OnLive

I was able to (very slowly) get through the beta signup, although I doubt that I'll get in. The last beta I was in that I didn't have to pay for was Diablo 2, and that was only the Battlenet stress test, not the full game.....(damn, I'm old).
 
[quote name='eswat']"503 Service Unavailable"

It has begun...[/quote]
Product Enthusiasm Depletion.....COMPLETE!


Yeah, totally not the right way to start out an online-only product.:lol:
 
[quote name='Monsta Mack']Well if I get into the beta we'll see how well this really works out. I'll give it a chance.[/QUOTE]

Agreed. Worst case I can beta a few games I'm mildly interested in but not willing to buy (Fear 2, Mirrors Edge, etc.) but I expect it to be underwhelming.
 
Developers will strive for this to succeed but I'm sure if this even works then Nintendo, Sony and MS would just follow. I think the bottom line of this product for the developers is to kill piracy. Will it work now? Probably not. In the future when we can download 1 terabyte per second? Obviously.

I wonder how much the "mini console" will run for?

I noticed no lag/choppyness when Crysis was being played. However, there server was only 50 miles away from the test site. Since I'm in CT and this is in CA I can see it not being as fast. They also said they will run multiple copies of a certain game on a computer like lego batman... eh
 
Last edited by a moderator:
They'd have a server in the sub-DC district so I'd be good to go. The more I think about it the less and less skeptical I get. Don't get me wrong, for hardcore gamers this is likely going to drag but for the Macbook user who's willing to throw down likely a few hundreds every year to play games it may seem more viable. Or the netbook user, you know?
 
Well like I said if everything runs smooth in the beta process it eliminates the purpose of me buying any more multiplatform games if the service is cheap. The Wii, 360 and PS3 will all still have "exclusive" games till Sony/MS/Nintendo decides go to their own OnLive route which they surely will if this takes off (ie a lot of subscribers).

Also, he said to the bandwith limit "60 hours times 2 megabits per second is what you'll need for downloading and streaming our games. However there have been no issues so far." when someone specifically asked how Comcast users with their 250gig restrictions will get around this.
 
Behold, math:

1237945535270.jpg
 
CoffeeEdge I don't doubt your on the money but I'd like to see it come Winter. If it fails then it fails. If I get in the beta I'll see for myself that it fails rather then getting lectures on how it will fail despite not seeing it first hand. Atleast I won't pay a dime to try it out, where as I spent $250 on my Wii and wish I still haven't to this day.
 
[quote name='Monsta Mack']The Wii, 360 and PS3 will all still have "exclusive" games till Sony/MS/Nintendo decides go to their own OnLive route which they surely will if this takes off (ie a lot of subscribers).[/quote]
They won't, and it won't.

Also, he said to the bandwith limit "60 hours times 2 megabits per second is what you'll need for downloading and streaming our games. However there have been no issues so far." when someone specifically asked how Comcast users with their 250gig restrictions will get around this.
Click to expand...
Uh, someone needs to tell this idiot that ignoring the mathematical flaws in his plan won't make them go away.
 
only makes sense, in an ideal world where they have the bandwidth and server power to handle it, for the very occasional gamer... no matter what, the game has to be rendered somewhere by something. doing the rendering on external servers would only even possibly make sense for people who didn't game often... it's like timesharing game rendering hardware... if you do it often, it cannot make financial sense to timeshare.
 
Even if this succeeds on a small level, with a limited number of customers(subscribers?), it'll never take off with most gamers. You don't have the game on you computer/console, can't even modify interfaces in MMOs or whatever, nevermind mods of entire games. Multiplayer games through this kind of service is a good laugh, though.

Could be an interesting rental service at least, and/or a method of trying out games you can't run on your own hardware.
 
[quote name='CoffeeEdge']This is fucking ridiculously stupid. It's not going to work. The video quality will be shit. There will be considerable lag. There will be issues due to the monthly bandwidth limits that most ISPs have in place. There will be situations where all of their render machines are filled up, and users will have to wait in line to be able to play a game. This company will be out of business within three years.

An hour of 720p video is typically going to occupy several gigabytes. Comcast, for instance, has a 250 gig per month cap (up and down). You'll be dedicating most of your monthly bandwidth to this service, if you do any large amount of gaming.

