Support NeoGAF

[brain_stew]

If you want to give PC devs money so badly just write them a check instead of trying to justify services that give marginal value to the consumer.

I'm not justifying anything, I've already made it abundantly clear that I feel this service offers horrific value. The point still stands though, to sell a game through Onlive's service you've got to build a PC SKU, so if the service is popular, PC SKUs will be more viable. As a PC gamer, why wouldn't I not want more games on my platform of choice?

 

[K.Jack]

Pepto = OnLive employee, maybe the CEO

Anyway, let's instead talk about the viability of their business...

Scenario:

- OnLive gains.... 300k subscribers

How much does it cost them, per month, to run hardware which is capable of sustaining 300k instances of Crysis?

300k * 15 = 4.5 million then + royalties

Sustainable?

 

[Fio]

This Onlive crap is pretty much the standardization of gaming, no tweaks, no mods, no customization at all, as a PC gamer (and I'm mainly a PC gamer because of the open aspect of the platform) I do want it to fail, so I'm thrilled by this news. But this is the market where people pay for p2p online gaming so I wouldn't be surprised if it succeeds somehow.

 

[thetrin]

With the guaranteed failure of OnLive, PC Gaming remains closed off to the poors.

This is as it should be.

It's all part of the dastardly plan orchestrated by the Glorious PC Master Race.

 

[Anerythristic]

I still don't get it. Is this for PC gamers? Isn't this for the mass market consumer/console only owner that wants to play PC games? Guys most people are not going to build a gaming PC, most people are not interesting in upgrading an existing PC, they might be confused or find it daunting. This service has to be for those everyday people. It's a sake of ease thing...right?

 

[BurritoBushido]

Good God I hate the PC Master race.

 

[brain_stew]

Pepto = OnLive employee, maybe the CEO

Anyway, let's instead talk about the viability of their business...

Scenario:

- OnLive gains.... 300k subscribers

How much does it cost them per month, to run hardware which is capable of sustaining 300k instances of Crysis?

The whole idea behind the service is that those 300k subscribers don't all log in at once and don't all play Crysis. I'm sure with some clever programming, you could get an average gaming desktop to run more than a dozen instances of World of Goo for instance.

I fully expect them to offer reduced rates for non-peak hours, just as energy and mass transport providers do. Its in their best interests to best spread out demand throughout the day as much as possible, their ability to do this will be key to any success they have. As for buying all those machines, in their presentations they've made clear they won't be buying any hardware, just leasing whatever they need so that they can scale with subscriptions with little capital investment. That part of their business plan, at least, is pretty sound.

 

[IMACOMPUTA]

Things to consider :
Buying WoW. Once the servers go down, unless you find third party servers, the game is useless.

Battlefield series : cmon, these are designed for multi. Servers down/game gone. (although BFBC2 singleplayer is good!)

Look, I am a game whore. I buy games so frequently, and move on VERY FAST. I have atleast 20 games that i bought on steam that I can almost guarantee i'll never play again. I paid good money for some of these! PC gaming is SUCH a bad investment unless you buy all old/on sale software.
This is a really good solution for someone like me. You say that its a waste of money because you dont physically own anything, and it can be taken away from you at any moment.. but who really cares? In theory it sounds like a terrible thing.. but if steam all of the sudden didnt allow me access to those 20 games i referenced earlier, i'd probably never find out.
On top of that, i don't physically have enough harddrive space to download all of my steam games, so if steam closed down i'd lose them as well.
This is just another option for DD.
Unless you're a person that gets a kick out of collecting tons of old games you never have time to play, this sounds good to me.

I do think it'd be nice if they sent you the game you bought on a disc as well (if theyre charging full price). That seems fair.

Also in regards to people complaining about price; Comparing this to XBL or Netflix isn't fair. Theyre offering you a license for a game, the bandwidth to access it, an xbl style service for multiplayer and friends (with WAY more features than XBL/PSN), the computing power to actually run the games, convenient/install-less access, basically unlimited "harddrive space" on their end to have all of your games "installed", and most likely a constantly updated PC. I'm sure after the service picks up they'll have higher end visuals for the users.

I'm optimistic about it. Let's wait until the pricing and performance is known until we start judging it.

 

[thetrin]

Good God I hate the PC Master race.

No you don't, because that gives them power.

 

[MickeyKnox]

Good God I hate the PC Master race.

And we hate the console gaming proletariat.

 

[Pepto]

Oh, so I can't be skeptical because he's involved but it's okay for you to shill it as SCIENTIFIC FACT because he's involved?

:lol

Yes that what I meant.

Maybe the 80ms is bs maybe it isn't. I just didn't like that people claimed that you physically coudn't get the same lag times that you now get on modern consoles (if 100ms of input lag and 100ms of network + input lag can be compared).

I get about 15ms of lag to neighbouring countries so I don't think that network lag would be a big deal when playing games.

 

[Scythesurge]

This Onlive crap is pretty much the standardization of gaming, no tweaks, no mods, no customization at all, as a PC gamer (and I'm mainly a PC gamer because of the open aspect of the platform) I do want it to fail, so I'm thrilled by this news. But this is the market where people pay for p2p online gaming so I wouldn't be surprised if it succeeds somehow.

Too true, things don't make sense any more.

 

[bathala]

0ms! (if I read their site correctly, they're not offering it to people not in the 48 contiguous states of the US, so no dice for Hawaii

no wonder i didn't get in the beta

 

[brain_stew]

This Onlive crap is pretty much the standardization of gaming, no tweaks, no mods, no customization at all, as a PC gamer (and I'm mainly a PC gamer because of the open aspect of the platform) I do want it to fail, so I'm thrilled by this news. But this is the market where people pay for p2p online gaming so I wouldn't be surprised if it succeeds somehow.

Publishers aren't going to stop releasing standard PC SKUs of their games just because On Live becomes a success though, the logic just doesn't follow. OnLive's games run on Windows, DirectX, x86 CPUs and Nvidia/ATI GPUs just like the regular PC SKU. A successful OnLive would mean that developers get a standard PC version for their game created "for free." With plenty of established digital distribution networks meaning that publishing costs can scale almost linearly with sales, there's no good reason to give up on those extra sales. Its basically a guaranteed return for a completely inconsequential investment.

It works both ways of course, and its why OnLive is able to boast suh an impressive launch lineup. Since all thos games are already coming out on PC, all the hard work is already done, so publishers can sell them through OnLive without investing very much at all. Its precisely for this reason why the service has such impressive publisher support. The potential gains for them are huge (its basically the ultimate DRM, as it completely kills piracy, used and rental sales dead) and the investment required is incredibly small. Its just another revenue stream for the PC SKU of games, nothing more, nothing less.

 

[.la1n]

I'd pay $15/mo for this again...

OnLive, prob not.

this man tells truths

 

[Ferrio]

Yes that what I meant.

Maybe the 80ms is bs maybe it isn't. I just didn't like that people claimed that you physically coudn't get the same lag times that you now get on modern consoles (if 100ms of input lag and 100ms of network + input lag can be compared).

I don't think anyone is claiming a computer doesn't get the same latency as a console. But there's a BIG difference between playing a game that's hosted on a remote server and playing a game on your system with online multi.

 

[Pepto]

I don't think anyone is claiming a computer doesn't get the same latency as a console. But there's a BIG difference between playing a game that's hosted on a remote server and playing a game on your system with online multi.

I still don't get why input lag would be differen't from network lag. Can someone elaborate?

 

[Shao Kahn Brewing a Stew]

WTF is OnLive? :/

 

[K.Jack]

Good God I hate the PC Master race.

Who has offended you? Name names or be gone.

The whole idea behind the service is that those 300k subscribers don't all log in at once and don't all play Crysis. I'm sure with some clever programming, you could get an average gaming desktop to run more than a dozen instances of World of Goo for instance.

I fully expect them to offer reduced rates for non-peak hours, just as energy and mass transport providers do. Its in their best interests to best spread out demand throughout the day as much as possible, their ability to do this will be key to any success they have. As for buying all those machines, in their presentations they've made clear they won't be buying any hardware, just leasing whatever they need so that they can scale with subscriptions with little capital investment. That part of their business plan, at least, is pretty sound.

Where I lack the most knowledge (read: totally ignorant) is when it comes to the server maintenance. How expensive is all of this "custom silicon" the CEO brags about?

Even with leasing, doesn't $15*X seem like too small of a stream to even recoup the massive capital which should have gone into the R&D?

 

[Dead Man Typing]

It'll be interesting to see if this is a success, developers might start making games with the limitations of OnLive in mind when making their games.

We could go back to the Dreamcast Chu Chu Rocket days, where the game had a 1 second intentional input delay to sync lag across all games. I'm not saying there will be anything that drastic, but it's an interesting thought.

Maybe they'll make an OnLine chess game with super detailed textures running on CryEngine 2, just because they can. Lag wouldn't be an issue there, you'd just have an amazing looking chess board... with dynamic lighting... and stuff. The point was that developers might work around any limitations and maybe some basic tech demo style games will be included with the monthly subscription.

I don't think the price is terrible, it depends on how much a rental is. I bet most people would rent anyway, unless it was something like Team Fortress 2, where you knew you'd be playing it for months to come, so re-renting it every week/month would be more expensive than buying it on the system.

 

[Won]

Pretty clever buisness model. Tie the games to the sub, so they have to pay till the end of the time! Muhahahahaha!

......

 

[gcubed]

Maybe you should watch the video before commenting on it?

i'm also playing in 4d with my toy story level graphics correct? Because a CEO told me so!

 

[Turfster]

Yes that what I meant.
I get about 15ms of lag to neighbouring countries so I don't think that network lag would be a big deal when playing games.

You live in Finland (if you're where your avatar is hosted anyway) so:
a) you live in a part of the world with the best and fastest internet access (seriously, you guys have a legal right to broadband)
b) they wouldn't let you use onlive anyway, since you're on the other side of the country and this breaks their unicorn 80ms argument by a serious factor * 100 miles =p

 

[aaaaaaaaaaaa7654]

I hope it succeeds, I see no point in owning a console if this kicks off

 

[brain_stew]

I still don't get it. Is this for PC gamers? Isn't this for the mass market consumer/console only owner that wants to play PC games? Guys most people are not going to build a gaming PC, most people are not interesting in upgrading an existing PC, they might be confused or find it daunting. This service has to be for those everyday people. It's a sake of ease thing...right?

Yes. It makes an incredibly watered down and inferior version of PC gaming available without requiring the initial time and monetary investment involved in procuring the relevant hardware. In the long run, its no cheaper (probably more expensive, even) but is undoubtedly more accessible and makes PC SKUs of games available to a completely different market. As such, I see it as a mostly positive thing, so long as they can deliver a "good enough" experience for the masses.

 

[RurouniZel]

Doomed to fail.

Excellent!

 

[Ferrio]

I still don't get why input lag would be differen't from network lag. Can someone elaborate?

Well let's look at it this way (not really latency related)

OnLive is pretty much like watching hulu but without any buffering. Even the slightest hiccup in net service and you're game would be pretty difficult to play.

 

[thetrin]

I hope it succeeds, I see no point in owning a console if this kicks off

Really? You don't see a point to actually owning the things you purchase?

 

[spazzfish]

So are the games confirmed at full retail price or are they priced cheaper?
Anyone know anything about rental pricing structure?

 

[WickedLaharl]

why would anyone with a lick of common sense buy a game through this service knowing full well that you will lose the right to play it if you cancel your sub?

 

[dofry]

Someone should fix the thread title regarding the No Games part.

 

[Pumpkins]

15 bucks a month!?!

 

[brain_stew]

Pretty clever buisness model. Tie the games to the sub, so they have to pay till the end of the time! Muhahahahaha!

......

Its the reason why i think they'll be offering a crapton of free trials. That they've started off the service with 25k free 3 month trials is no coincidence. Its a pretty clever (and evil :lol ) business model really, if you can get those trialists to invest enough in those first 3 months they'll become both emotionally and financially tying them to the service. Its similar to Xbox Live really, where, while many feel the fee is rather unjust, they continue to pay it anyway because without it they're missing out on some seriously basic functionality of that $300 box and $60 game they'e just bought.


Its the idea that, well, you've invested all of this money so far, it'd feel real shitty to come out of it all with absolutely nothing, so what's another $15? Get enough customers feeling trapped and you've generated a nice little earner, even if they're game purchases begin to dry up, a guaranteed $15 per month per customer is a nice steady income stream.

 

[aaaaaaaaaaaa7654]

Really? You don't see a point to actually owning the things you purchase?

You mean the games ? Is there any other info on how they handle game purchases ?

 

[thetrin]

You mean the games ? Is there any other info on how they handle game purchases ?

Considering you are buying games within the service, you don't magically get the games when you unsubscribe.

 

[WillyFive]

Seems like we can now see the dead end coming up.

 

[thetrin]

So are the games confirmed at full retail price or are they priced cheaper?
Anyone know anything about rental pricing structure?

Games purchased within the service better be DAMN cheap. They need some sort of advantage over conventional retail.

 

[Caesar III]

15$ is much if you get nothing out of this but I think if they manage to bring A LOT of PCs evil nightmare free2play games through this to all the people out there it could work.

They get a % off of the money the free2play guys get for their useful items and both are fine. Customers are happy as well.
On top of this you can play Crysis if you want to.

 

[Malio]

People buy hats for avatars. WITH REAL MONEY

This will be a mega hit.

 

[Gully State]

Games purchased within the service better be DAMN cheap. They need some sort of advantage over conventional retail.

Not going to happen. Retailers would get pissed if any form of DD gets significantly cheaper than retail prices (Weekend sales are a loophole since it's limited time only.)

 

[thetrin]

Not going to happen. Retailers would get pissed if any form of DD gets significantly cheaper than retail prices (Weekend sales are a loophole since it's limited time only.)

Well then you're basically buying games for a system you rent indefinitely. That is fucking dumb as hell. :lol

 

[Broken Arrow]

I was very, very excited for this. But... I was just expecting a very different pricing model.

For TV I spend almost $100/month but I have access to all the fucking channels, HD, one fucking phone line with tons of local calls and an Internet connection.

I would have paid the same for OnLive, but with unlimited play and ccess to all the fucking games.

Or charge me $4/month ($240 for 5 years -typical console cycle-) and sell me the games slightly below the retail price.

But this is just like paying fucking Blockbuster $15 / month just to get into the store every time I want to rent.

Unless the games are priced far below what I can find at retail, it's not a good deal for me.

 

[Trent Strong]

why would anyone with a lick of common sense buy a game through this service knowing full well that you will lose the right to play it if you cancel your sub?

Maybe they'll rent them. Maybe you can rent a game from Onlive for, say, $10 for a month. That way you could play a game for a month, and easily pass it, and you'd end up paying $25 for it. I'd rather spend $25 to pass a game than $60. You also wouldn't have to worry about all of the hassel that comes with PC gaming. I have a computer with an i5, 6 gigs of RAM, and a GTX 260, and all of my games stutter horribly on any resolution. After weeks of scouring the internet, I can't find a solution to this problem. I never play PC games. With Onlive I wouldn't have to deal with any of that crap.

 

[Fio]

Publishers aren't going to stop releasing standard PC SKUs of their games just because On Live becomes a success though, the logic just doesn't follow. OnLive's games run on Windows, DirectX, x86 CPUs and Nvidia/ATI GPUs just like the regular PC SKU. A successful OnLive would mean that developers get a standard PC version for their game created "for free." With plenty of established digital distribution networks meaning that publishing costs can scale almost linearly with sales, there's no good reason to give up on those extra sales. Its basically a guaranteed return for a completely inconsequential investment.

It works both ways of course, and its why OnLive is able to boast suh an impressive launch lineup. Since all thos games are already coming out on PC, all the hard work is already done, so publishers can sell them through OnLive without investing very much at all. Its precisely for this reason why the service has such impressive publisher support. The potential gains for them are huge (its basically the ultimate DRM, as it completely kills piracy, used and rental sales dead) and the investment required is incredibly small. Its just another revenue stream for the PC SKU of games, nothing more, nothing less.

As you said, it kills piracy, in a time that publishers fear so much the PC piracy bogeyman, I wouldn't be surprised at all if most publishers would develop consoles and OnLive only versions of their games. That's not a far fetched scenario should OnLive becomes successful, look at how far some publishers have gone with their DRM schemes, some in fact have dropped PC support altogether because of the piracy bogeyman, not because it would cost them anything significant to release a PC SKU. So I really don't see this increasing the amount of games released for PC. Publishers which aren't releasing PC SKUs will continue not releasing them, even if they develop OnLive versions, and if OnLive is successful, it might lure some publishers which are currently releasing PC SKUs to switch to Onlive only. That's very feasible, look at how many great PC developers are now pretty much console only developers.

 

[Konosuke]

I'm guessing that each game will be 20-30€. You do get to keep a bought game in your library like Steam, right?

 

[Str0ngStyle]

yea.... I'll wait until a rollout/impressions/ free trial before making an opinion on this. Performance would be key in something like this, but the rates seem like BS

 

[Fugu]

I too feel that publishers deserve more money. Please, take my money. You don't even need to give me any sense of security, for I am a video game player and therefore place absolutely no value on my purchases. Better yet, I'll pay you for the right to access my games. I don't care about latency, as long as I get to play my games. I don't have to upgrade my hardware? Good, because all of that time spent upgrading my hardware was wasted time I could have spent playing games. You say your service is going out of business because it's a really, really dumb idea that absolutely no gamer, anywhere, ever, should support? That's alright, you can keep my money; I got to play my games.

The attitude publishers take towards gamers is downright patronizing; I don't know if it's worse that they think of us this way or that some of you seem to uphold this manner of thinking to the best of your ability.

 

[Version 3.0]

Honestly, online multiplayer is a pretty damn basic and staple part of a huge majority of games released these days. A bunch don't even have a proper offline mode to speak of. So yeah, I think the comparison is pretty apt. Without Live Gold, you're missing the most basic functionality from a huge percentage of the 360's library and some games are just flat out unplayable, obviously its not quite as extreme a restriction as it is with Onlive, but the idea is the same and in many cases, so is the end result.

That may be honest, but it sure isn't factually correct. That's your perception, but the truth is, a "huge majority" of games, even on PC, have a full single-player offline experience to offer, even if they have an online component. On consoles, the number of games with no online multiplayer most definitely still outnumbers the ones that have it, even on the 360. You're only counting the ones that you like. Neither the idea nor the end result is even remotely similar.

 

[kamspy]

With the guaranteed failure of OnLive, PC Gaming remains closed off to the poors.

This is as it should be.

Hear hear.

When I'm playing Bad Company 2 with that HBAO set, I lift my pinky finger off the mouse just a little. Fuck yall.

/grilling the poor

 

[Fugu]

That may be honest, but it sure isn't factually correct. That's your perception, but the truth is, a "huge majority" of games, even on PC, have a full single-player offline experience to offer, even if they have an online component. On consoles, the number of games with no online multiplayer most definitely still outnumbers the ones that have it, even on the 360. You're only counting the ones that you like. Neither the idea nor the end result is even remotely similar.

By my count, the amount of online multiplayer-enabled games outnumbers those without by about 3:2. I didn't count them all, but I counted at least 100.