Quote:Original post by RedDrake As for OnLive - I don't like the idea of playing games via remote desktop, and I don't see much point in it.
One thing that I've pointed out before and OnLive kind of stressed before was platform independence. Mac people can use OnLive to play PC only games (except for Mass Effect because of licensing issues). Also when an OnLive linux version is made people will be able to play games on linux.
Missed that, ironically, since I'm writing this from a MacBook pro :). But yeah, definitely an option for Mac users, tough the
Quote:Original post by Sirisian I said this on IRC, but I think it would be cool to load up some DOS emulators and create a complete DOS collection. :P
Compressing low res low color games wouldn't be much of an issue and a single PC could host dozens of sessions. Plus most of those games would probably be abandonware. But in reality you can have the same thing with any class CPU and a DOS emulator ? Maybe having them easily accessible (browser) and available in one place would be neat tough.
Quote:Original post by Sirisian I said this on IRC, but I think it would be cool to load up some DOS emulators and create a complete DOS collection. :P Or hook up some PS3's and XBox 360's or... well you get the idea. Streaming a game opens up a lot of interesting possibilities albeit OnLive has a lot of legal challenges and things to deal with. Kind of expected though.
Well, they're charging $14.95 per month which is about £10, so in two years it will have cost me £240, at the moment I can get a GTX465 for that price! Now if they're throwing in all the latest games with that, then it could be worth it, but for me I'd much prefer a new card in my own machine every two years rather than spend that money renting one.
I've been trying out the OnLive Beta for a few days already, and I can honestly say I'm impressed with their service in general. Using a 1 Mbps connection and a basic notebook, games like Borderlands play remarkably well with minimal lag. Although the video quality is far from what would be expected off a local copy of the same game, considering the basic setup I'm currently using, I have nothing to complain about :).
I can see this service possibly filling the niche of gamers who either don't have the latest setup to support a game, or are too lazy to go out and buy the game or wait for a download. The only peculiarity with OnLive at the moment is that Assassin's Creed II costs about $60 (My bad, $40) on their marketplace, whereas a copy from Steam is around $28.
I also am interested as to how their future 'micro-console' product will turn out.
In theory this is pirate proof technology (unless the pirates hijack your account which is totally possible). Onlive is selling itself on convenience but it would be better to sell it on the piracy angle. Also since it's acting as a marketplace and hub, it can facilitate micro transactions like how Apple does, another very lucrative revenue stream. Also they could in theory go the all free model with subscriptions paid by advertisers (ie how TV works, and what they are offering now for early subscribers its essentially free). So they have plenty of options and probably enough capital investments to last a few years as bandwidth catches up. If anything they would do better in Asia and Europe since the bandwidth there is usually higher.
Quote:Original post by NewBreed Well, they're charging $14.95 per month which is about £10, so in two years it will have cost me £240, at the moment I can get a GTX465 for that price! Now if they're throwing in all the latest games with that, then it could be worth it, but for me I'd much prefer a new card in my own machine every two years rather than spend that money renting one.
I believe the monthly charge is $4.95 a month. Unless they changed it again.
Quote:Original post by vrok137 Using a 1 Mbps connection and a basic notebook, games like Borderlands play remarkably well with minimal lag.
Open up a network monitor and check that. 1 Mbps is impossible to play OnLive with as far as I know. If you have windows 7 go to the task manager and in the Performance tab hit Resource Monitor then go to the network tab in that and look for Receive (B/sec).
Quote:Original post by Alpha_ProgDes
Quote:Original post by NewBreed Well, they're charging $14.95 per month which is about £10, so in two years it will have cost me £240, at the moment I can get a GTX465 for that price! Now if they're throwing in all the latest games with that, then it could be worth it, but for me I'd much prefer a new card in my own machine every two years rather than spend that money renting one.
I believe the monthly charge is $4.95 a month. Unless they changed it again.
Actually it's not really set in stone at the moment. They're only letting in free accounts for now. For people with 12 months free the following year it's 4.95 a month. It's not defined how much it is after that.
The technology is neat, but the pricing model is all screwed up. I understand that there are plenty of operating costs, but it should not drive the marketing side of things. Paying a monthly fee AND paying for individual games is absurd. On top of that, I don't know how many of you noticed, but even the PURCHASED games are not eternal. All the games are licensed until 2013 sometime. Frankly, I think OnLive should be banned from using the word "buy" or "purchase" in any of its labeling. There should be "short-term rental" and "long-term license". Anything else gives the customer a false sense of ownership. Considering that the customer pays for absolutely nothing in return, the games should cost around $10, not the normal retail $50 or $60.
Good idea, bad execution.
Amateurs practice until they do it right.Professionals practice until they never do it wrong.
I don't quite understand what's wrong with the pricing model. I'm not understanding why people think you should get games for free because you are required to subscribe. People pay for Xbox Live, I don't hear them complaining about having to pay for DLC or XBLA games :/.