There will be lag. No, there is no way to send inputs, render a frame of graphics, encode it into a 720p video stream, and send it back to a user's screen, without noticeable lag. There is no magical technology they could possibly invent to compensate for this.

And while I'm not an expert on the subject, and can only make amateur speculation, I do not think that the business plan is feasible. Unless the service is exorbitantly expensive, then I just don't see how they will be able to pay for thousands of gameplay rendering boxes (all of which will require maintenance and periodic upgrades to keep up with the latest games), and all the bandwidth, and the expensive special licenses for the games. This makes no sense to me.

Three years, tops. This is an idea so stupid, that I'm willing to rate it as on par with the Phantom on the "All-Time Most Idiotic Videogame Service Start-up Plans." We will look back and laugh about this, as yet another failed alternative-delivery-method videogame startup.

And I won't even start on the insidious underbelly of this, which is obviously yet another ploy to increase the power of the publishers over everything.[/quote]

This.

I'd like to see something more practical, like developing games for a "standard" sort of like valve does with the source engine. It's very low end friendly. Whats the point of making a game/game engine that is going to LIMIT how many people can enjoy your games? Seems counter-productive to your bottom line.
 
[quote name='eswat']WAY too soon for cloud-computing gaming, especially with this "Xbox LIVE Subscription-equivalent" financial model they will be using. They will burn through whatever VC/seed money they've received very fast. ISPs castrating bandwidth doesn't help either.

I'll give these guys credit though. They managed to get retarded sites to declare the death of consoles and PC already, when similar techs like OTOY struggled to even get blogs to write about them, let alone write off consoles and PCs. They must have a deceptively-good marketing department.[/quote]

[quote name='dmaul1114']It's a cool idea on the one had, but I see a lot of issues as others have brought up already.

Performance--lag will be an issue at times.

Bandwith--ISPs having caps is a huge issue for any kind of on demand media delivery

Price- I pay next to nothing for games as I use Goozex etc. I don't like gaming enough any more to really spend money on it so with no resell options etc. I'm very unlikely to ever buy into something like this.[/quote]

[quote name='YodaEXE']This will never happen. Between the fact that only about 50% of America even has broadband (yes, I know there's more out there than America, but it's what I'm familiar with), the fact that many ISPs these days have low bandwidth caps, and what is probably going to be high fees, this won't take off. It's an interesting idea, but an utterly stupid one in my opinion. I much prefer having physical items (with the sole exception of things in Steam, and that's simply because I like the sales and the ability to download from anywhere). The market that this OnLive will be shooting for are the more "hardcore" gamers, and those people would much prefer using their own hardware then some streaming thing. This is just another Phantom, and is going to burn up and die.[/quote]

[quote name='Nohbdy']This is 10 years too early.[/quote]

I'll be a bit more optimistic than Coffee, and I'd say that there is actually a good possibility that OnLive can be highly profitable, given they deliver the goods as promised. They may hemorrhage money worse than Amazon did back when they first started, but with enough start-up capital, backing from developers, and with the economy of large-scale adoption and consumption, this service may be successful business wise granted that they deliver the product as promised.

The biggest problem that this company face in this Country is a highly technical and logistic one, namely the current state of the US' broadband network. As it was said, this product needs atleast 5mb to get the best the service has to offer, but who among us can get that type of bandwidth, and have it sustained and stable enough to run as seemlessly as possible? How about upload rates? It's one thing to be able to bring that much data to a residential service, but how about uploading the input commands back the centralized server? Hell, I just got FIOS in my apartment, and though I'm rated for 20/5, I barely sustain a 10/2 connection over a long period of time. And don't even get me started on how ISP does a bandwidth cap...

I can see something like this operating out of S. Korea or Japan, or even in most of Europe with god-like bandwidth, but here in the US, this company is going to struggle.

But, I'm not a network engineer, software developer, or a computer scientist. Maybe this company might be successful when priced right, given the current state of our economy. The allure of gaming on the cheap might be a very powerful factor on the survival of this company. If it attracts the clientel in which this is aimed at, they may not even care for the amount of percievable lag in the games.

I'll be optimistic on this one, but excuse me if I choose not to sink any of my money on buying the companies stocks on currently unproven and novel concept. It's one thing to have some demo units with only a handful of workstations accessing the cloud computing (which for all we know, could have been located a mere handful of feet away from the demo units at GDC), and having 1 million + users from all over the world with different hardware and software configuration, to connect to the service. If they want to reassure us if this is worthy product or not, then they should strive for an open public beta ASAP.

I'm signing up for the beta, and hopefully I'll get to see this thing in action.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='CoffeeEdge']
Indeed. The insane hype that we're already seeing about how this will "turn the world of gaming upside down" and "threaten the 360/PS3/Wii" and blah blah will be looked back and laughed at, for anyone who was so gullible to fall for it.[/quote]

Ya, but you say everything is dumb when it's announced.

I for one think this has some promise, it has a pretty good selection of publishers backing it - so it's definitely worth the try.

[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']This is the worst idea I have ever heard and I look forward to its demise.

And I know a thing or two about bad ideas.[/quote]

Yes, Wii Fitness board is your avatar.
 
I'd be very surprised to see this work. As is, my broadband is barely sufficient for streaming TV shows at regular def. High def is out of the question. Doing high def, with input reaction times...I don't see it working, at least not in my neck of the woods. To get it to work, I'd have to fork out additional money per month for a higher speed internet, costing 30 bucks or so a month. Seems like a bit of a short term gain for a long term loss.

However, even if they get lag from input and keep the bandwidth footprint minimal, I can still see this having problems with multiplayer. Imagine going to a LAN party with your OnLive laptop and doing a 32-player Team Fortress 2. 32 machines, streaming video, sending input, all through one line? I just don't see how it's feasible with today's infrastructure.
 
You guys are pretty harsh/negative. WE haven't even used it yet, who knows they could have figured something out. You guys act like you know better than them, yet you have nothing to prove this.

They have a pretty good backing of publishers, and they haven't taken any of my money yet so I aint gonna get all worked up over promises.

I'm definitely hesitant cause its, "too good to be true". But, it's worth a beta test. I definitely wont be purchasing it though if they require you to pay full price on a game on top of monthly fees.

I just thought of something. They say they have all the Crysis games. Those crash like a mother fucker.

What happens when a game crashes?
Click to expand...
Time Paradox?
 
OK, say this bullshit vaporware actually succeeds and does everything these hacks say it will do. Say it works flawlessly and its super amazing.

What happens when you decide your done and want to cancel your subscription? All of the games you bought will be unplayable. You will never be able to sell them later, and you can't even play your old games. So you pay $60 for a game and if you cancel subscription you can't even play the games you bought anymore.

This doesn't matter though that it is absolutely impossible to pull this off.
 
[quote name='sleepy180']What happens when you decide your done and want to cancel your subscription? All of the games you bought will be unplayable. You will never be able to sell them later, and you can't even play your old games. So you pay $60 for a game and if you cancel subscription you can't even play the games you bought anymore.[/quote]


same shit with the music subscription services. you stop paying, you stop playing. so what?
 
[quote name='Hydro2Oxide']I just thought of something. They say they have all the Crysis games. Those crash like a mother fucker.

What happens when a game crashes?[/quote]

It'll probably time out, and then normal nerdrage sets in because you haven't saved in a while and have to reset everything.

As for the idea on the whole, don't care, not excited, already have my hands full for years with steam, WoW, Wii, and 360. Maybe by then all the obvious flaws will have been ironed out and/or it will have been sufficiently hacked to hell and back.
 
[quote name='Hydro2Oxide']What happens when a game crashes?[/QUOTE]
You die in the game, you die for real.

[quote name='DarkNessBear']You guys are pretty harsh/negative.[/quote]
The only reason someone would be enthused about this nonsense is because they are not knowledgeable enough to understand why it will not work. Which isn't a crime, of course.

WE haven't even used it yet, who knows they could have figured something out.
Click to expand...
Definitive mathematical, logistical, and technical impossibility is not something you just "figure something out" for.

You guys act like you know better than them, yet you have nothing to prove this.
Click to expand...
You mean besides the the cold, hard, non-negotiable realities of the state of broadband networks in the United States? Besides the fact that there is no PC on the planet that could render graphics and encode video fast enough to overcome the inherent latency problems?

Lag is problematic enough in decade-old online FPSes, which typically transfer mere kilobytes per second. Adding in internet transfer time and high-definition video encoding will only add greatly to this. There is no way around it.

I do want to point out that I don't believe that this service won't function at all. I believe that it will function, with waiting lines to play games, lag times in the single-digit seconds, ugly video artifacts, and nasty bandwidth limit conflicts. There is no question that this service is possible, with these conditions. But is that how you want to play?

What I really object to, and find offensive on an ethical level almost, are the claims of flawlessness from this company, the promises of nigh-zero latency that simply defy the nature of computing, and the internet; the promises of the "too good to be true, but REALLY TRUE WE SWEAR" (which tie into psych impulses from consumers, as I'll get into later). The insane notions from the press that this could possibly become a major institution, rivaling or much less overtaking the firmly installed console and traditional PC markets, is so outlandish, that the only way to categorize it is as flat-out lying to their readers, and a disservice to them.

They have a pretty good backing of publishers, and they haven't taken any of my money yet so I aint gonna get all worked up over promises.
Click to expand...
I'm getting worked up over yet another stupid gaming tech startup with a bunch of bullshit, inflated claims and a gimmicky, unstable business plan, who announces their stupid product, has every tech site on the planet spend a few days writing hypey articles with a bunch of copy-and-pasting from the official press release, posing the question of "Is this the future of gaming that may change the way we play games FOREVAR?" and weighing on on the preposterous notion that this "New game system could threaten the 360/PS3/Wii" and fooling the ignorant into believing that there is any possibility that the service might "Change gaming as we know it," which stirs the hype-machine of the mainstream public (which simply doesn't know any better, and believes whatever IGN and Cnet tells them, because they want to believe in the promises of impossible technology) into a frenzy, which then causes those of us who really understand these matters enough to not fall for it the headache of having to deal with the obnoxious and misinformed enthusiasm of a bunch of uneducated consumers who want to believe in miracle technology that is ostensibly "on their side" (gamers will want to believe that they can experience top-end PC gaming for pennies on the dollar, and that they have a savior in the form of a service that will enable this dream, which will help them finally beat the system of endless PC upgrade expenses; this psych play applies to all "miracle products/services") and is providing them with a truly great value in their service, all the way up until it comes out, they buy into it, it doesn't work and/or is cripplingly flawed, and they then proceed to bitch about how much it sucks, until the company finally goes bust, tens of millions of dollars in debt, while the CEO skips town and runs off to found yet another other dumb, gimmicky, doomed-to-fail tech startup.

Phantom. DISCovery. WebTV. This is a well-established pattern. How many stupid, doomed-to-fail attempts to turn the PC into a TV accessory do they have to come up with before people stop paying them any attention?



tl;dr: this crap is dumb, annoying, and offensive
 
[quote name='RelentlessRolento']All I'll say is that this can work, but I think it needed to happen 5 years from now, not today.[/quote]

I agree.
 
No matter where I play, whether it be my mom's 1.5mbps DSL or my dad's 8mbps cable internet ... games already lag online. How will there be no lag I couldn't even fathom.
 
[quote name='strikeratt']How will there be no lag I couldn't even fathom.[/QUOTE]

There will be lag, so don't worry, you don't have to attempt to fathom the unfathomable.
 
[quote name='crystalklear64']why would you want this to work?

you're essentially removing all the good things that gaming on a pc brings while gaining a ton of bad.[/quote]

Well, if it does work by some magical chance. I don't see it as replacing PC Games, but just another option. Kind of like GameTap. Just there to help out the casuals.
 
When asked about bandwidth limits?

When questioned about it at a press event for the device last night, OnLive founder Steve Perlman didn't seem concerned. First, the console is rarely using the full 5 Mpbs. In fact, he said, it's often far less. Also, Perlman hopes that ISPs will give special consideration to OnLive as the service may well drive cable customers to upgrade their data stream. For now, consider it another challenge for OnLive will have to handle when their product launches in winter of this year.
Click to expand...


So he's just hoping the ISP will cut him some slack?
 
fuck these dumbass mother fuckers that have a fucking idea, which I think is actually pretty interesting and could be the start of some really intense stuff. This idea is fucking stupid. I am hurt that they would even attempt to do this.:roll:

I don't understand at all why there are people getting upset over a startup company trying to create something new. They've been working on this for 7 years or so, and I'm not going to shoot down their project just hours after they announce it.

If it doesn't work, then it will not make money. I'm going to give it a chance since my computer is pretty old and I would like to check out some recent games. This service can save me and others with shitty PCs hundreds of dollars in upgrading. I'm not sucking OnLive's dick and saying it will function flawlessly, because I'm sure it will have it's fair share of problems, but wishing that it would fail (when they haven't done anything wrong) is just something that seems ridiculous.
 
Who is wishing that it would fail? We are only being realistic in our expectations of the service. People on other sites are claiming this as the be all, end all of gaming, yet there is little information to go on. We at least have facts to back up why we are apprehensive.
 
I haven't read the whole thread, but I don't think anyone is wishing for them to fail.

Innovation is awesome. We're just not optimistic about the results if they plan to launch this year. We'd be happy to be proved wrong though.
 
As a tangent, If you think about it really hard, The Phantom "console" could have been successful. Looking back, I'm actually surprised that it never really took off the ground. I mean, at this day and age, the idea of purchasing content via a "one-click" method, and have that content download to our computers/psp/kindle/iphone is a day-to-day occurrence. I mean, on technology alone, even at 2005, the Phantom was a possibility waiting to happen. What really killed the Phantom was mismanagement, pissing off the online gamine media, and the failure to deliver a product as promised.

The idea of "renting" games online, ala gametap, is a concept not lost on me. Yeah, I used to "rent" music ala Ruckus, which was free to me because I'm a college student, and when that service died, I was without my music collection.

Guess that's what the rest of the internet is for...
 
[quote name='RelentlessRolento']All I'll say is that this can work, but I think it needed to happen 5 years from now, not today.[/QUOTE]


I question whether or not it would be even feasible within 5 years. With ISPs imposing relatively small bandwidth caps and failing to update their modern infrastructure, there is no way this kind of methodology can successfully work here in the US. In 5 years bandwidth may not be an issue, but usage caps and network latency sure will be.

Even if there is network latency when running a game locally, there is no lag time between controller input and gameplay. They're just adding another point of failure into the cycle.
 
I just heard about this service today and I am totally stoked and excited. I can't believe there is so much negativity surrounding something like this. As gamers we should be jumping for joy and rooting for this to succeed. No more patch updates, no more downloads, no more console failure, no more arguing about which console is better, no more exclusives, no more going to the store to find that the game you wanted sold out, no nothing. It will be about the games and nothing else, isn't that what everyone has been dreaming about?

The possibilities for future technology will open up like Niagara Falls and innovations will be endless. I am hoping that OnLive succeeds, if not over achieves, what it's planning to do. Let's be a little optimistic here people and cheer this service on!

I signed up for beta and I am crossing my fingers that I can get in.
 
[quote name='eswat']I haven't read the whole thread, but I don't think anyone is wishing for them to fail.

Innovation is awesome. We're just not optimistic about the results if they plan to launch this year. We'd be happy to be proved wrong though.[/quote]

Well, Coffee is making it sound like OnLive managers raped his mom.

[quote name='sj41']fuck these dumbass mother fuckers that have a fucking idea, which I think is actually pretty interesting and could be the start of some really intense stuff. This idea is fucking stupid. I am hurt that they would even attempt to do this.:roll:

I don't understand at all why there are people getting upset over a startup company trying to create something new. They've been working on this for 7 years or so, and I'm not going to shoot down their project just hours after they announce it.

If it doesn't work, then it will not make money. I'm going to give it a chance since my computer is pretty old and I would like to check out some recent games. This service can save me and others with shitty PCs hundreds of dollars in upgrading. I'm not sucking OnLive's dick and saying it will function flawlessly, because I'm sure it will have it's fair share of problems, but wishing that it would fail (when they haven't done anything wrong) is just something that seems ridiculous.[/quote]

I totally agree.
 
What pisses me off is this seems to be promoting the typical pc games meaning even more fps, and now more pc rts games on a "console." I'm sure pc gamers would be furious if jrpgs's, action/adventure, and platforming games took over there pc's, which are already suffering this gen, and will probably even see less of them if this somehow succeeds.

I also am not a fan of not owning anything, I don't mind if it is cheap like $15 xbla arcade games, but spending $60 on a game to not physicaly own it is lame. Plus the games should not even be anywhere close to full price, since there saving money on retail packaging and shipping costs, and us customers will most likely not see any of those savings. Which I'm sure is another reason why they're promoting digital distribution.
 
