lolololol

sure is viral marketing

>>29107617

I will get the last laugh when my $6000 investment be worth more than 6 million dollars.

>>29107593

where can i get the item in the picture op

Enjoy your complete loss of $6000

>>29107593

shit will never work, enjoy ur fail

Haha idiot, if you're gonna buy stocks buy it in banks. It's a no risk investment. If the economy gets better(99% chance it will), you make a shit load of money since shits so cheap right now. It it doesn't, you lost nothing because once banks go under it's gonna be anarchy and money won't matter anyways.

That's a really good idea right there.

The picture I mean.

>>29107768

That's what they said about the Wii, now look at it.

/v/ - financial advice

>>29107705
only because with inflation $6000 would be worth 6 billion dollars.

BRB, fuckin my PC.

Too good to be true. It will likely work as advertised for very few games and rake up huge internet bills. It will probably take a decade before it really works and catches on, and then it will only work in a few countries with the infrastructure. Enjoy loosing $6000.

OnLive in a nutshell:
http://www.sec.gov/answers/pumpdump.htm

>>>/g/3911057

inb4 the OP becomes even poorer.

Oh well, invest in whatever the fuck is in that picture next time. That thing would sell like hot cakes.

>>29107855
Yeah, awesome idea in theory and I think that's why it's getting a lot of attention, but even if they could get it running smoothly the cost to run all that shit would be astronomical.

onlive will fail like the other thing before it, phantom or something. either way it sounds fucking stupid. I'll enjoy my consoles and real games

>>29107593
I pity you

Haha, I love it went smart businessmen like the guys behind OnLive manage to steal money from poorfags like OP.

>>29107953

Dude, all it is, is an LCD screen turned sideways, with 2x4's on the back side, and a fleshlight glued to the bottom, with a gif playing through the screen via PC. I have all of these, and could do this. But, I have a girlfriend. However, this looks kinda cool...

>Onlive
Shit's hot.

>>29108171

No, its two lcd screens.

>>29107593
whats stock symbol?

>>29107593
I don't think you have a $6000.
enjoy your being paid $8 an hour to post viral marketing on popular message boards.

Onlive buys a high end computer for every user it has, you see something, if not your PC/console HAS to run the games you play.
Onlive also pays for system that lets you input control commands through the internet and receive your gameplay on your tv, with no lagg.
Onlive also has a small small subscribtion fee.
Onlive also solved the problem of how electricity needs to travel, they made it teleport since they worked on it for 7 years.

>>29108459
pnd

tl;dr - just read the file name

that's pretty lonely.

OP, what price are OnLive shares currently trading at?

>>29108664

Defcon is the internet.

>>29108661
Wrong... Troll?

>>29108731
4 internets

>>29108664
>OnLive
>Streaming PC Games at 720p
lol shit sucks

>>29108846
hahaohwow.jpg.tar.gz

"Onlive" is just a product; you cannot buy stock in it. You could buy stock in the company that MAKES it, though.

>>29108664
The stupidity of the reasoning there is astounding.

>>29108935
>putting a jpg into a tarball then gzipping it
OU.png.bz2

>>29108981
what's wrong with it?

hey guys, remember when they had a conference about this at GDC and it worked? I mean even if some people with shitty connections lag a little, it still works and will probably make money. You guys are just being faggots about it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pump_and_Dump
No, it's not when a girl shits on your dick as you fuck her up the ass.

Looks like the jig is up. Was fun while it lasted.

>>29109087

>hey guys, remember when they had a server and rendering farm at the backyard of GDC and it still struggled with one or two journalists testing it?

>>29109006
1. No compression
2.using an average to describe the already stated minimum requirements (OnLive has already stated that 1Mbit = 480p 30fps video, 5Mbit = 720p 60 fps video)

>>29109087
It can work fine in extremely controlled scenarios where the party in question has a ridiculous internet connection.

What they are promising though is something that would work for somebody who can afford over a hundred dollars a month for an internet connection but for some reason can't afford a gaming PC or video console.

Hey guys, read me!

www.eurogamer.net/articles/gdc-why-onlive-cant-possibly-work-article

>>29109006
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_compression

>>29109087
>>29108591
>>29107970
THAT ANONYMOUS AIN'T ONE OF OURS

http://www.sec.gov/answers/pumpdump.htm

I will continue to post this in all OnLive threads until all discussion of it ceases and you braindead faggots and viral marketers stop praising this blatant investor scam as the second coming of Jesus.

>>29109150
hey remember when you're a faggot and the server was 50 miles away and journalists reported hardly any noticeable lag. How long is your ping, dawg?

and it's pre-beta

Summer/Fall: Beta is announced to be delayed as "issues with ISP's are still being resolved, and in order to ensure the best experience, the testing must be scheduled for a later date".

However, OnLive will offer pre-ordering of the microconsole and 1, 2, and 5 year subscription plans will be sold. All without a single test having yet been run.

Spring 2010: Beta is reannounced for the coming months, but only on an extremely limited basis. 100 people only for the first phase. These 100 will be carefully screened to ensure they are "quality" testers (as in, paid off)

Summer 2010: The first 100 begin beta testing. The initial reports from the now paid viral marketers will be mostly positive. The marketing campaign will begin, drumming up more pre-orders.

Fall 2010: Facing some grumbling from people who remembered their earlier promises of testing and release, OnLive announced expanded testing will begin in 2011. However, this will only apply to those who pre-ordered 5 year subscription plans.

2011: Testing finally begins on a larger scale, and the results are painfully lagged 480p streams, even on high speed connections. Outrage begins to spread, OnLive claims it's all the end users fault, that they must have some odd malware messing with their system. Paid virals on the internet still sing OnLive's praises.

2012: After a year of expanded testing, the test servers unexpectedly shut down. A message on OnLive's site claims that due to "unexpected issues as a result of poor network infrastructure, the OnLive service was deemed unsustainable."

No refunds offered for the pre-orders. Steve Perlmen spotted on a yacht in the Caribbean, laughing it up.

>>29109159
If they use compression of any kind then they are not delivering the video stream they promise. That's why you should be extremely skeptical of what they claim.

April Fools

>>29108664
this implies no compression

>>29109249

Yeah, I'm sure they're going to have millions of dedicated servers for each individual person. Oh wait, they won't, so the shitpile will get even worse.

And the stream was artifacted to hell even in their smoke and mirrors demo's to journalists.

But keep deep throating this con artist, your gullibility just delights me.

>>29109276
If you thought there wouldn't be any compression you are even dumber than the people who believe in this shit.

>>29109184

yeah, I'm sure the guy who developed quicktime's compression algorithms doesn't know how to compress his video, and there's the fact that it's already been proven to work.

I wouldn't pay for this until it's released and proven to work either, but /v/ is full of dumbasses right now who don't know what the fuck they're talking about.

No one can be this dumb.

God damn, so much is riding on its success, and no im not just talking about the supposed 6 grand.

THE COMPANY ISN'T EVEN PUBLIC

YOU CAN'T BUY STOCK YOU FUCKING RETARDS

SAGE AND REPORTED FOR OBVIOUS TROLLING

>>29109276
They've already said they're compressing it; they'd be retards not to.

YOU CAN'T PUMP AND DUMP STOCK THAT DOESN'T EXIST

THIS IS SUPPORTED BY MAJOR COMPANIES AND A COMPANY THAT HASN'T EVEN PUT OUT A PRODUCT ISN'T GOING TO GO PUBLIC

IF ANYTHING THIS WILL JUST FAIL

BUT YOU MUST BE FUCKING RETARDED TO THINK THIS IS SOME STOCK SCAM

DIE

PLEASE

>>29109400

>I didn't read the article which actually spoke with technical experts in the field. I'm going to pretend that a sales pitch was 100% accurate and that anyone who doubts it is full of shit.

>brb, watching Home Shopping Network and spending the rest of my life savings on infomercial shit

>>29109358
There really are no smoke and mirrors. All they needed was a connection that can move around 4mbps steadily, which is something many people have. Unless they somehow have a device to get around this, in which case it works anyway.

>>29109379
They are advertising no noticeable compression.
They actually CAN'T have any noticeable compression or nobody will want to pay for this at all because it will look like shit.

>>29109520
oh please some unnamed "expert" that says "oh lol" and doesn't even know anything about the project can say it won't work? How about how it already works? What was different about GDC that makes it work there but nowhere else?

>>29109523

The smoke and mirrors come into play if you think that single demo is remotely representative of how it'll be when you're hundreds of miles away from their server and with 10's of thousands of other people slamming their servers at once.

This isn't a simple web server setup, they're going to have to have a massive rendering farms to pump out high end PC games. The logistics of trying to realistically pull this off are just fucking staggering.

>>29109523
LATENCY MOTHERFUCKER
THERE WILL BE ABOUT A 200 MS INPUT LAG
THAT SHIT IS HUEG
THIS ISN'T NORMAL VIDEO GAME PING, THIS IS LIKE HOOKING UP YOUR XBOX THROUGH A TV TUNER AND TRYING TO PLAY IT

To everybody saying that compression can solve the insurmountable mathematical problems facing the OnLive Model:

THIS IS NOT YOUTUBE
THERE IS NO BUFFERING
THERE IS NO RENDER FARM
IT IS IN REAL MOTHERFUCKING TIME

Please explain to me how you are going to compress the video and send it to me in real time with no buffering and no input lag on my end.

>>29109636
yeah it is but they obviously think they can do it. I think they can if they think it through well, but a bunch of stupid /v/ faggots think they're experts on the subject and know better than all the publishers who signed on.

>I bought $6000 worth of OnLive stock
And people said OnLive would never work
Looks like the CEOs just made another $6000

>64 posts and 4 image replies omitted. Click Reply to view.

>>29109614

>More than that, OnLive overlord Steve Perlmen has said that the latency introduced by the encoder is 1ms. Think about that; he's saying that the OnLive encoder runs at 1000fps. It's one of the most astonishing claims I've ever heard. It's like Ford saying that the new Fiesta's cruising speed is in excess of the speed of sound. To give some idea of the kind of leap OnLive reckons it is delivering, I consulted one of the world's leading specialists in high-end video encoding, and his response to OnLive's claims included such gems as "Bulls***" and "Hahahahaha!" along with a more measured, "I have the feeling that somebody is not telling the entire story here." This is a man whose know-how has helped YouTube make the jump to HD, and whose software is used in video compression applications around the world.

I'm supposed to buy the notion that some greasy fuck salesman has made three or four generational leaps in numerous tech fields because he dicked around on stage for awhile?

I fucking pity anyone that gullible.

>>29107705
....aaaand it's gone!

>>29109692
I guess you'll have to ask the founder guy how he managed to do it. He said something about a new compression algorithm and custom servers or something. I dunno

>>29109822
Source PLZ I want to read this.

So wait, they will basicallt buy me a new computer, that can play all my games at 60 fps and i don't even have to pay for the games?

And what will this cost me? 20$ a month?
yeah that should really cover the costs.. in like 3 years subscription time. And by that time, they need to upgrade the hardware again!

Economics 101 sure is hard!

>>29109880
Don't worry about it I found it myself using google
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/gdc-why-onlive-cant-possibly-work-article

>>29109737

It has more to do with common sense. It'd be like NASA announcing tomorrow they'd developed faster than light travel and it was being installed on the shuttle next week.

>>29109858
The new algorithm was hooking two machines together on a gigabit LAN and playing the game over a full-screen VNC connection

>>29109822
Jesus you people have thick heads. They already demonstrated it! Some people complained about the compression, but most agreed that there was little input lag. They had six in operation at once streaming from 50 miles away.

It doesn't matter how he did it, because it obviously works at least well enough to warrant all the attention.

>>29109880

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/gdc-why-onlive-cant-possibly-work-article

>>29109858
Might as well have said "magic" for all that tells us.

HELP YOURSELF TO SOME MORE OF OUR INTERNET STOCK

Step 1: Get Quake 3, or any game based on it's engine
Step 2.set the res to 640x480 if you're on 1Mbit, 960x720 if you're on 5Mbit
Step 3. Start a single player game
4. Enter these commands into the console(~ key):
/cl_timenudge 250
/com_maxfps 30(or 60 if you're on 5mbit)
5. Receive Onlive without the input lag

>>29109958
It's either $50 or $60 a month. But still, it's a very successful troll.

>>29110005

Phantom 2.0
Pixelon 2.0

Some people never learn.

>>29110005
>50 miles away.
>They had six in operation

Do you see the problem here, there are 2 problems here

>>29108209
That movie is awesome.

>>29110005

Yeah, that's only six.

There's going to be huge amounts of lag when they try to handle hundreds, even thousands of games at once.

>>29109958
no you still have to buy the games with a credit card, which is probably why all the publishers want in and they might still make money.

>>29110005

>So, bearing in mind that OnLive is demonstrating at GDC, how is it achieving the results? It's difficult to say, but this is how I would do it. Firstly, I'd have a bank of whopper PCs behind the scenes running the games at 720p60. Each of them would be connected to a hardware h264 encoder which would in turn be connected via gigabit LAN to the clients. If the server-side PCs aren't on site, I'd have them at a very close-by datacenter. At the GDC demo, OnLive bosses Mike McGarvey and Steve Perlmen said that the company's servers were hosted 50 miles away. If this was a true test conducted over the internet, I'm betting that there was a whopping internet connection being used with oodles of bandwidth, even if only 5MBps of it was utilised.

>Perhaps this suggests an element of smoke and mirrors, but if I were OnLive and about to give a demonstration of this importance, I'd definitely be looking to control as many of the conditions as possible. The main principles are being showcased, but in a best-case scenario. The thing is, actual performance has to live up to this demo and that's where things get tricky.

>Factor in thousands more users, orders of magnitude more traffic at the datacenters, and all the vagaries and unreliability of the average internet connection and actual real-life performance must surely be in question.

>>29109822
He has Goa'uld technology.

>>29110163
This is the major selling point, it's a piracy-proof system for developers. It goes past DRM and locked firmware to the point of "you can't even touch the physical machine you fucking thief".

>>29110152
obviously they know that and are trying not to fuck up

but the point is that the guy acts like compressing that fast is impossible, but they already did it. Even if it's only a few machines to demonstrate, they received input, compressed it, and sent it back in a little more than the time it takes to ping

>>29109159
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/gdc-why-onlive-cant-possibly-work-article

should I sell my Phantom stock yet?

lol

Dunno about you, but I have a fucking 60jiggabyte limit on my tubes. Over and above that costs extra. Sure lookin' forward to playing Onlive for one hour, three minutes and eleven seconds every month.

>>29110218

you're not comprehending what I'm saying. I was responding to another issue.
>>29110279

>>29107593
>I'm poor.
>I bought $6000 worth of OnLive stock
lolwut

FACT: They have a sweet looking controller

>>29110279

Reading is fundamental, and if you bothered to go to the link, the same guy gave his own ideas of what sort of compression tech could be used. And there was a comparison video showing off how it looked, and it looked like shit.

>>29110279
No, this is trivial to do if your internet connection is fast enough. Fast, as in on the same LAN.

They're promising to offer it over broadband and still have it look good and be playable, which is just a joke.

I can't even play Doom 2 at 320x240 in 8 bit color over VNC across the internet.

How the hell is this going to work?

>>29110350
uhh when I calculated I got 33 hours. You have to convert to bytes first.

anyway, I don't have a cap, so I'm ok.

>>29110384
>Opinion:They have a sweet looking controller.

fix'd for accuracy

>>29110376
yeah seriously. my checking account currently has a balance of $3.73. don't talk about being a poorfag.

>>29110391
and yet the video at the demonstration looked decent, although I probably wouldn't use it for more than demos/rentals until they improve it.

Either way, I'm starting to think this unnamed, so-called expert is a dumbass.

>The bottom line here is that OnLive's 'interactive video compression algorithm' must be so utterly amazing, and orders of magnitude better than anything ever made, that you wonder why the company is bothering with videogames at all when the potential applications are so much more staggering and immense.

This god damn.

I can get a HD 4830 for under $100 on Newegg that could devour this shit up without any need to subscribe to a malware company like OnLive, and I could own the games myself and be able to mod them and play without any compressed imaging and input lag.

>>29110426
That's not a fair comparison because non-commercial upload rates are atrocious compared to what they can have. Try doing it on a local network.

OnLive is obviously a scam targeting shareholders, as this entire idea is physically impossible given how fast the medium for communication between the PC and the server would have to travel to make this work outside an extremely small area.

>>29110620
someone earlier says it isn't a public company. Can anyone confirm?

They already did it when it was 50 miles away. Even if it were 500 miles away, it would only be like 20ms slower, which probably wouldn't change much. It seems difficult, but you guys are dismissing this too quickly.

Ok im not sure exactly about OnLive, but my uncle works for a company that patented a techonology called virtualization which allows streaming of any application. He says it works. I guess he saw someone load up and start playing wow in under 4 minutes. I dont know if it will really work though.

>>29110538

>This is a man whose know-how has helped YouTube make the jump to HD, and whose software is used in video compression applications around the world.

Ok but let's ignore him because the article didn't NAME HIS NAME. So what about the journalists who were blindfolded and then led to the Fort Knox level darkroom to test out this supposed dream machine?

http://www.shacknews.com/featuredarticle.x?id=1090

>But unfortunately, the illusion faded along with the loading screen. Once I was in the game itself, I immediately noticed the unwelcome signs of blocky compression. It wasn't so compressed that it was entirely distracting from the gameplay, but it was also worse than I expected. The visual quality was high, but the experience was marred by the considerable amount of splotchy pixels.

And these are literally best case scenarios, as once you introduce the natural problems of crowding masses of people trying the service out and individual quirks of internet providing.

1) PUMP
2) DUMP
3) ???
4) PROFIT

Okay, let's assume for a moment that this shit will actually work well and get some measure of popularity. What happens if down the road Sony, Nintendo or Microsoft get in the game and push them out of business? Wouldn't you lose all your games instantly?

Why is this thread still alive when we all know onlive is a scam?