Guest Jordan Posted March 24, 2009 Share Posted March 24, 2009 No, you'll still need the client and you'll probably have to login to download the game. But I think its to please the whole "i'm not always online, wah wah" crowd. Plus it means people can't circumvent Steam's DRM (which is currently possible). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aimless Posted March 24, 2009 Share Posted March 24, 2009 Well, I'm glad you've enlightened me as to the qualities of those two RPGs in such a compelling and informative fashion. Now I see the error of my ways. (To clarify, I wasn't actually seeking a discussion as it has no place here, just adding substance to my post.) Huh? What does this mean, exactly? Will it mean that we won't need to load Steam to play games? It means that there won't be any third-party DRM required — such as SecuROM, or other intrusive piracy countermeasures — because game executables are generated on a per account basis. So Steam's anti-piracy measures are very much in effect, but none of these affect the experience of the end user as they don't need to prat around removing rootkits or freeing up digital licenses every time they uninstall something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cube Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 It means that there won't be any third-party DRM required — such as SecuROM, or other intrusive piracy countermeasures — because game executables are generated on a per account basis. So Steam's anti-piracy measures are very much in effect, but none of these affect the experience of the end user as they don't need to prat around removing rootkits or freeing up digital licenses every time they uninstall something. So as I only have Steam games on Steam it won't affect me at all? Bah...I was hoping that I'll finally be able to play Steam games while offline. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aimless Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 Bah...I was hoping that I'll finally be able to play Steam games while offline. You already can, it's just a little more convoluted than you perhaps hoped. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shino Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 OnLive just stole the show. Its the end of computer hardware and third party based consoles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aimless Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 OnLive just stole the show. Its the end of computer hardware and third party based consoles. I wouldn't get carried away. Even if OnLive lives up to some of its rather suspect claims, it's still around 10 or more years too early for such a service to be the de facto way of playing games. Hell, we need only go back to something Cube said just up the page: Bah...I was hoping that I'll finally be able to play Steam games while offline. Even if OnLive does somehow manage to sidestep the issues of input lag, line contention, drop-outs, lag spikes, bandwidth caps and all the other network related issues, it's completely useless if you don't want to/can't be connected to the 'net. It's a great idea, but even if the service does deliver on its promises the planet's lack of a pervasive Dreamfall-esque super-fast wireless network means that OnLive is severely limited by the practicalities of today's hodgepodge broadband situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daft Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 I would be too surprised to see this more just integrated into future consoles. Would complement systems well. Maybe even sharing processing loads, leading to longer console life spans...if that's possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Choze Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 (edited) I would be too surprised to see this more just integrated into future consoles. Would complement systems well. Maybe even sharing processing loads, leading to longer console life spans...if that's possible. Well we already have Remote Play for PSP and it works well with PS1 games. And there is already software that does PC games for PS3. Though within your own network so your pc still needs to do the work. http://www.streammygame.com/smg/index.php http://playstation.joystiq.com/2008/01/14/stream-any-pc-game-to-your-ps3-with-no-lag/ The new thing about the other service is that it does the work away from home, over the internet. So you can play games not normally possible. However your internet and network will be more strained. Still dont see how it is superior for lag compared to something like streammygame which is also going to do an internet option. Edited March 25, 2009 by Choze Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ssj Posted March 25, 2009 Author Share Posted March 25, 2009 anyone know when microsofts show starts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shino Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 I wouldn't get carried away. Even if OnLive lives up to some of its rather suspect claims, it's still around 10 or more years too early for such a service to be the de facto way of playing games. Hell, we need only go back to something Cube said just up the page: Even if OnLive does somehow manage to sidestep the issues of input lag, line contention, drop-outs, lag spikes, bandwidth caps and all the other network related issues, it's completely useless if you don't want to/can't be connected to the 'net. It's a great idea, but even if the service does deliver on its promises the planet's lack of a pervasive Dreamfall-esque super-fast wireless network means that OnLive is severely limited by the practicalities of today's hodgepodge broadband situation. I don't expect for it to come perfect right from the start, but it sounds like they did their homework and I was surprised by the rather large amount of publisher they got to support the system, surely those publishers have seen it running with impressive results. Maybe they did find the holy grail and I'll will never buy new pc parts or consoles again. I would be too surprised to see this more just integrated into future consoles. Would complement systems well. Maybe even sharing processing loads, leading to longer console life spans...if that's possible. What's the point of a huge expensive box like the PS3 when all you need is a video receiver and decoder? Personally I think this system is great, even if it doesn't work right of the bat, make an account, rent the games and play it on the pc, or use the same account to play on a mini console on your tv. Power to the consumer and the developers, cut off the middle man, no more hardware crap preventing you from playing or retailers selling used copies. My only problem with this is the lack of ergonomics experience shown by the manufacturer with that controller. anyone know when microsofts show starts? I think there's only one at GDC and this was Nintendo's year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daft Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 What's the point of a huge expensive box like the PS3 when all you need is a video receiver and decoder? Personally I think this system is great, even if it doesn't work right of the bat, make an account, rent the games and play it on the pc, or use the same account to play on a mini console on your tv. Power to the consumer and the developers, cut off the middle man, no more hardware crap preventing you from playing or retailers selling used copies. My only problem with this is the lack of ergonomics experience shown by the manufacturer with that controller. It's be interesting to see what Nintendo do, I don't see them taking this route any time soon. They are so behind technologically I don't see them doing this for a decade at least. I wouldn't be surprised to see Microsoft and Sony sell boxes that has their games exclusive to them. I'd love to what effect this had on something like Home. Would be amazing if everyone