Hacker News Reader

Comment by cookiecaper | Hacker News Reader

I doubt it will be TF3 since there is really no need to do a major restructuring for TF2. It is excellent and very well balanced the way it is. The only thing I can think of that anyone would even want from TF3 would be a different graphical or techincal approach, which would have only limited interest.

However, I also get an instinct that part of the motivation behind this will be a major new release from Valve, but maybe not. Maybe they are taking TF2 freemium because sales have declined anyway, it will allow greater microtransaction opportunity, and provide a broader userbase for Steam and the advertisements it displays on each boot.

View on HN

I agree with cookiecaper. I don't see Valve doing TF3 for some time. Whenever it does happen (and I think it will eventually) it will only be with large fundamental changes that the TF2 tech can't handle on reasonable machines. Valve has become genius in their new approach of "games as service" imo.

I think we'll see them going GOIP (Gaming Over IP, that's right, I just coined that. And what?) by the end of next year, too.

What's Gaming over IP? What are we gaming over now?

http://www.onlive.com/

Your TV+microconsole (or your computer) becomes a gaming thin client. The game runs in the cloud, and only the sound, display, and controller actions are transmitted between the thin client and gaming server. i.e. the Netflix model

I got the microconsole for $50 with a free game, and I must say, it works surprisingly well.

Hmm, does that work? It sounds like it will cost a shitload for them to do the rendering on the server, plus a second shitload in bandwidth costs, plus the latency will be high...

I've been predicting for years that it wouldn't work. And then OnLive finally launched, and... well, it's a teensy bit laggy compared to PC/console gaming, but it's amazing nonetheless. For people who have been wanting to game but never got over the hurdle of the console prices, much less building a PC rig for gaming, OnLive is a godsend.

The latency depends on the game you're playing. The better the video feed compresses, the more responsive the game will feel. It's works OK for 2D games and Batman:AA, but it's still not great for things like Unreal Tournament.

It's worth trying if you're skeptical. It's free to sign up and it allows you to play the first 30 minutes of several games free of charge.

Unfortunately I don't live in the US :(

They have UK servers if that's where you are.

http://onlive.co.uk/

I signed up for the US trial, it was a bit slow but it was quite bearable. The game stopped responding, but overall it looks very good. I'm not sure how they can make money if they have to rent, say, an Amazon EC2 instance with a GPU at $3/hr, but I hope it works.

My main problem is that you actually have to buy the games and then not even own them. I've already bought them once on Steam, why do I have to buy them again to play there? A Netflix-style model of per-month payments for unlimited time would be better, but having to buy the games again is a joke.

In interviews they've claimed that much of the lag players experience is from poor monitors. I don't know if I buy their claim of how much (I want to say the claim was "most", but I'd check that before I would argue it,) but I can certainly buy that as a contributing factor.

I agree with you though, having to buy games I've already bought once is annoying. But unless storefronts/publishers all agree to hold hands, sing Kumbaya, and honor each other's purchases, I don't see another option.

The other option is a flat fee per month. How ridiculous would it be if Netflix required you to pay $15 per movie before they could rent you a DVD?

There's a $10/month "playpack" package (in the US, at least). Some games are only available in the playpack, some games are only available separately. I would argue that on Steam you don't own the game either.

They use their own hardware, not EC2 or anything like that. They need gaming-level GPUs and they have their own compression hardware.

At least on Steam you have unrestricted access to your games, access doesn't get revoked when you cancel your subscription...

If you get booted off Steam or call them to delete your profile you lose your library. The games are yours until Steam say they're not.

The same goes for the full-price titles on OnLive. The playpack is different, it's the same flat monthly fee model as Netflix. And you can also rent the full-priced titles for a short period of time instead of buying them.

What happens to the games you've bought if you stop paying the monthly fee, though?

Access to OnLive is free, just like having a Steam account is free.

Some games can be bought. So long as the OnLive servers run, they're yours and you don't need to pay a monthly fee (as with Steam games).

Some games can be rented. For a few dollars you can get full access to the game for a time-limited period (24 hours or a few days). The first 30 minutes can usually be obtained free as a demo.

Some games are available in a playpack. This pack has a monthly fee like Netflix. So long as you keep paying the monthly fee you can play any of the games in the playpack (there's about 50) as much as you like.

Oh, I see. Hmm, that's better, but I don't see how it's sustainable for them...

To answer StavrosK's question, they're two separate things: the monthly fee gets you access to the "playpack" set for the duration of the subscription, while buying (the "Full PlayPass" in the jargon) the game gets you the game (approximately) forever. There's no base fee to be "a member".

Yes, totally agreed.

The release of free TF2 actually made me realize how there may never be a TF3 -- or at least, not for many, many years. There's little reason to. The gameplay is very good and the engine they are running on is in no way a limiting factor.

The only thing TF3 would have to offer is graphics, and with TF2's "cartoonish" style, I have to wonder what there really is to improve upon there.

More classes!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com