ONLIVE to kill console and computer gaming?
- Thread starter Buizel91
- Start date
Recommended Videos
First of all, I am sure that that idea has been tried before and has failed.
Secondly, no way. It just wont happen. Not any time soon, if at all. Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo are just too big.
They're kinda dumb for releasing it now. They should wait for the next generation and release it then, so that instead of buying a new console, people moves to that. Now it's just going to get crushed by competition and be forgotten by the time the Xbox 780 or whatever comes out.
Secondly, no way. It just wont happen. Not any time soon, if at all. Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo are just too big.
They're kinda dumb for releasing it now. They should wait for the next generation and release it then, so that instead of buying a new console, people moves to that. Now it's just going to get crushed by competition and be forgotten by the time the Xbox 780 or whatever comes out.
Until everyone who games has a constant, stable, reliable high-speed flatrate internet connection, I think we're pretty safe.
EDIT: Before you quote me and say that everyone already has, bear in mind that just because you and a few of your friends happen to have a fast cable connection or whatnot, that doesn't mean the rest of the world does. There are many parts of developed countries (US included) where internet connection is an issue for purely logistical reasons.
Hell, last I heard some parts of Australia were still getting government funding to buy sattelite phones due to a lack of propper connection...
EDIT: Before you quote me and say that everyone already has, bear in mind that just because you and a few of your friends happen to have a fast cable connection or whatnot, that doesn't mean the rest of the world does. There are many parts of developed countries (US included) where internet connection is an issue for purely logistical reasons.
Hell, last I heard some parts of Australia were still getting government funding to buy sattelite phones due to a lack of propper connection...
Beaten to it I'm afraid 
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.180237-OnLive-set-to-launch-in-June-costing-14-95-month#5281522
To answer your question, and to re-iterate what I posted in my thread, no I don't think this will kill anything and frankly I hope this fails completely. Paying a subscription on top of buying the games to have a graphically sub-par experience that hinges entirely on your internet connection just doesn't add up to me.
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.180237-OnLive-set-to-launch-in-June-costing-14-95-month#5281522
To answer your question, and to re-iterate what I posted in my thread, no I don't think this will kill anything and frankly I hope this fails completely. Paying a subscription on top of buying the games to have a graphically sub-par experience that hinges entirely on your internet connection just doesn't add up to me.
no, end of story. Saying a new idea for gaming will kill an entrenched gaming medium is like saying that being able to watch movies on an ipod will kill movie theaters.
What would you consider high speed as depending on how fast you need it, I might actually try this thing out once I hear about a couple of cool games for it.Jandau said:
Also, doesn't this thing have the added horror of being hacked constantly? By this I mean, this company likely doesn't have the same standard of protection other companies (sony, microsoft etc) do and since the entire game is based online on a server somewhere couldn't it get hacked and then you've lost everything you where doing?
If someone could clear this question up for me, i'd appeciate it.
Won't work I don't think.
It's like this, the system they present has all of the disadvantages of digital downloading, including no hardcopy so you have a total dependency on their service. In addition it's requiring a membership fee in addition to whatever they decide to charge for the games, like say paying STEAM for the honor of being able to buy stuff from them.
On top of that, these fees will be on top of whatever you pay for cable or whatever to begin with. I very much doubt they are basically pimping an all inclusive entertainment package that will replace current network packages for $15 a month.
Then again I'm not buying you will be able to do this without any investment in hardware that is compadible with it. I mean you can't socket a joypad directly into your TV. This means on top of everything you would have to pay for batteries constantly at the very least since you wouldn't be able to charge right off a console.
Also I fail to see how without a hard drive being fit into this somehow, how the service is going to save games, never mind provide for "Downloadable Content" which the entire industry is basically obsssssed with (and which to me went from being a good idea, to one of the money grabbing banes of gaming, it's still a factor though).
In the end I expect your at least ALSO going to have to buy a box from them, or an "Onlive" compadible TV, and how much extra that is going to cost compared to a TV without it of coruse remains to be seen.
Such are my thoughts, really I don't see enough hard information on this to think it's going anywhere, it sounds like a hype attempt more than anything.
Plus on top of everything else, consider also that for all the hate thrown their way and things like the "Red Ring Of Death", Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo are all well known producers of hardware. Even Microsoft has maintained their reputation here due to their replacement policies for the 360. People are more likely to trust a Sony or Nintendo to produce a quality product/service (despite everything) than jumping into something new like this with both feet fast enough to kill anything.
Besides, almost guaranteed if the idea had any serious merit any one of those big companies would already be working on doing the same thing, and probably better.
It's like this, the system they present has all of the disadvantages of digital downloading, including no hardcopy so you have a total dependency on their service. In addition it's requiring a membership fee in addition to whatever they decide to charge for the games, like say paying STEAM for the honor of being able to buy stuff from them.
On top of that, these fees will be on top of whatever you pay for cable or whatever to begin with. I very much doubt they are basically pimping an all inclusive entertainment package that will replace current network packages for $15 a month.
Then again I'm not buying you will be able to do this without any investment in hardware that is compadible with it. I mean you can't socket a joypad directly into your TV. This means on top of everything you would have to pay for batteries constantly at the very least since you wouldn't be able to charge right off a console.
Also I fail to see how without a hard drive being fit into this somehow, how the service is going to save games, never mind provide for "Downloadable Content" which the entire industry is basically obsssssed with (and which to me went from being a good idea, to one of the money grabbing banes of gaming, it's still a factor though).
In the end I expect your at least ALSO going to have to buy a box from them, or an "Onlive" compadible TV, and how much extra that is going to cost compared to a TV without it of coruse remains to be seen.
Such are my thoughts, really I don't see enough hard information on this to think it's going anywhere, it sounds like a hype attempt more than anything.
Plus on top of everything else, consider also that for all the hate thrown their way and things like the "Red Ring Of Death", Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo are all well known producers of hardware. Even Microsoft has maintained their reputation here due to their replacement policies for the 360. People are more likely to trust a Sony or Nintendo to produce a quality product/service (despite everything) than jumping into something new like this with both feet fast enough to kill anything.
Besides, almost guaranteed if the idea had any serious merit any one of those big companies would already be working on doing the same thing, and probably better.
I doubt anything less than a solid DSL line would be sufficient. Also, the connection has to be very stable and uninterrupted, especially on the upload. Online gaming has demonstrated that lag will happen. Imagine playing EVERY game with lag. That's what it would be like...Demon ID said:
No, because the base rate's going to be $15 a month. $180 a year, $900 over five years, which doesn't look like especially good value to me against a console and games that you can trade/borrow/rent/swap.arc1991 said:
On PC especially how do you justify that against the free to install, then pay once and it's yours forever system that is Steam. More pertinently there are the hardware and bandwidth usage issues.
Any saving it could potentially give you is wiped out and them some if you're having to stiff up a $40/months broadband package because of all the data you're using. I also find some of the hardware claims suspect, if they prove me wrong then fantastic, but I seriously doubt you will be playing new release PC games on a $500 PC as if it were a $1500 PC.
There will also be the problem of pirates, who will find a way to break into this. There is also the slight issue that you are effectively paying a subscription to get the DRM and not being allowed to keep the game.
I actually really hope it kills the rest of the gaming industry. I own a big expensive computer but there is nothing I would like better than to see it become redundant by better tec. Because it is a step forward.
No, it won't work.
It's an exciting new idea, sure, but just with like many other innovations - no one wants to be the tester.
Also, 15 bucks a month? Thanks, but I'll stick with Steam.
Damn, I nearly forgot. You've seen that recent Ubisoft DRM fiasco? Well, OnLive is looking to repeat it. You'll HAVE to be online to play your games. If the servers are down or can't support the number of players, you're screwed.
It's an exciting new idea, sure, but just with like many other innovations - no one wants to be the tester.
Also, 15 bucks a month? Thanks, but I'll stick with Steam.
Damn, I nearly forgot. You've seen that recent Ubisoft DRM fiasco? Well, OnLive is looking to repeat it. You'll HAVE to be online to play your games. If the servers are down or can't support the number of players, you're screwed.
While I agree that the mouse and keyboard are superior or equal to a controller for most games, there are some that I just can't imagine playing without two analog sticks (like Armored Core or Virtual On) and a lot of 3rd person action games where an analog stick is, in my opinion, necessary for the precision of movement it can offer over a keyboard in such titles.Dr Grimoure said:
I don't think that this "ONLIVE" thing will even function properly, let alone kill consoles or PC. It sounds like it should have the exact same problems as the AsC2 DRM, except even worse because of the remote servers doing all the processing.
OnLive has the same fundamental problem as every other download service for games and that is having a hard copy is always better. Also you dont have to pay a subscription to play your games that you own or need to have a hugely fast broadband connection. The only thing onlive will kill is itself