bit-gamer.net

OnLive want to avoid hardware, console market

OnLive want to avoid hardware, console market

OnLive's CEO says he'd prefer to see OnLive work through set top boxes than consoles or other systems.

OnLive CEO and President Steve Perlman has said he'd want to keep the company away from the hardware and console markets if possible and would prefer to see the company brought to users through other means.

OnLive's cloud-based streaming game system will be coming to the US in just a few months. The company recently announced pricing and release details, but will only have the service available through PCs at launch - the already unveiled micro-console is set to be released later on.

"The fact that we have to sell a piece of hardware for the TV, if you will, takes us out of our core business," Perlman told Joystiq. "We think the Micro-console is a cool thing, but we'd rather not have any hardware at all."

Instead, Perlman would want to bring OnLive to subscribers through a set top box.

"If it has a USB port [for the controller] and we have adequate performance in there, then it's conceivable we can do it," Perlman said. "A lot of them just have built-in latency because they assume they're using a conventional compression algorithm [for video]. In that case there's nothing we can do."

Perlman also repeated that he fully expects people to be critical of OnLive's latency issues when it first launches, especially since the service "demands the connection to be exactly what it's spec'd to be."

Let us know your thoughts in the forums.

29 Comments

Discuss in the forums Reply
rimscar 15th March 2010, 13:51 Quote
Good Luck fella in all sincerity, but you're too far ahead of the infrastructure and this is gonna fail hard. Perhaps you should launch in S.Korea first where the infrastructure is there waiting......get it stable, get the games people want, then go for R.O.W.
mastorofpuppetz 15th March 2010, 13:53 Quote
I am fairly open minded, just cant see this doing anything but failing badly.
Flibblebot 15th March 2010, 14:24 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Article
Perlman also repeated that he fully expects people to be critical of OnLive's latency issues when it first launches, especially since the service "demands the connection to be exactly what it's spec'd to be."
...and so the excuses start :(

What's the point of designing hardware to work with a theoretical maximum connection speed when everyone (apart from OnLive, apparently) knows that broadband speeds rarely meet their stated speeds in real life?

Surely better to develop a system that uses below maximum speeds and have something that works, rather then develop based on theoretical maxima and end up with a product that doesn't work well outside of lab conditions?

If you know people are going to be critical, you also know that the product you're selling is flawed.
wuyanxu 15th March 2010, 14:35 Quote
i don't blame them, it's a complicated market and very hard to provide after-sales support for a starting business.

well, with Pingtest result of 20ms and jitter of 1ms to London, i can see OnLive work. it's just a matter of convincing people to get used to the micro-delay.
eddtox 15th March 2010, 14:40 Quote
Meh. I think I'm done with gaming. I'm fed up of being ripped off in a hundred different ways. The gaming scene has changed into something I don't really want to be a part of.

I think I'll just stick to free, open-source, old and indie games if I really get the urge. Virtually every news story coming out atm just details another way gamers will be shafted and I'm done with it. Yet another good thing ruined by corporate greed.
Jack_Pepsi 15th March 2010, 14:52 Quote
I can't think of anything worse than a crappy on demand gaming service - the reason I game on my PC is because I like purchasing and upgrading my rig, fiddling with settings and hardware. I don't want to use a controller and sit in front of my TV.

Nob off OnLive - not that I need to say that, the current state of ADSL in the U.K. is beyond a joke and will probably end this before it even starts.
Jamie 15th March 2010, 15:05 Quote
This technology is not going to work in the UK with the current state of home broadband connections.
DXR_13KE 15th March 2010, 15:06 Quote
tron 15th March 2010, 15:28 Quote
Looking at most of the feedback on this forum and others on the net, most debates are discussing whether this service will 'work' or not. I actually think it might work (one day).

However, the bigger question I would ask gamers is do they want to effectively lose 'ownership' of all the games they decide to buy in the future.

Gamers have been complaining about Ubisoft's constant internet connection DRM, yet this OnLive thing is even worse.

At least with Ubisoft's DRM, you can at least hold the game disc in your hand and pretend you own it and that you can play it whenever or wherever you want.

If you build up a collection of games on Onlive and they go out of business, then all your games have gone.

Also, imagine that you subscribe to OnLive only for one specific single-player Onlive-exclusive game that you think is the best game on Earth. Let's call this game title: 'FU'. Let's say your Onlive subsciption is over £5 per month. After a 5 year subsciption, you have paid over £300 for one game. Plus, if you dare to cancel your monthly subscription, your FU game will expire. All that will exist are your memories.
Ross1 15th March 2010, 16:28 Quote
there is no redeeming feature to this service, its just terrible everywhere you look. from lag to video compression to the cost to your limited ownership...

does it work on a mac? im sure they would lap it up.
CardJoe 15th March 2010, 17:15 Quote
I'm never going to pay for my broadband connection so that I can then pay extra to subscribe to a service which then wants me to pay extra to buy or rent games from them that I can never own (because if you stop subscribing then you lose the titles). No.
FelixTech 15th March 2010, 17:27 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by tron
Also, imagine that you subscribe to OnLive only for one specific single-player Onlive-exclusive game that you think is the best game on Earth. Let's call this game title: 'FU'. Let's say your Onlive subsciption is over £5 per month. After a 5 year subsciption, you have paid over £300 for one game. Plus, if you dare to cancel your monthly subscription, your FU game will expire. All that will exist are your memories.

I would imagine that depends on how often you play it. If you only feel like playing every now and again after the first six months, then i guess you can cancel your sub and then resubscribe when you feel like playing it again (much like an MMO). If you play it for more than 5 months in that period your are probably losing money though...
tron 15th March 2010, 17:47 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by FelixTech
I would imagine that depends on how often you play it. If you only feel like playing every now and again after the first six months, then i guess you can cancel your sub and then resubscribe when you feel like playing it again (much like an MMO). If you play it for more than 5 months in that period your are probably losing money though...

I know a guy who lives and breathes 'rFactor'. He swears by that game. He probably plays 50 hours on it per week. Year in year out. (You can't even mention another game to him).

This is not an MMO type of game where you would expect to pay for an MMO service. It's just a normal singleplayer / multiplayer game. Imagine if that game had been made exclusive on OnLive. :(

He would truly need to rename that game to FU. :(

Cancel subscription = no play !

Imagine him spending his whole life paying for this one game that he can never own. :?
Bursar 15th March 2010, 18:09 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by tron
Let's say your Onlive subsciption is over £5 per month. After a 5 year subsciption, you have paid over £300 for one game. Plus, if you dare to cancel your monthly subscription, your FU game will expire. All that will exist are your memories.

US price is $15/moth, so over 5 years you've spent $900. I will be surprised if the UK version doesn't come in at £15/month.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ross1
does it work on a mac? im sure they would lap it up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joystiq
OnLive will launch as a computer application on PC and Mac
wafflesomd 15th March 2010, 18:54 Quote
I'm interested in seeing how well it will work.

Quite a few people here are sure it will fail, and none of them have used it yet.
NuTech 15th March 2010, 21:06 Quote
The only way I can see OnLive being successful is if (this is a big if) they can somehow integrate it into set-top boxes such as SkyHD, Tivo, high end HDTVs etc and offer it as a subscription-free casual service.

They can forget about 'core gamers', so we're already out of the picture, but if somebody is browsing Sky or Tivo and they see "Play Batman:AA this weekend for only £3" then I could really see that working.
Jehla 15th March 2010, 21:08 Quote
This idea of onlive seems more and more like a false economy each time I look at it.

On the face of it onlive needs you to only pay a subscription and then rent games. I'm willing to bet that will at least double when you need to upgrade to a unlimited download package due to streaming High resolution images when ever you want to play a game.

Not to mention the phone/tv/internet packages that come with a very low download cap (iirc)
Star*Dagger 15th March 2010, 21:20 Quote
I love reading any thread about OnLive, all the cyber-luddites come out to play! Even to the extent of one guy saying he is leaving gaming altogether (I submit if you can leave gaming you were never a Gamer).

Now or in the near future OnLive will work and will be an important addition to the gaming realm.
If you do not like the idea of paying monthly that means 1) you are locked out of mmos, which provide the most complex and deep gameplay 2) you are going to be very upset with the evolution of PC Gaming over the next 10 years, since everything is moving to episodic, expansion and mmo's.
There is some false idea that you are getting ripped off if you have to pay monthly. Devs need to be paid, the OnLive servers need to be bought, if everything is free in your country, please let me know where you live so I can move there!
PC (and his inferior brother Consoles) are a very cheap hobby. In fact, I would be hard pressed to find an adult male hobby that costs LESS than PC Gaming per annum.
Price of a game is around 40 euros, broadband connection 30 to 60 euros a month, two mmo subs 30 euros per month. 40+60+30=130, I spend more on a night out with a cute bird (Dinner, theater, club, drinks, parking, etc).
Get over it, it is not going away.

Yours in the Cold, Hard Facts Plasma,
Star*Dagger
Bursar 15th March 2010, 22:50 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Star*Dagger
If you do not like the idea of paying monthly that means 1) you are locked out of mmos, which provide the most complex and deep gameplay
If I choose to play MMOs on my PC, I pay per month for that game. If I want to play them via OnLive, I need to pay OnLive, plus MMO subs, likely doubling the monthly outoing. You will also only be able to play with other people that are connected to the same datacentre. This is will mean that MMO servers will be quite barren places, and you won't get anywhere near the experience that you can get playing on a PC with acess to a worldwide user base.
Quote:
2) you are going to be very upset with the evolution of PC Gaming over the next 10 years, since everything is moving to episodic, expansion and mmo's.
This may or may not be true. But why would you pay $900 over a year for the OnLive service, plus whatever the game rental/purchase prices are when you will likely be able to get the same game through Steam without a monthly fee? You will also be able to log into Steam and play your game later on without any additional fee. Want to stop paying OnLive? Fine, you lose access to any games that you purchased as they're locked up in the OnLive datacentres.
Quote:
There is some false idea that you are getting ripped off if you have to pay monthly. Devs need to be paid
How do you think that's going to work? If 100 PC gamers want to play a game, you get 100 purchases of the game. If 100 OnLive players want to play, OnLive buy probably 40 copies of the game on the assumption that there won't be anymore than that online at once. Devs lose 60% of their income.
Quote:
PC (and his inferior brother Consoles) are a very cheap hobby. In fact, I would be hard pressed to find an adult male hobby that costs LESS than PC Gaming per annum.
Price of a game is around 40 euros, broadband connection 30 to 60 euros a month, two mmo subs 30 euros per month. 40+60+30=130, I spend more on a night out with a cute bird (Dinner, theater, club, drinks, parking, etc).
But you're now forgetting to add in more money for your OnLive sub every month.
Quote:
Yours in the Cold, Hard Facts Plasma,
Not really, it's your opinion, and ofcourse you're entitled to it, but that doesn't make it fact.
Rkiver 15th March 2010, 22:54 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by CardJoe
I'm never going to pay for my broadband connection so that I can then pay extra to subscribe to a service which then wants me to pay extra to buy or rent games from them that I can never own (because if you stop subscribing then you lose the titles). No.

QFT
metarinka 16th March 2010, 00:03 Quote
lets look at it from a dollar and common sense view

Cost of games+ cost of hardware averaged per year= total gaming cost (assuming you have broad band already which most do and if you refuse for the cost then you don't multiplayer game)

Reduced cost of games+monthly subscription fee= total onlive cost

If you buy 5 games a year @ 60 dollars and $100 a year on hardware ( $300 console every 3 years) = $400 a year
IF you buy 5 games a year @30 dollars + $180 subscription fee = $330 a year

That's your savings right there.Basically you get the best graphics constantly and never have to pay to upgrade hardware or watch as graphics get progressively worse over the year. Where it doesn't make sense is if you only buy one game a year.

It's not even a comparison to a PC as it can't replace the functionality but any enthusiast gamer will probably spend more than $100 a year averaged on hardware. I spend ~1K on a gaming pc every 2-3 years before it's too outdate so that's now 200-300 a year in hardware. IF you can claim to keep a current gaming pc for under $100 a year on hardware you're lying to yourself or always running a mid to low end specced system.
tron 16th March 2010, 00:36 Quote
Quote: Star*Dagger"you are going to be very upset with the evolution of PC Gaming over the next 10 years, since everything is moving to episodic, expansion and mmo's ... Yours in the Cold, Hard Facts Plasma,
Star*Dagger"

Are you sure this is a fact or is it just based on an opinion :?

Saying that 'everything', every single PC game in the future will be a subscription based MMO is a bit far fetched.

So if a small child wants to play a video game in the future, he has no option but to spend his wee pocket money on monthly subscriptions because there are no casual games or hardcore pick up and play titles being made.

You are entitled to think that 'everything' will become a Massively Multiplayer Online subscription game, but maybe it's only the type of games that you are interested in that are heading in that direction. It doesn't mean everyone needs to get with the MMOs. Also doesn't mean they should comit the rest of their lives to an OnLive monthly subscription on top of their MMO subscriptions.

MMOs are for gamers like you who love MMOs. The type of games I play are not suited to this and thankfully I don't see any real signs of them heading in that direction :)

However, I could end up being proven wrong. But I am not going to state my opinion as a fact.

What's happening in these OnLive threads is that some people are in support of OnLive and ohers are voicing their concerns or objections to the OnLive cloud gaming service. You suggesting that they should just accept a 'cloud' based gaming future because it's inevitable is like saying nobody should enjoy driving their cars now because the future will upset them when we have all human-driven cars outlawed, and just computer-driven transport allowed on the roads. The public may well lose more and more freedom and all the other nice things they used to enjoy, but they shouldn't object to it because a highly upsetting future is inevitable.

Yes it is true that devs need to be paid. When I spend money buying a newly released game, the devs get paid. I also may not mind paying them extra to use their multiplaying servers.

I don't then need to spend the rest of my life paying monthly subscriptions to OnLive to allow me the privilage (even just for single player mode) to continue playing my game that I bought. :)
Ross1 16th March 2010, 00:50 Quote
Star*Dagger is a known troll here. move along.
Solidus 16th March 2010, 01:45 Quote
This type of stuff is too ahead of the market. People are enjoying their consoles; get an xbox 360 or a ps3 and watch movies via dvd or blu-ray - own your own games, play whenever you want with no further costs.

Paying a £15 monthly fee and then adding the cost of a game ontop of that.

In a year thats £180 just for a subscription...thats about 6 times the cost of xbox live (if were to say its £30 as some places sell it for lower than the RRP of £40)

Then add the costs of the games you buy ontop of that and your looking at a couple hundred fairly easily there (per year too!)

Thing about onlive is, its a great concept but its too ahead of its time, the UK broadband infastructure is pathetic, beyond pathetic, its horrible really.
Im annoyed at paying £20 per month for broadband and you bump that to about £35 with onlive without any games and then thats crazy.
If it was a couple quid (£2 per month for example) just for the service that is more feasible but were in a world economy thats just been through a blender, people are trying to save money and paying a monthly fee to have something that isnt tangible like an actual game in your hand is asking a lot from people I think.

Theres something about holding the case and disk when you buy it...you dont really get that excitement from clicking a button on the screen...I dont know about others but I feel it will fail and it will be down to it being too ambitious for its time.

In the future when broadband technology has caught up and become more efficient and the costs lowered...it may be feasible but were not there yet.
Star*Dagger 16th March 2010, 05:42 Quote
My bad, when I said everything I did mean 60% of the market, not *everything*. Suffice it to say that the PC Gaming market is changing, gives more to the customer and simply must charge more.
ou7blaze 16th March 2010, 09:31 Quote
I think this is an interesting concept that will start out very slow but might be successful with casual gamers and then eventually "core gamers" (whatever that means) jumping on.
GiantStickMan 17th March 2010, 00:44 Quote
Maybe i am materialistic but I like having an original copy. I'll even pay extra to get limited editions etc. Sure, I own games on Steam, I bought L4D2 on Steam the day it came out, but i also bought an original copy of it too.
Investing in a service that only ever lets me rent games, and with no assurance that this will actually take off and the company won't close their doors 6 months down the track? Not for me.
I still regularly play older titles, I shudder to think how much they would add up to over the years if I had to have a monthly fee for the priviledge of playing them.
Like someone else mentioned, reminds me of the Phantom. Good luck to them, it's an ambitious product and may potentially stick with the casual gamer market provided the price is right and it's easy to use, but ultimately I see this failing.
Bursar 17th March 2010, 10:16 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by GiantStickMan
I still regularly play older titles, I shudder to think how much they would add up to over the years if I had to have a monthly fee for the priviledge of playing them.
To be fair though, if you weren't interested in playing a title for a while, but still went on 'renting' it, that would be your fault. I'm sure it will be possible to stop renting a game for a while, and then go back to it later on. Ofcourse what will happen to any 'save games' or progress is anyones guess.
GiantStickMan 17th March 2010, 12:25 Quote
Quote:
To be fair though, if you weren't interested in playing a title for a while, but still went on 'renting' it, that would be your fault.

True enough but I'm not talking about renting whole collections of games, I mean there are still some titles I play at least once a month years after the fact. Blood is probably the main one and how many years has it been since that was released?
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums