TheMightyEthan

So I just tried it on my 47" 1080p TV (lunch break), and while I still think it's too muddy it's not nearly as bothersome as it was on the PC. However, the latency was still pretty bad, bad enough to make Dirt 3 unplayable. I ended up weaving back and forth across the road because of latency between when I corrected for the car's motion, when that correction took effect, and when I saw its effect. And here's a speed test I ran immediately after I quit playing to show that it's not my connection that's at fault for that: If I can't play it on a connection that's faster than 92% of the US then the tech isn't quite there yet, though on a slower game (like Tropico mentioned in the article) the latency wouldn't be an issue. I would play Civ V or Tropico on this, and MAYBE something like Arkham Asylum or Assassin's Creed, but I wouldn't play Battlefield 3 or Need for Speed. As for the visuals, while they weren't as troubling on the TV as they had been on my monitor, they were still significantly worse than a 360 or PS3. You know how some games *cough*Arkham Asylum*cough* will have in-engine cutscenes that are for some reason pre-rendered instead of rendered live and so they're blocky and blurry? That's what this looks like whenever anything is moving very much (slow movements are okay). Again though this would only manifest in fast-paced games and wouldn't be (as much of) an issue in something like Civ V. And the graphics were fantastic, with all the fanciness and everything turned on. It's kind of weird, the contrast between those two. It's like playing on a crazy high-end PC with really dirty glasses. All of that said, I agree with the RPS assessment that if I were a console-maker this would have me worried. Though the visuals aren't up to snuff and the latency is too much for anything that requires fast or precise movements/reactions this service is new and it will surely improve with time. And the fact that it completely eliminates piracy has to make it really attractive to game publishers.

That's funny, I'm kind of the opposite. I will often get in a multiplayer beta, play it 24/7 for the entire time it's running, then barely touch the multiplayer once the game comes out. Examples: Modern Warfare, Halo 3, Halo Reach. I think that has more to do though with me wanting to get a taste of a game I'm really excited for though, because generally I eschew multiplayer (except coop).

It's comparable to Netflix, maybe not quite as good. My connection's stable enough that I almost always get whatever the max quality they can provide is.

RPS likes OnLive more than me, but I think that article does a good job of explaining the benefits and shortcomings. They recognize all the problems I had, they just aren't as bothered by them. That article did convince me to hook up my laptop to my TV tonight and give OnLive another shot in "console" mode. I've previously only tried it in a more standard "PC" setting, which RPS agrees is nigh unplayable.

Right, that's what I'm saying. WoW costs money competes with free just fine.

Dunno, you'll have to ask Blizzard.

That's the same as WoW... And I was actually going to post this even before I read Dean's post, but who wants to take bets on how long this will be before going free to play?

I am not ashamed to say it: that is too hardcore for me.

I think it's interesting, but they really need the video quality to come up. My 360, let alone my desktop, puts OnLive's visuals to shame; it's just so muddy.

That is a retarded launch date.

Yeah, the messaging yesterday was being all kinds of weird.

Has the quality of onlive improved since launch? When I tried it the picture was pretty muddy (even taking into account that it was only 720p) and there was too much latency on the inputs.

Alright, I'm jumping on now. I'll just play firefight till someone gets online. If you posted in this thread I'll send you an invite if/when I see you get online.

The triggers on the DS3 have never bothered me, it's the sticks; they're way too loose.

Oh, also ordered these a few days ago: Finally I can live a life free of the DS3.

Yeah, cheating to just experience the story sounds like a good way to go. *Edit* - Also, all the ME1 DLC is entirely missable.

We don't have a 4th man yet, UnstableArk, although jimmuh said he might play. Do you have gold, since you haven't played xbox online in so long? Send me a friend request on XBL. Duke: I'll be able to play tomorrow (Friday) from probably about 2000 GMT on, maybe a little earlier. And Saturday I'm available all day until probably around 2200-2300 GMT. I usually wake up around 1400-1500 GMT or so, so any time after that. Sunday I'm available all day.

Looks like ME1 PC is going for $20... I'd recommend it, but really it depends on how much you want to play it. Now, if there were some way you could get a PC copy for free, well then I would definitely say it's worth free... *Edit* - The inventory system in ME1 was horrendous and needed to be fixed in ME2. However, it made me sad that rather than fixing it they just got rid of it altogether. I like having control over my team's and my equipment. And in ME2 they didn't give you enough information to intelligently exercise what little control they do give you.

CS -0.4?

Yeah, that's why I didn't get it at Amazon for $8, I waited til it was on Steam for $2. I figure even if it's terrible I've wasted less than the price of a hamburger.

I've been tempted by the Halo edition of Risk for some time.

I'm surprised metacritic allows user ratings without attached reviews.

$2 on Steam. Been waiting to find it cheap since I've heard it's not very good, but the premise interests me.

AAAA? Now there's a step above AAA?

I can't speak for Yant, but I prefer matchmaking over dedicated servers because it's just less of a hassle to get into a game, and I like the game automatically balancing the skills of the players. With matchmaking you don't have to bother trying to find a game that has enough players but isn't full, or having it kick you out of trying to join a server because it's full when the count said it had 3 slots open. It's just more convenient to use matchmaking. Now, I understand the benefits of dedicated servers too, such as the server operators being able to customize the settings and apply mods and such, and I have experienced the joy finding a server that you really enjoy, but overall I prefer matchmaking. Ideally PC games should have both, because both have their own advantages and disadvantages, but if they're only going to have one I'd like it to be matchmaking.