19Kilo said:I'm still waiting on an activation email. I got on the waiting list on the 15th. Those of you that got in already - when did you initially sign up?
Cloak 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.
The beta was only hard wired.jonnybryce said: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.
I'll give this a shot.malingenie said: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!
Ready Up Already said:I'll give this a shot.
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 $300 plus tax for the equivalent 360 or PS3. With OnLive, you need either a PC or Mac, or the "microconsole" that will be released by the end of 2010. They've already gone on record saying that the case of the microconsole costs more than the chips inside it, so they'll be in a position to give it away for free. (The microconsole basically serves to upload your controller actions to their servers, and then decompress the incoming video stream.)
Also, remember that OnLive makes your local hardware irrelevant. So while you'll be able to play Rage on 360/PS3, chances are you'll have to buy the PS4/720 to play games based on the coming Unreal Engine 4. Thanks to OnLive, I'll be able to play those games either on my TV with the microconsole, or on my crappy 4-year old Celeron-powered HP laptop that I'm currently using to play the DirectX-10 Just Cause 2 and Splinter Cell Conviction.
Saty said:I really don't see how OnLive is going to be viable with these prices. I don't think this service offers much benefiet even for those who are uninitiated with PC or Console gaming.
5$ 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 (actually $22) for 5 days or a full-price game (which i can bet you can find for cheaper in retail\DD) plus the monthly fees to keep the access to the game, and that only lasts up 2013.
How would this be desirable even for those who are clueless and just want to play without hassle? Better off invest in getting a console. Unless you have a bunch of free time, i don't see how the 3\5 days option is alluring. You'll have to marathon the game in the alloted time, you pay 20$+ 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.
dark10x said: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.
Circle of Willis said:Pretty much console performance at this point... 720p 30 FPS ...
malingenie said:So potential customers of this:
Don't own up to date rigs or consoles and want to play games.
$5 too much. $5 to play games you have to pay for lol. Yea, great deal.avatar299 said:As of right now, no one is actually paying 15 bucks. At most you are paying 5
Wat?avatar299 said: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
Durante said:Except with worse compression than youtube does these days.
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:$5 too much. $5 to play games you have to pay for lol. Yea, great deal.
As well as public places like hotels and airlines, if they're smart.fizzelopeguss said:That's prolly where the market will initially be for this, non gaming laptops and lower end systems.
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 only way this make sense is if they can encourage a partnership or a buyout from a cable company.
DryvBy2 said: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
Mario 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, and installing more server centres to decrease lag, I can only see this technology improve with time rather than being considered increasingly comical.
Or a provider picks it and you will have to continue RENTING the service just to have access to your games.K.Jack 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.
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.
They are not your games. I don't see why this can't get through your skull.LovingSteam said:Or a provider picks it and you will have to continue RENTING the service just to have access to your games.