OnLive dumps monthly fee

  • 53 results
  • 1
  • 2
#1 Posted by mosdl (3228 posts) -
Link
 
That probably makes OnLive a service people would use now - I wonder if the fees were dropped because it was the main deterrent.
#2 Posted by Diamond (8634 posts) -

Definitely a major change in their business model, for the better.  Now they're cheap enough to be viable at some point.

#3 Posted by Halberdierv2 (1869 posts) -

well, this seems interesting..

#4 Posted by arab_prince (2053 posts) -

This is great news. Please expand it to Canada, and increase the catalog and I'm there.

#5 Posted by OtakuGamer (1235 posts) -

Excellent! Now time to bring it outside of the US.

#6 Posted by Espada12 (78 posts) -

I'm not sure I understand the purpose of Onlive. Is it supposed to be PC gaming without the high end PC? Because I'm reading that purchasing access to a game is the same price as purchasing the game in retail. So If I no longer want to be apart of the onlive service I basically waste my money? Or do they give licenses to you for the games you purchased when you leave their service?

#7 Posted by crusader8463 (14422 posts) -

Now when they offer the service to other people then yanks I will start to give a shit! Oh who am I kidding, I can only get a 1 MB connection where I live. I could never use the service.

#8 Posted by crusader8463 (14422 posts) -
@Espada12:  The way it was set up was that you would buy each game then in order to keep palying those games you would have to pay am onthly fee. When that time ran up all your games would be gone until you paid for another month. Basically you would buy the game, then the monthly fee was like renting a virtual computer on there servers to run the game for you that you would log into but only for as long as you kept paying them.
 
At least that's how I understood it. And it was supposed to be platform agnostic. The idea was that you used any computer to play any game no matter what platform it was on, then connected whatever means of which you prefer to play games to your computer and used that to play them. Not sure if they ever got beyond PC games though.
#9 Posted by JJOR64 (18989 posts) -

I thought OnLive was still in beta.  Shows you how much I care about it.

#10 Posted by Azteck (7449 posts) -

And I still live outside of the US.

#11 Posted by DrPockets000 (2859 posts) -

Just saw this.  Consider me a prospective customer.

#12 Posted by Sackmanjones (4701 posts) -

This is still a thing?

#13 Edited by ComradeKritstov (693 posts) -

Being able to rent PC games = amazing. Hellooooo Darksiders. 
 
Does anyone know if it works over wifi yet? 
EDIT: Never mind, just checked the FAQs and it appears it does.

#14 Posted by NTM (7377 posts) -

I've seen nothing, and heard nothing about OnLive since its release. But still, this is great news. How do you even buy it?
#15 Posted by TurboMan (7539 posts) -

cool... I'm on it now, haven't bought a game cause I don't have a controller to properly play with it.

#16 Posted by Marz (5651 posts) -

Makes it somewhat usable.  The monthly fee is what made me write it off as a platform for gaming for me personally.

#17 Posted by JJWeatherman (14558 posts) -

W00t?

#18 Posted by LordAndrew (14426 posts) -

That is exactly what they needed to do in order to remind people that OnLive exists.

#19 Posted by FreakAche (2953 posts) -
@arab_prince said:
" This is great news. Please expand it to Canada, and increase the catalog and I'm there. "
This
#20 Posted by Video_Game_King (36272 posts) -

*reads article* Now all they need are games I want :P.

#21 Edited by Sanj (2387 posts) -

This also means the purchase price is going to be hella expensive now.
#22 Posted by ch13696 (4582 posts) -

This is amazing. This has actually proven that companies don't need a monthly subscription to run servers if you're already making money elsewhere.

#23 Posted by ArbitraryWater (11733 posts) -

Even though it is a much more appealing option simply through the drop of a monthly fee, I still don't care about on-live. It's one thing to prefer a boxed game to a digital download. It's another to invest in an unproven service that only grants access to a game, with the quality of the experience (graphical or performance wise) relying entirely on your internet connection's stability.

Online
#24 Posted by nukesniper (1312 posts) -

Probably the best thing they could have done. The barrier for entry is removed. yay.

#25 Posted by GoofyGoober (937 posts) -

Wow I forgot all about onlive. I suppose this makes it a little more attractive now.

#26 Posted by Doctorchimp (4076 posts) -

Great. I have a gaming PC so onlive is so off my radar it's not even funny. 
 
However! Cloud gaming is something that could be super innovative and hopefully onlive doesn't die out quite yet.

#27 Posted by mosdl (3228 posts) -
@LordAndrew said:
" That is exactly what they needed to do in order to remind people that OnLive exists. "
Microsoft does it by increasing monthly fees :)
#28 Posted by ComradeKritstov (693 posts) -
@Doctorchimp said:
" Great. I have a gaming PC so onlive is so off my radar it's not even funny.  However! Cloud gaming is something that could be super innovative and hopefully onlive doesn't die out quite yet. "
Being able to rent single player games on the cheap isn't appealing?
#29 Posted by myketuna (1693 posts) -
@ComradeKritstov:  I definitely think it is. I do kind of wish this were part of a bigger, more established thing than its own because I do have that lingering uneasy feeling toward ever buying a game on OnLive. If OnLive could merger or something it's rental service with Steam or something (Steam handling the buying, OnLive handling the renting), I think I would hop on that. I would even pay a monthly sub for the digital renting.
#30 Posted by Gonmog (583 posts) -
@Video_Game_King: And games that wont go away after a few years. Thats my second gripe with it :/ Give m a download of the game as well so i can play it forever. This is just you renting the game for a few years when you are paying full price for it. Not good imo. But the droping of the monthly fee is a great start to get me to even start caring about something like this. 
Though to be honest OnLive was doomed to fail. Most of the US, is sadly still lacking in good high speed internet services. How can you get anywhere when you are cutting out a good chunk of a player base? 
One thing i think they are setting on gold with is the tech behind it. OnLive may fail, but they will be sitting pretty.
#31 Posted by TorMasturba (1094 posts) -

I heard they'd done a deal to work with the BT internet service provider here in the UK once they'd decided to actually bring it over here, yet here we are and I haven't heard a single thing for absolutely ages. 
  
I was interested in the service too. 
Ah well, too little, too late...

#32 Posted by FourWude (2261 posts) -

Why are people so happy?

They've removed a monthly fee to play all games and will now almost certainly be charging on a per game cost along with other transactions. You've effectively moved away from a subscription model to a microtransaction one. For most heavy game users it will almost certainly work out more expensive, because per unit costs are more expensive than up front bulk costs.

#33 Posted by ryanwho (12082 posts) -

So the thing that probably won't work for another few years if ever makes a price adjustment.

#34 Posted by sixghost (1679 posts) -
@FourWude said:
"

Why are people so happy?

They've removed a monthly fee to play all games and will now almost certainly be charging on a per game cost along with other transactions. You've effectively moved away from a subscription model to a microtransaction one. For most heavy game users it will almost certainly work out more expensive, because per unit costs are more expensive than up front bulk costs.

"
They already charged per game, which is why people are excited.
#35 Posted by SeriouslyNow (8534 posts) -

...and the stink of death and desperation rises from the already rotting corpse...
 
The undead can only be killed with fire.

#36 Posted by FourWude (2261 posts) -
@sixghost said:
" @FourWude said:
"

Why are people so happy?

They've removed a monthly fee to play all games and will now almost certainly be charging on a per game cost along with other transactions. You've effectively moved away from a subscription model to a microtransaction one. For most heavy game users it will almost certainly work out more expensive, because per unit costs are more expensive than up front bulk costs.

"
They already charged per game, which is why people are excited. "

Which just means now they'll charge even more.

What would have been much better would be a flat rate fee, and play as much as you want, or for certain hours games.

There is still no real hardware and storage on the user end associated with OnLive, so you'll never really OWN the games anyway. It's really just a lease/rental system.

#37 Posted by SeriouslyNow (8534 posts) -
@ComradeKritstov said:
" @Doctorchimp said:
" Great. I have a gaming PC so onlive is so off my radar it's not even funny.  However! Cloud gaming is something that could be super innovative and hopefully onlive doesn't die out quite yet. "
Being able to rent single player games on the cheap isn't appealing? "
You're not renting games.  You're paying for a substandard, lag ridden, bandwidth prohibitive experience.  Even SD and HD movie stream services which are backed by more professional infrastructure lag.  This isn't going to be a viable means of gaming for at least a decade, if ever.  The whole idea stinks rotten of being something which Marketing dreamed up.
#38 Posted by rachelepithet (1391 posts) -

Checked the site out for the first time today, and man, the list of games available is way small. And like a third of them are games you would NEVER need a big graphics card for. If your PC can't run Peggle I can't imagine it could run OnLive either, you know?

#39 Posted by schizogony (976 posts) -

It looks like I am the only person in this thread that has actually used OnLive. It is not lag-ridden. What they've done to reduce input lag to pretty much negligible is amazing. It's like magic. Also, Onlive has never charged a monthly fee. The $14.95 a month announcement came from a pressured OnLive CEO who kept getting asked questions to which he didn't have answers yet. So he wanted to shut people up and he just came up with $14.95 a month. Big mistake! I'm a fan of OnLive and will log in every now and then to see if there's anything worth playing. But I would never pay a monthly fee ever, same with everyone else that is human.

#40 Posted by adoggz (2067 posts) -

changing the business model so radically this soon after release never bodes well.

#41 Posted by schizogony (976 posts) -

It's not that they're changing the business model; they're just finally settling on a business model. OnLive is still in beta. In beta, you tweak.

#42 Posted by Doctorchimp (4076 posts) -
@ComradeKritstov said:
" @Doctorchimp said:
" Great. I have a gaming PC so onlive is so off my radar it's not even funny.  However! Cloud gaming is something that could be super innovative and hopefully onlive doesn't die out quite yet. "
Being able to rent single player games on the cheap isn't appealing? "
A) On the PC, renting games isn't an option. I didn't build it looking forward to renting games.
 B) I don't rent games anyway...even on my consoles... 
C) What sort of game would I want to rent and not buy? If anything steam pretty much has demos of stuff I'm iffy on.
#43 Posted by LiquidPrince (15947 posts) -

Sounds good.

#44 Posted by SeriouslyNow (8534 posts) -
@schizogony said:
" It's not that they're changing the business model; they're just finally settling on a business model. OnLive is still in beta. In beta, you tweak. "
Ah, so it's not desperation but tweaking which made them drop the $15 monthly fee.  I see.  OnLive is a joke and has no place in the current landscape.
#45 Posted by Capum15 (4899 posts) -

I always forget this is a thing until I see some random post or article about it.

#46 Edited by jimmy5150 (122 posts) -
@SeriouslyNow said:

" @schizogony said:

" It's not that they're changing the business model; they're just finally settling on a business model. OnLive is still in beta. In beta, you tweak. "
Ah, so it's not desperation but tweaking which made them drop the $15 monthly fee.  I see.  OnLive is a joke and has no place in the current landscape. "
Whether it was desperation or tweaking, dumping the monthly fee has honestly made OnLive much more feasible for a lot of people.  Of course the idea of paying a monthly fee to also pay for games and other content was "a joke" but now, it is the only way to rent full games on the PC, regardless of system requirements for that matter.  Also, in the beta I thought the ability to watch what your friends were playing/brag clips etc. were a lot cooler than I expected.
 
I am not saying that OnLive is awesome or that it is going to become the most popular digital distributor this side of steam, just that I think they are closer to finding their niche in the landscape, however small.
#47 Posted by BeachThunder (11929 posts) -

Well I guess this is a good thing...

#48 Posted by SeriouslyNow (8534 posts) -
@jimmy5150 said:
" @SeriouslyNow said:

" @schizogony said:

" It's not that they're changing the business model; they're just finally settling on a business model. OnLive is still in beta. In beta, you tweak. "
Ah, so it's not desperation but tweaking which made them drop the $15 monthly fee.  I see.  OnLive is a joke and has no place in the current landscape. "
Whether it was desperation or tweaking, dumping the monthly fee has honestly made OnLive much more feasible for a lot of people.  Of course the idea of paying a monthly fee to also pay for games and other content was "a joke" but now, it is the only way to rent full games on the PC, regardless of system requirements for that matter.  Also, in the beta I thought the ability to watch what your friends were playing/brag clips etc. were a lot cooler than I expected. I am not saying that OnLive is awesome or that it is going to become the most popular digital distributor this side of steam, just that I think they are closer to finding their niche in the landscape, however small. "
Their expenditure to set the service up won't allow them to be niche.  I just don't see the appeal, beyond the luster of being something that's new.  They haven't even tested at full capacity yet and the service already has performance issues.  That coupled with the price drop and the relative growth of online retailers like Steam and Impulse means to my mind, that the service has nowhere to go in the short term and will be ultimately redundant in the longer term.
#49 Posted by Xerxes8933A (227 posts) -
@FreakAche said:
" @arab_prince said:
" This is great news. Please expand it to Canada, and increase the catalog and I'm there. "
This "
I'm in Canada, and at least the demo's work.  Prob wouldn't let me add a credit card with a Canadian address and buy games, but you can try out the service fine.
#50 Posted by NekuSakuraba (7241 posts) -

...I forgot totally about this. 
 
Phantom 2?

This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.