is OnLive to bring an end to the graphic cards market?

[mutz]

hi,
had this question in mind,
as OnLive approaches, it is claiming for an algorithm that will enable people to interact with multy graphic presentations, without the need for a better GPU or even CPU.
it seems, that only servers which will provide the service, will require such cards, or specialy designated ones, it will probably reduce the market demand (drasticly), as millions of users around the world will prefer submitting a monthly payment rather than upgrade their system every year.
as many of the computer enthusiast are using it merly for gaming, this another add to that.
will it bring the end?

This thread has run its course. - Moderator Rubycon

 

[bobsmith1492]

So, "cloud computing" with video cards and processing? Basically this would be a server that directly sends the video output to a terminal? It makes no sense; video takes too much bandwidth to centralize streaming via the Web (HD blueray is up to 48mbit/s...) Plus all the lag - move your mouse, data is sent over the 'net, processed, and video is sent back. That's just like a remote desktop setup and they've really slow and laggy now.

Anyway, thanks for the advertisement but I'm not even going to google "OnLive." Oh, and can I have an Ipod now?? 🙂

 

[mutz]

hey man, u'r just being too sceptical,
as in other forums, it seems people reply for this gig the same..:laugh:
have some believe,
these guys said they've been working about it for 7 years and with app. 10,000 hours of algorithm experiments.
they are not talking out of the blue, t seems people are so highly disregard it that it is not even being talked about!! :laugh:
anyway,
the presentation was some month ago and they're working with some big names in the gaming scene sucj as EA,Ubisoft,Eidos,EPIC and so on, they claim to have managed composing an algorithm that will mange to compress HD video to a 5Mbps streaming and standart defenition to 1.5Mb.
u seem so sceptical, it hard to say anything further :laugh:.. that the basic idea behind it, is playing multiple applications at the server side, delivering only the picture to the client, so all the calculations are being made at the server.
the only user interaction with it, is the controls from his/hers mouse/joystick etc. while processing it at a 1ms latency, the servers has to be at max 1000 miles away/
thats what they claim, and u got the presentation and so on, large companies are investing in the invention.
i think u'll have to giveup..:laugh:
it'll probably go.🙂

http://www.gamespot.com/video/...nlive-press-conference

 

[Crusty]

If they truly can get that high of compression there are a lot more people then the gaming industry that would be interested in it. And 1ms latency to a server no more then 1000 miles away? How is that going to work when just getting to your ISP's gateway is an order of magnitude slower then that?

There are reasons people are skeptical, the numbers don't make sense.

 

[iCyborg]

Many people have a beef with LCDs that have a 2-3 frame lag, this gotta be much worse. And at higher resolutions the network bandwidth would be an issue too no matter the compression. I agree with people here - I don't see how this would work.

 

[Harvey]

Give me one reason I would want to give up a stand alone machine that can get things done without having to be connected to any other machine or system. :roll:

 

[mutz]

And 1ms latency to a server no more then 1000 miles away? How is that going to work when just getting to your ISP's gateway is an order of magnitude slower then that?

good point.

p.s - just updated the earlier post with the press conference.

 

[mutz]

Originally posted by: Harvey
Give me one reason I would want to give up a stand alone machine that can get things done without having to be connected to any other machine or system. :roll:

don't know, guess it's u'r decision..
look, for many people (we'll leave aside for now the technical issue), if it'll work,
it'll save houndreds of dollars each year.
its about not needing to upgrade for a better graphic card, no need for playing around with drivers and so on, no need to steal (for some of the guys), no need to download the file, extract it, install it, no compatibility issues, no need for backups, no need to wait for it to come up,
simply, everything is at the server.
many people are not too good with they're hardware, and it can save them a lot of frustration and pain.
again, this is not an exxhange for a PC, one will need it for certain things, probably some of us will stay with it, as the graphics with onlive will not compete with a Nvidia GTX-295, ATI's 4870x2 or later cards, but still,
for many people, that might be right it.
and probably get better with time..

 

[reallyscrued]

Yeah but....can it run Crysis?

And this isn't anywhere near Highly Technical.

 

[reallyscrued]

On second thought, my last post didn't really contribute much so let me elaborate.

Originally posted by: mutz
it is claiming for an algorithm

You don't understand the definition of the word "algorithm".

Originally posted by: mutz
it will probably reduce the market demand (drasticly)

Market demand for what? GPUs and CPUs? You realize that the processing must be done somehwere, even if it is server based. It will need the horsepower to render every instance of who's playing the game before sending that information to your monitor, so really, the company or people that own the server have to purchase the hardware for everyone for a monthly bill?

Originally posted by: mutz
as millions of users around the world will prefer submitting a monthly payment rather than upgrade their system every year.

What gives you that idea? Is there a public outcry right now that the gaming community is shouting "NO! I WILL NOT BUY ANY MORE ADVANCED HARDWARE FOR MORE GRAPHICALLY INTENSIVE GAMES!"?

Originally posted by: mutz
look, for many people (we'll leave aside for now the technical issue), if it'll work,

Yes, let's conveniently set aside the reality that it is in fact, impossible.

Originally posted by: mutz
if it'll work, it'll save houndreds of dollars each year.

Okay, let's do some math. Say the service costs $29.95 a month, that equates to a little under 360 dollars a year. If you added 360 dollars to your current system build, don't you think that will allow you to play games at home at decent speeds for over 12 months? Hell for 360 dollars you could get an decently equipped Xbox 360 setup. And this isn't even considering if you wanted to buy a video card or gaming console second-hand.

Originally posted by: mutz
no need to download the file, extract it, install it

Okay, you kind of just gave yourself up here. From your posts, you seem like a adolescent kid who likes to download games and hates the fact that modern tech moves faster than he can buy hardware for (Or bug your parents enough to buy you hardware for). I'm making an assumption, I could be wrong, but that's the impression you give off.

The bottom line is, server based gaming is too finicky for something that is meant to be a personal experience. If your internet goes out, you are completely shit out of luck to play a game. If a server machine crashes, all of its clients it is responsible for will be cut out of the game. Not to mention all of the technicalities such as input latencies to deal with. Games that could perhaps show any promise of remotely being successful would be turn based RPGs or slow paced RTS's.

There might some promise if they do something in order of what Id did with Quake Live or whatever it's called. I'm not sure if there is some client side processing going on there but it plays decent for a game that was released in 1999, ten years ago. If OnLive can provide Crysis/Unreal 3 level detail and playability ten years from now, in 2019, I will be impressed.

 

[mutz]

so much confidence, wooo :laugh:

You don't understand the definition of the word "algorithm"

yeah, actualy do..
its not that complicated.

Market demand for what? GPUs and CPUs? You realize that the processing must be done somehwere, even if it is server based. It will need the horsepower to render every instance of who's playing the game before sending that information to your monitor, so really, the company or people that own the server have to purchase the hardware for everyone for a monthly bill?

it'll need a simple standart CPU as any PC has, one CPU for each application, even a E2160 can run crysis for exm.
instead that the graphics will be sent to a pluged screen, it will be sent to one miles away.
if you'll take each player, taking the extreme ones at 10 hours a day and the more moderate one at 2 hours a day, a server capable of processing 10 applications at once, will give you ~40 people a day (minimum) and 1200 a month.
double that with 30 and u get 36,000$, and thats ~minimum.
the data of how the tech. exactly work, is unavailable (and u can understand why) but surly, 10 huge gaming manufacturers such as EA,EPIC, and Ubisoft, are not going to invest in some crap.
anyway, these guys were working on it for 7 years (they say), nobody is going out shouting "i found gold" risking his/hers reputation for some trash.
lets say, for each server they'll need some 10 CPU's and 10 or less powerfull GPU's, this not exactly the same market as some 1200 (at least) users that will have to buy this stuff.

What gives you that idea? Is there a public outcry right now that the gaming community is shouting "NO! I WILL NOT BUY ANY MORE ADVANCED HARDWARE FOR MORE GRAPHICALLY INTENSIVE GAMES!"?

there isn't, people don't mind realy spending so much money,
for others, that'll be a charm.

Yes, let's conveniently set aside the reality that it is in fact, impossible.

:laugh:
lets wait man, (as been said before), they don't just scream, "look i found another planet with life", if they're not going to cope with it,
some big names, some built reputation sits on any of they're remarks..

Okay, let's do some math. Say the service costs $29.95 a month, that equates to a little under 360 dollars a year. If you added 360 dollars to your current system build, don't you think that will allow you to play games at home at decent speeds for over 12 months? Hell for 360 dollars you could get an decently equipped Xbox 360 setup. And this isn't even considering if you wanted to buy a video card or gaming console second-hand.

u didn't mention the games.
one can buy up to 4-5 games a month, with cost up to 30-40-maybe 50$ each one,
only a good grapic card and CPU might cost few thousands...

Okay, you kind of just gave yourself up here. From your posts, you seem like a adolescent kid who likes to download games and hates the fact that modern tech moves faster than he can buy hardware for (Or bug your parents enough to buy you hardware for). I'm making an assumption, I could be wrong, but that's the impression you give off.

well, at a certain prespective, that might be considered rude, but i'll apply to that,
i'm not even playing games with the computer, for one, because lack of interest and not being indulged into any meaningless behaviour of wasting time, (not judging anyone), prefer studying the hardware, the net infrastructure and the movement of technology.
two, they're simply crap, shooting, killing destroying, nothing educational, meaningfull, simply a waste of one's energy.
three, if installing any, it's just as a mean to inspect the hardware.

if u'd like,
watch the presentation given 3-4 posts before, maybe it'll ease u'r suspicions,
it sound strange, maybe unlikely to work,
but lets keep an open mind,
500 years ago, people thought that behind the ocean there is a great abyss, that monsters control that phase of the earth,
who would believe that people we'll be able to fly a houndred years ago?
what was a car at that time?
who would've believe that minimizing CPU's transsistors to such scale would be possible 50 years ago?
who would've believe the internet will become so expansed?
there are many new things,
lets welcome them,
and maybe,
we'll be able to see they're full blosom,
with time 🙂.

 

[reallyscrued]

if you'll take each player, taking the extreme ones at 10 hours a day and the more moderate one at 2 hours a day, a server capable of processing 10 applications at once, will give you ~40 people a day (minimum) and 1200 a month.
double that with 30 and u get 36,000$, and thats ~minimum.

Your sentence structure is so convoluted I have a hard time following what you are trying to say, are you saying that's how much the company would make if they implemented it? That's not a whole lot of money considering that $36,000 won't be COMPLETELY used for hardware. What about the software? Salaries for programmers? Rent for the building where everything is located? Electricity to power all the machines? The insane network speeds they will have to pay for? What about making a profit? $29.95 is also a wishful estimate. This isn't a netflix operation. It's basically moot point though, I doubt either of us can really understand the scope of running a business like this, so I will drop this point. I was originally trying to give you an understanding of why paying for the service monthly from a customer's perspective won't be extremely appealing once you realize if you just made a bigger initial investment, you can just buy a high powered piece of hardware yourself.

but surly, 10 huge gaming manufacturers such as EA,EPIC, and Ubisoft, are not going to invest in some crap.

Yeah, and surely Nintendo wouldn't have invested in VirtualBoy. Nokia in N-Gage, Apple in the Newton, Phillips, NEC, Panasonic in the 3DO company, yada yada yada. In this case, EA, EPIC, and Ubisoft are most likely just diversifying their interests.

well, at a certain prespective, that might be considered rude, but i'll apply to that,
i'm not even playing games with the computer

Then explain your "download, extract, install, patch..." statement.

 

[reallyscrued]

Originally posted by: mutz
if u'd like,
watch the presentation given 3-4 posts before, maybe it'll ease u'r suspicions,
it sound strange, maybe unlikely to work,
but lets keep an open mind,
500 years ago, people thought that behind the ocean there is a great abyss, that monsters control that phase of the earth,
who would believe that people we'll be able to fly a houndred years ago?
what was a car at that time?
who would've believe that minimizing CPU's transsistors to such scale would be possible 50 years ago?
who would've believe the internet will become so expansed?
there are many new things,
lets welcome them,
and maybe,
we'll be able to see they're full blosom,
with time 🙂.

Lastly, I've seen the presentations, no it doesn't ease my suspicions because I don't immediately believe everything the *MARKETING* department of a company/product tells me before I investigate it with logic. Sony will tell you the cell processor in the PS3 has huge "untapped" potential, this is in the same boat.

...and that may be the weakest argument ever. Look. Regardless of when people thought we could fly (Da Vinci made diagrams of flying machines well before modern aeronautics by the way), the fact that we DID HAVE CARS 100 years ago, the fact that Moore...over 50 years ago, predicted that every 18 months the transistor count of a chip will double...in no way helps you explain how they can promise you those kinds of latencies when it takes roughly the same time (1 ms) to send a packet to your router.

So, to answer your question:

is OnLive to bring an end to the graphic cards market?

No.

Goodbye.

 

[mutz]

...and that may be the weakest argument ever. Look. Regardless of when people thought we could fly (Da Vinci made diagrams of flying machines well before modern aeronautics by the way), the fact that we DID HAVE CARS 100 years ago, the fact that Moore...over 50 years ago, predicted that every 18 months the transistor count of a chip will double...in no way helps you explain how they can promise you those kinds of latencies when it takes roughly the same time (1 ms) to send a packet to your router.

look, u have a lot of information,
i never claimed to have invented this technology, i say, if they talk about it, tested it and advertise it,
probably they have something to say,
arguing here about if it'll work or not is superfluous, we never actually tested it and so its a waste of time to argue of whether it'll work or not.
about the 1ms latency,
well, it sounds like a miracle but, lets wait and see, does it matter realy if it's 1,2,3, or 5?
i'm not a proffesional, but if it'll work, the numbers don't realy count, not matter what.

and yeah' heard about moore's law, about da vinci (like in that movie ad-hoc) about cars 100 years ago,
thats only examples, couldn't realy give here better ones but still, i think the idea is understood.
i'll tell u something from warner brothers a many years ago, they've been asked to promote speach in movie's at a certain period,
and said, "who will want to see talking actors in film"?
u get the point?
people around have been starting to pass rumors about passing the limit of light speed, of human teleportation, others say it's impossible, it will crash the all theory of relativity, how can such thing might happen?
it's every now and then people come up with idea's, breaking the whole world for others,
but things happen man, u have to believe, of course not blindfolded, but testing it atleast.

I don't immediately believe everything the *MARKETING* department of a company/product tells me before I investigate it with logic.

what interest anyone would have in order to harm himself?
if you'd listened to steve perlman enthusiasm about this all idea, he's telling people "look, it's a great idea" and they all come "no it can't happen, it's impossible, no one can do such thing".
time will tell,
after we'll unravel the secrets of it, even that it does seem quite irrational (1ms) we might all be suprised.. 🙂.

about this:

Then explain your "download, extract, install, patch..." statement.

there are games which come in demo's, in a restricted version, without online approach,
games u have to download, sometimes extract, install and (never recall mentioning patch) but true, sometime even patch

 

[slugg]

One word: Latency. I/O latency will be absolutely terrible. It will be impractical.

Another word: Marketing. You're a victim of it.

Yet another word: Algorithm. You don't know what it means.

One more word: Bullshit. 1 ms latency half way across the country? I've searched various IEEE and ACM publications and I can't find a single source to backup this claim.

 

[mutz]

Another word: Marketing. You're a victim of it.

not a victim, a watcher, never claimed to be buying it, but niether decline it,
if it'll work, people will use it, u'll hear feedbacks, u might consider to check it out.

Algorithm. You don't know what it means.

look, not claming to be a programmer, but still, an algorithm is (might say) a way of encapsulating something, in it's best way.
every program is an algorithm, if u'd like to calculate where&how powerfull an asteroid will hit a star, u have to give some varaiables to a computer, such as it's speed, its spin, it's velocity, other gravitational effects wich might infulence its movement on its way etc., then u program them into a computer and let it calculate it,
that is an algorithm.
u take all the possible accurances u can understand and encapsulate them in a program, that'll give u the result.
u can create specific algorithms, u can design general algorithms (which calculate some more widely invoved maters and can then adjust it for each calculation specificly.
can't design one from a programming aspect as never realy programmed due to some conflict with it,
designed one as an idea (which would've worked but wasn't that efficiant eventually), and read about the LZ77&LZ78 algorithms in order to pecive it in a wider way.
not a proffesional at it, can't probably program one
but still, it's not that cumber to generaly understand.

One more word: Bullshit. 1 ms latency half way across the country? I've searched various IEEE and ACM publications and I can't find a single source to backup this claim.

sorry for taking u into all that trouble, the 1ms latency is at the video compression algorithm compared to 0.5-0.75 seconds latency in standart video compression algorithms and not at the network frame,
for that.. no need to look far.
http://www.engadget.com/2009/0...ing-game-demonstrated/

the only thing that doesn't fit, is (by testing) a 1150 miles away server u get a-136~ms ping, so it should be about 60ms every direction, for 1000 miles.
so it sound quite ilogical being able to broadcast atleast 25FPS at such speeds,
but maybe they'll figure something out,
who knows..

 

[Rangoric]

I checked it out when a friend on another forum mentioned it and think it is BS then and now.

The ONLY interesting thing I found about it was that they are doing it really cross platform. Other than that the bandwidth needed for this alone, and the latency involved, and the always needs a perfect net connection, and etc etc kill it for me. But as a way to play any game anywhere I can see a use for it.

With what I saw the last time I checked it out though, they are totally going at it the wrong way though.

 

[mutz]

With what I saw the last time I checked it out though, they are totally going at it the wrong way though.

not trying to protect the product but if u come out with something like that, u should atleast explain it,

the latency involved

it seems that if they'll manage closer servers, that might work,
anyhow,
it's too soon saying anything about it and we'll have to give those guys a credit for what they've done,
the all trick here, is being able to implement a video compression algorithm that manages both quality compression ability, and low operation letancy.
it actually sounds quite possible, it may not be that great at the beggining but what new technological improvement does?
it never (ofcourse) start from the end and getting worse with time but on the contrary.
it'll should turn out well eventually,
and all you'r scepticism will go down the drain..:laugh:
well,
thanks you all for participated in this discussion,
thanks for questioning & sharing doubt,
it has surely led the way for some better understanding of this product.
regards 🙂.

 

[SunSamurai]

lol This thread is classic. Sometimes I wonder how some people manage to not drown in the shower each morning.

 

[mutz]

Sometimes I wonder how some people manage to not drown in the shower each morning.

sounds like a truely unwise&arrogant remark,
it would've been wiser, to better explain yourself.
aside from that, u probably meant about the missing parts of information that came out eventually,
well, just viewing the product, havn't created it, and trying to raise some sirious questions which were in mind,
not every forum, is capable of delievering profound information about technology and so one happens to make mistakes,
it is also very demanding for anyone not having any core background with IT,
and so it happens, that u forget some things or ignore others, as u cannot catch everything at once.
still, the best thing is, if u try to obtain a rock from the bottom of the spring, is to dive strait to it,
as hard as it means.

 

[BladeVenom]

OnLive, if it ever even works, would be competition for the console market, or casual games market, not the PC graphic card market.

 

[Mark R]

We have networked 3D at work. Some of the datasets that we need to view are quite big (1GB plus), as a result rendering requires a pretty decent workstation.

In an attempt to make advanced rendering more available (a stand alone workstation kitted out with appropriate hardware and proprietary software runs around $50k, so these workstations are very limited) - we installed a networked render server using very high end quad custom 4 GB GPUs and thin client software on the general PCs. The server was $250k, so it was a cheaper option than buying more workstations.

Anyway, the clients and server are on a fully switched gigabit LAN (using very high end network switches end to end - Cisco 3750E - $5k per switch) - with the server located on the departmental subnet, rather than the IT core network to minimize network hops and congestion. Even so, even if I'm the only user on the server, it's way slower than using the dedicated workstation, except for the most complex datasets. For general use, with medium sized data, and standard rendering techniques, the workstation will get 30 fps easy and scanning through the data is smooth and responsive. Even under the best conditions, the networked solution will barely get 15 fps so it's noticeably laggy.

 

[mutz]

We have networked 3D at work. Some of the datasets that we need to view are quite big (1GB plus), as a result rendering requires a pretty decent workstation.

In an attempt to make advanced rendering more available (a stand alone workstation kitted out with appropriate hardware and proprietary software runs around $50k, so these workstations are very limited) - we installed a networked render server using very high end quad custom 4 GB GPUs and thin client software on the general PCs. The server was $250k, so it was a cheaper option than buying more workstations.

Anyway, the clients and server are on a fully switched gigabit LAN (using very high end network switches end to end - Cisco 3750E - $5k per switch) - with the server located on the departmental subnet, rather than the IT core network to minimize network hops and congestion. Even so, even if I'm the only user on the server, it's way slower than using the dedicated workstation, except for the most complex datasets. For general use, with medium sized data, and standard rendering techniques, the workstation will get 30 fps easy and scanning through the data is smooth and responsive. Even under the best conditions, the networked solution will barely get 15 fps so it's noticeably laggy.

this is a very good post,
after checking it forward,(as a remark) it seems that servers 1000 miles away, or 800 miles away (depends on the infrastructure), might be able to broadcast at such speeds, at 25 FPS,
about the price, well its hard to estimate and quite missing information about requierments of hi-end games compare to u'r datasets..
the main claim for OnLive is, that the ability to process the graphics at such speeds, is due to the video compression algorithm and special converter which operates at only 1ms delay,
there also is lack of information about it as to how fast other video compression algorithms operate and the standart in which u'r working with, so it's hard making any compare..

OnLive, if it ever even works, would be competition for the console market, or casual games market, not the PC graphic card market.

u can read the main thread again, there are well explained reasons for this to happen, we're not talking immediate, but rather at the future.
users of this product, won't have to buy games, and so won't have to upgrade their hardware, another point is, that it is aiming at eliminating game-software piracy.
i'd say, that there will be companies that won't get into it at the beggining and continue publishing they're products on disks, this will maintain the demand for correspondante hardware in the near future and will permit, working with higher graphic's and better resolution then the OnLive initiative.
as further as technology will advance, and it will advance, we'll probably see it more and more taking hold of the market, (thats a large estimation)
(as it seems), hi-end hardware will probably become more specially designated for the OnLive&other firms specific servers and image/video editors around the world.
this is great,
that's the idea.

 

[murphyslabrat]

and trying to raise some sirious questions which were in mind

Here's a serious question: why don't you get a life, and preferably one that involves English lessons.

The only compelling reason to subscribe to OnLive, is to be able to play any game, anywhere. This comes at a cost to you, and is in no way an easy pill to swallow.

The bandwidth would be a crippling issue: it isn't a huge deal for simple pings, which take less than 30ms for me to ping google. But with real images the situation changes immensely. Uncompressed, a 1080p frame is just short of 2mb. compressed that would be, at best, 200Kb of data to send, with 60 per second. And this is talking with horribly aggressive jpg compression. You are talking about maxing a 10Mb cable connection to just play a game at 1080p. This means that either visual quality takes a hit, or fluidity takes it for you. At smaller resolutions, it becomes more feasable, but still not reasonable.

It will save marginal amounts of money: there would be immense start-up costs for this company, meaning that they would need to reap significant operating revenue, implying a large monthly fee. Assuming best case, you are looking at $30/month ($360/year). With one exception, neither I nor any of my friends have ever paid more than $200 in a single year for the maintenance of a computer. We do tend to play multiplayer games, meaning that a we typically purchase very few games in a year. Maybe two or three, and they'll usually be on sale (see: Left 4 Dead and Team Fortress 2). For some people this would save significant quantities of money, assuming they do not make you pay a fee to "unlock" or otherwise enable a game.

 

[mutz]

can't get you'r point,
on one level, u say, it might work,
on other u say, it probably wouldn't work,
on another, u say, it won't be worth it,
on other u say,
it would be worth it,
at the beggining of the letter u talk like a schmuck,
at the end of it,
u start to sound like a reasonable guy,
the 1080p u talked about, should be probably 720p but they havn't released they're exact specifications for this project,
the bandwidth they claim to be needed, is 5Mbps for HD and 1.5Mbps for SD,
i can't tell how it would work, and it does sound quite impossible without any lag and still maintain a decent quality,
this is something we should wait patiently for,
we don't know yet the prices as they havn't released them,
some people, do play more than 2-3 games per year, some of them pay a lot of money to buy them, but most of them,
just download them from TPB.
so for some people, this initiative, will allow playing a lot more different games than they're playing&save them with the money requiered for upgrading they're HW each year,
this will allow, game programers, watch people play online, noticing defects&disadvantages of they're games,
working with the customers, being able to hear comments&critcism, this will change the whole preception and interaction between the customers and producers.

The only compelling reason to subscribe to OnLive, is to be able to play any game, anywhere. This comes at a cost to you, and is in no way an easy pill to swallow.

if u meant, u'll have to be paying for playing,
what to do?
people are investing A LOT of time and effort in the process of creating these games,
it was just published not long ago, that a guy created a game, has posted a letter on Mininova site, requesting sincirely from people, to share a donation if they like it,
look,
they loose BILLIONS of dollars each year for piracy!
i realy feel sorry for these guys, who bust they're asses where this atmosphere, this atitude of playing without paying, is accepted almost without any doubt,
also,
they might release older games for free, after they have made they're requested amount of money for them, people who would like to play hi-end games,
will have to pay!
people that just want to play around, will get other games, from different companies,
maybe for free, maybe for donation,
game programers could tell people that actually donating them will produce better games the next year,
this is quite beutifull, as gamers will share the creation projects and will feel a part of it!
this sounds like a great feeling, playing a game which u have contributed for it's creation!🙂
anyway, onlive might get enough money also, to invest in small companies and push them forward,
this will give anybody a chance to be in there (and not trying to compete in a very difficult market, where few big companies,
control it!

Here's a serious question: why don't you get a life, and preferably one that involves English lessons.

i just can't get the stupidity of people,
someone comes and ask a question, out of interest, and people start to play with him like complete assholes,
i havn't sayed anything, to hurt anyone here, so why won't you just SHUT THE HELL UP!?