• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
  • Hi Guest. We've rebooted and consolidated our Communities section, so be sure to check it out and subscribe to some threads. Thanks!

OnLive Launching June 17, $14.95 Per Month

Jan 9, 2007
13,723
71
1,060
Hi!
Pre said:
I said this would fail beyond failing when it was first announced, and I stand by that statement now.
Yep. I said the same and still do. This can only work for turn-based games, and $14.95 for the privilege of buying (more like perma-renting) games is the dumbest thing about this service.
 
Aug 10, 2008
38,702
0
0
U.S.A.
Ready Up Already said:
I seriously don't get why everyone in here is ragging on this so much, in terms of both graphics and cost model.

As far as graphics go, every GAF member who's posted about their beta experiences have give the graphics two thumbs up. Mr Pockets said just last week that the graphics are "more than good enough." Dacvak went from being skeptical to being "fucking impressed, overall" and on this very page, thehillissilent said that games, even FPS, are surprisingly playable. At the DICE presentation, they showed Unreal Tournament 3 "boot" in about 5 seconds and the game looks perfectly adequate to me. Granted, Dacvack has a ridiculously fast connection for Comast and hillissilent has FIOS, but the hardcore gamer who'd be most attuned to noticing lag likely has a decent enough connection for OnLive anyway.

This takes us to the pricing model. Going by the news that the 3-month free period for early registrants (myself included) has been extended to a year plus a free game - with apparently no restrictions on what game you can get, I read through the fine print looking for that very catch - they obviously are aware that many are balking at the subscription-based setup. Steve Perlman and crew seem like savvy guys - I'm sure they're aware of the general feedback the monthly fee has received, and they know that subscription models like Zune Pass and whatever the Rhapsody one is called never really took off.

They're scheduled to have a blowout at E3 and go live nationwide at the same time. Going by the freebie extension for the early sign-ups, I wouldn't be surprised if at E3 they announced their final pricing model which is more generous to the end user.

Either way, this is going live in less than three weeks and I'm sure there will be plenty of feedback and reviews posted immediately.
You don't get it. No matter what the pricing model is, if they are charging even $1.00 a month for you to access the games you purchased it won't take off. Imagine if Valve charged you to use Steam. Imagine if Microsoft charged you to play 360 games (including single player). Imagine if Nintendo charged you a fee each month to play Mario Galaxy 2. This means if you "buy" a game and at a later date choose to not pay the monthly fee you will lose access to the game you purchased. Seriously, there is no justification for that.
 

Draft

Member
Mar 30, 2005
18,403
2
0
38
LovingSteam said:
You don't get it. No matter what the pricing model is, if they are charging even $1.00 a month for you to access the games you purchased it won't take off. Imagine if Valve charged you to use Steam. Imagine if Microsoft charged you to play 360 games (including single player). Imagine if Nintendo charged you a fee each month to play Mario Galaxy 2. This means if you "buy" a game and at a later date choose to not pay the monthly fee you will lose access to the game you purchased. Seriously, there is no justification for that.
:lol

You know, in a very real way, MS does charge you to play Xbox games you already paid for. I think one of the key differences is the price point. Even the most expensive Live subscription is $4 a month. Frugal gamers can get it for $3 with hardly any effort at all. Either way, that's the kind of monthly charge that a man can easily shrug off. It literally is the price of a cup of coffee.

$15, though... shit, anything above $10, and I think the average consumer starts to consider the cost "real money." Asking someone to pay $15 a month just for the privilege of being able to lease PC games... :lol
 
Aug 10, 2008
38,702
0
0
U.S.A.
Draft said:
:lol

You know, in a very real way, MS does charge you to play Xbox games you already paid for. I think one of the key differences is the price point. Even the most expensive Live subscription is $4 a month. Frugal gamers can get it for $3 with hardly any effort at all. Either way, that's the kind of monthly charge that a man can easily shrug off. It literally is the price of a cup of coffee.

$15, though... shit, anything above $10, and I think the average consumer starts to consider the cost "real money." Asking someone to pay $15 a month just for the privilege of being able to lease PC games... :lol
Um no. You buy Halo Reach and you don't care about multiplayer so you don't buy Gold. Guess what, you can still play Halo Reach as often as you like for the duration of your consoles life and even then once your console dies you just buy a new one. Want to download Fable 3? No problem. Download it, play it even if you don't have Gold. You're not being forced to pay Microsoft a cent other than what the games cost. This isn't so with OnLive. You are being forced to pay for the games AND the service which means if you choose to not pay for the service in the future you lose access to the games.
 

Draft

Member
Mar 30, 2005
18,403
2
0
38
elrechazao said:
except you could play everything single player without paying a fee ever.
But many of those games are focused on multiplayer and incomplete without a Live Gold subscription.

Anyway, the point is there clearly IS a business model where players will happily (or unhappily, I guess...) pay a subscription on top of the cost of individual games. I just think that $15 is a crazy price for that subscription. It's almost 4 times as expensive as the "proven" model, and a more restrictive service, since as you point out the entire game is locked off without the sub, not just multiplayer.
 
Aug 10, 2008
38,702
0
0
U.S.A.
Draft said:
But many of those games are focused on multiplayer and incomplete without a Live Gold subscription.

Anyway, the point is there clearly IS a business model where players will happily (or unhappily, I guess...) pay a subscription on top of the cost of individual games. I just think that $15 is a crazy price for that subscription. It's almost 4 times as expensive as the "proven" model, and a more restrictive service, since as you point out the entire game is locked off without the sub, not just multiplayer.
Many are and many aren't. That is the point. You have a choice. Look at my example of Halo Reach. Most will buy it for the multiplayer but it still will have a single player story that people like me will purchase it for. I can still get the most out of the game FOR ME without having to pay an extra fee. OnLive won't allow you this even with single player games. Imagine if Ubi was not only requiring you to have an internet connection to play Assassins Creed 2 PC but also charging you a fee per month, even a few dollars. What OnLive is doing is the equivalent of that. It is basically taking the hotel Nintendo 64 pay for 30 minutes to the next level.

Edit: Look at what Valve has done with the PC DD market. You are not charged a monthly fee. In fact you aren't even charged anything when they update the features, its free. How are they able to do this? Not only through the profits from their own games but also due to millions purchasing games from their store. They have done it JUST fine without charging a fee. They also have the best sales on PC games in the market. Why is it that they can do this without charging a fee but OnLive can't? Sure its new technology but that is no justification for charging to simply use the service itself.
 

SonOfABeep

Banned
May 10, 2007
3,158
0
0
Well, at least onlive has secured their place on videogame bloggers "Top 10 worst ideas in gaming" and "top 10 gaming failures" lists for years and years to come.
 

Draft

Member
Mar 30, 2005
18,403
2
0
38
I understand the difference. That's why I think OnLive is doubly fucked, because not only is their subscription far too expensive, the result of letting that subscription lapse is too harsh.
 
Aug 10, 2008
38,702
0
0
U.S.A.
DisenLedZep said:
You can still rental games and play demos with no monthly fee: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXliwbbKPIk

Also, for the first 25000 people to sign up: no monthly fees ever.

Eventually the service will not have a monthly fee and everyone will try it just for the lulz.
Um no? The first 25000 won't have to pay a fee for the first YEAR, not ever. And eventually the service will not have a monthly fee? Really? When was the last time a company actually LOWERED a fee or cut it all together? Please do tell. Howabout your actually support your statements with evidence.
 

Draft

Member
Mar 30, 2005
18,403
2
0
38
OnLive will certainly lose the monthly fee in the near future when it goes out of business.
 

WillyFive

Member
Sep 17, 2009
28,623
0
0
LovingSteam said:
Um no? The first 25000 won't have to pay a fee for the first YEAR, not ever. And eventually the service will not have a monthly fee? Really? When was the last time a company actually LOWERED a fee or cut it all together? Please do tell. Howabout your actually support your statements with evidence.
Anarchy Online did it.
 

DisenLedZep

Member
Feb 8, 2009
806
1
635
LovingSteam said:
Um no? The first 25000 won't have to pay a fee for the first YEAR, not ever. And eventually the service will not have a monthly fee? Really? When was the last time a company actually LOWERED a fee or cut it all together? Please do tell. Howabout your actually support your statements with evidence.
Wow... seems like a touchy subject to you. Ok, let's roll:

First of all: my bad, I misinterpreted the video (truth be told, he wasn't being very honest). After seeing the onlive faq is true that the first 25,000 qualified people to register on the OnLive Game Service will have their first 3 months’ service fee waived (greedy bastards).

On to the monthly fee subject:

Most developers in the world are dying to see this work. 'Cause it inmediatly translates to: "No more piracy in PC games" (you know: "in the future when everybody uses this method" bla bla thing). They are going to support this with no second though. That means that the money invested nowadays in DRM are going to go to Onlive. In fact this is going to happen with better results for them. Even before the system is realesed this are the partners of Onlive:



Big names... imagine if the project failed because no one gets into the Onlive bandwagon, in the most part because the monthly fee is 15 bucks. Don't you think they are going to say: "Ok... we financiate everyones monthly fees"? It's the most common thing to do. Remember: No more piracy (again, eventualy).

Don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of this distribution method... and I realize that, now is not the best time to release this. Hell I live in Argentina, where having a 5Mbs connection is a "wow" thing and everything for us costs 4 times more than to you guys in the US. But eventually, this distribution method and DD, like Steam, are going to take over. Because that is what the media wants, and what the media needs. For them is not a matter of what is best for us... is a matter for what is best for the whole industry.

PS: Don't hate me :(
 
Aug 10, 2008
38,702
0
0
U.S.A.
DisenLedZep said:
Wow... seems like a touchy subject to you. Ok, let's roll:

First of all: my bad, I misinterpreted the video (truth be told, he wasn't being very honest). After seeing the onlive faq is true that the first 25,000 qualified people to register on the OnLive Game Service will have their first 3 months’ service fee waived (greedy bastards).

On to the monthly fee subject:

Most developers in the world are dying to see this work. 'Cause it inmediatly translates to: "No more piracy in PC games" (you know: "in the future when everybody uses this method" bla bla thing). They are going to support this with no second though. That means that the money invested nowadays in DRM are going to go to Onlive. In fact this is going to happen with better results for them. Even before the system is realesed this are the partners of Onlive:



Big names... imagine if the project failed because no one gets into the Onlive bandwagon, in the most part because the monthly fee is 15 bucks. Don't you think they are going to say: "Ok... we financiate everyones monthly fees"? It's the most common thing to do. Remember: No more piracy (again, eventualy).

Don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of this distribution method... and I realize that, now is not the best time to release this. Hell I live in Argentina, where having a 5Mbs connection is a "wow" thing and everything for us costs 4 times more than to you guys in the US. But eventually, this distribution method and DD, like Steam, are going to take over. Because that is what the media wants, and what the media needs. For them is not a matter of what is best for us... is a matter for what is best for the whole industry.

PS: Don't hate me :(
I didn't mean to come off like an ass so I apologize. Its not necessarily a touchy subject so much as I don't want this method to succeed since it would force others to follow suit. I honestly don't have any confidence that this company would be willing to do away with the monthly fee now or anytime in the future. The idea that this will kill piracy from their point of view is simply wrong. The vast majority of PC gamers IMHO will not sign on to this type of service even if a fee is waived. Not to mention people will still find away around DRM, even the most restrictive types.
 

DisenLedZep

Member
Feb 8, 2009
806
1
635
LovingSteam said:
I didn't mean to come off like an ass so I apologize. Its not necessarily a touchy subject so much as I don't want this method to succeed since it would force others to follow suit. I honestly don't have any confidence that this company would be willing to do away with the monthly fee now or anytime in the future. The idea that this will kill piracy from their point of view is simply wrong. The vast majority of PC gamers IMHO will not sign on to this type of service even if a fee is waived. Not to mention people will still find away around DRM, even the most restrictive types.
No apologies needed, is all ok man :D

I get what you mean. I see this failing horribly now... or even in the first 3 years. But in the distant future this could very well be the main distribution of videogames if the industry want... they could be selling games only through this method, giving us no option. Not a bright future per se, but a possible one.
 
