It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
avatar
cogadh: Pricing and release date details finally available:
http://kotaku.com/5490382/onlive-starts-streaming-games-on-demand-this-june-for-15-a-month

$15 just to access the service which includes demos. On top of that you also have to buy the games. If the games don't cost $10 each for new releases then this is doomed to fail before it's even started.
avatar
cogadh: Pricing and release date details finally available:
http://kotaku.com/5490382/onlive-starts-streaming-games-on-demand-this-june-for-15-a-month

You have to buy the games? From a rental service? This is even more doomed than I originally thought.
avatar
cogadh: Pricing and release date details finally available:
http://kotaku.com/5490382/onlive-starts-streaming-games-on-demand-this-june-for-15-a-month
avatar
Delixe: $15 just to access the service which includes demos. On top of that you also have to buy the games. If the games don't cost $10 each for new releases then this is doomed to fail before it's even started.

Aaaaand I've lost interest.
Funny thing is this is being touted as a console killer in the UK. Glad to see the jornos aren't just regurgitating press releases....
Before everyone dismisses it out of hand think of it this way, Its going to cost just under $180 a year and maybe less if you buy 6month or 1 year package deals. Now lets assume its everything they claim, no delays in the stream and games always running at top of the line graphics. Even with buying the games on the service its not that bad. Consider what it would cost you to upgrade computer parts each year to beable to play any new game with settings maxed out, this will easily be much cheaper.
The downside is it is a service so when you stop subscribing you will not beable to have access to any of the content you already bought. This lack of control means I won't be using it but I can see how people that only want the latest and greatest games might get something out of it.
avatar
Ralackk: Consider what it would cost you to upgrade computer parts each year to beable to play any new game with settings maxed out, this will easily be much cheaper.

Maxed out at a resolution no higher than 1280x720.
avatar
ceemdee: Maxed out at a resolution no higher than 1280x720.

Where does it say that?
avatar
Ralackk: Before everyone dismisses it out of hand think of it this way, Its going to cost just under $180 a year and maybe less if you buy 6month or 1 year package deals. Now lets assume its everything they claim, no delays in the stream and games always running at top of the line graphics. Even with buying the games on the service its not that bad. Consider what it would cost you to upgrade computer parts each year to beable to play any new game with settings maxed out, this will easily be much cheaper.
The downside is it is a service so when you stop subscribing you will not beable to have access to any of the content you already bought. This lack of control means I won't be using it but I can see how people that only want the latest and greatest games might get something out of it.

$180 a year is almost enough for a decent yearly hardware upgrade (GFX card or monitor for example). Add to that the fact that even though you are still buying the games you are also subscribing so like you said anything you buy is gone as soon as you miss a monthly payment. It would be like paying for a Steam subscription. Finally as Ceemdee says it tops out at maximum 720p but it scales to your broadband speed so if you have a slow connection you can expect lower resolutions. Also the games are not played at max settings, Mass Effect was pointed out as using medium settings.
You are getting the performance you would expect from a $100 gfx card for $80 more and you never own anything you buy.
The big question is how much will the individual games cost. If they are significantly cheaper than at retail, then even with factoring in that $180, it could still work out better for those who already don't have a decent computer and can't afford to both upgrade it and buy the games they want.
avatar
ceemdee: Maxed out at a resolution no higher than 1280x720.

They claim that by 2011 OnLive will support 1080p at 60 frames per second. Yeah. Sure.
avatar
cogadh: The big question is how much will the individual games cost. If they are significantly cheaper than at retail, then even with factoring in that $180, it could still work out better for those who already don't have a decent computer and can't afford to both upgrade it and buy the games they want.

Like I said $10 would be reasonable on top of the monthly fee. Possibly $15. But if games are going to cost $30 each then it just would not be worth it especially as you never actually own them.
avatar
ceemdee: Maxed out at a resolution no higher than 1280x720.
avatar
Arkose: They claim that by 2011 OnLive will support 1080p at 60 frames per second. Yeah. Sure.

They can claim that by having "Up to 1080p resolution. Up to 60 frames per second*" on the subscription. However you can follow that little * here:
*1080p resolution can only be supported with a connection speed of 24Mbps. Lower speeds will result in lower resolutions.
Post edited March 11, 2010 by Delixe
You know, there is one thing that we really haven't touched on, that's the fact that the service will be available for the Mac as well as PC at launch. That means Macs will have access to every single PC game available on the service, regardless of whether or not the retail version has been ported to Mac or not. This could be a huge boon to gaming on the Mac and eliminate one more stumbling block in increasing Mac's market share (assuming OnLive actually works and is reasonably successful).
avatar
cogadh: This could be a huge boon to gaming on the Mac and eliminate one more stumbling block in increasing Mac's market share (assuming OnLive actually works and is reasonably successful).

Well it's not really "gaming on the Mac", just using the Mac as nothing more than an "interactive media player", in that case why not just buy a Console for a little more play the console version of 99% of games released on PC plus some exclusive. Actually that's what most of the Mac user gamers I know do.
This is one of those things were I just fail to see any point at all.
You add tons of layers of complexity with internet latency, server requirements, customer support, subscription and what not and end up with lower framerates and and lower settings.
Makes me giggle.
This is just one of those ideas that's probably well ahead of it's time.
Digital distribution of just about everything is the future, but it needs to happen at it's own pace. It's taken a long time to get to the point where streaming movies is viable and profitable, it's likely going to take just as long for that jump to make it to videogames.
The main problem right now is that a huge percentage of the potential target audience is cut off from the service because of ISPs that either can't or won't deliver a good enough connection for the content.
Theoretically, if everybody were on lag-free optical fiber connections, with a minimal amount of routing, they could indeed deliver a service in this manner that would work.