bit-gamer.net

Onlive set for June 17th US launch

Onlive set for June 17th US launch

Onlive, the cloud-based games system, will launch in the US this June for a $15 per month subscription fee.

Onlive, the controversial cloud-based games system which has had tech-heads arguing since it was first announced last year, will launch in the US on June 17th.

The premise for the system is simply that gameplay is streamed back to players over the internet, with the actual computing done in Onlive server farms. Player inputs are pinged over to the farms and results are sent back as video, continuously. The theory is technically sound, but doubts have been raised over how viable the idea is on current internet connections.

Either way, Onlive is confident the system will work and has signed up publishers like EA, Ubisoft, 2K Games and THQ to support the system from launch.

Pricing for Onlive has been revealed too, with users coughing up a $14.95 USD monthly subscription for access to the network, with game access costing extra. Players will also be able to buy games over the service, as well as rent them and the first 250,000 people to sign up will get three months of free access.

"This marks a huge milestone for both OnLive and the interactive entertainment landscape as a whole, changing the way that video games are developed, marketed, accessed and played," said Steve Perlman, Founder and CEO of OnLive. "We are opening the door to incredible experiences for gamers and enormous opportunities for developers and publishers."

Let us know your thoughts in the forums.

44 Comments

Discuss in the forums Reply
evanjdooner 11th March 2010, 12:55 Quote
So, the new DRM is a monthly fee to access your games? PASS!
Bursar 11th March 2010, 13:02 Quote
The monthly fee is for conection to the OnLive network. Game purchases or rentals are extra. You will only get access to trailers and/or demos included in the base fee. I'm guessing they've done the maths and the research, but I'm not convinced they'll get large numbers of players sign up.
cgthomas 11th March 2010, 13:30 Quote
Not really convinced by this, even if we assume that Internet speed will be optimal. Let's say that subscription plus a game like BFBC2 is £10 a month. And I decide to play that for at least 2 years, my total spending will be £240. That's not really something you call cost effective. A gtx 260 (what I'm using now) + bfbc2 is less than £240. so why pay more for something that requires third party redirection to gaming server, which will increase ping even if Internet conditions are optimal
smc8788 11th March 2010, 13:35 Quote
So have they given any indication of the minimum bandwidth requirements for this to work effectively?
Zurechial 11th March 2010, 13:48 Quote
I want this to fail hard.
Taking gaming out of the hands and control of enthusiasts and making it a paid subscription service is not a paradigm I want to see popularised one bit.

If services like OnLive became the new norm you could say goodbye to mods, originality, quality, the enthusiast hardware market - pretty much everything many of the people who post on bit-tech hold dear in their gaming hobby.

As I see it OnLive directly opposes everything we nerds and enthusiasts stand for.
Hell, OnLive deserves an even deeper level of hell than console gaming. :p

Do not want.
[/melodramatic]
smc8788 11th March 2010, 13:55 Quote
I pretty much is a console, isn't it? I don't see it as a replacement for PC gaming any more than consoles are, anyway. It's just an alternative.
_Metal_Guitar_ 11th March 2010, 14:10 Quote
It's an alternative, but it's a worse one. They want us to pay online subscription fees, internet fees and buy the games?! Servers go down, it WILL happen, you can't play. They decide to remove a game, you can't play. This seems like a truly epic way of getting gamers to hand over money for absolutely nothing in return.

I hope it fails completely and utterly. I think anyone that values their money at more than a promise of being able to play a game, should feel the same.
tron 11th March 2010, 14:10 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zurechial
I want this to fail hard.
Taking gaming out of the hands and control of enthusiasts and making it a paid subscription service is not a paradigm I want to see popularised one bit.

If services like OnLive became the new norm you could say goodbye to mods, originality, quality, the enthusiast hardware market - pretty much everything many of the people who post on bit-tech hold dear in their gaming hobby.

As I see it OnLive directly opposes everything we nerds and enthusiasts stand for.
Hell, OnLive deserves an even deeper level of hell than console gaming. :p

Do not want.
[/melodramatic]

It's not only us enthusiasts who want to see this fail.

I can't see any of my console fan boy friends accepting the idea of a video game not being 'directly' processed at home by the console hardware they love.

How can PC gamers and consoles gamers brag about how much memory or cpu clock their favorite console has if it no longer matters? :(
wgy 11th March 2010, 14:13 Quote
@Zurechial = your point is failing hard, not onlive.

as a gaming or hardware community, surely we should applaud and encourage such innovation, change is good, even with its success, the enthusiast hardware market would surely survive, because simply put, onlive is not enthusiast hardware or for that market. its simply an extention of the console (IMO) aimed at low-budget pc users.

the enthusiasts will still build a big, original pc, modded, watercooled, with all the best hardware because they want to, like to and could possibly get a more purpose built machine with better quality than a streaming service like onlive. if you enjoy building a pc that can mop the floor with crysis, why the hell would you buy onlive? and why the hell would onlive try and target that audience in the first place?! they simply wont.

tl;dr? onlive is for low budget gamers who desire high res gaming on latest titles. not enthusiasts who can all ready purchase and experience it.
fingerbob69 11th March 2010, 14:15 Quote
^^^^ wot he said. No longer will you pyhsically own a game, either in a box or as a download on your hard drive.
evanjdooner 11th March 2010, 14:23 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by wgy

tl;dr? onlive is for low budget gamers who desire high res gaming on latest titles. not enthusiasts who can all ready purchase and experience it.

Sooo... the enthusiast hardware market will survive if OnLive becomes popular with budget PC owners? Who do you think stumps up the cash for all the R&D graphics card makers do and who allow the small batches of the ridiculous 5970 and GTX295s to turn a profit whilst not being over £700? It's the 4350 and the 5750 card buyers just as much if not more so than the 5870 and 5850 buyers.
gavomatic57 11th March 2010, 14:27 Quote
When this reaches the UK it will be amusing. Thanks to traffic shaping and dreadful broadband connections, people will be unable to play the games they are paying for until 11pm when the throttling backs off. I can't even stream video until gone 10pm most evenings.

I'll stick with Steam, thanks all the same.
mclean007 11th March 2010, 14:33 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by wgy
@Zurechial = your point is failing hard, not onlive.

as a gaming or hardware community, surely we should applaud and encourage such innovation, change is good, even with its success, the enthusiast hardware market would surely survive, because simply put, onlive is not enthusiast hardware or for that market. its simply an extention of the console (IMO) aimed at low-budget pc users.

the enthusiasts will still build a big, original pc, modded, watercooled, with all the best hardware because they want to, like to and could possibly get a more purpose built machine with better quality than a streaming service like onlive. if you enjoy building a pc that can mop the floor with crysis, why the hell would you buy onlive? and why the hell would onlive try and target that audience in the first place?! they simply wont.

tl;dr? onlive is for low budget gamers who desire high res gaming on latest titles. not enthusiasts who can all ready purchase and experience it.
Except that, for a market like the enthusiast PC one to exist and survive, we need a decent mainstream market behind us. Hypothetically, if OnLive (or the streaming gaming concept more generally) were a phenomenal success and took the mainstream by storm, killing off every other console and the mainstream 'conventional' PC gaming market, do you really think game studios would continue making retail box / downloadable versions of games for a few thousand geeks who want the hardcore experience? No. They would focus exclusively on the streaming market where the money is - there would simply not be a value proposition in catering to the retail box / download crowd.

Same goes for hardware. With a streaming model, you only need a lightweight video processor to decode and display the streaming experience. No need for a chunky GPU in your system. And if the mainstream has no need for chunky GPUs, do you think Nvidia and AMD will continue to push forward with innovation? High end GPUs are halo products which are only economical with a mass market of lower end products underneath. Take that away and you can kiss goodbye to any prospect of a Radeon 6870 next year. A wholesale shift to streaming gaming would force Nvidia and AMD to focus instead on producing chips for OnLive servers, with no DVI output, no HDMI, no Displayport, and integrated hardware to encode and stream video. Heck, if I were OnLive I'd be pushing for a one board homogenous product including CPU, GPU, RAM, sound, video encoding, streaming and networking hardware all on one PCB.

Anyway, this is all academic because I expect OnLive will fail hard. The round trip from controller to server and back again will introduce far too much input lag for any serious gaming; people are unlikely to stand for a mandatory £10 a month flat charge which doesn't include access to games; and they'll be crippled by the capital expense of hardware.

