True, though I'm assuming we do now (it launched a couple days ago, right? )
soilent brad Send a noteboard - 19/06/2010 04:47:15 PM
You make it sound like the physical baggage is a positive thing. It's not. 
It's not a good thing to have to drive to the store or download for five hours before you can play a game. It's not a good thing to maintain a computer that's vastly more powerful than what you usually need, just to play the occasional game. The ideal situation is to want to play a game, and then to simply do it. No downloads, upgrades, hassle of any kind. That's what OnLive is trying to do.
It's not a good thing to have to drive to the store or download for five hours before you can play a game. It's not a good thing to maintain a computer that's vastly more powerful than what you usually need, just to play the occasional game. The ideal situation is to want to play a game, and then to simply do it. No downloads, upgrades, hassle of any kind. That's what OnLive is trying to do.Physical baggage is good. In fact, I prefer physical copies over digital. I was pretty pissed off when I preordered C&C4 and didn't read the fine print, ended up getting the digital download rather than a physical copy mailed to me.
I do agree, though, that it's a hassle to have to keep your computer up to snuff. Better processor, better GPU, 7.1 sound card, etc.
Also, for me, going to the game store (EB Games, aka GameStop in the States, and HMV) isn't that much of a hassle. 20 minute walk, and I can swipe my card for that game I really have to play. Memory Express, Best Buy, or Future Shop, on the other hand ... not very fun to get to one of them just to upgrade my PC.
Ok, let's talk value. What I was trying to convey to Zalis is that this isn't a new or exorbitantly expensive business model. It's very similar to what MMOs have been doing for years, and millions upon millions of players have happily forked over their cash. A game like World of Warcraft makes you pay full price for the game (obviously this is no longer the case with it being so old, but that's how it started), and then requires you to pay every month for the privilege of playing. You own nothing. You can't use the game whatsoever without the company's permission.
Lots of people are fine with that. The only difference we really have here is what the monthly fee is being used for. Rather than content updates as you'd get in an MMO, you're getting the ability to play your game library anywhere, on any machine. You also get a social system sort of like Xbox live, except (they claim) better. You can spectate any game, record clips to send to your friends, etc. I'm not sure how desirable those features are, but they add a bit of value.
Lots of people are fine with that. The only difference we really have here is what the monthly fee is being used for. Rather than content updates as you'd get in an MMO, you're getting the ability to play your game library anywhere, on any machine. You also get a social system sort of like Xbox live, except (they claim) better. You can spectate any game, record clips to send to your friends, etc. I'm not sure how desirable those features are, but they add a bit of value.
Oh, I get it. It's a genius business model, and I'm sure they'll make quite a bit of money. But it's a little much for me. I'm guessing the $15 subscription isn't per game (otherwise it's freaking insane
). But I don't like the thought of paying full price for a game then, for whatever reason, I can't pay the subscription so I can no longer even play the single player mode of a game. Of course, I'm talking about games like Call of Duty and whatnot, as I'm not a fan of MMOs (the only one I'm planning on playing is The Old Republic, and not for long even for that).As for the extra features ... I've loved the thought of spectating. Were I to make my own game, that's something that I'd try to add into the multiplayer mode (have a contest letting you record and upload your favourite kills in a tournament to the website, whichever gets the most votes wins an awesome prize of awesomeness). But that's not enough to get me to sign up for this. Yet, anyway.
Anyway, I talk too much, so let me wrap up. You may not think this service will offer anything you want; that's fine. I'm not trying to say it's for everyone, I'm just trying to say that it offers some genuinely desirable features for a price that is far from excessive. For fifteen bucks a month, you never have to worry about hardware or installation again.
Point made
We'll see how it does, and if it finds a way to lure me in once they've got a larger library (if memory serves, their opening library is under 10 games, right? )
soilent brad is PEOPLE!
1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 = EM2C <-- Define it!
"Uh...we don't support the Hannah Montana empire."
- My 6 year old niece
1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 = EM2C <-- Define it!
"Uh...we don't support the Hannah Montana empire."
- My 6 year old niece
Continuing my personal publicity campaign, I remind you all that OnLive launches tomorrow.
- 16/06/2010 05:06:21 PM
748 Views
- 16/06/2010 05:06:21 PM
748 Views
Not yet interested, but watching. I'm curious about how game ownership will work. (or not) *NM*
- 16/06/2010 07:33:38 PM
225 Views
In the worst case, you buy for full price and pay 14.95 to play.
- 16/06/2010 08:24:30 PM
508 Views
I can see that long-term, but the overlap of games I already own would be a huge rip-off.
- 17/06/2010 02:49:19 PM
486 Views
Well no, I wouldn't re-buy a game. I almost never play old games, though.
- 17/06/2010 03:13:53 PM
484 Views
Sales matter when good, under-publicized games don't sell millions, which means no sequels.
- 17/06/2010 03:25:41 PM
490 Views
I just meant that the actual numbers aren't important. The dollars coming in obviously are. 
- 17/06/2010 06:33:45 PM
500 Views
- 17/06/2010 06:33:45 PM
500 Views
I like the concept of OnLive
- 16/06/2010 10:59:12 PM
539 Views
See my response to Zalis.
- 17/06/2010 04:27:22 AM
653 Views
What's the price that you pay for a new game?
- 17/06/2010 04:57:56 AM
599 Views
To be fair, I said that was the worst case. We don't really know the pricing model yet.
- 17/06/2010 03:07:37 PM
572 Views
True, though I'm assuming we do now (it launched a couple days ago, right? )
- 19/06/2010 04:47:15 PM
573 Views
Re: True, though I'm assuming we do now (it launched a couple days ago, right? )
- 19/06/2010 10:42:05 PM
494 Views
Re: True, though I'm assuming we do now (it launched a couple days ago, right? )
- 26/06/2010 10:42:45 PM
641 Views
I'm on the wait list - still waiting *NM*
- 21/06/2010 03:07:51 PM
236 Views
Me too. When I posted this, I didn't realize it was a phased rollout or whatever.
- 21/06/2010 06:56:12 PM
643 Views