Aug 10, 2008
38,702
0
0
U.S.A.
DisenLedZep said:
No apologies needed, is all ok man :D

I get what you mean. I see this failing horribly now... or even in the first 3 years. But in the distant future this could very well be the main distribution of videogames if the industry want... they could be selling games only through this method, giving us no option. Not a bright future per se, but a possible one.
It will be interesting to say the least.
 

SonOfABeep

Banned
May 10, 2007
3,158
0
0
So, of the 15 shown -

3 are hardware makers
1 is a cell phone publisher
1 has made only two games that I can tell (Hidden Path)
1 has made only 1 game that I can tell (2D Boy)

So actually only really like 9.5 partners.
 

DisenLedZep

Member
Feb 8, 2009
806
1
635
SonOfABeep said:
So, of the 15 shown -

3 are hardware makers
1 is a cell phone publisher
1 has made only two games that I can tell (Hidden Path)
1 has made only 1 game that I can tell (2D Boy)

So actually only really like 9.5 partners.
The fact that ATI, AMD and nVidia are supporting this is mindblowing to me. I thought they were going to be the first ones to oppose, giving the fact that "you can run any game on any pc" means decreases in sales for them.
 
Aug 10, 2008
38,702
0
0
U.S.A.
DisenLedZep said:
The fact that ATI, AMD and nVidia are supporting this is mindblowing to me. I thought they were going to be the first ones to oppose, giving the fact that "you can run any game on any pc" means decreases in sales for them.
Pretty much. It would be akin to Comcast supporting the iPad being able to sell services television stations like ESPN or something of that nature. Why support a company is a direct threat to your customer.
 

Metalmurphy

Member
Jan 17, 2007
32,672
0
0
Portugal
steamcommunity.com
DisenLedZep said:
The fact that ATI, AMD and nVidia are supporting this is mindblowing to me. I thought they were going to be the first ones to oppose, giving the fact that "you can run any game on any pc" means decreases in sales for them.
Game has to be rendered somehow... They'll just buy insane amount of cards for their server farms.
 

border

Member
Jun 7, 2004
31,951
16
1,660
I got a free year plus free game as well. Whether it's fantastic or a terrible, I'm interested to see how everything pans out. Since my 8800 GT died I've just been running on Intel Integrated Graphics -- this looks like a pretty decent solution for such a scenario. I'm still highly skeptical about being about to play in real-time with no lag.

I wasn't so wild about giving them a credit card number as they will inevitably try the bullshit auto-renew thing that XBL does, but at least I'll only get auto-renewed for a month rather than an entire year.
 

Bit-Bit

Member
Jul 24, 2006
7,383
4
0
Alright guys, I got my email today and started playing. I got a free copy of Splinter Cell Conviction. First off, the speed is awesome. So far, I haven't encountered any slow downs. I click on the game and boom, it immediately starts and I'm playing within seconds. The graphics is slightly better than the console versions as far as I can tell. As I'm playing, I get notified that people have entered to watch me play. Just a simple little blurb on the upper right hand part of the screen.

The one thing that I really like about this is the speed. Everything is fast. Within a minute of buying Splinter Cell, I was playing it. No need for waiting for it to download or update. Also there wasn't any loading, even within the game. Another that amazes me is the ability to watch other people play in the Arena. There are literally hundreds of live streams. As soon as I move to the video I want to watch, press enter and the camera zooms in and I'm instantly watching them play. That part is amazing to me since it's streaming live and everything I've ever used on the internet that is "live" is always either choppy or low quality. This however was not.

I can see how I can get a bunch of my console friends who don't play PC games to at least jump on and give it a try.

One down side is the prices. Full retail prices for something I don't really own kinda bugs me. Mostly because unlike Valve with Steam, I'm not sure how financially backed this company is. It makes me hesitant to buy any games from them for full retail price thinking that the company can go under at any time.
 

avatar299

Banned
Jun 9, 2007
8,927
0
0
I got in a few hours and from what I have played, Onlive is fucking amazing.

No lag, great visuals in HD, so fucking fast. Those Unreal demos were the real shit.

So far, yeah Onlive has delivered.
 
Oct 11, 2007
32,465
187
1,115
Nice impressions. Its good to see OnLive delivering on the promises that were given, and I hope it really does explode. I really dont mind the price, as i would spend the money updating the PC anyway to play, so its all good. Not big into PC gaming, but it makes me want to like it.
 

avatar299

Banned
Jun 9, 2007
8,927
0
0
nextgeneration said:
Wow, so impressions are pretty positive so far. Are the visuals the same as that of a high end pc?
I don't have a highend PC so I don't know, but none of the games have looked bad. Hell Dirt 2 looks amazing. Every game so far 720p for me with no stutter.

The only problem I have with it is the game selection. Not as deep as I hoped. More games should be rolling in during the next few weeks I've heard so Im not that worried, but yeah Im not using my free game coupon today
 

Eric WK

Member
Sep 23, 2006
10,925
0
0
Sounds great. The only major disadvantage I see to using OnLive rather than just making/upgrading to a high end gaming PC is mod support.
 

avatar299

Banned
Jun 9, 2007
8,927
0
0
Oh and if you are going to judge Onlive visuals avoid brag clips. They seem to be really compressed. Maybe for YouTube, I don't know
 

itxaka

Defeatist
Feb 21, 2007
11,442
0
1,165
Bioshock
Got my invitation too, I'm gonna try with the horrible computer at work to see if it gets past the firewall and the horrible computer!

If this works here, I will call it a success (for me) because I'm gonna spend all nigth playing :)


EDIT: Ugh US only? wtf why did I got an invitation then :(
 

Exis

Member
Jun 22, 2004
1,234
0
0
40
I am trying it currently.. Shocking that this did not launch with Crysis... I have a free game and don't know what to pick.. trying demos now.
 

Parham

Banned
I just got my account activated today. Luckily, most of the games on the OnLive marketplace can be demoed at thirty minute intervals, so that gave me the opportunity to try a couple of games. Of the games that I played, only DiRT 2 had any noticeable lag. Every other game (AC 2, JC2, Borderlands, Batman) ran well. My only faults with the service are that the maximum resolution for every game is 1280 by 720 and the library of games is really small. Other than that, OnLive is great. Ultimately, however, it isn't going to change anyone's mind who prefers to purchase physical copies of their games.
 

avatar299

Banned
Jun 9, 2007
8,927
0
0


Screenshot of a an Arena video I just watched. They aren't as compressed as brag clips, but playing the game looks better in motion
 

avatar299

Banned
Jun 9, 2007
8,927
0
0
Exis said:
I am trying it currently.. Shocking that this did not launch with Crysis... I have a free game and don't know what to pick.. trying demos now.
Yeah that really surprised me. the game they talked about more than any other...is not at launch.
 

Parham

Banned
I would have to guess that the majority of games on OnLive are running at low or medium settings.

Borderlands:




These are three screenshots from the introductory part of the game.

brain_stew said:
Eh, I'd rather see non- thumbnail sized pics....

Any renting options yet?
It depends on the game. None of Ubisoft games allow for renting, but others allow for 5 day rental ($6-9) and three day rental ($3-5).
 

Kibbles

Member
Feb 12, 2008
17,117
0
980
itxaka said:
Got my invitation too, I'm gonna try with the horrible computer at work to see if it gets past the firewall and the horrible computer!

If this works here, I will call it a success (for me) because I'm gonna spend all nigth playing :)


EDIT: Ugh US only? wtf why did I got an invitation then :(
Is there a way you could send the invitation my way?
 

Bit-Bit

Member
Jul 24, 2006
7,383
4
0
You guys know what would be amazing? If I can get a blue tooth controller and play this on my iPad. That would be so freakin cool.