My prediction - after 8 years in the making, the people behind this have invested a lot of money, time and effort. They take the product around the world showcasing it in a cloak of smoke and mirrors, shouting about how it's the next big thing in gaming while demoing it in carfully controlled conditions that don't reflect real world network performance. They float OnLive on a stock market, capitalise on their massive hype machine to drive a vastly inflated valuation, and extract a fat profit by cashing in their own shares. 2 years later OnLive is dead.
zimbloggy 11th March 2010, 14:36 Quote
I know that I would never pay that much for that online service (+games). I know that half the time it would be terrible; I have enough trouble on this internet connection watching a 360p video on youtube, let alone all the extra bandwidth involved required for such a service.

It would be cool, though, but it is way overpriced for not getting any games included.
tron 11th March 2010, 14:36 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by wgy
@Zurechial = your point is failing hard, not onlive.

as a gaming or hardware community, surely we should applaud and encourage such innovation, change is good, even with its success, the enthusiast hardware market would surely survive, because simply put, onlive is not enthusiast hardware or for that market. its simply an extention of the console (IMO) aimed at low-budget pc users.

the enthusiasts will still build a big, original pc, modded, watercooled, with all the best hardware because they want to, like to and could possibly get a more purpose built machine with better quality than a streaming service like onlive. if you enjoy building a pc that can mop the floor with crysis, why the hell would you buy onlive? and why the hell would onlive try and target that audience in the first place?! they simply wont.

tl;dr? onlive is for low budget gamers who desire high res gaming on latest titles. not enthusiasts who can all ready purchase and experience it.

It's not really about whether or not they are targeting at us enthusiasts.

The problem is that this OnLive may possibly start off a damning trend.

If successful, in the future, the only way for anyone to play the latest games may be via the cloud to play (rent) games because all developers and game publishers decide they are only releasing via the controlling cloud method.
proxess 11th March 2010, 14:51 Quote
Worse will be when you get "Cloud Exclusive" games. First they started off as computer exclusives, then moved on to mixed, then console exclusives, then there will be console/cloud mix, and in the end there will be cloud exclusive games, meaning no more games will be left. Computers will be made only for rendering video and working.
antiHero 11th March 2010, 14:58 Quote
Seems like I am the only one who thinks this could work. Lets have a look on what it does and what others do.

Monthly subscription. Xbox live does it. PSN does it and a whole load of online games do it. So why not Onlive?

Buy games online. Xbox does it. Pplaystation does it, steam does it and many many more do it as well.

There is also the good part of tht you are always able to play the newest games without the need to upgrade your PC or buy the newest console.
The only problem i see is the massive amount of bandwidth people need to play. But with internet speed steady rising that wont be a problem for long
Sheiken 11th March 2010, 15:03 Quote
This is nothing more than a 21st century arcade in my opinion....
Bursar 11th March 2010, 15:11 Quote
Yeah, but inflation has gotton hold of my 10 pence pieces and turned them into £5 notes!
Deact 11th March 2010, 15:24 Quote
I'm interested to see if this does truly work especially in a realistic set-up. I for one will be very surprisedif it works well in this country, especially at any truly great leve of detail as my net connection gets flustered with iplayer HD at anytime bar the dark depths of night and youtube is slow most of time
Quote:
Originally Posted by antiHero
.
Monthly subscription. Xbox live does it. PSN does it and a whole load of online games do it. So why not Onlive?

PSN is still free for use and one of the reasons I like owning a PS3 as I'm not a fan of paying ontop of my net fees just to unlock the online gaming (no console war/flame intended just my IMHO).

Still here's hoping for a review on Bit-tech at somepoint if it takes off!
Cyberpower-UK 11th March 2010, 15:29 Quote
I'll be fine so long as I game outside of Virgin's ever expanding throttling zone. An hour of iPlayer HD and it throttles below playable so I expect the same from this if they can even cope with 1080p.
Spuzzell 11th March 2010, 15:41 Quote
@ smc

Allegedly it needs about 1M/bs.

Take a look at this article on impressions of the Onlive beta: http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=859&type=expert

Summarised: Customized low detail 1280*720 resolution in all games, significant input latency making FPS titles unplayable, all games and menus showing latency issues with mouse control, latency control issues not as noticeable when using a game pad, some games very playable, bandwidth needed a fairly constant 1Mb/s.

I should mention I'm slightly dubious about the article I linked to and summarised. While the author has an excellent reputation and I certainly believe he was using Onlive as he said I'm unsure as to why Onlive have allowed the article to remain available. It's very possible that Onlive have at the least approved it, which would suggest it's painting a rather flattering picture. Just a thought.
Zurechial 11th March 2010, 15:41 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by tron
It's not really about whether or not they are targeting at us enthusiasts.

The problem is that this OnLive may possibly start off a damning trend.

If successful, in the future, the only way for anyone to play the latest games may be via the cloud to play (rent) games because all developers and game publishers decide they are only releasing via the controlling cloud method.

This.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wgy
@Zurechial = your point is failing hard, not onlive.
Wow. Friendly way to start a discussion, kudos on making a great first impression.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wgy

tl;dr? onlive is for low budget gamers who desire high res gaming on latest titles. not enthusiasts who can all ready purchase and experience it.

I don't care who the service is aimed at - My issue is with the trends that a service like OnLive will promulgate, as others have pointed out.
If successful, it creates an appealing avenue for the big-name publishers who have proven time and again that they don't care what 'hardcore' gamers want - Nor do they have to, because the average moron with more money than sense will still go out an drop his €50 on an overpriced, underdeveloped cashcow title for their idiot-friendly console.

I'm not going to turn this into a discussion about consoles vs pc or mainstream vs elitism etc, I've done that often enough elsewhere on this forum, but this topic ties into it.
The dominance of the mainstream/console gaming market has arguably resulted in a decline in the quality of gaming (in favour of publishers making a quick buck from mass-market cashcows) even for those of us who don't buy into it, because developers and publishers are inclined to go where the money is, not where the artistry is.

By the very same token if OnLive is successful there will be a market shift towards it and away from those of us who don't want it.
Whether or not we are the target market for OnLive, it will affect us if it is successful, just as the success of modern consoles has affected PC gaming and the overall direction of the games industry.

Taking choice out of the hands of customers is never a good thing and anyone trying to claim that the existence of OnLive is offering extra choice is fooling themselves and falling for marketing rhetoric.

As always, I'm standing on a virtual soapbox in a forum, ranting impotently about a topic that matters to me, but as I said; I want OnLive to fail and fail hard.
It represents everything I take issue with in the modern games industry.
tron 11th March 2010, 15:51 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by antiHero
Seems like I am the only one who thinks this could work. Lets have a look on what it does and what others do.

Monthly subscription. Xbox live does it. PSN does it and a whole load of online games do it. So why not Onlive?

Buy games online. Xbox does it. Pplaystation does it, steam does it and many many more do it as well.

There is also the good part of tht you are always able to play the newest games without the need to upgrade your PC or buy the newest console.
The only problem i see is the massive amount of bandwidth people need to play. But with internet speed steady rising that wont be a problem for long

The big difference is that on OnLive you pay monthly before you can even access your games.

XBOX Live doesn't charge you monthly just to access your games.

You own your games. OnLive is only technically for renting games.
Mentai 11th March 2010, 15:59 Quote
Ignoring the PC market for the moment (the cost of a gaming PC is debatable), basically the cost of just over 1.5 years of subscription to onlive = a console. Even if the quality of connections etc was perfect, who would do this? A console cycle lasts several years, so if you're gaming long term, you're buying 4 consoles, and any games you buy are even less substantial than digital distribution is now. With steam at least you can log on any PC and download for free unlimited times. With onlive you pay full price to have the right to play a game only if you are subscribed to a paid service. Ridiculous.
Digi 11th March 2010, 16:21 Quote
I bet the high street retailers are hoping it doesn't work out either. Otherwise you will see GAME renting store fronts only a meter in depth with a counter and only OnLive boxes on the wall them and EB etc etc will be sitting together talking about the good old days and drinking themselves into oblivion.

OnLive have said you can only be max 1000km from the datacentre that you are connecting to, I guess this is to improve performance but does this mean that they are not going to allow inter-country multiplayer or are they going to put fiber between their clusters, I would like to know how they are going to do it all.
13eightyfour 11th March 2010, 16:39 Quote
Now that they've announced part of the pricing structure, i cant see it working, You're never going to own the game you're playing, you cant play it unless you're connected to the net, Console gamers wont buy it because they already have to buy games and xbox users pay for live access so they arent gaining anything. Pc Gamers wont buy into it because they wont be able to 'fiddle' with the games.

Then theres the server issue, its bound to fail at some point and nobody will be able to play, but they cant cancel the subscription to the service because they've bought loads of games and cant use them in any other way.
ZERO <ibis> 11th March 2010, 18:00 Quote
So now I get to buy may games and then pay a monthly sub to play them and I guess when I stop paying I lose my game... wow this is a great idea, for the seller.
[PUNK] crompers 11th March 2010, 18:50 Quote
yeah this really has no market it would seem, will be interesting to see what happens.

either way i can see a terminal in the home and games running on third party servers being in the far future of gaming, just not in this implementation or this decade.
Xonar 11th March 2010, 18:52 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mentai
A console cycle lasts several years, so if you're gaming long term, you're buying 4 consoles, and any games you buy are even less substantial than digital distribution is now. With steam at least you can log on any PC and download for free unlimited times. With onlive you pay full price to have the right to play a game only if you are subscribed to a paid service. Ridiculous.

I remember whatching an interesting demo of this online (while try to link it later) but the cost of games through onlive is set to be around 60% cheaper than RRP as they make their deals direct through game developers and cut out the middle man i.e. the publishers and again don't have to pay for packaging, shipping, advertising (Onlive will advertise through it's own ways when you log on) so for some it may not be as expensive as first thought but in my honest opinion, I can't see this working (internet latency requirements etc) and full heartedly hope it doesnt catch on.
Showerhead 11th March 2010, 20:01 Quote
Have they ever addressed how they plan to overcome latency problems? They've spoken a great deal about how they'll address bandwidth with compression etc. but if this is all done through one centralised server you'd have to live pretty close or you'll be noticing severe lag.
Landy_Ed 11th March 2010, 20:04 Quote
And here was me thinking this would be more like an appeal for casual gamers. They'll be installing from the same media as the retail or digital downloads, so it' s not a threat to PC gaming (far from it), but they're missing a trick - pay-per-play rather than purchasing games + subscription would make this a success, but paying £10-£15 a month just to get demos then have to buy the games too - what happens if you are unable to renew your subscription but you have paid-for content? do they keep that for you indefinitely? I don't think so.

I don't even buy from Steam, I like having my media where I can reach it. But then I still have VHS tapes in cupboards, vinyl in the garage and audio cassettes in boxes. I'm sure I've got a couple of programs & games on 3.5" floppy floating around somewhere. Whether or not this is the future of gaming remains to be seen, but the publishers & software houses want to control piracy, & this is potentially more secure (for them) than any DRM solution that relies upon the license purchasers being either scrupulously fair about what they install or not equipped to bypass their DRM controls.
Jenny_Y8S 11th March 2010, 20:53 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by titanium angel
Now that they've announced part of the pricing structure, i cant see it working, You're never going to own the game you're playing

But people pay a hell of a lot per month for Sky without ever getting to own what they watch!

Hey I own all the games I bought years and years ago, but they never get installed let alone played!
Sloth 11th March 2010, 21:18 Quote
What seems to be the major flaw to me is everyone's favorite World of Warcraft. I question how the interaction between Blizzard server, OnLive server and Client would all work out, and how much people would be willing to pay for multiple monthly fees. There are hundreds of thousands of people who only play WoW and would ignore any service that does not provide it. The MMO market is only growing and is rapidly growing on the mainstream, love 'em or hate 'em MMOs are a huge boost for the PC gaming industry. Unless OnLive can host a large number of MMOs and make them all work smoothly I can't see this getting far.

And as many have said before, server availability will be a huge problem. The mainstream gamer wants to plug it in and have it work. If it doesn't always work, no one's going to try 'plugging in'. Seeing as many of these users will be people who can't be arsed to actually get a decent computer and actually install games you can just imagine how short their patience with technology probably is. Even when they can play if it's not consistently the same quality experience as one can get with a console then it won't last long.
tron 11th March 2010, 21:49 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jenny_Y8S
But people pay a hell of a lot per month for Sky without ever getting to own what they watch!

Hey I own all the games I bought years and years ago, but they never get installed let alone played!

There's not much 'replayability' in TV content like there is in video games anyway.

Most stuff on TV, you wouldn't really care whether or not you watch it more than once, or whether you own the content.

Also, if I see a movie on Sky that feel I really must own, I can go to the shop and buy it. Then it's mine to own for life. Nobody can tell me if or when I am allowed to watch my movie that I own, and I don't need to worry about whether my TV service or internet service allows me to watch my movie. I can watch my movie on my portable in the car if I want.

The ultimate question about Onlive is what would happen if it became successful. I'm not only fearing a future where we have OnLive-exclusive games, but where almost every AAA type of video game is cloud based. The problem is that we may no longer have any choices.

You may be totally happy to have a gaming future where nobody ever owns their games, they only rent or demo games for the time they are subscribing to OnLive.
thehippoz 11th March 2010, 22:23 Quote
where's warrior
Star*Dagger 12th March 2010, 02:00 Quote
That's my dose of neo-luddite for the year.

This will be huge, enjoy.
Bursar 12th March 2010, 10:29 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sloth
Unless OnLive can host a large number of MMOs and make them all work smoothly I can't see this getting far.

I can't see MMO's being offered this way. OnLive players will only be able to play with other OnLive players who are connected to the same data centre. This is likely to mean that a very large percentage of your guild mates will be uncontactable by the service (unless you have a guild where all the members live in the same city). OnLive will need to have their own WoW servers in their data centres, and then they'll need servers for the next MMO that comes along, and so-on. And that's assuming the MMO devs/publishers allow that to happen.
Sloth 12th March 2010, 19:37 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bursar
I can't see MMO's being offered this way. OnLive players will only be able to play with other OnLive players who are connected to the same data centre. This is likely to mean that a very large percentage of your guild mates will be uncontactable by the service (unless you have a guild where all the members live in the same city). OnLive will need to have their own WoW servers in their data centres, and then they'll need servers for the next MMO that comes along, and so-on. And that's assuming the MMO devs/publishers allow that to happen.
Looking forward, as new MMOs are released they will all have to deal with the issue of players. Games such as Warhammer: Age of Reckoning have shown us the difficulty of launching an MMO in the current gaming environment. The last thing a new game of this sort can afford is a fragmented playerbase due to services such as OnLive, but at the same time, the last thing they can afford is missing out on players who use OnLive exclusively. Assuming that devs/publishers will even allow this like you said, it would only work for games which are already well-established such as a WoW, but of course no game can live forever and by the time it's established enough to work with OnLive it will probably be losing players already. A vicious cycle, all of it.
erratum1 13th March 2010, 01:30 Quote
If they could just improve the internet speeds in uk rural areas this could work. If all goes well you won't need to go out and buy an expensive console or upgrade your equipment ever. This really could be the end of the xbox and ps3 !!
tron 13th March 2010, 08:06 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by erratum1
If all goes well you won't need to go out and buy an expensive console or upgrade your equipment ever.

... Because stagnation is good :)
metarinka 15th March 2010, 23:45 Quote
I actually like this business model, although I think it will have lots of growing pains, like how bad steam was when it first started.

basically as I see it, it's very similar to having an xbox live or steam account. accept your games are accessible from anywhere you have an internet connection ( probably aren't there yet bandwidth wise for a lot of people)

people makes it sound more expensive. But if you look at never having to upgrade anyhardware again, and being able to play at any location that has the bandwidth that's a pretty big plus IMO.

The formula for this being cheaper is cost of games bought a year + hardware costs per year. Compared to cost of games at reduced price + $180 per year for subscription.

If you buy 10 games a year and save $20 per game it will save you money. If you buy 5 games a year and save $20 plus spend 100 a year on hardware ($300 console every 3 years) It will save you money.

That's how I see it
retrogamer1990 18th March 2010, 09:39 Quote
I predict a new entry into the hall of fail.
Showerhead 18th March 2010, 12:47 Quote
i'm confused as to why they are releasing this in the U.S. first. Surely Japan or Korea with their better internet connection would be the place to show it off.
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums