Talk:OnLive/Archive 1

Tachyons

No mention of tachyons?

Release?

It says it will be released in winter 2009. isn't winter in januaqry, in 2010? they should write december instead of winter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.233.100.129 (talk) 14:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Winter 2009 begins on December 21, 2009, for the northern hemisphere.

It is said to be released this winter, but i talked to all the game stores i get true info 100% of the time and they have never heard of it.

Skepticism section

The reference for the criticism isn't a valid reference I don't think. It's a comment underneath the article that is linked to. Not that I'm disagreeing with the criticism, I just think it could be a bit dishonest --212.36.169.163 (talk) 17:19, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree - the comment was interesting but it was clearly WP:OR. For now, I've removed the comment and replaced it with a summary of the article. Laurent (talk) 17:40, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the deletion of my 2 previous edits of 16:26, 23 April 2009 & 16:21, 23 April 2009 by Laurent at 16:36, 23 April 2009 & 16:34, 23 April 2009: I do not want to get into a back and forth editing war here, so I am making these comments to discuss the most recent edits as of this writing. I was working to make the skepticism section more balanced and factual than it has been. I would rather use a named expert who used the service than an unnamed reference who did not and whose obscenities and laughter, which offer no insight or information, are treated as skepticism. The skepticism section as of this writing is more negative than skeptical. True skepticism is systematic rather than just negative. Also, my edits were sourced and quoted, so I don't see as valid the comment that the edits are not sourced or quoted and that they may possibly be WP:OR. If you would prefer each line to be sourced on a line by line basis, then could you please make a comment to that effect on the talk page? I would like to see my edits put back into the article.

Sorry I just went through your edits and it's true that I removed them too quickly. The Crytek comment was indeed sourced, so I've added it back to the article. Your comment regarding Richard Leadbetter though still sounds like original research to me. In other words, it's you trying to demonstrate that Richard Leadbetter is wrong and although you may be right, this is still original research, and shouldn't be in the article. Well that's what I think anyway. Here is the paragraph that I've removed:

Eurogamer's Richard Leadbetter has also expressed deep concern about OnLive's system. Though the article was published while OnLive was being demonstrated to attendees of GDC 2009, the article does not reference any personal experience with the system, nor does it include any comments from GDC attendees who tried the service. The piece does not fact-check what Leadbetter calls, "OnLive's claims." For example, Leadbetter writes that by stating the OnLive video encoder has 1ms of latency, OnLive's Perlman is, "saying that the OnLive encoder runs at 1000fps [frames per second]. It's one of the most astonishing claims I've ever heard." (The OnLive website FAQ states OnLive operates at 720p60, which is a 60 frame per second video format, contradicting Leadbetter's assertion.) Leadbetter further states he interviewed an unnamed "leading specialist in high-end video encoding" whose comments regarding the erroneous 1000 frames per second assertion included obscenity and laughter.

Thank you for returning the edits regarding the comment from Mr. Yerli. I re-submitted my edits with proper references for each sentence. You can verify this if you like, by checking the noted locations in the original article.: —Preceding unsigned comment added by Allengittelson (talk • contribs) 00:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

This is still original research in my opinion. We can't just go read a FAQ and say "look he's wrong, he misunderstood what Perlman said". Even if you're right, someone could claim that you're the one who misunderstood the FAQ and therefore remove your comments. That's why we should base the article on third party reliable sources. i.e. we need to find an article stating that Leadbetter is wrong, not demonstrate it ourselves. Actually, I found a rather good one: Why You Shouldn’t Give up on OnLive Just Yet. So I'd suggest to slighly rewrite the criticism based on this source, and possibly quoting Steve Perlman's comments. Laurent (talk) 22:03, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Laurent, for clarifying your comments. I made some changes and provided quotations and citations from third party reliable sources.--wikial (talk) 07:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe that this is irrelevant: "He also mentioned concerns about the "mod community" being unable to create and offer mods since all the game data will be stored on the OnLive servers; as well as the fact that any games bought on OnLive are not actually owned by the user." First of all, this is not skepticism. Second, consoles do not allow mods, so how would this be any different? Onlive isn't a PC. It may run on a PC or Mac, but it is played in a similar fashion to consoles.--Contributions/67.222.226.156 (talk) 19:15, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

References

NOT a console

I'd say it's an 8th generation (or last generation?) console —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.167.206.149 (talk) 18:08, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

OnLive is a video game distribution system; not a console by any means. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swixi (talk • contribs) 18:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The first part of this page reads entirely like an advertisement. Its far from an easily stated fact that this is a 'seventh generation game console'. And "the service is being seen as a strong competitor for the console market" is speculation from blogs and doesnt really fit in an information article at this point. It's being seen as another doomed-to-fail cloud experiment by a lot of people too.

