OnLive video demo

Anyway, what's the deal with watching people play games?

That's creepy. I don't want people watching me play something...

Actually that's the only thing i like about it IF it was only for tournament matches and such, not for single play.
 
Sorry but this is never going to replace our computers at home and I sure as fuck hope it wont. No modding, no high res, no eyefinity, no graphics options at all, no nothing, just shit. Even P2P gaming is pure crap, I can only imagine attempting to play a game over this crap. Systems like Steam and digital distribution will work out in the end, OnLive will be one of those things we see in those articles that are just lists of hardware and software failures. OnLive might become an option, but it will never come close to replacing gaming as we know it today.

No modding: I agree that was my first concern at first.

No high resolution: Judging from the video and what they said with 720/1080p required net speeds, thats probably not true.

Eyefinity: Once again I feel you didn't full understand it, There is a plug in for pc's so I'm sure Eyefinity could be possible.

No graphic options: Once again, Like they said their servers are kept up to date with what they said is the latest hardware which might possibly mean that their settings being streamed will be higher than normal.

I do feel if this succeeds that it can make alot of good changes, Will it replace our computers? No. Consoles? Maybe. We will have to wait and see it for ourselves. Everything seems right to me, Some are complaing about Internet speeds well not everyone is gonna be on the same boat. Most I am sure that are interested in this have a decent connection. Which myself I do not but I plan to upgrade in the upcoming months.

I really have high hopes for this, and hopes it does well. I see no problems with it. If this cuts on piracy which in return brings in better quality games, I think its a winning situation for everyone.
 
"Any one played Crysis before?"; "No"
"Any one played first person shooter before?" --- maybe... the whole audience are bunch of WoW players. LOL

Anyway If you have a good eye you noticed how skipy the game play of Crysis was. I'll take my computer game play over that crap anytime!
 
Yea, that audience was terrible. I think there was only one dude there who played video games.
 
"Every frame is perceptively good when in motion" hmmm wonder what that means...
 
"Every frame is perceptively good when in motion" hmmm wonder what that means...

I don't know for sure, but I think it means that they are compressing the rendered video based on the changes from the previous frame. So the data you are getting is changed data only, its hard to explain but if it works the way I am thinking it works, it explains how it can work at such ultra low latency(~1ms).

Hard to explain, but they also probably also give priority to action on hand with lower priority to "out of focus" scenery. It actually makes alot of sense for that they are using it for, for youtube, webcams and other like video situations, their compression algorithmic would actually be quite... useless.
 
Numerous technical problems aside, I just don't see how this is going to make financial sense. If they have any intention of meeting peak demand, they're going to need loads of excess capacity - mountains of expensive (and continually upgraded) hardware which sits idle 95% of the time, but which users need to pay for nonetheless. Add in their expenses for maintaining these hosting facilities, and whatever profit they're hoping to extract from you on top of that, and I don't see how this can possibly work out cheaper than buying your own GPU every year.
 
That was definitely an impressive demo in my opinion -- no it isn't going to replace something like high end gaming (yet), but I think it's certainly a very impressive proposition for the majority of console gamers. I'd love to experience this first hand, so I've signed up for the beta.
 
I don't see this ever being as good as having your own copy of a game installed locally on a PC running your own hardware. An environment where you have control over every aspect of the gaming experience. Want to mod in new textures, ok. Change some *.ini settings so the mouse runs smoother, alright.

First there was consolization, now there will be onliveolization. :rolleyes:

Until the servers are in your bedroom and you can hook up your LCD screen directly to the machine will it takeoff. OH WAIT
 
An environment where you have control over every aspect of the gaming experience. Want to mod in new textures, ok. Change some *.ini settings so the mouse runs smoother, alright.

I think this is definitely short-sighted considering we already have hundreds of millions of console players that don't have the ability to modify the in-game assets or change configuration settings or have the same visual quality as is available on the PC and they are plenty happy enough.

From my own perspective I think there is a fair amount left to prove about visual quality (as I haven't seen it myself), but seeing that so far the quality seems *good enough* and broadband speeds aren't going anywhere but up, that will increase. Latency presumably will also (with developments in the technology) decrease. The social and community aspect of it also seems very well fleshed out.

While I, a dedicated PC gamer, don't like the idea of OnLive (in terms of the latency, lower visual quality than I could have locally, and lack of mod support), I think it's an absolute friggin goldmine in terms of the convergence of technologies and harnessing the absolute maximum of what digital delivery is capable of.
 
I watched the whole video. He did mention costs per user. I am not sure if he was just giving a rough example or an actual amount, but he said 25 dollars per user for hardware costs.

I am really interested in this, because with piracy being gone, games will have larger budgets from greater expected profits. Also, they will be "bug free" like console games since they will be made for one system. No need to ever upgrade the PC again. That alone is a great plus. I could even play on my laptop once those new wireless connections like wimax and 4g become standard.
 
Last edited:
Actually i see it destroying PC gaming entirely.

So you see a set-top option with zero customization options "destroying" a market built around having what you want the way you want it? Did you leave your brain on the bed-side table when you woke up this morning?

OnLive is so similar to the way current consoles work, in terms of what they offer the end-user, that I don't see how anyone thinks it will have much of an affect on anything but console sales. PC Gamers aren't clamoring at the chance to give up everything they enjoy about their platform. OnLive is even less "yours" than a console, and consoles are already too "closed" for the average PC gamer.

As for the publishers, they're not about to shoot themselves in the foot and stop development for other platforms. The PS3 is largely pirate-free and yet I don't see developers switching over to PS3 exclusive development en-masse.

OnLive's problem for most PC gamers is that it doesn't really make anything better than it is currently. Imagine the bullet points of OnLive's features as presented to a PC gamer:

-Practice leading for lag even in single-player!
-Roll way over your monthly internet cap, show your ISP who's boss!
-Lack of mods mean you'll spend less time on each title; you play more games!
-Tired of losing on a fair playing field? Enjoy the zero-ping advantage of P2P gaming!
-Don't like buying all that expensive hardware? For only $39.99 a month, you don't have to! Join OnLive today!

The idea has a lot of merit, but marketing it as a PC killer is just silly IMO.
 
Call me sceptical, but input lag, while minimal on local devices, is still there with LCDs and wireless controllers... adding additional latency to talk to a server just cant be avoided. There will *always* be lag with this type of service, which would make it unenjoyable for a lot of people. Maybe casual gamers that don't care as much.
 
Call me sceptical, but input lag, while minimal on local devices, is still there with LCDs and wireless controllers... adding additional latency to talk to a server just cant be avoided. There will *always* be lag with this type of service, which would make it unenjoyable for a lot of people. Maybe casual gamers that don't care as much.

I completely agree that the input lag will be an issue for the hardcore gamers out there (I'm skeptical of this too, haven't seen it first-hand yet), but I do believe that the latency will only get better and better over time. Compression quality and speed will increase, and the experience will improve. I think there are hordes of people out there that would sign up for this service once it's made available, provided it works reasonably well.
 
you're over hyping the tech

it's simply not workable for gaming unless the user is willing to accept drawbacks such as lag and reduced graphics
 
So you see a set-top option with zero customization options "destroying" a market built around having what you want the way you want it? Did you leave your brain on the bed-side table when you woke up this morning?

OnLive is so similar to the way current consoles work, in terms of what they offer the end-user, that I don't see how anyone thinks it will have much of an affect on anything but console sales. PC Gamers aren't clamoring at the chance to give up everything they enjoy about their platform. OnLive is even less "yours" than a console, and consoles are already too "closed" for the average PC gamer.

As for the publishers, they're not about to shoot themselves in the foot and stop development for other platforms. The PS3 is largely pirate-free and yet I don't see developers switching over to PS3 exclusive development en-masse.

OnLive's problem for most PC gamers is that it doesn't really make anything better than it is currently. Imagine the bullet points of OnLive's features as presented to a PC gamer:

-Practice leading for lag even in single-player!
-Roll way over your monthly internet cap, show your ISP who's boss!
-Lack of mods mean you'll spend less time on each title; you play more games!
-Tired of losing on a fair playing field? Enjoy the zero-ping advantage of P2P gaming!
-Don't like buying all that expensive hardware? For only $39.99 a month, you don't have to! Join OnLive today!

The idea has a lot of merit, but marketing it as a PC killer is just silly IMO.

pc gaming will not die from the user side of the equation, it will die from the publisher side. when hl2 first came out and required steam activation, people said that digital distribution would never take off and predicted steam would die a rapid death compared to physical media.

when online pc gaming was getting a foothold, people said it would never work because latencies were too high and connections were too unreliable. online pc gaming could never beat out lan gaming!

an onlive pc exclusive game would bring pirarcy down to 0 for that game. publishers want this, this is drm that cannot be defeated. plus more people would have access to the games (laptop/netbook users and people with slow computers). also it would greatly reduce development cost and qa time to design games for a platform in the cloud compared to trying to make a game compaible with a near infinite combination of hardware platforms.

as far as exclusives go, pc gaming has been in a steady state of decline for years. regardless of what people think, piracy has been murdering pc gaming which has led to devs just releaseing pc games after the console versions of making the pc versions be shitty ports to lower cost. I see this helping pc gaming more than hurting it.
Posted via [H] Mobile Device
 
What about security with this service? Is the stream encrypted or viewable for the entire world to see?

I just don’t see this service taking off anytime soon, streaming non interactive videos is one thing but to stream a high bandwidth interactive game is another. How do they eliminate input lag, too much of this depends on a network that no one owns and because of that too many factors out of their control.
 
What about security with this service? Is the stream encrypted or viewable for the entire world to see?

I just don’t see this service taking off anytime soon, streaming non interactive videos is one thing but to stream a high bandwidth interactive game is another. How do they eliminate input lag, too much of this depends on a network that no one owns and because of that too many factors out of their control.

You should probably watch the video...
 
Its amazing how many of you are ranting about it without watching the entire video.
 
pc gaming will not die from the user side of the equation, it will die from the publisher side. when hl2 first came out and required steam activation, people said that digital distribution would never take off and predicted steam would die a rapid death compared to physical media.

Some people said that, not *everyone* said that. Also, not *everyone* is saying OnLive will fail. Heck, I'm not even saying it will, I fully expect it to succeed in its own way. I'm saying it won't kill PC gaming. (It's also worth mentioning that the DRM failures of rival publishers ended up being Steam's success)

when online pc gaming was getting a foothold, people said it would never work because latencies were too high and connections were too unreliable. online pc gaming could never beat out lan gaming!

Can't say I ever really heard that, and I pretty much got in on the ground floor(first multiplayer game I played through my modem was LORD, or perhaps some other BBS game).

an onlive pc exclusive game would bring pirarcy down to 0 for that game. publishers want this, this is drm that cannot be defeated. plus more people would have access to the games (laptop/netbook users and people with slow computers). also it would greatly reduce development cost and qa time to design games for a platform in the cloud compared to trying to make a game compaible with a near infinite combination of hardware platforms.

But what about the sales? A PS3 exclusive has virtually zero piracy, but as I said we aren't seeing a massive shift of development over to the "piracy free" PS3, now are we? Why? Because it's not the best option financially, and neither will OnLive be. Just like any other service it will carve out a niche for itself, but it won't dominate the whole market any more than any other single entity does. As for the rest, consoles already provide those advantages, hence again why I say that if OnLive "kills" anything it will be traditional "plug it in and play" console gaming. The idea that developers will just stop making games for the PC is laughable. What, like EA, Activision and Ubisoft are just going to up and pull the plug? And if they do, I'll have no choice but to buy what they want me to when they want me to, and spend my nights crying in my pillow? Please :rolleyes:

I won't say that OnLive won't be popular enough to have its own exclusives, but the idea that we'll see ALL development move to OnLive and see piracy die on the table as a result is just silly.
 
Shoulda of stated this but I cant watch the video behind my firewall, care explaining it to me?

They re-invented video compression as the industry knows it, capping a round return at 80ms, which encapsules 2 OnLive components.

1. Your gameplay
2. IP mulitcast, allowing for sustained throughput for viewing others sessions.

There is no input lag for a few main reasons, 1 they cap the entire round return at 80ms. The human eye apparently cannot tell the difference if faster. They have shrunk both the above processes (1 and 2 respectively) into a dedicated die that decodes video in just 1ms. The remaining 79ms is used to traverse to and from your system to their nearest data center. The range is 1000 miles and they have multiple data centers strategically located around the the US. Their algorithm dynamically decides which data center to direct you to, taking into account the time of day and peak usage statistics.

Pretty much everything behind the technology has been very well thought out and in development for several years. When you have time and the ability to access the video, grab a soft drink and watch it.

Watching this video will answer just about everyones questions about the service. Perlman cuts through the PR nonsense and does 2 things.

1. Shows presentation slides with accurate data, and goes in detail about how each slide functions itself to the technology.
2. Demos games (Crysis, Burnout) playing over the cloud on a Mac, mini console and an iPhone.
 
Shoulda of stated this but I cant watch the video behind my firewall, care explaining it to me?

Well TBH it would take a while to write up what he was talking about in terms of how they minimize latency and the compression etc. (everything from a propriety compression algorithm, proprietary encoding hardware on the server side, multiple data centers around the US that you need to be within 1000mi of, etc.). He did note that they are based on a rule of 80ms being the approximate point at which people mentally believe that have direct control over something, meaning that input lag over 80ms would give people the feeling that there is latency occurring; so everything they are doing is to ensure there is <80ms of lag between you doing something and it appearing correctly on the screen.

The streams are not encrypted, and are in fact available for anyone to spectate (presumably you can turn that feature on or off, depending whether you'd like people to watch what you're playing). He demoed the ability to jump into viewing anyone's game. Even the main menu has hundreds of little videos playing in the background that are actually player streams in real time which you could jump into at any time.

There are two streams being encoded for each user session, one which is the "on the fly" two-way stream that you are actually playing (i.e. the one which interprets the controller inputs, deals with it, and must be extremely low latency), and then another which is recorded at 1:1 quality that is one-way, which is the stream that people would be able to spectate (that can therefore afford to be higher latency). In the video they even demoed playing Crysis on an iphone, which while obviously isn't practical, is extremely impressive -- it also illustrates how flexible the medium is, with being able to stream videos and movies as well.

EDIT: Noid beat me too it, much more succinctly might I add. I'm at work and someone came to chat to me....
 
Don't forget that smart routing. Each datacenter they use has multiple Tier 1 ISP's and depending on which ISP will give you a more direct route through the internet to the datacenter, that is the one your connection will use. Once again, all to minimize latency.
 
Some people said that, not *everyone* said that. Also, not *everyone* is saying OnLive will fail. Heck, I'm not even saying it will, I fully expect it to succeed in its own way. I'm saying it won't kill PC gaming. (It's also worth mentioning that the DRM failures of rival publishers ended up being Steam's success)

drm failures by multiple publishers also verify that companies can and will keep trying to defend their ip.

Can't say I ever really heard that, and I pretty much got in on the ground floor(first multiplayer game I played through my modem was LORD, or perhaps some other BBS game).

i've been gaming since color ascii text was a hot new thing in gaming. i've seen plenty of people complain that modem latencies were too high for online gaming to ever take off and that bandwidth was too low. I used to be like jumping-out-of-my-chair excited when I could get a 56k connection under 300ms to a quake server. eventually broadband took off and became (somewhat) common to enable people to enjy playing games.



But what about the sales? A PS3 exclusive has virtually zero piracy, but as I said we aren't seeing a massive shift of development over to the "piracy free" PS3, now are we? Why? Because it's not the best option financially, and neither will OnLive be.

pc gaming sales are low and developer effort in this market is easily seen by the number of crappy ports. publishers are s still making pc games, however its a lot of low effort consolized titles just done to mop up a few sales.

Just like any other service it will carve out a niche for itself, but it won't dominate the whole market any more than any other single entity does. As for the rest, consoles already provide those advantages, hence again why I say that if OnLive "kills" anything it will be traditional "plug it in and play" console gaming. The idea that developers will just stop making games for the PC is laughable. What, like EA, Activision and Ubisoft are just going to up and pull the plug? And if they do, I'll have no choice but to buy what they want me to when they want me to, and spend my nights crying in my pillow? Please :rolleyes:

those publishers you listed have already stopped making aaa pc exclusive content or are directly headed away from it. and look at how mw2 went, the game not only required steam activation but a partial steam install, and was more of a console game on the pc than a pc game.


I won't say that OnLive won't be popular enough to have its own exclusives, but the idea that we'll see ALL development move to OnLive and see piracy die on the table as a result is just silly.

not everyone will jump on this right away. however if the tech works well, this is going to divert more resources away from the already low resources dedicated for pc gaming. it would be a heck of a lot easier to develop, test, and support an onlive title compared to a tradtional pc title.

some devs wil surely remain pc exclusive.
Posted via [H] Mobile Device
 
Don't forget that smart routing. Each datacenter they use has multiple Tier 1 ISP's and depending on which ISP will give you a more direct route through the internet to the datacenter, that is the one your connection will use. Once again, all to minimize latency.

Yep, there's yet another element he noted. It really seems like they have tried to tackle the issue from every possible route. The question in the end being, will it be enough for an "OnLive 1.0" so to speak.
 
They re-invented video compression as the industry knows it, capping a round return at 80ms, which encapsules 2 OnLive components.

1. Your gameplay
2. IP mulitcast, allowing for sustained throughput for viewing others sessions.

There is no input lag for a few main reasons, 1 they cap the entire round return at 80ms. The human eye apparently cannot tell the difference if faster. They have shrunk both the above processes (1 and 2 respectively) into a dedicated die that decodes video in just 1ms. The remaining 79ms is used to traverse to and from your system to their nearest data center. The range is 1000 miles and they have multiple data centers strategically located around the the US. Their algorithm dynamically decides which data center to direct you to, taking into account the time of day and peak usage statistics.

Pretty much everything behind the technology has been very well thought out and in development for several years. When you have time and the ability to access the video, grab a soft drink and watch it.

Watching this video will answer just about everyones questions about the service. Perlman cuts through the PR nonsense and does 2 things.

1. Shows presentation slides with accurate data, and goes in detail about how each slide functions itself to the technology.
2. Demos games (Crysis, Burnout) playing over the cloud on a Mac, mini console and an iPhone.

Thanks for the write-up, yes I plan to watch the video at some point, I have already seen the older video with Crysis being outlined as the game to run with OnLine.
I wonder how Multiplayer will be, I would love to know they specs of the servers they are running.
What will it cost, per game, per month, per hour? And will every session be the same? I mean some games will take allot more powerful hardware to run it then others, they will have to keep their equipment updated and that will be a significant cost how will they pass that onto the consumer will be interesting.
 
They re-invented video compression as the industry knows it, capping a round return at 80ms, which encapsules 2 OnLive components.

1. Your gameplay
2. IP mulitcast, allowing for sustained throughput for viewing others sessions.

There is no input lag for a few main reasons, 1 they cap the entire round return at 80ms. The human eye apparently cannot tell the difference if faster. They have shrunk both the above processes (1 and 2 respectively) into a dedicated die that decodes video in just 1ms. The remaining 79ms is used to traverse to and from your system to their nearest data center. The range is 1000 miles and they have multiple data centers strategically located around the the US. Their algorithm dynamically decides which data center to direct you to, taking into account the time of day and peak usage statistics.

Pretty much everything behind the technology has been very well thought out and in development for several years. When you have time and the ability to access the video, grab a soft drink and watch it.

Watching this video will answer just about everyones questions about the service. Perlman cuts through the PR nonsense and does 2 things.

1. Shows presentation slides with accurate data, and goes in detail about how each slide functions itself to the technology.
2. Demos games (Crysis, Burnout) playing over the cloud on a Mac, mini console and an iPhone.

Sorry buy 80ms is shit and really pushing it, and anything over 100 is horrid.
 
Thanks for the write-up, yes I plan to watch the video at some point, I have already seen the older video with Crysis being outlined as the game to run with OnLine.
I wonder how Multiplayer will be, I would love to know they specs of the servers they are running.
What will it cost, per game, per month, per hour? And will every session be the same? I mean some games will take allot more powerful hardware to run it then others, they will have to keep their equipment updated and that will be a significant cost how will they pass that onto the consumer will be interesting.

They haven't gone over cost breakdowns as of yet, Pearlman did indicate flexible business strategies. He also noted that while many gamers may play Crysis fully cranked, many will also play games like World of Goo, and other smaller titles that actually do not need dedicated GPUs to operate and can function on virtualized/shared CPUs. So my guess is they will have many virtualized systems hosting a wide array of games/functions and dedicated physical machines for the more demanding games. Games like Crysis will probably be dedicated 1 user per server. Pearlman also discusses that all of their hardware is leased, meaning they upgrade up to every 6 months for the latest and greatest.

Don't let the word lease scare you, the company I work for leases all of our data center hardware on a 3 year cycle, never having outdated hardware is a wonderful... wonderful thing.

In theory, there is no cost to pass onto the consumer.. their overhead and business model is fucking impressive.

Sorry buy 80ms is shit and really pushing it, and anything over 100 is horrid.

These types of arguments are to be expected, did you watch the video?
 
These types of arguments are to be expected, did you watch the video?

Most likely not, and judging by his post history, he is one of those "hardcore" gamers that believes their "ping" is directly related to their enjoyment of a game.... :rolleyes:

I never even look at my "ping" when I play and I have a damn good time regardless.

Some people need to realize they are a minority of a minority.
 
80ms is actually quite high. Most Counter-Strike servers I play on stay well under that, sometimes even around 17ms.

Add the 80ms on top of server lag from your multiplayer game, and all of a sudden the experience isn't so smooth.

I watched the entire video and I'm just not sold on it. I don't see the pros outweighing the cons. It's a decent idea on paper, but working out the details kills it.
 
I'm a little skeptical that 80ms of input lag is acceptable to most users, but without trying it it is hard to say. I guess they'd better hope that bandwidth caps, or usage charges, don't catch on, becuase I can see that being a big issue. Also, I have a decently fast and reliable connection, but I still have periods when the connection goes to hell for a short time (not sure why) - not sure what kind of impact that would have on gameplay or enjoyment - it's not usually a problem with online games given the low bandwidth demands, but it plays hell on Netflix HD streaming, which is what this is comparable to.

Interesting concept, wonder if it will end up better than the Phantom console.
 
you're over hyping the tech

it's simply not workable for gaming unless the user is willing to accept drawbacks such as lag and reduced graphics

You just well to me described console gaming, and we know how thats doing.
 
drm failures by multiple publishers also verify that companies can and will keep trying to defend their ip.

I never said that some wouldn't keep trying, but there are also some who have realized it's not worth the investment/cost.

pc gaming sales are low and developer effort in this market is easily seen by the number of crappy ports. publishers are s still making pc games, however its a lot of low effort consolized titles just done to mop up a few sales.

Once again, this point of view comes from someone who's really only interested in the Modern Warfare's and the Halo's and the Gears of War's. Those games typically spend the least amount of time on my hard-drive, so it would seem that our priorities are reversed. As the quality of titles has declined from the "major" publishers and developers, we've(PC gamers) been convinced to invest more of our money into the not-so-major publishers and developers. I've seen some of the best titles released in years just in the past few. Amanita Design does amazing work, 2DBoy is fantastic, Gratuitous Space Battles is lots of fun, probably buying Eufloria, The Void was just surreal and a great experience. The more of my money that goes to those developers instead of companies like EA and Activision, the better.

those publishers you listed have already stopped making aaa pc exclusive content or are directly headed away from it. and look at how mw2 went, the game not only required steam activation but a partial steam install, and was more of a console game on the pc than a pc game.

And I don't consider the PC to be any worse off for it, but as I've discovered, we disagree on this point.


not everyone will jump on this right away. however if the tech works well, this is going to divert more resources away from the already low resources dedicated for pc gaming. it would be a heck of a lot easier to develop, test, and support an onlive title compared to a tradtional pc title.

In the case of developers who already fail to release worthwhile PC titles, I agree. As for the ease of development, that's already the case with Consoles vs PC's, and just like PS3's piracy-free environment it hasn't killed PC gaming.
 
not everyone will jump on this right away. however if the tech works well, this is going to divert more resources away from the already low resources dedicated for pc gaming. it would be a heck of a lot easier to develop, test, and support an onlive title compared to a tradtional pc title.

some devs wil surely remain pc exclusive.
Posted via [H] Mobile Device

Just in reply to the "not everyone will jump on this right away" comment: I'm not sure if you noticed during the movie or saw on the website, but apparently these groups have already committed to putting their new releases on OnLive the same day they're available for other consoles. That list of groups is very impressive and includes almost every significant name out there except Activision. That's quite a few groups, and considering the service isn't even....ahem..."live" yet, or even really proven, that's amazing.
 
Just in reply to the "not everyone will jump on this right away" comment: I'm not sure if you noticed during the movie or saw on the website, but apparently these groups have already committed to putting their new releases on OnLive the same day they're available for other consoles. That list of groups is very impressive and includes almost every significant name out there except Activision. That's quite a few groups, and considering the service isn't even....ahem..."live" yet, that's very impressive.

OnLive is going to literally be PC hardware running some kind of software frontend. If you're developing your game for PC, developing it for OnLive as well is probably no more of a step than releasing a game on disc and on Steam. It would be, IMO, quite foolish not to commit your titles to release for this project if asked.
 
Back
Top