-
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.
OnLive Launching June 17, $14.95 Per Month
- Thread starter VideoMan
- Start date
19Kilo said:
I originally signed up when they announced that the first 25,000 people will get 3 months free (thanks to becoming a Fan of OnLive on FB), that was March 10th. Then i got an email on June 1st saying if I registered in the next 2 days i'll get a year and a game free. So i did. My activation email came June 18th.
BTW for those who got the free game code, what are you looking to pick up? Personally im going to wait as long as possible (July 17th which is when my code expires) to see if they will add anything new to their library.
Ready Up Already
Neo Member
Remember that the pricing is currently dictated almost entirely by the publishers. OnLive has nowhere near the leverage to be all Apple-esque and force the publishers to set fees, like Apple did with songs on iTunes for years.
In fact, this is one area where competition really doesn't help much, as EA may have taken their ball and ran over to Gaikai. I still haven't found out if the deal EA signed with Gaikai is for exclusivity, but all I know is that EA games were featured exclusively in all of OnLive's developer presentations over the last year and now not a single EA game is to be found on OnLive.
In fact, this is one area where competition really doesn't help much, as EA may have taken their ball and ran over to Gaikai. I still haven't found out if the deal EA signed with Gaikai is for exclusivity, but all I know is that EA games were featured exclusively in all of OnLive's developer presentations over the last year and now not a single EA game is to be found on OnLive.
vodka-bull
Member
Why would you buy games on demand if you can rent them anytime?
Graphics Horse
Member
3 year rentals? oh dear.
I saw some video of Crysis on an Ipad and it looked like there was a 2 second delay between where his thumbs went and where the camera went, but I'm sure that's not representative of PC play.
Thanks for the impressions from the beta.
I saw some video of Crysis on an Ipad and it looked like there was a 2 second delay between where his thumbs went and where the camera went, but I'm sure that's not representative of PC play.
Thanks for the impressions from the beta.
I really don't see how OnLive is going to be viable with these prices. I don't think this service offers much benefiet even for those who are uninitiated with PC or Console gaming.
5$ for a 3 days rental and 7$ for 5 days? Really? Lets not forget the monthly 15$ fee for just having an active OnLive account. So you're options are 20$ to play a game for 3 days, 27$ dollars to play for 5 days or a full-price game (which i can bet you can find for cheaper in retail\DD) plus the monthly fees to keep the access to the game, and that only lasts up 2013.
How would this be desirable even for those who are clueless and just want to play without hassle? Better off invest in getting a console. Unless you have a bunch of free time, i don't see how the 3\5 days option is alluring. You'll have to marathon the game in the alloted time, you pay 20$+ and then you can forget about and if something comes between your rental time and you don't finish the game you'll need to pay more, and if it stretches to another month unpaid for for the service, then you need to shell another 15$.
The service won't see purchase-activity in the week before\after a month begins\ends , holidays and such.
The one of the few scenarios where it could be useful is if you're on vacation\ away for home for a considerable time and a game you're interested in comes out, so you'll be able to play it on whatever near-by computer or tv.
All in all, to me it seems OnLive has everything stacked against it.
5$ for a 3 days rental and 7$ for 5 days? Really? Lets not forget the monthly 15$ fee for just having an active OnLive account. So you're options are 20$ to play a game for 3 days, 27$ dollars to play for 5 days or a full-price game (which i can bet you can find for cheaper in retail\DD) plus the monthly fees to keep the access to the game, and that only lasts up 2013.
How would this be desirable even for those who are clueless and just want to play without hassle? Better off invest in getting a console. Unless you have a bunch of free time, i don't see how the 3\5 days option is alluring. You'll have to marathon the game in the alloted time, you pay 20$+ and then you can forget about and if something comes between your rental time and you don't finish the game you'll need to pay more, and if it stretches to another month unpaid for for the service, then you need to shell another 15$.
The service won't see purchase-activity in the week before\after a month begins\ends , holidays and such.
The one of the few scenarios where it could be useful is if you're on vacation\ away for home for a considerable time and a game you're interested in comes out, so you'll be able to play it on whatever near-by computer or tv.
All in all, to me it seems OnLive has everything stacked against it.
jonnybryce
Member
Does this work with wifi or is it hard wired?
Yeah, Saty. Everything you say makes sense. In the end though anything has a chance at succeeding, even those stupid overpriced Peek "just for email" things have done well. I can see people who don't care about pricing enjoying it, especially if they spend a lot of time away with a laptop, such as on campus. But I don't see it being huge. I wanted to love it and support it as I usually do with cool and different ideas but it just seems sp unnecessary. I can't justify it for the type of gamer/consumer I am.
Yeah, Saty. Everything you say makes sense. In the end though anything has a chance at succeeding, even those stupid overpriced Peek "just for email" things have done well. I can see people who don't care about pricing enjoying it, especially if they spend a lot of time away with a laptop, such as on campus. But I don't see it being huge. I wanted to love it and support it as I usually do with cool and different ideas but it just seems sp unnecessary. I can't justify it for the type of gamer/consumer I am.
Soakedjunk
Member
I got my invite last night as I was about to go to bed and of course had to give it a try. I HATE that you need a wired connection. I wish there were a way around this. I ran the client through OSX on my macbook pro and when plugged in to the wall it ran very smoothly. Even after reading other impressions I was still surprised at how smooth it was. Yes, the video is a little blurry, but not bad and certainly not a deal breaker. I'm playing on my 1440x900 screen, so I'm sure it would be worse on a full size 1080p monitor (the feed you get is 720p). The was disappointed by the game selection. Most of the ones I would want to play I already own, but I did test out Just Cause 2 and Lego Harry Potter. Both looked good and were very responsive to controls.
I really only see myself paying for this service if they have a larger game selection and I'm able to use wifi. When I'm at home I can use my desktop computer and play games that way, but when I'm on the go or on vacation and my laptop just can't cut it with some of the games, onlive would be a great alternative.
I really only see myself paying for this service if they have a larger game selection and I'm able to use wifi. When I'm at home I can use my desktop computer and play games that way, but when I'm on the go or on vacation and my laptop just can't cut it with some of the games, onlive would be a great alternative.
poppabk
Cheeks Spread for Digital Only Future
The beta was only hard wired.jonnybryce said:
The only way this make sense is if they can encourage a partnership or a buyout from a cable company. If you roll the $15 into a cable subscription with discounts for bundling then I can see a market. As a standalone company I don't see them getting anywhere. Still this has still come a long way from when I didn't believe that they could deliver a service at all. Its still a shitty deal relative to just buying a computer or console, but for an extra $15 on top of cable with two free rentals a month or it could take-off. If people will pay $4 or $5 to rent a cable modem then $15 a month for a 'console' will probably seem like a good deal.
Ready Up Already
Neo Member
It technically works over WiFi but they've disallowed it for now because they want to test networks themselves during this ramping up period and not have to worry about traditionally less reliable wireless networks while they're getting off the ground with the public release. Make sense to me, and that ban will be lifted eventually.
They said that 1080p support is coming next year, but that for now there just aren't enough people with that strong of a connection to make it worthwhile. Your graphic quality will depend mostly on your connection. If it detects that your connection sucks, your graphics will be downgraded appropriately.
And, yeah, it doesn't cost $15 for anyone, and likely won't, ever. If you register by mid-July, then your first year is free. I have an OnLive account for the next year and two games, and my total investment in OnLive so far is $20 (what I paid for Red Faction).
They said that 1080p support is coming next year, but that for now there just aren't enough people with that strong of a connection to make it worthwhile. Your graphic quality will depend mostly on your connection. If it detects that your connection sucks, your graphics will be downgraded appropriately.
And, yeah, it doesn't cost $15 for anyone, and likely won't, ever. If you register by mid-July, then your first year is free. I have an OnLive account for the next year and two games, and my total investment in OnLive so far is $20 (what I paid for Red Faction).
malingenie
Member
I pay twenty some dollars for gamefly.
With it I can play an average of 5 games a month.
No additional fees.
In Onlive, this would be $5 -$15 monthly fee
Plus five games for let's say 3 days (I dont finish games in three days nowadays)
So monthly, In Onlive the minimum I would pay to recreate my rental habits would be: $5 + $5x5= $30
IT just doesn't add up to me at all, someone please counterargue this!
With it I can play an average of 5 games a month.
No additional fees.
In Onlive, this would be $5 -$15 monthly fee
Plus five games for let's say 3 days (I dont finish games in three days nowadays)
So monthly, In Onlive the minimum I would pay to recreate my rental habits would be: $5 + $5x5= $30
IT just doesn't add up to me at all, someone please counterargue this!
Ready Up Already
Neo Member
I'll give this a shot.malingenie said:
First, right now the signup is free so there's no monthly fee.
You're right, your rental style wouldn't cheaply apply itself to OnLive as it's not a flat price.
One thing that's easy to overlook, however, is that with Gamefly, you already need a console. So that's $300 plus tax for the equivalent 360 or PS3. With OnLive, you need either a PC or Mac, or the "microconsole" that will be released by the end of 2010. They've already gone on record saying that the case of the microconsole costs more than the chips inside it, so they'll be in a position to give it away for free. (The microconsole basically serves to upload your controller actions to their servers, and then decompress the incoming video stream.)
Also, remember that OnLive makes your local hardware irrelevant. So while you'll be able to play Rage on 360/PS3, chances are you'll have to buy the PS4/720 to play games based on the coming Unreal Engine 4. Thanks to OnLive, I'll be able to play those games either on my TV with the microconsole, or on my crappy 4-year old Celeron-powered HP laptop that I'm currently using to play the DirectX-10 Just Cause 2 and Splinter Cell Conviction.
malingenie
Member
Ready Up Already said:
So potential customers of this:
Don't own up to date rigs or consoles and want to play games.
And the main draw is:
System agnostic capabilities.
So the best time to look into this service or when this service may jump will be with new console generations/ qualitative pc hardware jumps.
?Are they Publicly Traded?
Circle of Willis
Neo Member
The only way I could ever see Onlive succeeding is if they were owned and/or supported by ISP's/cable companies.
mentalfloss
Banned
Did someone already do the OnDead joke?
I just played a couple demos on my old macbook pro. At first it ran pretty well, and the lag just made it feel like playing a Gears game online when you're not host. It wasn't unplayable, but stutters lost me some Shatter games. After awhile it shit the bed and the picture degraded and the lag was pretty bad.
blackMamba1187
Member
I got my email today, as well [ID:blackMamba187] . Played a few demos (Lego Potter/Splinter Cell) that ran well but still didn't look so hot in windowed 720p. Pretty decent to give 30 minute demos for everything.
The service seams to have the backbone, in place, in terms of community features should it ever take off. It's pretty cool (kinda creepy?) that you can watch other people's live streams and also uploaded brag clips.
I can't see getting much use out of this service, but at least I have a free game code.
The service seams to have the backbone, in place, in terms of community features should it ever take off. It's pretty cool (kinda creepy?) that you can watch other people's live streams and also uploaded brag clips.
I can't see getting much use out of this service, but at least I have a free game code.
Hmm, I'm kind of impressed that it works at all, to be honest.
How is the performance, though? That's the main thing I'm curious about.
These ARE PC games after all, right? Do they lock out video options? Can the games actually reach 60 fps?
I'd like to hear more of a technical analysis.
How is the performance, though? That's the main thing I'm curious about.
