prey[/nom]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.[/citation]

They also have the Sims 3 on Steam now. Plus, my brother can play L4D2 on his Macbook Pro and we all know that that's not exaclty a high-end machine.
 
steam has the right level of user friendliness. Couple it with their sense of humor and dedication to gaming, they are really great!
On the other hand, i dont think OnLive's CEO ever played a video game has he? just wondering!
 
The only fear I have of Steam/Valve is if they go Public. Once that happens we can all kiss our great deals and quality assurance goodbye. As long as they stay private and enjoy the massively good profits they make currently, we can all rest in peace and enjoy the very good service that it is.
 
I tried OnLive. Great concept for people who can't afford high-end hardware and for the more casual gamers and games. There are a few technical issues that I can think of though:

-Noticeable lag (detrimental for serious FPS gamers).
-Stream video quality is clearly not as clear as local rendering (I'm sure one day when everyone's connected by like 500+ MByte/s connections this won't be a problem... yeah not anytime soon).
-Somewhat limited modifications/addons to games.
 
I certainly agree, Steam has become a monopoly, but the users at just as much at fault. They offer many great titles, and if you have some patience, you can pick them up at anywhere from 25%-95% off.
I do prefer the service offered by Stardock (Impulse), but plain and simply, Steam is usually cheaper. The only other digital distribution service I`m interested in is Good Old Games (GOG).
My biggest issue being is that many old games have to be hacked to run properly, or the dedicated servers were shutdown long ago.

Steam and OnLive offer a service that, arguably, is for a different audience.
Have a $2,000 gaming PC and a 1 megabit connection? Steam it is.
Have a cheap notebook and a 100 megabit fibre connection? Then use OnLive.

I believe OnLive would be more appealing if it had just a monthly subscription fee that unlocks all games, for a reasonable price (just like how Netflix does).
 
I will buy my Games in Box format until they are no longer sold only available to download or stream, and then I shall laugh because I wont give a crap about gaming anymore what with organizing my funeral! Steam-over my dead body!
 
I first learned of Steam when I bought CIV V and any sort of DRM needs to be stopped. All it does is punish the people that purchase the software
 
onlive vs. steam?

steam games are moddable,steam sales are phenomenal and its got a huge community

onlive has,.. uh,.. laggy streaming? higher prices? sloppy fps controls..

yeah, good luck with that onlive.
 
I just downloaded Mass Effect the first game from Impluse for $4.99. Can't beat that for a game that I wasn't going to buy. I already bought Mass Effect II for $19.99 form GameStop the other week. Now I will play them in order now thanks to the Impluse deal. Steam is great for gamers and hope they are around for long time. OnLive is something I just do not see myself using until it is improved by a lot.
 
[citation][nom]Prey[/nom]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.[/citation]

+1.

Plus I place my bets on Gabe. He has the HL series, TF series, CS series, GLaDOS and millions of loyal PC fans in his corner.

OnLive is just jealous like the other digital distribution companies are.

As for the Steam pricing, I don't mind paying full price for the games. Gives them more to use for the next game.
 
"Magicka is a good example: while the game doesn't exactly require high-end PC's to run at a decent framerate, it's currently only compatible with Nvidia and AMD GPUs, leaving out gamers using Intel's integrated graphics."

I think users will find that running anything, anything at all with Intel's integrated graphics, will generally be a horrifying experience.

I really don't think Steam and OnLive are competitors. As they said themselves, Steam is for people who have the systems to play the games and want perfect smooth gaming, while OnLive is only for people with moderate systems and a supreme internet connection (I have tried it with my cable connection, the experience was less than satisfying). Cloud gaming is the future, that is without a doubt. Someday internet speeds will be so fast we will just want to carry around small netbooks and have LAN parties with just those. However, that time has not come yet. Until we all have fiber optics or some kind of equivalent and a much stronger OnLive library, that time probably won't come for a while. So until then, Steam has nothing to worry about.
 
Onlive is a ripoff! You pay $15 a month for the membership and then if you buy a title from them like COD for $50, and you cancel your $15 a month membership, you can't play your COD game! WTF!
 
I dislike onlive now... besides over the years to pay for that *** permonth PLUS you need highspeed internet then to get yourf rame rates... I spent 2500 on my computer and its got 12 gb or ram and all that good stuff but it will last me till it rusts out.. all I have to do is change my power supply and gpu every 4-5 years and out where I live its 120 per month for 7 mbs so yah it sucks much cheaper to build a computer here to get my frames
 
[citation][nom]michaelahess[/nom]"gamers using Intel's integrated graphics"Oxymoron much?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]

Did you ever think that maybe some individuals dont have enough cash to purchase a new system? that they might still be using their 4-5 year old PC just because they cant afford another? that maybe everybody else out there who likes to game possibly doesn't have as much money as you do? hmmmm? Didn't think so. Thinking before speaking is the secret. you should check out some of the lengths that these people ("http://groups.google.com/group/intel9x-gaming?pli=1") go to to make games work on their low end systems so they can play games which you take for granted
 
All I know is that Gabe wanted to offer something new to us while also offering a pleasant DRM strategy. The other idiots out there just want a piece of Valve's success pie, so they bitch. I mean look at TF2. They keep updating it rather than making unfinished sequels like the CoD franchise.

And kinggraves has hit it on the head. Two different types of companies, two different monopolies. Difference is, one monopoly has offered great products and services to the customers, while the other is too young to have a history yet.

Screw OnLive, I'm pre-purchasing Portal 2, just to show support for Valve. Hell, I've got a pretty decent gaming computer (for cheap), and I'm going to use it.

btw: it's good to see the other comments here, seems that most of the consumer comments thus far are fairly congruent. :)
 
[citation][nom]squallypie[/nom]steam has the right level of user friendliness. Couple it with their sense of humor and dedication to gaming, they are really great! On the other hand, i dont think OnLive's CEO ever played a video game has he? just wondering![/citation]
I believe he tried Pong, but found it too difficult to enjoy.
 
IMHO, i do want steam become somewhat monopoly. last thing i want is remember 30 different login for each every game service or even worst.. having 30 different game service loading as backupground TSR hogging my pc memory.

onlive will never popular in US, ISP already having hard time dealing with netflix they will QQ non stop with onlive. or just simply blocking the port from router side.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom