Onlive Finally Going Live?

[ThaDSman]

Onlive has updated their blog recently. I remember everyone was really excited about it before, so just thought I'd let people know....

http://blog.onlive.c...creen-near-you/

Although I don't think its such a great deal anymore $15/month + $60 the retail price of the game? Doesn't sound so great anymore....

 

[Wolenber]

It sounds like a great deal, I'm just worried about two things. I don't see linux as an available option for the browser plugin. And more importantly, how fast is the wifi on the Pandora going to get to? I know it won't have to get as high as a normal PC due to lower screen size, but it still worries me.

 

[Alpha2]

Although I don't think its such a great deal anymore $15/month + $60 the retail price of the game? Doesn't sound so great anymore....

It NEVER sounded like such a great thing frankly. All these streaming game things are only as good as their servers and the day they get Denial of Service attacks is the day they'll get a bunch of cancellations.

 

[Wolenber]

Actually, I'm not worried about that. It would be trivial to block people who don't have an account from connecting to their game servers. The worst that people could do is try to log in repeatedly with no account.

 

[atomicthumbs]

latency

 

[Klepto]

Actually, I'm not worried about that. It would be trivial to block people who don't have an account from connecting to their game servers. The worst that people could do is try to log in repeatedly with no account.

...or have a few million zombies try to log in repeatedly with no success, that could be more than a little annoying.

 

[craigix]

Virgin are going to launch something like this in the UK. It will only work on their cable network.

 

[juniorm33]

Virgin are going to launch something like this in the UK. It will only work on their cable network.

You still considering sending them a Pandora?

 

[Balzac2m]

latency

+1 (or more ms just for using WiFi)

 

[Trip]

Virgin are going to launch something like this in the UK. It will only work on their cable network.

:blink: Virgin are the one company that I really don't trust.
They can't even do broadband right; I seriously doubt that they will be successful with something like that.

BT's bringing in the Fibre network by the end of this year. I can see a lot of people switching from Virgin when that's up and running

 

[skeezix]

Worst idea ever..

- pay $15/mo for the privelege of using the system (no games)
- pay $/per/game to get access to each game (which is tied to OnLive.. you can't use it without OnLive!)
- you're using your bandwidth; how much abdnwidth can you suck down before you get capped for the month? more to point, how much bandwidth can you suck down before you get _throttled_ by your ISP? (ISP's vary.)
- are you close enough to OnLive server to be useful?
- game quality is greatly reduced; you're not getting a full HD picture here.. you're getting heavily compressed, like a nasty joeg. Not bad, but not great. You also get latency and such, so don't play FPS against a non-Onlive player!

Consider.. if its $15/mo, and say the games cost $10each .. thats $150/year plus games, fore games that will only ever work thetre (but maybe thats okay.)

the goal is for budget people obviously, since everyone else has a real PC that can play these games. AQnd budget people.. yeah, strikes me they can get a console. For $150/year, they can get a console after a year or two, and it keeps working 5 more years.

It might fly, but sounds _bad_ to me

jeff

 

[Prometheus]

the goal is for budget people obviously, since everyone else has a real PC that can play these games. AQnd budget people.. yeah, strikes me they can get a console. For $150/year, they can get a console after a year or two, and it keeps working 5 more years.

It might fly, but sounds _bad_ to me

jeff

I don't think it would fly, *especially* with budget-conscious people. If someone's paying hard-earned real money for games and access to a system, they usually want to own what they're paying for, after all.

 

[WizardStan]

I don't think it would fly, *especially* with budget-conscious people. If someone's paying hard-earned real money for games and access to a system, they usually want to own what they're paying for, after all.

I had a friend who rented the same game for weeks on end to the tune of almost $100 because "it's cheaper to rent than to buy".
Do not underestimate the powers of the "budget-conscious"

 

[Prometheus]

I suppose I should say is that I'm a believer in "You get what you pay for.", and the whole thing just strikes me as a bad deal. One can buy real stuff that one owns, for that sort of money.

 

[BackAssward]

Onlive has updated their blog recently. I remember everyone was really excited about it before, so just thought I'd let people know....

http://blog.onlive.c...creen-near-you/

Although I don't think its such a great deal anymore $15/month + $60 the retail price of the game? Doesn't sound so great anymore....

It sounds completely retarded. Also, they moderate the comments to that news post, only ass lickers actually get through. Who ever made that descision (the price thing) has signed the death of OnLive.

Edit: If it was $15/month, play anything you want, all you want... then they'd have a chance.

 

[juniorm33]

I had a friend who rented the same game for weeks on end to the tune of almost $100 because "it's cheaper to rent than to buy".
Do not underestimate the powers of the "budget-conscious"

Not sure how much you was exaggerating by, but that was funniest thing I've read all week! :lol:

 

[Wolenber]

To the people saying that it won't sell, you underestimate what people will pay.

How many people pay $15/month for WoW? Because I'm sure Blizzard would tell you that this model can make a decent profit.
And that's just for ONE game.

 

[Prometheus]

People pay to play World of Warcraft because it has vast amounts of content. It seems a bit different to paying the same amount of money to not own something, that others are paying to purchase real copies.

 

[Wolenber]

Vast amounts of content? Not more than Dragon Age, or Mass Effect 2.
Or Garry's Mod, or CSS. In fact, WoW has a fairly standard amount of actual content it just makes you think it has more, via grinding.

The reason people pay for WoW (only guaranteed accurate for the people I know) is because other people they know play it. I'm sure at least some games on onLive will encourage multiplayer, and I'm sure they'll know someone who plays it.

 

[Aninhumer]

Sounds like the lag is as much of a problem as everyone has been telling them from the start:
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2010/01/onlive-demoed-lag-graphics-are-a-problem.ars
http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=859&type=expert&pid=6

It would indeed be cool if they could get this working, but you can't really do much about latency.