ONLIVE to kill console and computer gaming?

[Twilight_guy]

It'll kill them in the same way movies killed books. That is to say... not at all. This service seems more a kin to renting then to owning. I understand its like taking the console/PC out of the equation but I don't think it will completely replace the physical copy. Also, why does Ubisoft receive flak for AC2 when nobody has anything to say about this service which is essentially very similar(i.e. always need to be connected to their server to play your games)?
Maybe someday will all be renting a VR helmet and connecting the local gaming server but I think some old coots will still hold out on physical copies forever.

 

[hiks89]

chill out its a good idea. but i feel more satisfied buying a game from a store. nothin like having the box in your hands waitin to get to the living room

 

[AndyFromMonday]

It will kill nothing. The notion of paying for the console itself, paying for a monthly subscription, paying for the game, having to constantly be online to play the game and not actually owning the game is unappealing to...well to fucking everyone.

Sure, the fact that you won't have to buy a console or upgrade your computer every 5 to 10 years is...well it's not appealing at all since you're paying 180 a year just to be able to log on.

Let's see here:

A new generation of consoles will most likely arise in about 3 more years. Assuming my assumption is correct, you'll have to ditch out about 300 dollars if you want to buy an 8th generation console at launch. In 3 years, you'll have to pay 540 dollars just to be able to log on to OnLive.

When it comes to PC's then you'll most likely pay anywhere from 100 dollars to 500 dollars depending on what you want to upgrade on your computer so technically, even if you spend about 500 dollars, you're still going to come off cheaper by not using OnLive at all because of the games themselves.

The conclusion?
You'll pay 300 dollars once in 3 years and be able to buy games easily, own said games and have a lag free experience using a console.

You'll pay anywhere from 100 to 500 bucks upgrading a PC in 3 years but you'll be able to buy games and own either a digital or hard copy of said games and have a lag free experience.

You'll pay 540 bucks in 3 years just to be able to access the store which lets you buy games that can cost anywhere from 50 to 60 bucks. You also do not own a digital or hard copy of the game but instead simply watch a live stream of you playing AND, depending on your connection, you'll most likely experience lag quite a bit.

 

[Eiv]

i would rather own the games + hardware. cloud gaming is fine for peeps that dont know anything about hardware and suchlike. personally i dont want to end up spending god knows how much over the "months/years" which in the end will outweigh the price of a console.

viva la hardware, death to cloud computing.

 

[moshineko]

Sega TV?

No, it won't kill it. There will still be places in the world that won't have a "good" connection, and games will no doubt outstrip the ability of people to move data. The money will probably not be such an issue if they get a wider market, but the quality and availability of the games will be.

 

[Daystar Clarion]

It will kill nothing. The notion of paying for the console itself, paying for a monthly subscription, paying for the game, having to constantly be online to play the game and not actually owning the game is unappealing to...well to fucking everyone.

Sure, the fact that you won't have to buy a console or upgrade your computer every 5 to 10 years is...well it's not appealing at all since you're paying 180 a year just to be able to log on.

Let's see here:

A new generation of consoles will most likely arise in about 3 more years. Assuming my assumption is correct, you'll have to ditch out about 300 dollars if you want to buy an 8th generation console at launch. In 3 years, you'll have to pay 540 dollars just to be able to log on to OnLive.

When it comes to PC's then you'll most likely pay anywhere from 100 dollars to 500 dollars depending on what you want to upgrade on your computer so technically, even if you spend about 500 dollars, you're still going to come off cheaper by not using OnLive at all because of the games themselves.

The conclusion?
You'll pay 300 dollars once in 3 years and be able to buy games easily, own said games and have a lag free experience using a console.

You'll pay anywhere from 100 to 500 bucks upgrading a PC in 3 years but you'll be able to buy games and own either a digital or hard copy of said games and have a lag free experience.

You'll pay 540 bucks in 3 years just to be able to access the store which lets you buy games that can cost anywhere from 50 to 60 bucks. You also do not own a digital or hard copy of the game but instead simply watch a live stream of you playing AND, depending on your connection, you'll most likely experience lag quite a bit.

Exactly. How did anybody think this was a good idea? It's a horrible concept, expensive and if anyone does buy it, they will forever be damned to the circle of hell that belongs to the chornically moronic.

 

[Sebenko]

Computer Gaming, I doubt it.

Yeah, Ubisoft's DRM will kill us before Onlive even gets here.

 

[mrx19869]

yeah right. you cant even play games online 100%, I hate being forced to connect to the internet all the time. maybe when i can a 100mb data connection for a reasonable price i would consider this. but in this age internet is too unreliable..

 

[Nuke_em_05]

Cloud computing isn't a new idea... the application of real-time gaming is I guess. You'd need one heck of a network infrastructure to pull off real-time current-gen graphics processing, though.

It wouldn't kill Sony or Microsoft's gaming platforms, they'd just offer similar services.

This would certainly injure "piracy" pretty bad I imagine if everyone went to this model and dropped the "conventional" models. Though that's unlikely.

It's really the old "rent vs own" idea. Renting is more expensive in the long run (for continuing use items), but more accesible up-front; owning is less expensive in the long run, with greater up-front costs.

Different strokes for different folks.

 

[s0p0g]

huh
in a way, this is a good idea
BUT
i pay money, but won't own anything
server-based gaming has only recently presented an epic fail (AC2)
having to pay additional money for the streams/games to the cost for the service itself but not owning anything, not knowing how long i'll be able to play the game i paid for... no sir, i'll stay with MY pc and MY consoles and MY games that don't depend on any wayfar system i have no way to fix should it break down.

 

[Ralen-Sharr]

So this is supposed to take inputs and send your tv a pre-rendered image for your games...

I don't think this will do much against the PC or console gaming markets. It certainly won't kill either of them.

 

[A random person]

I knew about this for a while, and my first thoughts about it were the bandwidth and server problems streaming technically-demanding games would have. Single-player FPS's would be very laggy, not to mention server costs when several thousand people want to play Crysis.

Besides, technical issues aside, I don't like the idea of my games streaming and me not having them. With rentals you at least have the game there for the time being.

 

[SNIPERFOX ft. Harry P.Ness]

PC gaming will live forever. onlive is just a gimmick

 

[Eggsnham]

Console gaming, possibly.

Computer Gaming, I doubt it. The computer has Mouse and Keyboard which, even though I will be flamed for saying this, Is ten thousand times better then a controller. Even though you may need to pay extra for upgrades of a computer, I would still use that then a damned controller.

This is all opinion of course, but I personally feel more of a natural connection with a controller. Probably because I was raised using a controller as my primary source of controlling shit.

 

[silver wolf009]

None of these will ever die. The most that can be hoped for either is to put them in a state of cryostatis, but fanboys will never let their figure of awesomness die.

 

[Dublin Solo]

Just like a few people have just stated:

1. I already pay monthly fees for a lot of things. I don't need to pay a monthly fee for this.
2. Remote servers? "The results of their efforts are then streamed back with almost non-existent lag." Yeah, of course. Like for the recent DRM of a videogame company...

There ya go.

 

[Denamic]

I hope it fails.
I like mods.

 

[coldshadow]

once its labeled to kill something, it is doomed to fail

such as the term "wow killer"

 

[Deofuta]

Exactly. How did anybody think this was a good idea? It's a horrible concept, expensive and if anyone does buy it, they will forever be damned to the circle of hell that belongs to the chornically moronic.

The NGage will have a friend to play with!