These ARE PC games after all, right? Do they lock out video options? Can the games actually reach 60 fps?
I'd like to hear more of a technical analysis.
Circle of Willis
Neo Member
dark10x said:
Pretty much console performance at this point... 720p 30 FPS ...
ClovingWestbrook
Banned
$5 too much. $5 to play games you have to pay for lol. Yea, great deal.avatar299 said:
The games can run at 60 FPS, but the video stream never goes above 30 FPS.....so if you've ever seen like camcorder footage of 60FPS games filmed off a TV screen it's kinda like that. You can tell that the framerate is mega-smooth, but it's not quite the same as an actual 60 FPS. As far as I know you can't change video settings and options.
The video stream is okay -- it can be kinda washed out and artifact-y at times, and though it is 720P it looks more like DVD quality than BluRay.
I played through the Trine demo today (how weird is it that you can't even buy/rent Trine?) and the lag seemed much better than when I demo'ed Just Cause 2. I felt pretty confident platforming.....or at least as confident as you can be with Trine's kinda-janky platforming.
The video stream is okay -- it can be kinda washed out and artifact-y at times, and though it is 720P it looks more like DVD quality than BluRay.
I played through the Trine demo today (how weird is it that you can't even buy/rent Trine?) and the lag seemed much better than when I demo'ed Just Cause 2. I felt pretty confident platforming.....or at least as confident as you can be with Trine's kinda-janky platforming.
practice02
Banned
Wat?avatar299 said:
DryvBy
Member
Durante said:
Sorry this is old, but YouTube is actually pretty nice these days. Back in my day, online videos were little 320x240 video files, compressed so heavily, it looked like you were watching pixels dance around that somewhat formed faces.
But OnLive was doomed the moment it was thought up. This is not technology that will be looked at 10 years from now as "beyond it's time". It will be looked at like this: :lol
fizzelopeguss
Banned
That's prolly where the market will initially be for this, non gaming laptops and lower end systems.
Again, you've completely overlooked the entire purpose of Onlive. If you were to buy a PC under financing, $5 would be significantly less than the difference in monthly cost between a PC that can run a game through Onlive and a PC that could run the game locally.LovingSteam said:
There's no way that I'm going to sign up for Onlive. I already own a great PC, so I don't need to rent another computer.
Similarly, I wouldn't bother going to an internet cafe to use their computer. Using my computer is free and using their computers costs money. But that doesn't mean I'm going to whine that internet cafes should be free.
The technology is easily well beyond its time -- it's pretty insane when you think about it. I don't know any other websites capable of truly realtime HD video streaming -- as in, the frames of video are beamed to you instantly as they are rendered. Even with a buffer there's plenty of hiccups still on sites like Hulu and YouTube, whereas I've encountered almost zero problems with OnLive. Beyond that, I can't think of any other service that lets you watch what your friends are playing in realtime.
I was a little off-put by the lag in Just Cause 2, but after screwing around in UT3 for a while I've got hardly any complaints at all. You can feel minor lag when you control the camera with a mouse and you've got that high level of sensitivity that a mouse gives. But for games where you don't mess with the camera at all (DIRT, Trine, Shatter, Harry Potter, Prince of Persia) the lag is mostly imperceptible. What lag you do run into in 3rd/1st person shooters is not that bad -- I felt like I would have done just as well at UT3 had it been installed locally.....but I'm not a hardcore shooter nut that requires insane precision.
If anything, this is a mind-bogglingly good technology that, if it tanks, will probably be because of the business model and the fact that they let publishers call the shots on almost everything -- some games don't have demos, some games you can't buy a $3-$5 PlayPass, some games you can't buy an unlimited PlayPass. There isn't much consistency.
I think they recognize that the service should be free, which is why they are handing out so many free 1st year memberships. I assume they want to just get a ton of users so they can explore an advertising-based model, or at the very least a model where subscribers can get free access to a rotating selection of catalog titles. If GameTap can do it, I don't see why these dudes can't either. There's 30 years of videogames to choose from -- program some emulators and let people play some classic DOS and SNES games...give them something that might justify a monthly fee.
There's 100 ways this could go wrong, but the very core of the technology is solid and admirable.
I was a little off-put by the lag in Just Cause 2, but after screwing around in UT3 for a while I've got hardly any complaints at all. You can feel minor lag when you control the camera with a mouse and you've got that high level of sensitivity that a mouse gives. But for games where you don't mess with the camera at all (DIRT, Trine, Shatter, Harry Potter, Prince of Persia) the lag is mostly imperceptible. What lag you do run into in 3rd/1st person shooters is not that bad -- I felt like I would have done just as well at UT3 had it been installed locally.....but I'm not a hardcore shooter nut that requires insane precision.
If anything, this is a mind-bogglingly good technology that, if it tanks, will probably be because of the business model and the fact that they let publishers call the shots on almost everything -- some games don't have demos, some games you can't buy a $3-$5 PlayPass, some games you can't buy an unlimited PlayPass. There isn't much consistency.
I think they recognize that the service should be free, which is why they are handing out so many free 1st year memberships. I assume they want to just get a ton of users so they can explore an advertising-based model, or at the very least a model where subscribers can get free access to a rotating selection of catalog titles. If GameTap can do it, I don't see why these dudes can't either. There's 30 years of videogames to choose from -- program some emulators and let people play some classic DOS and SNES games...give them something that might justify a monthly fee.
There's 100 ways this could go wrong, but the very core of the technology is solid and admirable.
SapientWolf
Trucker Sexologist
As well as public places like hotels and airlines, if they're smart.fizzelopeguss said:
I'd bet money that they've been fervently praying for this, from the very beginning. The cost of maintenance alone is far beyond anything they can hope to recoup, from any realistic number of subscribers. They want to sell it and be done with it, before the costs balloon into the stratosphere.poppabk said:
The free year they're giving away reeks of them shopping the service, while using the launch as a final proof of concept.
So, those buying games should have two worries:
1. No provider buys it, and the service tanks within the year (it will). Games lost.
2. Your cable provider doesn't buy it. Games lost.
An Xbox 360 Arcade + Live is the safer investment.
oldschlgmr
Member
I just tried it and I'm impressed with its' potential, but not with what I'm seeing at the moment. The selection is not very good, and the games run much worse than if I were to run them on my current setup without the service. That said, I have a 5870 graphics card and a pretty quick processor. This service is ideal for people with dated hardware. The interface is badass. Being able to spectate other people playing live is awesome. I think it will improve over time.
DryvBy2 said:
Considering that OnLive can improve the experience by increasing the capability of their PCs, optimising their network/switch structure, taking advantage of increasing consumer bandwidth that becomes available over time, making incremental improvements to their compression algorithms, working with developers to better consider and address OnLive limitations, and installing more server centres to decrease lag, I can only see this technology improve with time rather than being considered increasingly comical.
terrdactycalsrock
Member
Mario said:
right plus it gets better tech into more homes for a low price and since the games are bought and played through a digital distribution style services that means the price for games should go down as well
ClovingWestbrook
Banned
Or a provider picks it and you will have to continue RENTING the service just to have access to your games.K.Jack said:
just saw this review on GT http://www.gametrailers.com/user-movie/onlive-review-by-saieno/346052?playlist=featured
wow that Unreal.
wow that Unreal.
Jeez, when did gamers become so stingy? The monthly fee is the price of a pizza, for Christ's sake.
Does Onlive work for Canadians? I just spent 15 minutes on its website, and other than the free-year special open to US only, I couldn't find anywhere I could sign up for the service. Or did I miss something?
Does Onlive work for Canadians? I just spent 15 minutes on its website, and other than the free-year special open to US only, I couldn't find anywhere I could sign up for the service. Or did I miss something?