OnLive Launches, Pricing Details Logged

  • 123 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
Posted by BradNicholson (812 posts) -

The "Founding Members" of OnLive--the eager participants who have signed up for the program during an ongoing promotional period--will have free access to the streaming service for a year and will additionally be given the option to renew the service month-to-month at $4.95. Not bad, but free or low-cost membership doesn't mean OnLive's cloud-based games are free. They are, in fact, most definitely not. 

Borderlands: An OnLive Joint  
Eurogamer has created a spectacular list of what the current games are costing those of us with the service on our PCs and Macs. It's also a good representation of the scattered nature of pricing options. Some games, for example, allow for three-to-five-day cloud rentals. Others? Not so much. But all games, regardless of cost, whether purchased or rented, will only be yours until "at least" June 17, 2013.

Here's a taste of what Eurogamer gathered. 
  
== TEASER ==     
Game NamePay OptionsDuration
Assassin's Creed II$39.99Until June 17, 2013
Borderlands$29.99 / $8.99 / $5.99Until June 17, 2013 / 5-day rental / 3-day rental
Prince of Persia: The Forgotten Sands$49.99Until June 17, 2013
Unreal Tournament 3: Titan Pack  $19.99 / $6.99 / $4.99Until June 17, 2013 / 5-day rental / 3-day rental

 
More games will inevitably launch, including a much-needed Riddick title, so maybe a more exact idea of what to expect in terms of cost will crop up. As of right now, it seems like rental options are only being extended to older titles--but even that doesn't stand up too well.  

I gave OnLive a short spin the other afternoon. You're required to have a wired connection--which is a silly hassle--but I was impressed with how Batman: Arkham Asylum's demo ran on my Macintosh. The visuals were decent and the action didn't have noticeable combat lag. This isn't an endorsement, by the way. I just had a few minutes to spare. Surely, some of you have given it a spin for longer stretches, right? How is it?
#1 Posted by BradNicholson (812 posts) -

The "Founding Members" of OnLive--the eager participants who have signed up for the program during an ongoing promotional period--will have free access to the streaming service for a year and will additionally be given the option to renew the service month-to-month at $4.95. Not bad, but free or low-cost membership doesn't mean OnLive's cloud-based games are free. They are, in fact, most definitely not. 

Borderlands: An OnLive Joint  
Eurogamer has created a spectacular list of what the current games are costing those of us with the service on our PCs and Macs. It's also a good representation of the scattered nature of pricing options. Some games, for example, allow for three-to-five-day cloud rentals. Others? Not so much. But all games, regardless of cost, whether purchased or rented, will only be yours until "at least" June 17, 2013.

Here's a taste of what Eurogamer gathered. 
  
== TEASER ==     
Game NamePay OptionsDuration
Assassin's Creed II$39.99Until June 17, 2013
Borderlands$29.99 / $8.99 / $5.99Until June 17, 2013 / 5-day rental / 3-day rental
Prince of Persia: The Forgotten Sands$49.99Until June 17, 2013
Unreal Tournament 3: Titan Pack  $19.99 / $6.99 / $4.99Until June 17, 2013 / 5-day rental / 3-day rental

 
More games will inevitably launch, including a much-needed Riddick title, so maybe a more exact idea of what to expect in terms of cost will crop up. As of right now, it seems like rental options are only being extended to older titles--but even that doesn't stand up too well.  

I gave OnLive a short spin the other afternoon. You're required to have a wired connection--which is a silly hassle--but I was impressed with how Batman: Arkham Asylum's demo ran on my Macintosh. The visuals were decent and the action didn't have noticeable combat lag. This isn't an endorsement, by the way. I just had a few minutes to spare. Surely, some of you have given it a spin for longer stretches, right? How is it?
#2 Edited by ricetopher (1046 posts) -

Damn, didn't know it didn't apply to articles.

#3 Edited by TheCreamFilling (1227 posts) -
@ricetopher said:

" . "

You don't get the quest for articles, silly.
#4 Posted by OroJackson (680 posts) -

I still have my doubts

#5 Posted by MachoFantastico (4801 posts) -

While living in the United Kingdom means I don't have huge interest in OnLive. I've been interested to see the lack of coverage it's been getting. Of course with E3 it's to be expected, but wasn't this meant to be a big step for gaming?

#6 Posted by Sanious (793 posts) -
@ricetopher said:
" first? (quest please) "
lol @ you. 
 
The sub is definitely not bad, but renting the game for a couple years is a bit iffy.
#7 Posted by Kifftopher (33 posts) -

That quest is the literal worst...

#8 Posted by arab_prince (2053 posts) -
@TrueEnglishGent said:
" While living in the United Kingdom means I don't have huge interest in OnLive. I've been interested to see the lack of coverage it's been getting. Of course with E3 it's to be expected, but wasn't this meant to be a big step for gaming? "
I feel the exact same way. In canada I can't care about it. But yeah it is really weird how there is NOTHING on onlive. When this was announced it had the status of "OMG WTF REVOLUTION" for weeks, but now that its out, no one cares? its strange, to say the least
#9 Edited by sixpin (1298 posts) -
@TrueEnglishGent: It was presented that way and created a lot of early hype last year, but it died out quickly. The thing is that the US just doesn't have the bandwidth available that is needed to push this kind of thing to the levels that users are use to getting from more traditional methods. The added impact of a subscription based service that you then lose the things you have bought once you cancel the subscription is a big pill for consumers to swallow. People generally like to own the things that they purchase.
#10 Edited by Rodiard (442 posts) -

I started my free one year membership this weekend and have mixed impressions. I tried the demo of Just Cause 2 which abruptly ended in a BSOD on the OnLive host machine. 
 
Later I played the first 20 minutes of Splinter Cell Conviction.  The image quality was pretty compressed and washed out (true of the service overall, not just this game) and there was a bit of lag in the controls but it was still playable. I was also underwhelmed by the small offering of games but I'm interested to see how things go as the service matures. It did just launch, after all.
 
The concept of playing a game via streaming is still pretty neat.

#11 Posted by Jayzilla (2567 posts) -

I was in the beta. It runs perfectly fine. I like the idea of being able to play any game on a netbook for example. Until it is in HD, this doesn't mean a thing. All of the games they have released are easily available for cheaper on Steam. I do think when the games are in HD though and if the subscription population is large, the will be the best way to go. Never again having to buy an expensive gaming rig is really attractive to me. Also NEVER having to deal with issues like games crashing from Steam is great. I think they are on to something really amazing, but I don't think gamers will be all that into it until they can play at better resolutions.

#12 Posted by cmsJustin (33 posts) -

I've been playing Just Cause 2 on it for the past few weeks. It's awesome (the service, not Just Cause 2). It's a shame I already beat most of their triple-A titles on 360 (AC2, ME2). Maybe I'll give Batman a spin...

#13 Posted by Jaded (21 posts) -

I played over the weekend, I was fairly impressed (mostly because I didn't expect it to work at all). I think the business model is the biggest problem: this is a service for casual gamers with older PCs, but the pricing is too high for casual gamers. If it was $14.95/month and you could play whatever you liked, that'd be fine.  
 
Might also be of interest to Mac owners with no PC.  
 
I might be more interested when the "Micro-Console" ships this winter. An easy way to play PC games on my TV wouldn't suck...

#14 Posted by Daryl (1781 posts) -

OnLive just seems evil. 

#15 Posted by IncredibleBulk92 (936 posts) -

If you want to play PC games until June 7th 2013 save the $5 for 36 months and the increased price for games and build yourself your own gaming PC.  It'll be cheaper in the long run and you won't have to rely on the internet connection that your little brother won't stop pirating shitty movies on.

#16 Posted by Lockeyness (188 posts) -

PASS.

#17 Posted by stephengotlost (703 posts) -

This is fine for those who haven't purchased any consoles or a decent gaming PC. Also seems like a good service for the troops, provided that they can get a decent internet connection.

#18 Posted by TheManiacsGnome (274 posts) -
@Jayzilla said:
" I was in the beta. It runs perfectly fine. I like the idea of being able to play any game on a netbook for example. Until it is in HD, this doesn't mean a thing. All of the games they have released are easily available for cheaper on Steam. I do think when the games are in HD though and if the subscription population is large, the will be the best way to go. Never again having to buy an expensive gaming rig is really attractive to me. Also NEVER having to deal with issues like games crashing from Steam is great. I think they are on to something really amazing, but I don't think gamers will be all that into it until they can play at better resolutions. "
Comment above you said he suffered a BSOD on the computer running his game at OnlIve.
 
For SP games this might work. Competitive multiplayer? I really don't think so. Also the idea of  renting games for years makes little sense to me. Latency is still a huge issue for me and even if it was available in Canada I probably still wouldn't bite on this.
#19 Posted by WEGGLES (739 posts) -

Most of those games are cheaper to buy... BUY on steam. Build your own PC if you really care about gaming on a PC... I thought the remark "here's how much you'll pay to rent games" was a jab at Digital distro.. but no... you really are renting them :\

#20 Posted by bhhawks78 (1206 posts) -

Until they consider a rent all games on service one flat fee I will laugh at how overpriced onlive is.

#21 Posted by Pinworm45 (4088 posts) -

No thanks, I played APB so I know just how evil server-side controlling is.

#22 Posted by Slab64 (1059 posts) -
@IncredibleBulk92 said:
" If you want to play PC games until June 7th 2013 save the $5 for 36 months and the increased price for games and build yourself your own gaming PC.  It'll be cheaper in the long run and you won't have to rely on the internet connection that your little brother won't stop pirating shitty movies on. "
...how do you know my little brother? O_o
#23 Posted by mosdl (3229 posts) -
@TrueEnglishGent said:
" While living in the United Kingdom means I don't have huge interest in OnLive. I've been interested to see the lack of coverage it's been getting. Of course with E3 it's to be expected, but wasn't this meant to be a big step for gaming? "
Local Silicon Valley newspaper had an article about it.  I'd imagine they would try to get traditional press to review/cover it rather than the hardcore gaming sites.
#24 Posted by JavaBaba (1 posts) -

If OnLive was like a Spotify for games at £30/month... I would be interested in having it in the UK (maybe once they finish laying down fibre optic cables).

#25 Posted by mosdl (3229 posts) -
@bhhawks78 said:
" Until they consider a rent all games on service one flat fee I will laugh at how overpriced onlive is. "
You mean Gametap then?
#26 Posted by Dantekiller (206 posts) -

not going to happen 

#27 Posted by Meteora (5787 posts) -
@Maniac said:
" @Jayzilla said:
" I was in the beta. It runs perfectly fine. I like the idea of being able to play any game on a netbook for example. Until it is in HD, this doesn't mean a thing. All of the games they have released are easily available for cheaper on Steam. I do think when the games are in HD though and if the subscription population is large, the will be the best way to go. Never again having to buy an expensive gaming rig is really attractive to me. Also NEVER having to deal with issues like games crashing from Steam is great. I think they are on to something really amazing, but I don't think gamers will be all that into it until they can play at better resolutions. "
Comment above you said he suffered a BSOD on the computer running his game at OnlIve. For SP games this might work. Competitive multiplayer? I really don't think so. Also the idea of  renting games for years makes little sense to me. Latency is still a huge issue for me and even if it was available in Canada I probably still wouldn't bite on this. "
When you mean competitive multiplayer, do you mean as in pros playing in tournaments? Because those only represent a very, very small minority of players. Just making sure that we're on the same page. I suspect that you meant just about any FPS that requires good connection to play with.
#28 Posted by TripMasterMunky (2403 posts) -

This could be the future. But the future is not now.

#29 Posted by kratier (223 posts) -
@bhhawks78: 
you're just stupid then, that will never happen
 you will be forced to wait a week just like everyone else with gamefly just to GET the game, 
you get what you pay for
#30 Posted by karmaghost (168 posts) -

I was in the beta as well and I was not impressed.  I have a 20 mbps connection and found some games to be acceptable and others to be unplayable because of even slight lag.  Some games looked just fine visually while others looked absolutely awful (e.g. Crysis, Company of Heroes).
 
Maybe this service isn't aimed at me because I have a PC that can run games at a decent graphics quality, but I just can't get behind a subscription based service that charges you both for access to their network and separately for each individual game.  PLUS you never own those games you pay retail prices for, you only rent/lease them.
 
Services like OnLive may be the future of gaming, but if so, they are definitely not the immediate future.

#31 Posted by Jimbo (9881 posts) -

Hamst3r put a decent OnLive quick look up on the forums somewhere.  It would not be out of place on the front page.

#32 Posted by TheRandomKo (240 posts) -

at these prices, why not just use steam..? if they made it all-access for a monthly fee i would get the idea..

#33 Posted by zaglis (910 posts) -

3 year rental at full price?
 Nope. 
*Continues using Steam*

#34 Posted by JackG100 (405 posts) -

Any service taking my money and not giving me ownership of the things I purchase is a bad friggin service.

#35 Posted by MayorFeedback (674 posts) -

I tried it and the lag is super noticeable for me (on a very fast Internet connection). Not completely unplayable but... close. I also had to disable my anti-virus and firewall to get it to connect at all, which isn't exactly endearing. The original download of the Firefox add-on installer was deleted immediately by Norton for being a virus. I get why, but still.
 
Obviously the pricing is going to hurt it more than the technology, but the tech is cooler in theory than in practice.  It seems like this is only good for people with laptops. But, even then, the pricing... you're paying full price for something you don't really get to own.
 
That being said, the ability to watch other people play felt like total voyeurism but was neat. That dude I watched play Splinter Cell: Conviction was terrible at it. 

#36 Posted by Yzzerdd (521 posts) -

OnLiveDeadOnArrival

#37 Posted by SJSchmidt93 (4896 posts) -
@TheRandomKo said:
" at these prices, why not just use steam..? if they made it all-access for a monthly fee i would get the idea.. "
It's for people that have shitty computers.
#38 Posted by DukeT (119 posts) -
@Meteora: The amount of players who play only the MLG playlists on Halo 3, and the amount of people using GameBattles (at least a few million) would disagree with that statement about competitive gaming being a minority of players.
#39 Posted by Afroman269 (7387 posts) -

Wow, fuck those prices, I'll stick to my consoles, k thanks.

#40 Posted by Pinworm45 (4088 posts) -
@SJSchmidt93 said:
" @TheRandomKo said:
" at these prices, why not just use steam..? if they made it all-access for a monthly fee i would get the idea.. "
It's for people that have shitty computers. "
People that have shitty computers either aren't going to be interested in games enough to spend so much money on them, or can't afford it anyway. 
  
Let's hope this ISN'T the future.
#41 Posted by skrutop (3615 posts) -

$40 to rent a game for 3 years?  How is that value over running to the store and picking up a copy?

#42 Edited by SJSchmidt93 (4896 posts) -
@Pinworm45 said:

" @SJSchmidt93 said:

" @TheRandomKo said:
" at these prices, why not just use steam..? if they made it all-access for a monthly fee i would get the idea.. "
It's for people that have shitty computers. "
People that have shitty computers either aren't going to be interested in games enough to spend so much money on them, or can't afford it anyway.   Let's hope this ISN'T the future. "
What? It's $5 a month and they're ALL cheaper than console games. 
 
Just because they don't want to drop $1000 on a PC doesn't mean they're poor.
#43 Posted by metalsnakezero (2327 posts) -

So you buy the game but you don't really own it? I think I'll just stick to my monthly retail trips so that I can have the game for life. 

#44 Posted by Ben_H (3389 posts) -

I just spent 1600 on a PC.  I'll take Steam (especially the sales.  Every Rockstar game for 40 bucks!) over this crap.

#45 Posted by YoungFrey (1321 posts) -

Amazon Prices 

Assassin's Creed 2: $24.99 
PoP: FS: $45.99
Borderlands: $36.99
UT3: $19.11 
 
Only Borderlands is even arguably cheaper.  But then you can factor in the value of playing with no lag and no internet connection.  And being able to sell the disk afterwards.  But I guess not everyone has a console, but they are so cheap I'd have trouble arguing that On-Live makes any sense. 
#46 Posted by PeasForFees (2411 posts) -

I play my games after 3 years sometimes, so screw that and some of the best games are way older than 3 years.

#47 Posted by Olivaw (1215 posts) -
@metalsnakezero said:
" So you buy the game but you don't really own it? I think I'll just stick to my monthly retail trips so that I can have the game for life.  "
These days you barely own the games you buy anyway, what with DRM and online activations and limited installs and serial keys.
#48 Posted by reddin (418 posts) -

Even if this is working as intended (which I remain skeptical about), the pricing will make sure it never is going to take off.
Which is probably for the best, since I like having a decently powerful PC, and I like owning stuff in stead of renting them..

#49 Edited by Waffles13 (611 posts) -
@SJSchmidt93 said:

" @Pinworm45 said:

" @SJSchmidt93 said:

" @TheRandomKo said:

" at these prices, why not just use steam..? if they made it all-access for a monthly fee i would get the idea.. "

It's for people that have shitty computers. "
People that have shitty computers either aren't going to be interested in games enough to spend so much money on them, or can't afford it anyway.   Let's hope this ISN'T the future. "
What? It's $5 a month and they're ALL cheaper than console games.  Just because they don't want to drop $1000 on a PC doesn't mean they're poor. "
 http://www.gamestop.com/Catalog/ProductDetails.aspx?product_id=74511
 http://www.gamestop.com/Catalog/ProductDetails.aspx?product_id=68442
 http://www.gamestop.com/Catalog/ProductDetails.aspx?product_id=64591
 
You can get all the games at the same price or CHEAPER for 360 (not counting Steam deals if you want it on PC). Plus you own the games FOREVER. Plus you only need $150 console or at MOST a $500-$600 gaming PC to be comparable to or better than the OnLive service, with ZERO input lag.
#50 Posted by djaoni (338 posts) -

 The quality of the games is like looking at youtube videos on 480p.
 
 Assassin's Creed 2 costs 25$ and Borderlands 32$ from stores here in Sweden(Now I know OnLive is only for the US but surely you have similiar prices?) so why would anyone actually pay for this? "Pay more get less!"?

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.