was on a single server like EVE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cube Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 OnLive seems like a nice idea. Although it's a bit ahead of it's time - most peoples' internet connection wouldn't be up to scratch. If everyone is using the OnLive service for an online game, than wouldn't that mean that lag will only affect people who have bad connections (rather than everyone, like some games) as it'll just look like they're immensely slow to react for other people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deathjam Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 It's be interesting to see what Nintendo do, I don't see them taking this route any time soon. They are so behind technologically I don't see them doing this for a decade at least. I wouldn't be surprised to see Microsoft and Sony sell boxes that has their games exclusive to them. I'd love to what effect this had on something like Home. Would be amazing if everyone was on a single server like EVE. Nintendo aren't really behind technologically. more like they have gone sideways while the others have gone up, or just headed in a different direction to attain the same goal. Profit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daft Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 Nintendo aren't really behind technologically. more like they have gone sideways while the others have gone up, or just headed in a different direction to attain the same goal. Profit. So they are behind. They apply old technology differently. They aren't pushing any technological envelope. I'm not saying it's a bad thing, just that it'll take a lot longer for them, if at all, to embrace something like this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shino Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 (edited) I don't think they'll ever do, they have a strong line up of first and second party games (they have been a alone in the industry for ages) and will keep pushing new ways of gaming so they can pretty much counter this. But consoles such as the 360 and to a lesser extent de PS3, that rely more um third party software, they need to find a way to differentiate and make this profitable. Edit: And I don't think Nintendo is behind technologically, they could just as easily made a powerful console like they've been doing in past generations, but they don't want too (due to the reasons we know). Its like saying MS or Sony are behind in terms of motion sensing input, that's not true, they could do much more but that wasn't their initial target (we'll see what happens next gen). Edited March 25, 2009 by Shino Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deathjam Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 So they are behind. They apply old technology differently. They aren't pushing any technological envelope. I'm not saying it's a bad thing, just that it'll take a lot longer for them, if at all, to embrace something like this. Come on. You don't think for a second that nintendo could 'catch up' in a second if they wanted to? Financially, it would not make sense. It's not like the companies sit down and develop all the tech themselves. And motion controls that are actually new (for the most part) and fun is a technoligical achievement, as much as shiny graphics which become old when every other game is doing the same with just a bit extra brown. Anyway, this is a massive tangent so to get back on topic, well, I have nothing really to say to get back on topic so meh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tellyn Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 (edited) I've never understood the love for Golden Sun. It was an okay JRPG, but its popularity is as mystifying to me as that of Tales of Symphonia. Golden Sun is actually one of the few RPGs I've gotten into. A huge delay between playing times however meant that I couldn't remember what I was doing prior to my break. Providing Nintendo release it on the DSi's Virtual Console, I'll attempt to get into it again! Also to take part in the other topic of conversation, I agree with Deathjam. Nintendo are capable of matching or even surpassing their competitors in terms of graphical and technical power. At the moment it's not an entirely sensible move, but when the hardware becomes cheaper and HDTVs more commonplace than they are right now, you can bet they'll jump in. Edited March 25, 2009 by Tellyn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daft Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 Come on. You don't think for a second that nintendo could 'catch up' in a second if they wanted to? Financially, it would not make sense. It's not like the companies sit down and develop all the tech themselves. And motion controls that are actually new (for the most part) and fun is a technoligical achievement, as much as shiny graphics which become old when every other game is doing the same with just a bit extra brown. Anyway, this is a massive tangent so to get back on topic, well, I have nothing really to say to get back on topic so meh. I'm not saying they couldn't. God knows they have enough money, and the Gamecube showed they could compete in terms of power. It's just not what they do. The technology for the motion controls aren't new. Their appliance is. Branding newer graphics as adding an extra bit of brown, is a massive sweeping generalisation. Just look at flower. I haven't seen a game with more colour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Choze Posted March 26, 2009 Share Posted March 26, 2009 It happens with all technology. Some companies push the envelope but the ones that do best are not pushing the tech but making it more accessible. See Mcdonalds and eating out for example. This tech here is not accessible. Given the amount of issues typical people have with networks Nintendo were right not to focus on online for maximum marketshare anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deathjam Posted March 26, 2009 Share Posted March 26, 2009 I'm not saying they couldn't. God knows they have enough money, and the Gamecube showed they could compete in terms of power. It's just not what they do. The technology for the motion controls aren't new. Their appliance is. Yeah, I agree with you there, that's why I put that bit in the brackets. I remember a ball rolling game on one of the gameboys that used motion cotrols or something of that ilk. Branding newer graphics as adding an extra bit of brown, is a massive sweeping generalisation. Just look at flower. I haven't seen a game with more colour. I know. I actually dont think this say as I am very easy to please when it comes to graphics but I was just using an opinion that has been stated many times to make a point which I have now forgotten. Maybe it came to mind when because I saw something saying that Gears of War 2 had the best graphics last year and there was no way I could agree with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Choze Posted March 26, 2009 Share Posted March 26, 2009 A Namco flight game may be coming to PS3: http://www.dsp.co.jp/staff/jobinfo/details.php?job_id=20819 The major game company is Namco of ..development of the flight action game for PS3.. Bandai. - Charge project: Flight action game for PS3 - Work contents: The mechanism one model's such as fighters texture making - Being able to do both is OK though it takes charge of textures except modeling. via job posting. Full trailer for Cryengine 2. Has PS3 and 360 footage seperate. http://gamersyde.com/leech_10377_en.html Hopefully 3rd parties use this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cube Posted March 26, 2009 Share Posted March 26, 2009 Full trailer for Cryengine 2. Has PS3 and 360 footage seperate. http://gamersyde.com/leech_10377_en.html Hopefully 3rd parties use this. Cryengine with TimeSplitters 4 would be awesome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts