When it was unveiled at last year's Game Developers Conference, OnLive made big waves and had everyone talking. After 12 months of speculation about the service, MCV revealed details on the service's release date and subscription model. According to the report, the service will launch on PCs and Macs on June 17 with a monthly subscription fee of $14.95. EA, Ubisoft, Take-Two, THQ, and Warner Bros. Interactive Entertainment will support OnLive with titles from their library of games. The details were also made available during an event at GDC earlier this morning.
OnLive COO Mike McGarvey (no relation to yours truly, but nice name!) provided some details on what you can expect regarding game access, saying, "Individual titles will be available for purchase or rental on an a la carte basis. Specific game pricing, including rentals,purchases and loyalty programs, will be announced prior to the consumer launch event at E3. We’ll also be announcing additional loyalty and discount programs for consumers in the coming months."
MCV also indicated that more details on game titles and pricing for purchase will become available closer to the June launch. For now, the article states that McGarvey confirmed that Assassin's Creed II, Prince of Persia: The Forgotten Sands, and Metro 2033 will launch with OnLive.
So, there you have it. I find the prospect of OnLive intriguing, and it's telling that in light of Ubisoft's controversial DRM practices on PC, they're throwing a lot of weight behing the service. If you can play games on your PC without lag or concern for download times, will you give OnLive a spin?
Source: MCV
Comments
Displaying 1–20 of 28
122
SirWilliam
So this guy is talking about taking the hardware part out of gaming. I might be wrong about this but wouldn't that take out well Microsoft,Sony,Nintendo,Nvidia ,ATI,evga,asus,Gskill,XFX,MSI, zotac and all the other gaming hardware makers and distributors? What about GameStop? I love going to GameStop to buy a game and interact with other gamers in person. Also I have a hard time believeing that it will run games as nice as my bad ass gaming PC. What about things like Physx, or mod support? Another thing the price is going to be $14.99 a month......um i've had my xbox 360 for I guess about four years now paid $400 for it when it first came out and have paid $50 a year for XBL (Xbox Live) that equals $600. On the other hand you can pay $14.99 a month for four years equaling $719.52....Yea and I hope a bunch of people don't buy games then it goes under and you all loss your money spent.
TheyTarget
I would just like some clarification. Am I gonna have to pay 14 dollars a month, for the ability to buy and rent games, which might then lag? When I could just go to any store, and buy the game laglessly, or rent it, and not have to pay 14 dollars a month to get into the store.
Gungan
Who's going to pay my internet bill after streaming 40+ hours a week mininum of HD gaming? I absolutely hate download distribution and will not pay real money for anything I cannot physically hold in my hands.
I have no guarantee that their servers won't go down when I want to play, and I have no idea they won't go bankrupt and have to close down their servers after I've paid for games. The same can be said for Steam and other digital distribution platforms.
I can't even pass the game down to my kids like I can a book - and believe me, a good video game is art akin to a good book, except once you buy one it's yours, and you can share/give it to whoever the hell you want.
dpfeif
How is OnLive's version of buying a game different than their version of renting one? In both cases you don't actually get a tangible object, everything stays on their end.
DefiantBrood
I believe Onlive's streaming method will be very limited to the type of games. To play a game like crysis remotely would mean that they would have to have a high end pc ready to run at any given time for each subscriber. My guess its gonna run very much like steam. you download and install. and the rentals, much like demos, would just lock you out after a period of play time. Maybe games like uno would be remote play. but for the most part i dont think its technologically ready. In theory it works great though.
idea_machine
Lower the price! Jesse. Being funded by companies, and taking the 30 something percent of game revenue isn't enough to keep the price of subscription in the single digits? If latency won't be the fate of this technology, the price will.
Acclamator
OK, these are my observations from both the official website of OnLive (www.onlive.com) and from this press conference.
OnLive has multiple features that make them a very attractive option for some gamers. The lack of load times and the fast access to content are very attractive to the modern gaming market. The friend s list features, such as drop-in/drop-out multiplayer, the ability to watch your friends in-game, and the option to record your accomplishments and publish them are great way to help promote gameplay. They also have the option of providing advanced consumer purchasing options, such as free demos and rental options. However, after today s presentation by Steve Perlman on OnLive s features, significant problems may hamper the success of the platform. A user is forced to pay a service fee in order to access the servers. However, this fee only gives users access to their friend s list, free demos, and the ability to watch other people play games. Users must still rent or purchase games in addition to the fee. If the user does not pay the fee, then all of the content the user has purchased becomes unavailable. This is a fundamental problem for the consumer because they never truly own the products they purchase; they instead pay a licensing fee. The users are also subject to their own internet connection in order to play. While it is safe to assume most Americans who would be gaming consumers have an internet connection, there is no guarantee their connection is fast enough to properly enjoy the games. OnLive faces a dilemma, since their continuous costs force them to charge consumers for each minute of play. From a cash flow perspective they are forced to charge the subscription fee to continue operating. While the claim is the user can use OnLive and avoid paying for expensive consoles and computer rigs, their service by itself just doesn t justify paying the fee. OnLive will need to upgrade the value their service offers consumers if they expect to obtain a large consumer base. As far as pricing goes, because OnLive in theory will dramatically improve publisher/developer profits by cutting out expenses, they have a unique opportunity to sell games under full retail and still make healthy profits for themselves and the game publishers/ developers. However, no announcements have been made that suggest this. Steam has proven that gamers are extremely price sensitive, due to the financial success of the multiple sales and deals they offer. I personally find it very hard to believe that your average gamer will be willing to pay almost $200 a year along with the full retail price of each individual game in order to take advantage of the services OnLive currently is slated to provide.
tsep23
If it was unlimited games for $15 a month I'd try it. Your telling me that it's going to be $15 a month plus I'll have to buy games? Nah... I do however like the idea of renting games. Not if I have to pay $15 a month plus rental fee though. No one will bother if it's more expensive then renting a game through blockbuster or buying a game from gamestop.
360gamefreak
Hey, it's on my birthday!! So depending on my birthday wish will determine the success or failure of this system. I would say i feel special.
Sqwigs
It will be interesting to see if this new technology will work and flourish in a society accustomed to hard disk usage. I hope that it will works out well for both the consumer and the production team.
jdiggitty
Why would you pay a monthly fee for the privilege to buy the game? (or rent, for that matter) That makes no sense. Unless they are ofering the games at a HEAVILY discounted price(unlikely), you'd be paying more to not own the game.
Able
Funny how alot of ppl are saying they dont like paying $15 a month to play the games, but millions of ppl do it every day playing WOW. I been playing WOW since it launched and been paying $15 a month for it and paying the extra money for the original games and the expantion packs. So i dont see a difference.
Thing is the games might be cheaper since the games cant be pirated and the games will be playable on multiple devices. Its eve stated on the onlive website that there will be tiered pricing so you can have a cheaper monthly subscription depending on how many months you want to pay ahead.
Since we dont know how much the games will cost we dont know if it would be to much or not, but im willing to give it a try.
Calbanese
this seems all well and good but i'm gonna hold out for a while until they get all the kinks out that tend to follow a new product once it lanches...
EKG
I have been waiting for this for a while, but they say nothing about the small console that plugs into your television. Do you know if that is launching at the same time Sterling????
doobist
Its simple. if they can pull it off, I'll buy it. If not I won't.
ProjektX13
So this is the equivalent of one world currency in the sense that some day we might all be playing games on the same platform and exclusivity will be a thing of the past?
BONERJAM
I really get a Sega CD vibe from this, as in its going to bomb no matter how pretty it may seem.
dwmatteson
PS - More standard digital distribution like Steam, XBLA, PSN, etc. are great ideas and are definitely hte future of gaming. If OnLive has any hope of survival as a company they will transition from this asinine idea they have to a standard digital distribution company. Though the ship may have already sailed there and it may be hard to find a big audience if you're not already established.
dwmatteson
Anyone who knows anything about computers knows that OnLive is a bad idea.
Let's say the stars align and you somehow get a REALLY amazing ping time of 50ms to OnLive's servers. And let's say the stars are so aligned that this is a CONSISTENT and SOLID 50ms ping that DOES NOT WAVER.
That still means that there will be a 100ms delay between when you click your mouse and your character fires his gun. Lest you think that 1/10th of a second is inconsequential, calibration errors far less than that will make the difference between being able to pass Panic Attack on Expert Guitar or failing out like a scrub.
Then we get to the real world where ping times are not that good and never consistent. Today's games do a lot of buffering and prediction in order to make the variance in your ping times (lag) invisible to you. That's not possible when the game is running on a remote machine. OnLive is a STUPID idea and will never work. It's the worst idea in home entertainment since Circuit City's Div-X (not the codec.)
darth_infamous
If I remember correctly, they preview'd the ability to play PS3 and Xbox360 games on the PC, which might be worth the subscription price alone. But like others have said, this will be watched carefully and if the service functions as advertised without too much lag or hiccups, it could very well be a new medium in the gaming industry.
Displaying 1–20 of 28
122
Add a Comment