[quote name='magus83']What pisses me off is this seems to be promoting the typical pc games meaning even more fps, and now more pc rts games on a "console." I'm sure pc gamers would be furious if jrpgs's, action/adventure, and platforming games took over there pc's, which are already suffering this gen, and will probably even see less of them if this somehow succeeds.

I also am not a fan of not owning anything, I don't mind if it is cheap like $15 xbla arcade games, but spending $60 on a game to not physicaly own it is lame. Plus the games should not even be anywhere close to full price, since there saving money on retail packaging and shipping costs, and us customers will most likely not see any of those savings. Which I'm sure is another reason why they're promoting digital distribution.[/QUOTE]
We don't know how they're going to price games or how the service is gonna work.It might be like steam where you buy a game and its tide to your account forever.I would hope games will be cheaper than retail because they don't have to burn disc,print box arts or manuals.Its all pie the sky,though.We shall see this winter or summer.
 
[quote name='magus83']What pisses me off is this seems to be promoting the typical pc games meaning even more fps, and now more pc rts games on a "console." I'm sure pc gamers would be furious if jrpgs's, action/adventure, and platforming games took over there pc's, which are already suffering this gen, and will probably even see less of them if this somehow succeeds.

I also am not a fan of not owning anything, I don't mind if it is cheap like $15 xbla arcade games, but spending $60 on a game to not physicaly own it is lame. Plus the games should not even be anywhere close to full price, since there saving money on retail packaging and shipping costs, and us customers will most likely not see any of those savings. Which I'm sure is another reason why they're promoting digital distribution.[/quote]

I am so confused by your "logic" and pure assumptions. Why would you assume that PC gamers would be upset if more RPGs and platformers began to make their way onto PCs? How in the hell did you get from there because of the OnLive service? The OnLive service isn't just for computers, you do understand that right? All you need is a broadband connection and that's it, so PC gamers would still get the same games they have always had. Plus, the OnLive service is a choice...why does everyone keep making it out to be some sort of manditory service? Honestly, I don't follow anything you said in your first paragraph. :wall:

I'm also seeing the same argument about not being able to own a physical copy of game. I don't think that's a wrong argument, but it seems to be the only thing that people don't like, which irritates me a little bit. It's proving the fact that gamers really aren't on the cutting edge as much as I thought. With new technology brings new ways and means of distributing a product. Instead of letters, we use phones; instead of actual mail, we use e-mail; instead of going to the store and buying a CD, we download a song or album from iTunes. Everyone seems to act as if the gaming world is going to collapse if we go to all digital media or mostly digital media. That's insane. Digital media is not breaking new ground. If anything, it's almost as outdated as re-packaging DVDs and CDs for mass production. Digital media has been around for about 10 years now and there's no reason not to trust it. Have there been issues with it? Sure. Will there be issues with this service? Of course. There are problems with every new piece of technology. However, instead of shying away from it, I suggest we try it out before bad mouthing it. Whether we like it or not, this is where games and gaming are going. If you don't like it or don't agree, I suggest you get out of the gaming industry and move on to something more your pace, like Monopoly.

Do you know people who still use a typewriter instead of a computer? I do. What's their reason for doing so? Because they "want to type on the hard copy instead of losing their digital copy on a computer if it crashes." Please tell me gamers have a more progressive mindset than the 70+ year old secretary who works at my school.
 
[quote name='yukine']Who is wishing that it would fail? We are only being realistic in our expectations of the service. People on other sites are claiming this as the be all, end all of gaming, yet there is little information to go on. We at least have facts to back up why we are apprehensive.[/QUOTE]

Well, supposedly they have tried it, and it is not even in Beta state. Doesn't that count for something?
 
Even if it was viable, and could be pulled off, there is one reason this would never succeed as a dominant platform.




STEAM.



To be dominant on the PC, you'd need to pull that much more away from Steam, and get them using your service, which means that your pricing structure would have to be competitive (Which, if a monthly fee is included, it won't be.), and you'd have either dirt-cheap buy prices and almost non-existant rental prices. If the cost of a game on steam is 49.99, good luck asking me to pay 20 bucks a month to keep the service, and 40 bucks to buy the game so that I can "stream" it.
 
[quote name='_heretic']Well, supposedly they have tried it, and it is not even in Beta state. Doesn't that count for something?[/quote]
What at GDC? Not really... I really doubt they are using your standard residential broadband at GDC. We'll get a better picture of how functional this is when people are accepted into the beta.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top