This is an unreleased product, and the few sources quoted are blogs and hype. Even the criticism section is stupid, given the level of information available. Someone needs to clean this up with more simple non-hype non-whatarepeoplesaying information about the product and the people behind it. If that information isn't available, then we dont need an article yet... -75.82.95.212 (talk) 18:17, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

This is not speculation from blogs but from plenty of third party reliable sources. And it's written "it is being seen" which means it's an opinion, which can indeed turn out to be wrong. Maybe we just need to put the "News" template on the article to make that clear. Anyway, there's also a criticism section to show alternative opinions. Laurent (talk) 19:31, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the designation of console probably is appropriate in balance, but the article states that it is seventh generation. This seems unlikely given the release date is way after the other's. Maybe this console represents the start of cloud gaming - though personally I think this has been over hyped and will not deliver - rendering all the graphics server side and streaming a video feed seems impossible - every move of the mouse must be responded to! Richardwhiuk (talk) 01:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I changed the current event template to one that is more appropriate to the video game genre. I don't believe there is a new video game console template. Chinaman88 (talk) 01:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the part that states that it's a seventh generation console. It doesn't make sense anyway since, if the service really delivers, it could in theory stream any kind of game including games from the next generation. Laurent (talk) 16:51, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Now that it has been officially release and it fits Wikipedia's definition of a video game console: A video game console is an interactive entertainment computer or modified computer system that produces a video display signal which can be used with a display device (a television, monitor, etc.) to display a video game. It needs to be decided is this seventh or eighth generation. 75.181.99.157 (talk) 09:25, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Onlive is most certainly NOT a console. It is not an interactive computer, it is an intangible service. Also it does not display any video signals, it transmits video data over the internet. The end-user's computer, that runs the Onlive client, is what produces a video display signal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.20.188.126 (talk) 03:25, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Physically Impossible

Should this even have an article? This is obviously a scam targeting shareholders, as this entire idea is physically impossible given how fast the medium for communication between the PC and the server would have to travel to make this work outside an extremely small area. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.221.189.211 (talk • contribs) 23:40, 25 March 2009

It's running at GDC right now. MrMarmite (talk) 01:59, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Technically, it was run at GDC, though the developers had little proof that it wasn't running off of a server located right there, as opposed to a significant distance away. Also, the demonstrators were the only users on the network, and no matter what connection they had, it could be assured that it was vastly faster and lower-latency than the typical cable/DSL connection, as it was either Ethernet, or some form of OC that ran from the GDC to their headquarters. Technically, it works, but yeah, real-world wise, it's a scam. However, this article should still exist; after all, the Gizmondo was effectively a scam and cover for criminal activity, though it did technically put out a physical product. I feel something similar will come here; they might eventually release it, and it will be trashed by critics because it failed at doing something that'd take magic to accomplish, (i.e, 99.9% of the prospective market will find their games so poor in latency as to be unplayable, and the image quality will be comparable to an Atari 2600) and it will fade into obscurity. Alternatively, this could get stuck in development hell. Either way, it's PHYSICALLY possible to do this sort of SERVICE, but yes, what the developers of this service claim is TECHNICALLY impossible. So they're trying, and hyping, but everyone who didn't see this coming is going to be disappointed. Nonetheless, the thing exists. Nottheking (talk) 18:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Our place is not to speculate as to the future or feasibility of the product, but to report on what has been said about it in reliable sources. –xeno^talk 18:09, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

That is correct, and hence my prior point, that, even given the potential questions on real-world feasibility raised by 71.221.189.211, that this article is of course perfectly valid, as Wikipedia is meant to be academic, rather than a real-world analysis of its subject matter, hence why I cited the Gizmondo. Hopefuly other editors might see this section and, if they had questions as to why this article existed like 71.221.189.211 did, they will understand now. Nottheking (talk) 21:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Skyfire browser works in a same manner as OnLive and it's now available. It's a mobile browser and renders websites instead of games but the concept is very much the same. Furthermore, people play World of Warcraft through remote desktop using Windows Mobile machines - you can watch it on youtube. Sure, the quality and the frame rate isn't great, but it's achived without any custom made hardware/software. 85.221.200.25 (talk) 08:45, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

at the risk of running foul of the "this is not a forum" rule, but your above example is many miles from the claims of OnLive. Rendering a static website to a tiny screen is hardly the same as 30FPS HiDef graphics, and responding to client joystick commands. It's like saying a digital picture frame is the same as a PS3 MrMarmite (talk) 20:52, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

While the claims should be treated with skepticism, I think "physically impossible" is a bit of an exaggeration. Unless you can point to an authoritative document not already in the article that states it as such, there's not much to do here.129.2.167.219 (talk) 21:41, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this product is a scam for shareholders, because look at whose involved in this, some pretty respectable people. The CEO has worked on QuickTime. Tom Paquin was a key developer for Netscape and Mozilla. Another one of them worked for NBC for 16 years. --Mark0528 (talk) 18:40, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Gamasutra's article on OnLive

[1]

speedy deletion?

may i say, that although it is obvious that you adhere to strict reporting criteria, yet i do not understand the need for 'speedy deletion' of this article. At least, not until a re-write is available.

For those who think this is a 'cloud scam' please be aware that we are witnessing history in the making, and succeed or fail, onlive is still the FIRST video game to be hosted on a cloud of servers.

Anyone who does not believe that cloud-servers, thin-clients and the death of desktop computing is imminent, have completely failed to grasp the scale and momentum behind this inevitable development of computers and thus how we interact with same.

To understand what is happening read Wikipedia's own article SAAS first and then just consider the implications,

1. 1For software developers (instant bug-fixes, instant upgrades, no CD's to manufacture ship and distribute, no dodgy pirate copies available anywhere..

1. 2For big business - ALL businesses (as it is infinitely and instantly scalable). it means all specialist 'departments' of any company can henceforth be OUTSOURCED to efficient and expert systems, so if crazy inventor Joe Solo comes up with a brilliant and groundbreaking gizmo - he can get marketing, hiring and firing, payroll, - all the nuts and bolts of a business - directly, online and immediately scalable from 2 customers to 2 million as and when needed - and leave Joe Solo to work on inventing or improving the gizmo.

1. 3For consumers - ALL your apps and data will be available to you wherever and whenever. You will not have a hard drive in your front room or your office - you will access all your files from a cloud, the same way you access your hard drive now.

Cloud servers share data, so if any 10 go bust, the other 999,990 pick up the slack - you need never lose data or suffer complete downtime again.

Thus i put it to you that 'Onlive' (which i know nothing about - i don't even PLAY computer games - i am not fast enough) is a MILESTONE piece of software, and for Wikipedia to scorn it is tantamount to those book publishers turning away Lord Of The Rings or a record company turning down the Beatles.

Macthefork (talk) 10:34, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I think this article should be deleted for now. Bring it back if/when they prove it's for real.

This sounds like fanboy rage to me... can someone point this guy in the direction of the reality that this system will never succeed in the real world. Physical media is the only tried, tested and approved method of media distribution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.112.232.17 (talk) 10:57, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Dead

I think its safe to say that this project has been cancelled/prostponed indef. Beta was supposed to start in summer 2009, with a release in the winter of 2009. Its 3 days before 2010 and we have not even had any word of a beta. Such a shame, but then again, it was too good to be true in the first place —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.26.58.106 (talk) 15:38, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Erm, you realise that the Kotaku article two sections down (now a few sections up after move...ed) proves you wrong? It's in a closed, invite-only beta. Delusibeta (talk) 20:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

But the beta hasnt started yet! Thats the whole problem. The system was suppose to be released by now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.26.58.106 (talk) 13:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

It's 2010. Not only were supposted to have a public in Summer 2009 (didn't happen), the service swas supposed to start up Winter 2009 (it's now 2010). Onlive.com hasn't been updated in ages. I think the whole thing is a joke. Pull the plug on the site and tell the truth for once. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.100.52.87 (talk) 05:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

http://blog.onlive.com/2009/09/02/onlive-opens-the-beta-program/ Winter 2009 is Dec2009-Mar2010--80.142.34.251 (talk) 20:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Lets look at it this way, if it isnt dead yet then it will be soon. Who wants a games system where if you lose your connection you also lose your progress or if their servers are down/broken then you cannot access your games/lose all your data and purchased games? Add to that a monthly subscription and the fact that it can never really be as fast as they claim it will be (they beta tested with only hundreds of people, not hundreds of thousands as per reality) and this system will be dead within months, maybe a year tops... long story short, console gaming remains the only reliable form of gaming due to physical media. -Ouroboros Omega —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.112.232.17 (talk) 10:49, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

but it is a console

Not only is the press (Kotaku, IGN, GameSpy, GameSpot, etc.) considering it a console, but so does Wikipedia. It is listed as a console on Wikipedia's seventh generation page. Also, it is listed as a seventh generation console on the Particle Cannon website.--FifthCylon (talk) 23:43, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

It is not a console. If all those websites are calling Onlive a console, then they have obviously been paid-off to say so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.20.188.126 (talk) 03:27, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Biased

Seems to be a lot of negativity in the article in general, but the Post-Release section in particular focuses exclusively on the failings of the product immediately following release. Apparently no effort whatsoever has been made toward anything resembling balance. I won't even say what the discussion page looks like. Since when did Wikipedia become the comments section of YouTube? What happened to NPOV? Despite its flaws, the fact remains that this is a notably successful application of cloud computing. Is there some reason this fact alone doesn't warrant a quality write-up? 75.43.165.87 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:30, 22 December 2010 (UTC). =

Corporate Information

The article appears to be about the OnLive platform itself. What about the manufacturer, whose name is also OnLive? Does it merit a separate page? I feel like reconfiguring this article to refer to the manufacturer, with primary focus on the platform, would be more economical. Please get back to me on my talk page. I will dump there a couple references for factoids about the corporate side that I'd like to work in.Carl Wivagg (talk) 17:47, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

The page is currently about the company and the service, so I see no need for a separation or separate page. There was some other information about the company such as the officers, but another Wikipedia editor recently removed it. Please feel free to put it back and update it, as there are some changes/additions which can be seen from the company website.wikial (talk) 00:25, 8 January 2011 (UTC)