3 ms·
They tried it in the early 2000s, when the network throughput and latency just wasn't what it needed to be. Now we have much better networks, more available clo
by vcarl 11y ago
They tried it in the early 2000s, when the network throughput and latency just wasn't what it needed to be. Now we have much better networks, more available cloud computing, and a populace that's more used to streaming things. I'm not sure people would accept it just yet, but I don't think OnLive would fail quite so spectacularly now.
- KeytarHero 11y agoEarly 2000s? The company was founded in 2003, and I can't seem to find any articles mentioning them prior to 2009.
- ansible 11y agoYes, they didn't get going until then, and ended up running... 4 years total? For strategy games and such, I'm sure streaming will always be viable. As we move into the VR realm, even a tiny amount of latency won't be acceptable. So we're always going to need local rendering for action games.
- newobj 11y agoI used OnLive. Onlives problem was NOT latency. It was shit content.
- shurcooL 11y agoYep. I was willing to pay for good games, but they had nothing new for years.