bit-gamer.net

Onlive rental pricing revealed

Onlive rental pricing revealed

Onlive launched last week in the US and will come to the UK in late 2011.

Cloud-based games platform Onlive, which runs games on servers farms and streams inputs and outputs over the internet, was launched in the US late last week, meaning we've finally got a look at the full pricing options.

The prices for Onlive games are shown below, via Eurogamer, and come in three forms - three or five day rental passes or 'unlimited access' passes which last until June 2013. Users also have to pay a subscription to use the Onlive service at all and not all games are available with every type of rental pass.

Users can only access games they have paid for so long as their Onlive subscription remains active - if you cancel your sub then you lose access to games, regardless of whether your rental period has expired or not. Subscriptions cost $14.95 USD per month.

Onlive is set to launch in the UK in late 2011, with BT gaining the exclusive rights to bundle the service with broadband packages.

Demos are available for all of the below games, except for Prince of Persia: The Forgotten Sands.

Aaaaa!!! A Reckless Disregard for Gravity - $9.99 for unlimited access
Assassin's Creed II - $39.99 for unlimited access
Batman: Arkham Asylum - $6.99 for five days / $4.99 for three days
Borderlands - $29.99 for unlimited access / $8.99 for five days / $5.99 for three days
Brain Challenge - $4.99 for unlimited access
Colin McRae: DiRT 2 - Demo only, for free
Defense Grid Gold - $13.99 for unlimited access / $6.99 for five days
F.E.A.R. 2: Project Origin - $19.99 for unlimited access
Just Cause 2 - $49.99 for unlimited access
LEGO Harry Potter: Years 1-4 - Demo only, for free
Madballs in Babo: Invasion - $9.99 for unlimited access
Prince of Persia: The Forgotten Sands - $9.99 for unlimited access
Puzzle Chronicles - $9.99 for unlimited access / $3.99 for three days
Red Faction: Guerilla - $19.99 for unlimited access
Shatter - $8.99 for unlimited access
Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell: Conviction - $59.99 for unlimited access
Trine - Demo only, for free
Unreal Tournament 3: Titan Pack - $19.99 for unlimited access / $6.99 for five days / $4.99 for three days
World of Goo - $19.99 for unlimited access / $6.99 for five days / $4.99 for three days

Let us know your thoughts in the forums.

73 Comments

Discuss in the forums Reply
sotu1 21st June 2010, 11:21 Quote
Wait, "unlimted" lasts until June 2013? You mean it's a 3 year pass. Just call it a 3 year pass!

I know we're paying a premium for having access to their servers/having access to high end graphics on low end PCs but this pricing system....sucks....
Phalanx 21st June 2010, 11:26 Quote
Really not looking that good to be honest. Have to say coupling that with the subscription, it looks like any sane gamer is going to steer a million miles clear of this.
lacuna 21st June 2010, 11:29 Quote
This has to be literally the shittest idea ever.

$15 per month -an xbox 360 is cheaper than a 12 month subscription and, in my opinion, the concept is already ruined by this point but then the games (which you can't keep) cost the same as they do for the consoles.

It was unlikely to be good idea and it seems that our general cynicism has proved correct.
alpaca 21st June 2010, 11:45 Quote
for as much as their pricing system is good or bad, what i'm curious about is if it WORKS?
mi1ez 21st June 2010, 11:48 Quote
FAR FAR FAR too expensive! especially those games (Batman) where you don't get an "unlimited" option (which, as sotu pointed out is really 3 years)

FAIL.
azzybish 21st June 2010, 11:48 Quote
A years subscription buying lets say 4 new games: $180 + $180 games (AC2/Borderlands/JC2/Splinter Cell conviction) = $360

Not worth it at all.
sotu1 21st June 2010, 11:51 Quote
In fairness, it might be worth waiting to see what the free games are that come with this subscription. There are some free games right?
Centy-face 21st June 2010, 11:54 Quote
Yeah this is just totally not worth it at all a semi decent pc costs about the same over the lifespan of the machine.

More to the point it's supposed to take the strain off the system by just streaming it but really none of those games wont run on my pc which was built for 370 over 2 years ago so until I see Crysis and Stalker and other such games I won't even be curious.

I wonder how it handles crashes I mean no game no matter how good the system is doesn't crash every so often.
Florian 21st June 2010, 11:57 Quote
Well, they do have to provide the computing power to have everyone's games running on their systems. Did anyone honestly expect that to be cheap?

I could see hotels offering game rentals using a service like that, but for end users it doesn't seem like a viable option.
perplekks45 21st June 2010, 11:57 Quote
Interesting concept yet it failed apparently. WTF @ pricing?!
Evildead666 21st June 2010, 11:58 Quote
The Pricing is mental, and they'll have trouble advertising in the UK 'unlimited' and then trying to state that it means 3 years...

I can hear the lawsuits gearing up already...
Greenie 21st June 2010, 11:59 Quote
That pricing is obscene. Three years of subscription fees would pay for one of the buyers guide 'affordable all rounder' pc, which would probably play all those games at least as well as Onlive, considering all the technical problems I expect they run into.

That's assuming you've got a monitor or HDTV you can plug into and doesn't take into account electricity cost or maintenance/malware and all the other crap normal people run into.

But you would save on the games, as they are way cheaper off Amazon or play. Then after three years, you can do the same thing again.
_Metal_Guitar_ 21st June 2010, 12:01 Quote
I read someones experience of OnLive yesterday (one of the B-T staff were reading it). OnLive don't run games at max settings, they choose what they feel is a good balance of quality and performance. And this was FEAR 2...I ran that maxed out on my old rig, Add in a crappy resolution and the fact that 'buying' games is nothing more than extended renting, on top of a subscription fee and I couldn't be any less interested in using OnLive. I'd rather buy an exepensive PC and play games how they were intended. At max and with no lag/latency.
azrael- 21st June 2010, 12:06 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by sotu1
Wait, "unlimted" lasts until June 2013? You mean it's a 3 year pass. Just call it a 3 year pass!
You're assuming the service actually LASTS for three years... :)
BlackMage23 21st June 2010, 12:08 Quote
This is not a good start to a service that has a lot to prove to tempt people to use it.
Most people will vote with their wallets and stick with buying games from retail or from services like Steam.
At this rate I can't see it lasting the 3 years that their "unlimited" service offers.
smc8788 21st June 2010, 12:09 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by _Metal_Guitar_
I read someones experience of OnLive yesterday (one of the B-T staff were reading it). OnLive don't run games at max settings, they choose what they feel is a good balance of quality and performance. And this was FEAR 2...I ran that maxed out on my old rig, Add in a crappy resolution and the fact that 'buying' games is nothing more than extended renting, on top of a subscription fee and I couldn't be any less interested in using OnLive. I'd rather buy an exepensive PC and play games how they were intended. At max and with no lag/latency.

I assume most games will be capped at 30 FPS as well?
_Metal_Guitar_ 21st June 2010, 12:22 Quote
Pobably something like that. Here it is, just in case anyone missed it on the front page

http://blog.wolfire.com/2010/06/Thoughts-on-OnLive

Certain aspects of it sound appealing, but in my humble opinion the downsides far outweigh the benefits. Espeically to a PC/game enthusiast.
Bloody_Pete 21st June 2010, 12:27 Quote
This is ment to appeal more to console players than PC gamers I think, Who are probably stupid enough to believe the hype about this. All it means is that when I'm trying to game online some console git will be dicking around :(
Flibblebot 21st June 2010, 12:33 Quote
Frankly for those prices you might as well go out and buy a console and the games yourself. $40 for Assassin's Creed II? Who are they trying to kid? You can already pick it up secondhand and have true unlimited access for less than half that price.
NuTech 21st June 2010, 12:36 Quote
Wow, I think Onlive are going out of their way to fail. Various websites are starting to pick apart their Terms of Service and found this worrying clause: If you unsubscribe for more than 12 months, you forfeit your entire account and all your game purchases are gone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bloody_Pete
This is ment to appeal more to console players than PC gamers I think, Who are probably stupid enough to believe the hype about this. All it means is that when I'm trying to game online some console git will be dicking around :(
Stop talking out of your arse.
LeMaltor 21st June 2010, 12:43 Quote
The word 'unlimited' does my head in, when ever you see it you know it's going to be the opposite of unlimited, this 3 years, broadband fair usage policies etc, it's just stupid why doesn't someone stop them :(
liratheal 21st June 2010, 12:59 Quote
I laughed. A lot.
shadows 21st June 2010, 13:06 Quote
That's got to be the worse pricing I've seen for a while. Onlive is seriously going to find it difficult to work in the UK, especially with that pricing cost and the fact that you have no control over the settings for the game.

Not to mention you'd need superfast unlimited internet to actually make it work correctly. Can you imagine the bandwidth costs for this?

I hate companies that market something as unlimited when it clearly isn't.
_Metal_Guitar_ 21st June 2010, 13:20 Quote
I don't understand how they can even advertise it as unlimited...it either is, or it isn't. No fancy legal mumbo-jumbo should be able to let them do that. I now not only want OnLive to fail because I think it's a joke, I want it to fail because the people that own it deserve nothing but misery.
pimlicosound 21st June 2010, 13:27 Quote
This feels like the prices we had to pay to get online in 1995: the connection fee, the monthly subscription, the per-minute fee to AOL and the per-minute fee on your phone bill.

I think OnLive would have been better off adopting a Love Film / Netflix pricing model, where the subscription rate includes the game rentals - perhaps a low rate for a couple of games per month, and a high rate for unlimited (proper unlimited) access to the full library of games.
Blademrk 21st June 2010, 13:29 Quote
I think I'd prefer to buy the games and have real unlimited access to them then buy into on-live and their (3 year) definition of unlimited.
Fizzban 21st June 2010, 13:31 Quote
Unlimited but only for 3 years? That is not unlimited. That is a lease. And for those prices you could buy the games and have REAL unlimited access to it. Pathetic.
John_T 21st June 2010, 13:42 Quote
Forget for a moment the 'optimistic' pricing levels.
Or that in the UK they will probably try to charge pounds at the same rate as dollars.
Forget too the issues of broadband caps and lag.
Also forget limited timespan of 'ownership'.
Or that if your subscription lapses / their company goes bust you lose everything.
Also forget that the games will be offered at lower resolutions and lower settings with capped frame rates.

Forget all that for a moment.

This article seems to be saying that this 'service' will be exclusive to BT Internet customers.

I am not, (and never will be) a customer of BT, therefore even if I thought all of the above was great I STILL couldn't go for this.

Who's great idea was it to deny access to over 80%+ of the market even before launch? Not so much shooting yourself in the foot as taking them both off at the knee...
13eightyfour 21st June 2010, 13:52 Quote
It doesnt surprise me at all, The whole business fails at every single step. So it goes live at the end of 2011 and the unlimited passes finish in june 2013, So you actually only get ~18months for your 'unlimited' game, Thats the worst value deal ive ever seen.

Id still like to see UK pricing though just for a bit more of a laugh, Id imagine it'll be the same-3/4 of the $ price.

The other thing thats niggling me is why june 2013 for the unlimited games? It sounds to me a borderline scam.
Quote:
Originally Posted by John_T

This article seems to be saying that this 'service' will be exclusive to BT Internet customers.

I am not, (and never will be) a customer of BT, therefore even if I thought all of the above was great I STILL couldn't go for this.

Who's great idea was it to deny access to over 80%+ of the market even before launch? Not so much shooting yourself in the foot as taking them both off at the knee...

The way i read that is you can get the service directly through BT if your with/sign up to them, Otherwise you'd have to get a separate subscription from onlive themselves, I could be wrong though.
Silver51 21st June 2010, 14:00 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by sotu1
... I know we're paying a premium for having access to their servers/having access to medium graphics on low end PCs but this pricing system....sucks....

Corrected..
http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=859&type=expert&pid=1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bloody_Pete
This is ment to appeal more to console players than PC gamers I think, Who are probably stupid enough to believe the hype about this...

To be honest, this will appeal to school kids and laymen who want to play the same games as their chums without buying expensive hardware. Actually reading the EULA will likely be beyond the capability of the subscriber base.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 13eightyfour
..The other thing thats niggling me is why june 2013 for the unlimited games? It sounds to me a borderline scam...

That's the date when the system becomes self-aware and revolts against its creators, killing us all.


Also, OnLive Fail.
smc8788 21st June 2010, 14:07 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by John_T
This article seems to be saying that this 'service' will be exclusive to BT Internet customers.

Correct: http://www.bit-tech.net/news/gaming/2010/05/13/bt-is-exclusive-onlive-supplier-in-uk/1

To be fair, I think they've realised they have a dud and the only way they'd get some serious money from the UK market is to strike a deal with an ISP giving them exclusive usage rights. BT was obviously stupid enough to hand over the cash before their product has even been proven to work on a large scale, public environment.
_Metal_Guitar_ 21st June 2010, 14:10 Quote
Quote:
That's the date when the system becomes self-aware and revolts against its creators, killing us all.

Lol. That is all.
CardJoe 21st June 2010, 14:13 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by John_T

This article seems to be saying that this 'service' will be exclusive to BT Internet customers.

No, it doesn't.

It says quite explicitly that BT has the exclusive rights to BUNDLE IT WITH BROADBAND.

If you're not on BT broadband then you can still get Onlive, but BT will offer a Broadband package to customers that includes an Onlive subscription - and they are the only company in the UK which has the rights to do that.

That previous news post was incorrect and has now been corrected.
Phalanx 21st June 2010, 14:18 Quote
June 2013 is all the time they have for funding up until that point. After that, they fold and everyone is better off...

That's what I'm hoping anyway.
Psy-UK 21st June 2010, 14:32 Quote
With the bandwidth caps in this country, OnLive will not succeed, at least not here.
Skiddywinks 21st June 2010, 14:36 Quote
Wow, the more I learn, the more ridiculous it sounds. The pricing for what you get is absolutely insane.
UncertainGod 21st June 2010, 14:40 Quote
Wow, as if this service didn't have enough problems for it to work at all in the real world now they have set the price so that only the clinically insane would buy it.
Silver51 21st June 2010, 14:57 Quote
Yet, I have a feeling that the BBC will big it up in their news articles and present it as the biggest thing since sliced Jesus bread. Once that happens, it'll be jammed deeper in the public consciousness than Gabe Newell in cheesecake.

Many people don't question the news and generally take anything that's been televised as gospel. It'll be those people who won't question input lag, fuzzy graphics or supah high 'rental' fees because they don't know any better.
Denis_iii 21st June 2010, 15:00 Quote
****ing stupid pricing model, kudos onlive for bringing about your own demise and ruining my vision of future platform free gaming
it should simply be a monthly payment for access to anything your want ala Netflix/Love Film
crazyceo 21st June 2010, 16:01 Quote
Not worth it based on those costs and quality of games. Who was it who said this would be the death of PC gaming?

It's main restricition will be BT Broadband unless of course this can all run on 512kbps connection.
olimorgan 21st June 2010, 16:06 Quote
If its bundled with BT will that stop them capping your usage and download speeds. Course not!
Sonofalich 21st June 2010, 16:27 Quote
I really can't see how they can market this.

Pc Hardware is becoming cheaper and cheaper all the time.

I just built my brother a computer that is able to handle all the latest games fine, albeit not in absolute maximum graphics. But for less than £400 he has access to all these games.

£400 is the price of a ps3 at launch and look how many people bought that.

Hardware is coming down in price all the time and I cannot see them possibly having a market.
s3v3n 21st June 2010, 17:14 Quote
They should have more tiers of subscription.
$10 for "Standard" with those above price schemes.
$30 for "Silver" for unlimited on games that's been released for 6 month or more (half price for the rest)
$50 for "Gold" for unlimited on all games
sotu1 21st June 2010, 17:31 Quote
I think they're going for an overpriced early adopter scheme, which they'll drop within 6 months/1 year. When people see a drop in price they'll reconsider. Much like what Apple do with their products.
Elledan 21st June 2010, 18:12 Quote
I'm honestly not sure who their target market is. I would could myself among the more casual gamers and even my first thought was to just buy the friggin' game and be done with it, not withstanding any crippling DRM.

Basically with OnLive you'll be paying as much or more to play a game than if you were to go out and buy the game plus console, or that fancy new videocard, especially if one adds up the total costs for both options during a few years. Sounds to me like OnLive's target market is the mouth-breathing, slack-jawed section.
_Metal_Guitar_ 21st June 2010, 18:24 Quote
OnLive is crippling DRM. DRM that costs you at that.
eddtox 21st June 2010, 19:30 Quote
Bahahahaha... bollocks to that :D
Fabou 21st June 2010, 19:38 Quote
Can't say that the review are positive.
Plus considering that when your PC is a little old it's trading image quality for lag I woouldn't say it attract's gammer. A FPS with lag is unplayable.
runadumb 21st June 2010, 19:47 Quote
okay okay, from a business perspective this is probably a price point they have to meet to pay for the whole shabang. As a (potential) customer I say "NO FREAKING WAY YOU MANICS!!!"
That pricing makes the whole thing seem ludicrous.
metarinka 21st June 2010, 20:01 Quote
the price point is pretty ridiculous but it actually makes sense for some of those games in the beat once and never play again category. some games like max payne only take a couple hours to beat and then I never really picked em up again. if I could "Rent" it for 5 days at $10 I would feel much better than paying $50 and having it sit on my shelf forever. But that $10 on top of a $15 a month fee makes it unattractive.

The only other benefit would be someone who travels a lot as you could game on the road (assuming you have the connection) and not have to lug around a pc or console.

overall I'm a little dissapointed but I have a feeling this business model could work in a few years when the prices comes down.
Cupboard 21st June 2010, 20:03 Quote
LOL

OK, so ignoring the ridiculous pricing for a minute...

If I am playing an OnLive copy of a cross platform multiplayer game, who will I be playing against? Will I be connected to the XBox, PS3 or PC servers? You may be able to use OnLive through your console or a spcialised OnLive console, does that change things?
technogiant 21st June 2010, 20:17 Quote
Although I would like this to work both from a business and tech perspective I'm struggling to see the advantage here. Why would I use this service and pay £10 per month for the pleasure and then a further what £5 or there about for a short game lease with all the encumbent problems of lag and quality the service may have?
I'd sooner simply buy a console with a 5 - 10 year life span and rent games at a lesser cost and play them at full lag free console quality and then purchase them in full for a life time if I liked them and wished to continue playing on line.

This service needs to be priced in a maner that compensates for its shortcomings, no monthly fee and a more realistic short game lease fee.
If they get the pricing right their are millions and millions of low power pc and lap top owners out there that would make use of this service. But it has to be priced at a lower level to attract the more casual gamer.
If it weren't for the monthly fee I would in all probability use it to try games before making a full retail purchase.
As regards the quality of the service, well that can only improve with increased internet speeds so I hope it takes off.
Pete J 21st June 2010, 21:13 Quote
This. Is. Complete. Shite.

As bemoaned by everyone, the prices are ridiculous. I thought Onlive was going to be a cheaper option than a Console or PC; it works out more expensive and with worse results. Limited quality settings and resolution, just plain...ridiculous. Not to mention the absolutely stupid 'Unlimited' three year limit - I still play games from before the turn of the millennium!

I don't wish failure on this company but they really aren't helping themselves. If any of my peers consider this 'service', I'll be sure to point out the actual costs compared to buying a cheap gaming PC.
Krayzie_B.o.n.e. 21st June 2010, 21:13 Quote
Lets see I can use Onlive and have Lag, Fuzzy video, or mediocre graphics pay $15 a month plus still have to buy games and pray the servers are running when I want to game and never own anything when the servers go offline in 3 years..

or buy a console and buy new, used, or rent games($25 a month unlimited Gamefly) with no lag and clear graphics and have a hard copy if I bought new or used but I can game anytime I want for sure and that includes multi player.

or buy a PC Graphics card (most people have a PC anyway) and buy cheaper PC games with no lag and superior graphics have several copies and even game when I'm not on my PC, hell even try most games for free before I buy therefore I never waste my money plus play multi player from any computer (Steam).
even Mod a game get noticed and hired by a developer and become rich.

Either way Onlive is EPIC fail as it will go down in prices but only gain .5% of the video game market share as in three years the servers will be sold to host MMO's or Google will buy them. I see hotels offering this service or maybe a tie in with McDonalds as a way to get kids to come to their FATTY restaurants

Don't ever buy a game without a hard copy.
outlawaol 21st June 2010, 21:51 Quote
Uhh, I wont be buying this in anyway, shape or form.
hbeevers 21st June 2010, 22:03 Quote
a new pc capable of playing most games can be bought for about £550. Games for this can be bought for about £20 each to keep and use 'forever', there'll be no lag, reasonable graphics and room to upgrade further to keep up with new requirements. over 2 years you'd actually save money buying a new pc.
Fused 21st June 2010, 22:04 Quote
I'm sure I remember reading a discussion on here not so long ago about peoples fears if steam ever failed and what would happen to there games (as in no longer having the service there to download them again or authenticate the user to allow play)

From what I gather from this so far is you have to pay a monthly sub plus the full game (similar to full retail) price to only have access until 2013? :? Plus the possibility of loosing access to your games if you unsubscribe to the service for too long?

My biggest fear is that if this does take off, there will be less and less demand for desktop hardware so prices will go up for things like gpus (fewer and fewer customers) and there will be less development on them to the point where you couldn't build your own pc to take on the latest games as alternative to this kind of service.
*Edit: Ok rethought this, and perhaps something competing against high end gpu makers might drive prices down for a while. Though I do think that if this really take off there will come a point when there is no longer any profit in making desktop gpus etc.

It has many advantages but for the same reason I would rather have a whole stack of £3 DVDs rather than just renting them (or streaming them) even though I may only watch them once is I want to be able to have total control over what I do with them, when I do things with them and not worry about access issues. The world isn't quite ready to go totally digital. No ones come up with a system that is profitable but is the same as own a physical copy.

Also aren't I missing something here, surely your computer has got to process the datastream from onlive to display and track your interactions with the game? Surely that is no small task even if takes out the actual processing of the graphics from the game engine. There must be certain standard of computer needed? Would my machine is of 5-6 years ago be able to play a 2010 title via OnLive to the same quality as brandnew computer using OnLive (mainly talking about lagg here)

One disadvantage that has just struck me is that user or community hotfixes/hacks/mods that correct bugs in a game would become impossible and we would all be faced to wait for developers to get around to patching the game which can be quite long peroids for some.
Krayzie_B.o.n.e. 21st June 2010, 22:16 Quote
$29.99 a month and play all the dam games you want. This would be better.
_Metal_Guitar_ 21st June 2010, 22:36 Quote
No, another company trying to compete in the high-end GPU market would be better. $29.99 a month and all the games you want, might just make this something worth considering.
Guinevere 21st June 2010, 22:54 Quote
I quite like the concept of being able to game on my laptop and get reasonable battery life. My thought is I just can't work who they are aiming this at? Not us lot here on BT that is clear. As a "bolt on" for TVs and set top boxes I could see it being reasonably successful.

I think the biggest "lag" the service will see will be the delay between the launch and them hitting their sales targets.
John_T 21st June 2010, 23:26 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by CardJoe
No, it doesn't.

It says quite explicitly that BT has the exclusive rights to BUNDLE IT WITH BROADBAND.

If you're not on BT broadband then you can still get Onlive, but BT will offer a Broadband package to customers that includes an Onlive subscription - and they are the only company in the UK which has the rights to do that.

That previous news post was incorrect and has now been corrected.

Fair enough, I probably should have said 'the information linked in this article' instead of just 'this article'. My bad...
greigaitken 22nd June 2010, 00:54 Quote
as said above, it's overpriced and has too many downsides just to have less hardware. however, nobody got rich by underestimating the stupidness of average joe public. This will be just as successful as the "mail us your gold" companies.
Tulatin 22nd June 2010, 00:56 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krayzie_B.o.n.e.
$29.99 a month and play all the dam games you want. This would be better.

I think I'd get bored with Dam games pretty fast. Beaver simulators would be nifty, but I'd say I'd get about 24 hours maximum out of one.

Now - while the OnLive service seems like a neat idea, the pricing schemes are not. While there are definate savings in heat / hardware / electricity, these gains are lost when you consider you can get a real console for less then the cost of a year of the service - a real console which doesn't depend on a fragile internet connection, stingy bandwidth caps, or the extortion that comes from having to pay full retail price for a game that you don't even really own.

Worse yet, I doubt you can ever get them to send you a copy of your own game as it's just a rental - and considering that all things are likely to be proprietary - e.g. saves, achievements, mods, and the like - you're playing it once and losing it to the ages. So in some regard, it's like renting a cartridge game as a kid... just far more expensive.

Seriously. Say I want to play Assassin's Creed 2. It's what, $50 through OnL? There's been no word of the initial hardware cost, the bandwidth usage (I pay roughly 66 cents a gb, which is sort of brutal), or the future retention of the data. I guess to people who balk at the $150 for an Xbox / Wii, this seems good...
technogiant 22nd June 2010, 01:38 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krayzie_B.o.n.e.
$29.99 a month and play all the dam games you want. This would be better.

yeah play all the games you want at low image quality and with lag....Nah....this is not for committed gamers....this is for casual gamers and they would baulk at a $30 monthly fee....only way to go for this is no monthly fee and low game rental fees in the hope of picking up huge numbers of small transactions from the billions of low powered pc and mac users.
It would also be better for them not to offer outright purchase but just allow access on a per day basis at a low price per game say $1 and not offer free demos...who would worry about paying that....and when people get hooked and want to complete the single player campaign or more importantly the multiplayer games they would keep coming back at $1 a time (perhaps you could gain free access after playing 50 times or something)...its money people wouldn't think twice about paying but in the long run the company would make more from it.
C-Sniper 22nd June 2010, 02:40 Quote
It also seems like they are holding you hostage by the fact that if you cancel your sub at any time you lose all the games you purchased until you get back on your subscription.

I think they call this 'Extortion' in the legal world..
DirtyH 22nd June 2010, 11:23 Quote
btw, monthly subscription is "only" $4.95

OnLive will send you an email at least thirty (30) days before the expiration of your free twelve (12) month membership period offering you the opportunity to keep your Account accessible on the Service by renewing your membership at a rate of $4.95/month, on a month-to-month basis for up to twelve (12) additional months.
http://www.onlive.com/legal/foundingoffer
sotu1 22nd June 2010, 12:21 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guinevere
I quite like the concept of being able to game on my laptop and get reasonable battery life. My thought is I just can't work who they are aiming this at? Not us lot here on BT that is clear. As a "bolt on" for TVs and set top boxes I could see it being reasonably successful.

I think the biggest "lag" the service will see will be the delay between the launch and them hitting their sales targets.

I think most of us here would agree that the idea is fantastic, potentially changing the way the entire industry could work. But the execution of the idea is atrocious...
Pete J 22nd June 2010, 13:07 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by sotu1
I think most of us here would agree that the idea is fantastic, potentially changing the way the entire industry could work. But the execution of the idea is atrocious...
This.
Star*Dagger 22nd June 2010, 21:27 Quote
All this negativity, in 5 years no one will question how awesome OnLive is, wish I could take some of you back in time to read your posts, lol.

Embrace the Future,
S*D
wuyanxu 22nd June 2010, 21:39 Quote
with blurry image quality like this?

source
http://cache.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/4/2010/06/onlivefull.jpg

i think i'll stick to local rendering and enjoy wonders of Custom(ising) PC.
_Metal_Guitar_ 22nd June 2010, 21:57 Quote
@Star*Dagger. Who knows, in 5 years time we may well have the bandwidth to support this properly. Not at crummy resolutions and graphics settings, but at least 1920x1080 and full AA and AF. As of right now, from people using OnLive, I know that it would not work for me, and no one else where I live. And this problem will be true for many places in the UK.

If I did not want to spend hundreds of pounds on a PC and have reduced image quality, I would buy a console. At least then I would not have to suffer the latency of OnLive. Even someone who was chosen for the beta, in a location that was supposed to yeild good results, suffered latency to the degree that made games such as UT3 virtually unplayable.

Why embrace a future that is not up to the standard of the present?
Elledan 23rd June 2010, 07:02 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by _Metal_Guitar_
@Star*Dagger. Who knows, in 5 years time we may well have the bandwidth to support this properly. Not at crummy resolutions and graphics settings, but at least 1920x1080 and full AA and AF.

By which time we'll be playing our console and PC games in 3k+ x 2k+ resolution, or in surround, with 3D :D

I can see some applications for OnLive, but none of them involve regular consumers, only hotels and similar places.
Fused 24th June 2010, 00:49 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by DirtyH
btw, monthly subscription is "only" $4.95

OnLive will send you an email at least thirty (30) days before the expiration of your free twelve (12) month membership period offering you the opportunity to keep your Account accessible on the Service by renewing your membership at a rate of $4.95/month, on a month-to-month basis for up to twelve (12) additional months.
http://www.onlive.com/legal/foundingoffer

This sounds like a limited introductory offer anyway and although I can't remember the details of the original bit article now this doesn't seem to reflect their planned pricing structure for general consumers.

Anyway mine and others point is that if you go to pay full retail price for a game you would expect to have access to it forever. If you stop using the service for a period and then later decide to start subscribing again you want all you games you have paid for to be accessible again not wiped because you left it to long between reactivating the service.

And of course what if the company fails what happens to your games you bought access to then?

I think for many reasons this has come a bit too early to the world. I really don't think people are ready to get on board with entirely digital (non-physical) possessions and the consequences that can entail.
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