Onlive Release Date and Pricing (June 17th launch)

considering it replaces 700-1000 dollars worth of hardware, I'd say it's pretty fair. This seems good for people who aren't confortable building computers and installing games, drivers, etc. Hopefully it'll bring more developers over to the pc market
 
Ryan711 said:
considering it replaces 700-1000 dollars worth of hardware, I'd say it's pretty fair. This seems good for people who aren't confortable building computers and installing games, drivers, etc. Hopefully it'll bring more developers over to the pc market
Click to expand...

Seriously, at this pricing, you may as well just buy a console.

$14.99 a month, no content. If you stop subscribing, you lose access to your purchased games.

(Not to mention dealing with any physical restrictions of the service, ie, ping.)
 
Ryan711 said:
considering it replaces 700-1000 dollars worth of hardware
Click to expand...

Not exactly. It gives you an okay gaming experience but NOTHING else that you can do with a PC. Not intrested in another monthly subscription fee as well. Pass for now.
 
I wonder how much the rental prices are, if they are low i can still see this being worth while for people who do not want to update their PCs. Granted the people of this forum are not the target audience, the vast majority of us are hardcore pc users.
 
Other issue is, should OnLive go belly up, any games you purchased would be gone as well.

I don't know, it just seems like an overly expensive proposition with no content. $14.99 with a subscription like service(ala Netflix) would be insanely good, and would make me take a look at it.

But $14.99 being just the "access fee", I don't know, it just seems a little steep.
 
This is completly reasonable pricing! It is $180 a year for a compter/console (think of it how you want)that never goes out of date. If you bought a $700 computer, you could play OnLive for just about 4 years before you reach 700 bucks. I know almost all of you computer geeks out there upgrade some part or another on your PC for gaming purposes every 4 years!

Now, this doesnt do everything a computer can, fine thats an acceptable argument. Yet a laptop computer, or a computer that cost 200 bucks cannot do everything this service can do either. Which is play high quality video games. Yes people will have their complaints about the service VS the true PC gamer but the the concept is excellent and reasonably priced. I most likely wont jump on board for a bit because American internet isnt there yet for the full experience but if this technology succeeds, then in the future when our networks are faster, OnLive will have even greater improvements.

Lookin forward to this.
 
crackbone said:
But $14.99 being just the "access fee", I don't know, it just seems a little steep.
Click to expand...

Agreed, but they need to make the money somewhere.

I think I'll try it out for a month or two if there isn't a contract.
 
450 said:
Agreed, but they need to make the money somewhere.

I think I'll try it out for a month or two if there isn't a contract.
Click to expand...

Onlive also makes money on every game you buy. I think it was something like 1/3 of the money goes to them. Which works for the game makers because they get 2/3 compared to usually only getting 2/5 or something like that.

I'm wondering how much of a discount there will be for people subscribing for multiple months will be. It says there will be a discount so maybe a year could end up being around $120...

But I don't like the whole if you stop subscribing you can't play your games. It would be really bad if you lost them forever if you stopped subscribing and then resubscribe but thats probably not how it would be set up. But if they go bankrupt you could lose everything.
 
Exce said:
Lookin forward to this.
Click to expand...

I would as well if it actually did something I didn't already have. And I'll SHOOT the person that likes this and got on Ubisoft about their DRM. No doubt that this is going to require a constant Internet conection!

But that's not a big deal IMHO. Really, a console is a better deal than this.
 
dario03 said:
Onlive also makes money on every game you buy. I think it was something like 1/3 of the money goes to them. Which works for the game makers because they get 2/3 compared to usually only getting 2/5 or something like that.
Click to expand...

Right but I think the monthly fee is still needed to pay for the servers and the hardware they ship out. This is being marketed to casual gamers from what I can tell. Most casual gamers I know only have 2-3 games, and that might not be enough for Onlive to succeed financially (at the level they want to).
 
heatlesssun said:
Not exactly. It gives you an okay gaming experience but NOTHING else that you can do with a PC. Not intrested in another monthly subscription fee as well. Pass for now.
Click to expand...

100% of people who are interested in this have a pc capable of everything "else" except gaming. This isn't meant for people like us, it's meant for people who want to game on pc, whether it be for better controls, better community, whatever, that don't have the knowledge, money, or time to deal with the technical side of the pc gaming experience.

Buying a console provides a static experience, nothing is ever going to be updgraded on it, all onlive needs to do is add a couple hundred(?) servers and boom, instantly better graphics for any new games that come out, while the end user is only paying $15/month.

Some things that bug me, that probably wouldn't bug the users that this is marketed toward are: games aren't set to max details (I think I read that crysis was set to medium), the low resolution (which I hope could be upgraded for users if they have the bandwidth to allow), and the lag time between movements (haven't read too much about this, so I don't know how bad it is).

I can't see why anyone would see this as a bad thing for us pc gamers. When the market is open to more people, there is more money to be made, which means better and more plentiful games to choose from. So if this thing takes off big, maybe we'll start seeing some true big budget pc games instead of lousy ports.
 
450 said:
Right but I think the monthly fee is still needed to pay for the servers and the hardware they ship out. This is being marketed to casual gamers from what I can tell. Most casual gamers I know only have 2-3 games, and that might not be enough for Onlive to succeed financially (at the level they want to).
Click to expand...

Personally I wouldn't be surprised if they actually lowered subscription costs if this caught on decently well. Because in the beginning there probably will only be a few subscribers buying lots of games so yes they do need money for the servers. But as more more people start using it I could see them lower the subscription costs to get even more people to join.
However if it becomes hugely popular really quick then they probably won't lower costs because they make more money that way.
 
450 said:
Isn't it working already?
Click to expand...

It's working but the word that I've heard is that it's kind of so so. Works well with some games and not so much with others.

Sure I see the appeal to this for folks that want something simple and Mac folks and I imagine others as well.

But for $15 a month I want something besides the right to buy or rent. Now if for $15 I get time limited trials now we have something.

I really do wonder though how many people think this is cool but think the DRM in AC II is draconian.
 
Mr. Bluntman said:
Just one issue with that, instead of seeing said lousy port on the PC, it will be an OnLive only exclusive on the PC in addition to console versions. Don't have an OnLive sub or console? Too bad.

Why? Piracy. Money. PROFITS. That's why. I see OnLive as a larger threat to PC gaming as we know it than consoles. The cloud is not the future.
Click to expand...

That makes no sense at all. The version is already developed for the pc, so why would they not sell it? It doesn't cost them any more to sell to pc gamers, and it would make much more money than onlive could ever pay for it to be exclusive. Maybe you should rethink that argument.
 
Look at it this way. How much was a Nintendo when it was first released or a bluray drive or f**** ssd's?(Sorry still annoyed at that price point.). Any insanely future technology is gonna be astronomically expensive, but if it does well it'll set a standard and I promise you this is something we want. For a number of reasons. I'll throw a weird one for you. discouraging monthly bandwidth caps. The more we push the standard of living in terms of bandwidth requirements more we can make the ISPs accept that unlimited Bandwidth is here to stay and they need to buck up and just keep upgrading the network rather than cap us.

Youd be surprised how supporting the niche technologies can have a butterfly effect on the industry. Imagine if those giant retarded Cellphones didn't have retards with infinite pockets willing to pay major bucks for them. I for one support server intensive gaming. Hopefully these guys will stay alive long enough to get into a reasonable price range for the majority of users.
 
OnLive is a rental service. Yet you have to pay for the actual games? PASS...
 
Mr. Bluntman said:
Just one issue with that, instead of seeing said lousy port on the PC, it will be an OnLive only exclusive on the PC in addition to console versions. Don't have an OnLive sub or console? Too bad.

Why? Piracy. Money. PROFITS. That's why. I see OnLive as a larger threat to PC gaming as we know it than consoles. The cloud is not the future.
Click to expand...

Valve doesn't seem to agree with you.
 
Ryan711 said:
That makes no sense at all. The version is already developed for the pc, so why would they not sell it? It doesn't cost them any more to sell to pc gamers, and it would make much more money than onlive could ever pay for it to be exclusive. Maybe you should rethink that argument.
Click to expand...

Okay, you made your point.

piscian18 said:
Valve doesn't seem to agree with you.
Click to expand...

I don't even agree with myself now after thinking about it. No more two cents posts when sick and running a fever.
 
If you can play new games on your laptop that would otherwise require a well equipped desktop, I might consider this.
 
Dion said:
OnLive is a rental service. Yet you have to pay for the actual games? PASS...
Click to expand...

You are renting the computers on which they play. Most people don't have high end gaming PC's. Mac users can't play a great deal of games. This is great for those people.

This enables both to be able to play games, maxed out settings, on any machine. This would allow me to play on this work kiosk i'm on right now. I could play crysis on my crappy laptop with Intel video. That's appealing.

And with the other device you can get you can plug it right in your tv and play games without a PC/Mac and without a console.

So for $15 to rent a high end machine that's not a bad deal.

Now we don't know the pricing of games or what the details of a rental involve. It wouldn't surprise me if you bought a game from them that you would have access to a downloadable copy. We don't know yet.
 
Archer75 said:
You are renting the computers on which they play. Most people don't have high end gaming PC's. Mac users can't play a great deal of games. This is great for those people.

This enables both to be able to play games, maxed out settings, on any machine. This would allow me to play on this work kiosk i'm on right now. I could play crysis on my crappy laptop with Intel video. That's appealing.

And with the other device you can get you can plug it right in your tv and play games without a PC/Mac and without a console.

So for $15 to rent a high end machine that's not a bad deal.

Now we don't know the pricing of games or what the details of a rental involve. It wouldn't surprise me if you bought a game from them that you would have access to a downloadable copy. We don't know yet.
Click to expand...

I guess. But you can make a PC that can handle 720p resolution for probably around 200-300$ So 2 years of onlive service vs a PC you can keep and keep the games. I'd rather just get an actual PC. Not to mention you need internet so that's another bill some people don't want to pay.
 
Dion said:
I guess. But you can make a PC that can handle 720p resolution for probably around 200-300$ So 2 years of onlive service vs a PC you can keep and keep the games. I'd rather just get an actual PC. Not to mention you need internet so that's another bill some people don't want to pay.
Click to expand...

Almost everyone with a computer already has internet so that's a moot point.

And handling 720p is irrelevant. That's merely setting a desktop resolution. This work computer which is probably 8 years old is at 720 resolution. You'd need a very high end machine to handle top end games with all graphics settings maxed. I have a good desktop at home but it's only what i'd call middle of the road now(sig). I have several other computers not up to that spec, two of which are HTPC's. Sure, I can play 1080p bluray but i'm not going to be playing supreme commander 2 on them. Building computers can get quite expensive. Buying consoles adds up. I'd rather pay $15/month to rent a high end computer than $300 to own a PS3/xbox elite.

The vast majority of computers out there have integrated graphics. Intel integrated graphics. Now all of them can play high end games.
This service will have a huge market. Those of us here are in a different place and then to forget that the vast majority of people don't have high end machines.
We also don't know if you can't keep the games. We don't know if they won't let you download your game. Otherwise there'd be no difference between owning and renting games from them so there must be an alternative they haven't discussed yet.
 
OnLive streams all games at 1280x720 res. Those PC's are cheap.
 
I see this type of service replacing consoles. Its essentially the same thing. However I use my computer for a ton of stuff and I like the multiple monitors and multi tasking aspect so I'll keep mine for a good while to come.

Not bad pricing though. With it in that range I think they can make it if they keep the input lag low and the game quality up.
 
Dion said:
OnLive streams all games at 1280x720 res. Those PC's are cheap.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. And not everyone has a PC/Mac that can handle those games. Nor do they want to drop a few hundred bucks on one.
I have a laptop running at 1280x800 but certainly can't run WoW on it. No way could I run Cyrsis. Even with it's dual core. This would be great for laptops.

My HTPC could do wow as it has a c2d 2.8ghz and a ATI 5570 but even at that low res it ain't gonna do cyrsis. And it was certainly more than $300.
And the systems have to be powerful enough to encode and compress the video going out in real time.

But again, most people are running integrated video. Most likely have Intel like on my laptop. And this would allow Mac to run tons of games it otherwise couldn't simply because of the platform. And most people would rather drop $15/month than $300 and then accessories up front. Also easier to get the $15 past the wife ;)
And honestly if it wasn't for gaming i'd probably just get a mac mini.

There is a huge market for this sort of thing. The market just isn't to be found on hardforum.

I also haven't seen anywhere where they have mentioned what resolution their games are at. I've read HD resolution. I've read a 5mpbs connection is required for HD. I know on my home network I can do 1080p on that. But whatever the case there is still a market for it.
 
Last edited:
The subscription fee is the problem. And once you buy a game on this thing you have to pay $15 for the priviledge to play the games you already bought?

That's a HUGE problem. Now if its all rental then maybe. Some type of thing where you pay $20 for a month and you get to play certain games for the month.

This is convenient for sure but its not cost effective relative to consoles in the long term. And for guys like us that spend thousands a year on hardware this is useless.

So where is the huge market?

Can this work and be successful? Not at the moment under these terms.
 
What does 720p really mean? Will be see pixelated blocks? For example in Youtube, 720p videos vary widely. Most of them look just terrible, just as bad as 480p, while others are really sharp
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top