They really need to dump the subscription and pay per game pricing plan and just pick one. If they had a subscription of maybe 15 to 20 bucks a month with a decent library of games like steam, then maybe people would be interested. 39.99 is about how much you'd pay for a brand new copy of Assassin's Creed II but you get to keep it forever plus you dont have to be connected to broadband the entire time while playing. Just copy off netflix, guys.
Well - it seems to work well enough. Early adopters will pay somewhat more than what the service will tally later on.
OnLive and future similar services are the future of gaming. It's a platform like a console is a platform. I see Nintendo, Microsoft, Sony and whoever else is big enough running this kind of service and it will only get better.
I just bought a DX11 gaming rig. I believe it will be the last dedicated gaming PC hardware I'll ever buy. There still be one generation of home consoles at best too. After that, it will all switch to services like OnLive.
It will happen. It makes too much sense not to. A game will come, that's only gonna be available and possible by such technology - exceeding realistic home-computing. A custom-tailored for a cloud computing strreaming service game. And it will be settled then.
Cloud computing/streaming games will be the future of gaming. It's gonna be like the switch from cinema only to home televisions. Big things are gonna happen. The audience for 'real' gaming will explode in numbers.
" Well - it seems to work well enough. Early adopters will pay somewhat more than what the service will tally later on. OnLive and future similar services are the future of gaming. It's a platform like a console is a platform. I see Nintendo, Microsoft, Sony and whoever else is big enough running this kind of service and it will only get better. I just bought a DX11 gaming rig. I believe it will be the last dedicated gaming PC hardware I'll ever buy. There still be one generation of home consoles at best too. After that, it will all switch to services like OnLive. It will happen. It makes too much sense not to. A game will come, that's only gonna be available and possible by such technology - exceeding realistic home-computing. A custom-tailored for a cloud computing strreaming service game. And it will be settled then. Cloud computing/streaming games will be the future of gaming. It's gonna be like the switch from cinema only to home televisions. Big things are gonna happen. The audience for 'real' gaming will explode in numbers. "
I'd like to know why people think offsite rendered games streamed over the net is the future of gaming at all. What purpose does it serve? Probably the only workable economic models will rely on very low quality graphics, and they still need to charge a lot of money. I don't think it'll ever be a workable business / gaming model outside of mobile devices, and even there it's questionable.
If you understand the technology and the economics it makes no sense that it could ever work...
" Well - it seems to work well enough. Early adopters will pay somewhat more than what the service will tally later on. OnLive and future similar services are the future of gaming. It's a platform like a console is a platform. I see Nintendo, Microsoft, Sony and whoever else is big enough running this kind of service and it will only get better. I just bought a DX11 gaming rig. I believe it will be the last dedicated gaming PC hardware I'll ever buy. There still be one generation of home consoles at best too. After that, it will all switch to services like OnLive. It will happen. It makes too much sense not to. A game will come, that's only gonna be available and possible by such technology - exceeding realistic home-computing. A custom-tailored for a cloud computing strreaming service game. And it will be settled then. Cloud computing/streaming games will be the future of gaming. It's gonna be like the switch from cinema only to home televisions. Big things are gonna happen. The audience for 'real' gaming will explode in numbers. "
I'd like to know why people think offsite rendered games streamed over the net is the future of gaming at all. What purpose does it serve? Probably the only workable economic models will rely on very low quality graphics, and they still need to charge a lot of money. I don't think it'll ever be a workable business / gaming model outside of mobile devices, and even there it's questionable. If you understand the technology and the economics it makes no sense that it could ever work... "
It serves the purpose of freeing the end-consumer of investing into dedicated gaming hardware. Once the designers can build the computer for their game, games are no longer restriced by the consumers' hardware, but only by economical limitations. The potential for games beyond home-computing capabilites for everyone will finally come true. Just look at Crysis. Even now it takes outlandish hardware to render that thing on 1080p with maxed out settings and max AA. Most players will never really get to enjoy a game like Crysis at full fidelity. So the design philosophy behind Crysis is a dying breed. Going for the cutting edge isn't economically sound. It limits the customerbase way too much.
At least as long as customers have to buy their own hardware. A fact that might soon change and certainly will in the long run. Tell me what you must about current and suppossed future technical and economical limitations. This shit is feasible now and gets more feasible by the day. Simple as that.
It serves the purpose of freeing the end-consumer of investing into dedicated gaming hardware. Once the designers can build the computer for their game, games are no longer restriced by the consumers' hardware, but only by economical limitations. The potential for games beyond home-computing capabilites for everyone will finally come true. Just look at Crysis. Even now it takes outlandish hardware to render that thing on 1080p with maxed out settings and max AA. Most players will never really get to enjoy a game like Crysis at full fidelity. So the design philosophy behind Crysis is a dying breed. Going for the cutting edge isn't economically sound. It limits the customerbase way too much. At least as long as customers have to buy their own hardware. A fact that might soon change and certainly will in the long run. Tell me what you must about current and suppossed future technical and economical limitations. This shit is feasible now and gets more feasible by the day. Simple as that.
Well I don't know if you actually tried OnLive, but they're running games at lower graphics settings than Xbox 360s and PS3s can do. Crysis Warhead was running at absolutely abysmal graphics details in the beta. This doesn't solve the 'Crysis at max details' problem at all.
The current business model works because people ARE shelling out large sums of money to render these graphics. Sharing hardware among a few users may eventually become a more efficient prospect as overhead is reduced, but you're still talking about 3-5 people using $2000+ worth of hardware. People aren't gonna want to rent games on OnLive (or any future service) that they can play in their homes forever for $150. And OnLive can't charge $50 a year for people to hog $1500 computers (that's why the graphics settings are so low).
It's great in theory but it's like communism. It just won't work in reality.
" 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. "
Agreed, plus you have purchase security when you own it on PC (even steam). If an evil DRM ruins a game you purchased you can just crack it for yourself (& don't feel bad just because you're breaking the law because they got the money they deserve). I wish to move exclusively to a gaming PC running Steam myself since I am sick of losing access to my favourite games every-time there is a new console cycle, plus I hate it how they expect you to re-buy games you already own with crap like 'HD' added to the title. Plus I hate how on consoles everything is dumbed down because they don't want to upset the 'mainstream' consumer, when in-fact the vast majority of them would be able to effortlessly do most of these things anyway, and no I don't mean needlessly creating a barrier to entry, I mean extra features which are important. Plus, if you use a PC you don't have to worry about being stuck with one company that has stopped innovating or adding features you want etc (don't like steam, use direct2drive, don't like IE, get google chrome).
Despite that rant I guess I could live with owning a PS3 if I had one (own an xbox360), because at-least they have plenty of features and exciting games and you don't have to pay money for online multiplayer (I know they charge for playstation plus but multiplayer itself is still free).
At that point you're better off just, you know... buying the game outright. I don't get the appeal, to be honest. Also amusing that the only games for limited day rental are the persistant online ones. GG.
$5 / month = $60 / year. $10 bucks more than Xbox live, but without the pesky hardware, RROD's, etc. I was on the beta and it worked well for me. 2 complaints;
Wired requirement is a pain.
$50 for a 3 year rental seems odd. It makes sense that they don't want to keep AC2 installed for 3 years, but it bugs me.
Why the heck does everyone keep saying "paying full price for a 3 year rental?" The article is deceptive. You purchase use of the game. The ONLY thing that notice is about, is a guarantee that the game will be available for 3 years from when it's put on the service. It means that they can't remove it from the service before then, and I believe I also read if they go out of business or whatever before then, they will refund the prorated amount, since you won't be able to play the game anymore. It's not a "3 year rental", it's a 3 year guarantee. Plus, in three years, if you still want to play Splinter Cell: Conviction and for some reason they remove it, go pay 5 dollars on Steam, which is how much it will be at that point. If they hadn't put that guarantee up there people would be going, "Why would I pay full price for a game when you could remove it or go out of business at any time?"
It's a silly model, pay a monthly fee and pat to purchase the games at full price. On top of that, almost all their games are available on console, much cheaper if you are a savvy shopper. I can understand not being computer savy and not wanting to pay the premium for a pre-built gaming machine. However, consoles are $300 and less now, let you buy your games wherever you want, and have a better library.
For something like this to work, it really needs to be pay a monthly fee, don't pay for the games.
Yeah, so far I still prefer my 360 (on my 27" SDTV no less) but I am extremely impressed with OnLive (I play OnLive on a 15" LCD laptop fyi, looks nice, but still, that darn input lag kind of gets old - KIND OF)..
I want cheaper games in the future, or even cheaper, shorter rentals. I wouldn't buy anything at this point. I'll just play my free copy of Just Cause 2 I got from them. It will also take, of course, way more games (and even possibly something like a one-day rental, 24 hours for $1.99) to make me fork over any money.
As PC hardware continues to evolve and and my 2007 Core 2 Duo/ATI x1400 128MB continue to age, OnLive will be there to offer me the latest and greatest. I might even hold off on a new console, when and if another one happens.
Coming from Australia where we will never get this service I think it is way too expensive. If they let you pay the monthly fee and play all the games as much as you want then it would be great but paying a monthly fee to just own your games is stupid.
First of all, I am not a hardcore gamer, I am a casual gamer. Meaning I have a life and gaming is usually constrained to a couple hours on the weekend. My experience with onlive has been very positive so far, I agree the graphic quality and controller response may not be on par with a PC or game console. That said, you can play your game on any PC less than 3 years old... With your saves and games following you across different computers etc. I recommend playing solely with a controller as the delay is barely noticeable. Also remember that THIS IS JUST THE BEGINNING. No one cared about Steam until 2-3 years after it launched.... When Steam first launched they had TONS of problems the first month with service dropouts and server load capacity issues. These issues all got ironed out in the end and I think Onlive is going to mature very rapidly. I have had almost no issues with Onlive that was their fault...
Until it either ditches the subscription fee or supports PC-exclusive games I'm interested (the only one I can think of would be Dragon Age, which could probably scrape along on my laptop anyways, and I'm already deep enough into the console version so it doesn't matter).
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.
Log in to comment