What are your opinions on cost?

[FTWrath]

They say it will be a subscription service. How much do you think?
I believe to start out they will charge $100-$150 for the box and a one year service fee. Then afterwards $50 - $100 to extend the service.

[ZULND3R]

this is purely speculation:

Subscription: $15/month
Box (by itself): $125
Box (w/ a year subscription) $200

[BeteNoire]

By the box, do you mean the "converter" box to get it from your PC to your TV?

I'd say $100 at the most for that. I won't be buying one - my TV has inputs for it already, and I have an HD video card so I'm assuming I can broadcast it in high def.

edit: scratch those price figures, I hadn't realized the micro-console was a stand-alone thing.

[FTWrath]

Yeah the micro console appears to be a standalone. Ethernet > Micro Console > tv > play

[Deya]

Well, according to all the reports I've read the "box" itself is very cheap to produce. I mean, all it really needs to do is connect to the actual computer you're playing on, right? As for the service price, again based on what has been released (comparable to console services today), expect anything from 20 to 60 dollars a year, with possible monthly options.

[Jimex]

I reckon the actual microconsole will be very cheap ($50? I'm english so might be slightly off). But the actual service could be fairly expensive. The 'Phantom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Phantom_(game_system))' console which was going to have a 'direct-download content delivery service' (still nothing like onlive) was apparently going to be in the region of $30 a month, so I wouldn't be suprised if onlive is more than that a month.

[B1553r]

The box will be free with SLA agreement for a year. Then something like $20-$50 a month for actual service. Then on top of that you will have to "buy" or rent games.

From word parsing on my part, it will cost something less than going out of buying a computer that will be able to run games that come out this year.

[codykins]

I dunno but i would like to know when they know the prices for sure
onlive sounds worth the price of 100-200$ total and 30 dollars a month but any more than that and i wont be getting one

[Aph0ticShield]

My guess...
$10-20 a month or
$100-$200 a year
Microconsole-$100(Like OnLive said they would probably charge)
Microconsole would be free with a 2 year subscription. (Much like cell phones)

[Alfrayer]

At the end of the keynote speech he mentions that there might be a possibility that you will get the micro console for free when you subscribe for a long period of time. So if you subscribe for a year, you get the microconsole. Or i guess you can buy it seperately.

[rasmasyean]

I think it will be like cable. You can pay a tiered subscription starting from access to old low-def games like Atari crap. And you can add on premium lineups/groups like how HBO and Showtime works. And then there will be those that you just have to buy. They might let you demo it before buying, but they will charge you extra...either on a time basis, or permanent as long as you have an OnLive "basic" subscription.

[Bootstrap Bill]

Any chance we could see Micro Console functionality built into BluRay players, Cable converters or TiVo's?

[Outlawed Toker]

They said in specific in the press conference that it would be so cheap that they would be able to include it free (i think free was said in specific, I need to go back and take a look at it) with certain subscription package. Its not so hard to believe since all it is, is a small relay will bluetooth.

[core9a9]

They say it will be a subscription service. How much do you think?
I believe to start out they will charge $100-$150 for the box and a one year service fee. Then afterwards $50 - $100 to extend the service.

Hopefully, it will be cheaper than xbox live, which is $8 a month and $50 for 13 months ($3.83 a month)

[Aph0ticShield]

Hopefully, it will be cheaper than xbox live, which is $8 a month and $50 for 13 months ($3.83 a month)

I really, really doubt it. This is 1000% better than Xbox Live. Xbox Live doesn't let you play the games on any high end servers that I know of.

[Aenima]

I really, really doubt it. This is 1000% better than Xbox Live. Xbox Live doesn't let you play the games on any high end servers that I know of.

unless someone has an amazing connection witch is very hard 2 get. id say aroune 10$ a month or so

[Bootstrap Bill]

I think they should consider working with major ISP's and cable companies. Rent the Micro Console for a couple bucks a month. Maybe this could help with the excess bandwidth issues.

[B1553r]

Hey guys, this thread and these expectations on price are gonna let you guys down. This service is gonna be AT LEAST $20 a month. Then on top of that, you will have to pay probably close to full retail for the games.

Do the math. One Rack, which will serve about 1000 customers costs about 80k to service and upgrade per year. That is a fixed COST of $7 per user per month. On top of that you have hungry executives who want a Tesla, and second mansion, so they are gonna mark the service up, a lot. On top of that you will have to pay for games. I think initially the publishers will want something close to full retail price. I have no reason to think differently.

[Bootstrap Bill]

Hey guys, this thread and these expectations on price are gonna let you guys down. This service is gonna be AT LEAST $20 a month. Then on top of that, you will have to pay probably close to full retail for the games.

What happens to our fully paid for games if OnLive fails? Will we be able to get physical media so we can use them on our own systems?

[rasmasyean]

What happens to our fully paid for games if OnLive fails? Will we be able to get physical media so we can use them on our own systems?

No. That's what bankruptcy means. If you have a circuit city gift card...oh well...

[B1553r]

No. That's what bankruptcy means. If you have a circuit city gift card...oh well...

Yup. These are permanent rentals, you do not own these games. That is the situation that already exists though, it is just the SlashDot Entitlement Complex has convinced you that you own these properties, when you do not.

[TinFoil]

I have a feeling some of you are way off on the prices. The micro-console will be cheap. In the conference he already stated it was one one board, few chips. The controller that comes with it is far more expensive to manufacture than the console. I'd place the price at ~$45 with a free month thrown in. There will be online deals to get the console free with a year subscription.

The monthly fee is their path to where they hope to make the real money. Charging more than a few dollars a month is counter-productive. They're in the business of selling games, not monthly fees. If the price is over ~$60 a year, I'd be shocked.

Think about it folks... If no one signs up, they can't sell games. They're already fighting a uphill battle introducing a new technology and new concepts to the public; they don't want to make the price for getting started an issue.

As for the game price, they have to "sell" them for less than retail. At least 20% less. With the fear of buying a game today and the service being gone tomorrow, they're going to take a loss the first year and I'm sure they know that. Also, publishers really want this to succeed so they can kill their two mortal enemies: Piracy and Gamestop. Piracy for the obvious reasons and Gamestop for selling used games where the publisher sees zero profit. I have a feeling most publishers will cut them some pricing breaks to get the games into the hands of consumers.

So where is the profit in all of this? Rentals. The rental market for a device like this is perfect. Five day rental, $4. That's nearly 100% profit in the end. Not to mention, once they get OnLive established, they will partner with a movie outfit like Blockbuster (they need the help) and rent movies online. The compression is obviously there and again, it's almost pure profit.

So don't sweat the console price or the monthly fee. Those will be cheap because they are all part of getting you in the door; kinda like a cover charge at a bar. The money for OnLive is in game sales and most importantly rentals.

[DOODLES]

this is purely speculation:

Subscription: $15/month
Box (by itself): $125
Box (w/ a year subscription) $200

If this is how it works and im not bashing you because i know your not sure. I would not pay for it because after subscription you have games which are not going to be cheaper than in store games but then again i might be wrong. But take for example Xbox 360 you pay $200-$300 for the console then $40 for one year subscription and an extra month to play online. After that you have the games you purchase, now if i have to pay $200 dollars a year its like buying a new Xbox 360 every year and on top of that games.

[AlexTheLion]

If this is how it works and im not bashing you because i know you not sure. I would not pay for it because after subscription you have games which are not going to be cheaper than in store games but then again i might be wrong. But take for example Xbox 360 you pay $200-$300 for the console then $40 for one year subscription and an extra month to play online. After that you have the games you purchase, now if i have to pay $200 dollars a year its like buying a new Xbox 360 every year and on top of that games.
But think of what you will be paying for, what you will receive for your money? You will be trading money for (hopefully) one of the best gaming experiences ever known to man.:eek: I would most definitely spend money for that kind of awesomeness.:D

[Lord Xenu]

I wouldn't have a problem spending 100-150 provided there was a package deal with the service itself. Possibly some sort of percentage off for the service.

Due to the vast amount of titles that would be available, I am expecting somewhere between 25-40 for the monthly cost.

[DOODLES]

But think of what you will be paying for, what you will receive for your money? You will be trading money for (hopefully) one of the best gaming experiences ever known to man.:eek: I would most definitely spend money for that kind of awesomeness.:D

I would rather know I was saving money and playing a device that plays the same games my Xbox 360 does. But If Xbox Is cheaper Im going to stick with my xbox. My live Is not exspensive, Im all for Onlive I told all my friends about It, but Is Onlive practical that is what im trying to say, If the people want a low cost machine and an exspensive anual fee go ahead. I would rather pay more for the console then the subscription but then again Im about saving money I don't own a money tree. When It comes down to It yes you are right it is a big deal, It is an awesome machine but im not going to pay $300 dollars a year for a subscription then have to pay $60 dollars for games. I already pay $60 dollars for games and now Im going to have to pay more just to play online? Come on.:p

[Lord Xenu]

It will ultimately come down to content, connectivity, and overall experience.

[core9a9]

I really, really doubt it. This is 1000% better than Xbox Live. Xbox Live doesn't let you play the games on any high end servers that I know of.

Hopefully, OnLive will follow the console model and sell their services on a loss and make up the losses on rentals, game sales, accessories, game guides and so on. It will be a good way for OnLive to gain user base. Sony was losing $200+ per console when it first launched the PS3.

[Omar]

There is no way it is going to be nearly as expensive as most people are saying it is. They are introducing new technology and not really giving you any tangible games. They are still going to have to compete with other systems. So I highly doubt it will be more than $50 a year for service. The box itself is incredibly cheap to manufacture. In order to stay in competion they box will have to be around $100 otherwise noone is gonna drop their 360 to pay just about the same for something you can't even play offline. Once they become popular though, we might see a increase in the subscription prices but I doubt it.

[DOODLES]

There is no way it is going to be nearly as expensive as most people are saying it is. They are introducing new technology and not really giving you any tangible games. They are still going to have to compete with other systems. So I highly doubt it will be more than $50 a year for service. The box itself is incredibly cheap to manufacture. In order to stay in competion they box will have to be around $100 otherwise noone is gonna drop their 360 to pay just about the same for something you can't even play offline. Once they become popular though, we might see a increase in the subscription prices but I doubt it.

He makes a point if they want to compete and dominate the console world this is what they are going to have to do,make something that is unheard of then sell it for an uheard of price leaving jaws dropped and companies peeing themselves.:rolleyes:

[AlexTheLion]

There is no way it is going to be nearly as expensive as most people are saying it is. They are introducing new technology and not really giving you any tangible games. They are still going to have to compete with other systems. So I highly doubt it will be more than $50 a year for service. The box itself is incredibly cheap to manufacture. In order to stay in competion they box will have to be around $100 otherwise noone is gonna drop their 360 to pay just about the same for something you can't even play offline. Once they become popular though, we might see a increase in the subscription prices but I doubt it.

Yes, but you can access Onlive through any computer that has fast enough internet access, and so you don't really need the console.

[Omar]

But not everyone plays on the pc or even has a good computer to play on it with.

[DOODLES]

Yes, but you can access Onlive through any computer that has fast enough internet access, and so you don't really need the console.


But not everyone plays on the pc or even has a good computer to play on it with.


Look, the whole point of Onlive is so both PC and Console can play not only with each other but enjoy the same service of non laggy online play. The whole point is that you will not need a fast computer to play or internet service, thats what makes Onlive great. Im not bashing any of you but just to clarify. Correct me if im wrong.:D

[Omar]

Right but they can only help internet lagg, I don't know about you but my computer takes like 5 minuets just to open a browser.

[AlexTheLion]

Look, the whole point of Onlive is so both PC and Console can play not only with each other but enjoy the same service of non laggy online play. The whole point is that you will not need a fast computer to play or internet service, thats what makes Onlive great. Im not bashing any of you but just to clarify. Correct me if im wrong.:D

That's my point, that you don't need an amazing computer to play, because the games are hosted on superservers, and consoles and computers can play together. I apologize for my lack of clarity:(

[xDatBritishKidx]

I think, since the representative for ONLIVE told us that it wouldh cheaper than any current gen console, that it would be about $150.00 The console itself looks pretty small so the price won't be too big. I have a feeling that the monthly fee will be around $10-15 a month because with many PC games, there already is a monthly fee so they may feel it to be unfair for PC game subscribers.

[Aph0ticShield]

There is no way it is going to be nearly as expensive as most people are saying it is. They are introducing new technology and not really giving you any tangible games. They are still going to have to compete with other systems. So I highly doubt it will be more than $50 a year for service. The box itself is incredibly cheap to manufacture. In order to stay in competion they box will have to be around $100 otherwise noone is gonna drop their 360 to pay just about the same for something you can't even play offline. Once they become popular though, we might see a increase in the subscription prices but I doubt it.

I high doubt that it will be less than $100 a year. It replaces the price of the console & PC (Not to mention a very high end console) and the price of a service (similar to Xbox Live). You might want to rethink your theory here.

[rasmasyean]

I high doubt that it will be less than $100 a year. It replaces the price of the console & PC (Not to mention a very high end console) and the price of a service (similar to Xbox Live). You might want to rethink your theory here.


It also replaces electricity. I wouldn't think it's uncommon that people spend $100 to $200 extra and even more with higher end computers from "game time".

OnLive will probably spend less per person on average with thier special hardware, but they still have to tack on their electric bills to your price.

When you buy these gaming system, you have to consider overall costs.

[Aph0ticShield]

It also replaces electricity. I wouldn't think it's uncommon that people spend $100 to $200 extra and even more with higher end computers from "game time".

OnLive will probably spend less per person on average with thier special hardware, but they still have to tack on their electric bills to your price.

When you buy these gaming system, you have to consider overall costs.

Yes, since the servers are running together, I am guessing that less electricity per user then if you combined all the electricity for separate consoles.

There is no question that the electricity cost will still be there though... they also need to pay for their gigabit connection (Or however much bandwidth they are going to use) to the internet.

[Revilo62RAWR]

I think that some of you are correct on this on parts and some way off! Why would they charge 100-200$ for the micro console when they said at the keynote that any computer will work? No one would buy it when they could go to the library and probably play some how! And also why would they charge the $50 a month some of you are saying? They would get almost no customers! I already know some people who say the $8 a month for Xbox live is to much! make that any more plus the price of games that can only be played on the internet isn't worth it! And they wont get any new games if no one joins! and if no one joins because it's to much for the small choice of games it will never work out correctly!

[blackmamba56]

This system is suppose to be revolutionary. I hope they don't go and charge $400 for the console with a 3 (or 4) year subscription. To me that would be just like buying another 360 again. Hopefully the people behind Onlive will realize that more people would buy into thier product if the subscription was less than WoW. Im not saying it has to be less than xbox live, but if it is more, the console better cost less than a Wii (a lot less).

[rasmasyean]

This system is suppose to be revolutionary. I hope they don't go and charge $400 for the console with a 3 (or 4) year subscription. To me that would be just like buying another 360 again. Hopefully the people behind Onlive will realize that more people would buy into thier product if the subscription was less than WoW. Im not saying it has to be less than xbox live, but if it is more, the console better cost less than a Wii (a lot less).

I’m not sure I understand what you are saying? You are suggesting that having the right to play many games should cost less than what it costs to presently play ONE game at $15 a month?

I seriously doubt that, and even if they could do that…they would probably charge you more just to make more profit so they can expand across the country faster than anyone else.

One way to look at it is the “console/PC replacement” future…which is what you are seeing.

Another way to look at it is simply an alternative form of entertainment. It’s not that it will cost you less than Xbox, et al. In fact, depending on how much you want out of it, it may cost you MORE than Xbox gaming! But, since you will be buying less blu-ray movies…you have diverted your entertainment costs from one form to another. Maybe it will be less in total, maybe more. Either way, people are going to spend money.

I think in the past years, gaming has displaced a lot of “traditional” activities in the past. OnLive (and other similar services) is just another addition to this trend. I’m sure most people spent more on video gaming than they did 10 years ago. It’s just that now, they don’t go to the movies theater as much, etc.

As a matter of fact, you might be able to say that part of the reason why not that many kids are born today is because parents have to buy Xboxes and stuff and can’t afford to have more kids! Heck…before, you just pop out some babies without worrying about “modern lifestyle crap” (you abercrombe brats know what I mean!) and just let your kids loose and they will have fun in the streets chasing eachother in a RL FPS game called “tag” and wrestle with eachother in a RL Street Fighter game. And it’s cheap as hell! :D

[AlexTheLion]

This system is suppose to be revolutionary. I hope they don't go and charge $400 for the console with a 3 (or 4) year subscription. To me that would be just like buying another 360 again. Hopefully the people behind Onlive will realize that more people would buy into thier product if the subscription was less than WoW. Im not saying it has to be less than xbox live, but if it is more, the console better cost less than a Wii (a lot less).


If Onlive is going to be as awesome as they say, I don't know if people will play xbox live or WOW much, I could be wrong, Im just voicing my opinion.

[Omar]

I don't think there will be many WoW users that would drop it for onlive, unless of course there is a better MMORPG introduced.

[rasmasyean]

I don't think there will be many WoW users that would drop it for onlive, unless of course there is a better MMORPG introduced.

WoW is a different class of it's own. It takes a certain type of gamer to play WoW. But if you're into those types of games, there is a chance that every other game is "noob stuff". Gotta hand it to Blizzard for accomplishing hit after hit culminating in what must be their best work ever presently. Too bad they merged with EA. Now they are gonna be short-term profit wonders rather than just pure gaming art like before.

I think a "higher" level of MMO's may be represented in this title called EVE Online. But that game takes WAY too much work and "studying" to play that game successfully. It's super hard-core and would leave most people in the dust unless you want to get really invovled with these things.

[Violet]

WoW is a different class of it's own. It takes a certain type of gamer to play WoW. But if you're into those types of games, there is a chance that every other game is "noob stuff". Gotta hand it to Blizzard for accomplishing hit after hit culminating in what must be their best work ever presently. Too bad they merged with EA. Now they are gonna be short-term profit wonders rather than just pure gaming art like before.

I think a "higher" level of MMO's may be represented in this title called EVE Online. But that game takes WAY too much work and "studying" to play that game successfully. It's super hard-core and would leave most people in the dust unless you want to get really invovled with these things.

I have a 78 Holy Priest on Dalaran if anyone here plays, add me to your friends list, the name is Ivorie... Blizzard merged with Activision not EA, I own stock (ATVI)

Now they are gonna be short-term profit wonders rather than just pure gaming art like before I wouldn't worry much about that, Blizzard has been passed around numerous times from Sierra online, Davidson & Associates to a car rental company Cendent and Vivendi, no one was able to change their development philosophy so far, the merger will only empower them.

[AlexTheLion]

WoW can consume lives...whereas Onlive might be just casual gamers.

[blackmamba56]

I’m not sure I understand what you are saying? You are suggesting that having the right to play many games should cost less than what it costs to presently play ONE game at $15 a month?

I seriously doubt that, and even if they could do that…they would probably charge you more just to make more profit so they can expand across the country faster than anyone else.

One way to look at it is the “console/PC replacement” future…which is what you are seeing.

Another way to look at it is simply an alternative form of entertainment. It’s not that it will cost you less than Xbox, et al. In fact, depending on how much you want out of it, it may cost you MORE than Xbox gaming! But, since you will be buying less blu-ray movies…you have diverted your entertainment costs from one form to another. Maybe it will be less in total, maybe more. Either way, people are going to spend money.

I think in the past years, gaming has displaced a lot of “traditional” activities in the past. OnLive (and other similar services) is just another addition to this trend. I’m sure most people spent more on video gaming than they did 10 years ago. It’s just that now, they don’t go to the movies theater as much, etc.

As a matter of fact, you might be able to say that part of the reason why not that many kids are born today is because parents have to buy Xboxes and stuff and can’t afford to have more kids! Heck…before, you just pop out some babies without worrying about “modern lifestyle crap” (you abercrombe brats know what I mean!) and just let your kids loose and they will have fun in the streets chasing eachother in a RL FPS game called “tag” and wrestle with eachother in a RL Street Fighter game. And it’s cheap as hell! :D
With that last comment, Im not sure what you are saying. And that bit about paying $15 for many games doesn't make much sense, you still have to buy the game before you can play it.

[Aph0ticShield]

Well, I am pretty sure that OnLive was created so that it could out compete any console or PC prices all while offering state of the art graphics. In fact, I think I heard that the CEO spoke about being able to out compete the Wii in terms of price.

If it costs more than Xbox gaming then why would anyone switch over to what some may say is inferior to Xbox Live and the Xbox 360?

If OnLive costs more than a new console every 4 years + a subscription to Xbox Live, I can say that I probably will not buy it.

[rasmasyean]

Well, I am pretty sure that OnLive was created so that it could out compete any console or PC prices all while offering state of the art graphics. In fact, I think I heard that the CEO spoke about being able to out compete the Wii in terms of price.

If it costs more than Xbox gaming then why would anyone switch over to what some may say is inferior to Xbox Live and the Xbox 360?

If OnLive costs more than a new console every 4 years + a subscription to Xbox Live, I can say that I probably will not buy it.

What I’m saying is that paying $15 per month will likely NOT get you an equivalent experience you currently get with an Xbox (assuming you actually buy games once in a while). If you want to new releases and hot titles, you can expect it to cost more than something as low as $15 a month on average.

And why would anyone eventually want to spend more on a gaming service over the internet than what they currently spend on Xbox? Because some people who don’t really play that many games to begin with, might find “cloud” gaming more appealing such that they increase “hobby time” playing different games. Simple as that. It has happened already. Video game business has increased in revenue throughout the many years. And where does that money come from??? People spent more! Whether it’s more than $0 per year or more than $100 per year….they spend more!

I’ll take myself as an example. I subscribed to WoW for 2 years and also subscribed my nephew for 3 years. In that time I spent like ($15 x 24 + $15 x 36) $900. And that’s one single game! If wow didn’t exist, I would have say…bought myself maybe 2 games during that period and say, 6 games for my nephew (birthday and Christmas). That would cost max ($60 x 8) $480. I spent MORE on gaming because of this stupid MMO service that got us hooked!

WoW certainly brought a new level of video game entertainment to me and nephew as well as 11.5 million people presently. And there are many many people who never played games (like girls) who play WoW. That means they spend an infinite amount of money MORE than before! …on gaming!

When cloud gaming becomes a new option, you might hate it, you might like it. You would be foolish if you think it’s going to be a “direct replacement of an Xbox but cheaper”. You might as well have said that “WoW will be a direct replacement of Diablo 2”.

[rasmasyean]

With that last comment, Im not sure what you are saying. And that bit about paying $15 for many games doesn't make much sense, you still have to buy the game before you can play it.

Forget the last comment, I was just rambling about American consumer habits.

What I meant was that I don't think $15 a month on average is enough to allow you to play a decent amount of new games (whether bought or rented or subscribed).

[Outlawed Toker]

yea, theyhave to cater to someone else other than the filthy rich. they know most of us can't afford a $15 a month subscription and buy multiple $60 games. It won't be over $10 a monthat most,and I am assuming you will get a deal when buying a year subsricption or over.

[Bootstrap Bill]

Block Buster has a service similar to NetFlix for DVD rentals. They just announced a new plan where you can get video games in addition to movies for just $5.00 more per month.

http://www.gearlog.com/2009/02/blockbuster_adds_video_game_re.php

I'll bet OnLive will have a package for about $20 to $25 per month that includes unlimited game play and video on demand.

[Aph0ticShield]

When cloud gaming becomes a new option, you might hate it, you might like it. You would be foolish if you think it’s going to be a “direct replacement of an Xbox but cheaper”. You might as well have said that “WoW will be a direct replacement of Diablo 2”.

I didn't say that. And WoW is an irrelevant example because it is only one game. It isn't a direct replacement of the Xbox, but it will be somewhat similar in terms of games and the social features, even if OnLive is better.

[Deya]

Like they said, the service cost will be comparable to todays online services available. XBL is 50 bucks a year, so expect either the same or slightly more. I wouldn't expect it to be anywhere near 100 bucks, especially considering how cheap the actual console is.

[rasmasyean]

I didn't say that. And WoW is an irrelevant example because it is only one game. It isn't a direct replacement of the Xbox, but it will be somewhat similar in terms of games and the social features, even if OnLive is better.

Honestly, I think there will be a range of single player and multiplayer games that will be better on the Xbox or whatever for a while still. But the social / collaborative features might be a lot better on OnLive. They were thinking of making a WoW for Xbox but for some reason, but that didn’t really work so they dropped the idea. OnLive can potentially solve those issues and introduce more types of games like persistent worlds.

Maybe the “spectator feature” will interest people as well. It doesn’t have to be a “tournament”. It be just for “reviewing”. You also can potentially learn from someone else playing…sort of like “hints”. It will make people close the gap better since they can actually see what works for others rather than read some huge wiki that misses a lot of details. Perhaps OnLive can introduce some banner ads here too to stem some of the costs and make subscription cheaper. Because I imagine that you would need a subscription to watch others play. Unless they can just cover spectator costs with just Ads.

[Thogin]

WoW is a different class of it's own. It takes a certain type of gamer to play WoW. But if you're into those types of games, there is a chance that every other game is "noob stuff". Gotta hand it to Blizzard for accomplishing hit after hit culminating in what must be their best work ever presently. Too bad they merged with EA. Now they are gonna be short-term profit wonders rather than just pure gaming art like before.

I think a "higher" level of MMO's may be represented in this title called EVE Online. But that game takes WAY too much work and "studying" to play that game successfully. It's super hard-core and would leave most people in the dust unless you want to get really invovled with these things.

First thing, Blizzard did not merged with EA, they merged with Activision. Please get your news right. What are you talking about, the WHOLE point of MMO is having alot of things to mess around in.

What are you a WII player? They will be just providing games, their a service like your internet but for games. It don't matter what type of games you play hardcore, soft core, no core....

[Bootstrap Bill]

Like they said, the service cost will be comparable to todays online services available. XBL is 50 bucks a year, so expect either the same or slightly more. I wouldn't expect it to be anywhere near 100 bucks, especially considering how cheap the actual console is.

But what about the costs for running the servers? These will be doing far more than XBL or any other server for that matter.

[Deya]

But what about the costs for running the servers? These will be doing far more than XBL or any other server for that matter.

This is just what Onlive has said about price, lol. Regardless of server costs, they need to stay competitive, and what's the best way to compete with an already established industry giant? Buy providing a quality service at a comparable or less price.

[Aph0ticShield]

This is just what Onlive has said about price, lol. Regardless of server costs, they need to stay competitive, and what's the best way to compete with an already established industry giant? Buy providing a quality service at a comparable or less price.

Still you are forgetting that OnLive will replace the cost of a console also, so therefore they have a right to charge much more than Xbox Live. But I agree, they will need to make it competitive enough for people to "buy-in" to the tech.

[core9a9]

Still you are forgetting that OnLive will replace the cost of a console also, so therefore they have a right to charge much more than Xbox Live. But I agree, they will need to make it competitive enough for people to "buy-in" to the tech.

Yes, but there will be much less overhead when it comes to digital distribution. No manufacturing of expensive hardware/discs, shipping, and retail.

The last gen consoles sold 140 million PS2s, 21 million Gamecubes, and 24 million Xbox's, that's close to 200 million consoles. I'm not exactly sure how much that would be in dollars spent but I'd say its about 35 billion dollars in hardware sold, not including all of the PC hardware. Around 95% of the time, these millions of consoles are not even turned on, most of the time it just sits there doing nothing, thats a lot of wasted hardware. Out of the 200 million consoles, we only use it for 5% (average of little over a hour a day) of its lifespan. In actuality we would only need 10 million consoles to serve 200 million people, but this generation of console are not designed for this purpose. With OnLive, as soon as someone stops playing, someone else will use up that process (I'm sure my math isn't perfect with peak times and so on). It's like 20 people all chipping in to buying 1 console and sharing it, thats $10 per person instead of $200. This way, consumers will benefit from a much more efficient way of distribution and the lack of wasted hardware which sits useless most of the time with the current generation of consoles.

Only problem I see is, when a highly anticipated game like Modern Warfare 2 is released, everyone might want to log on at the same time, bogging down the servers creating a lot of lag.

[Outlawed Toker]

Block Buster has a service similar to NetFlix for DVD rentals. They just announced a new plan where you can get video games in addition to movies for just $5.00 more per month.

http://www.gearlog.com/2009/02/blockbuster_adds_video_game_re.php



www.gamefly.com

been around for years.

[rasmasyean]

Yes, but there will be much less overhead when it comes to digital distribution. No manufacturing of expensive hardware/discs, shipping, and retail.

The last gen consoles sold 140 million PS2s, 21 million Gamecubes, and 24 million Xbox's, that's close to 200 million consoles. I'm not exactly sure how much that would be in dollars spent but I'd say its about 35 billion dollars in hardware sold, not including all of the PC hardware. Around 95% of the time, these millions of consoles are not even turned on, most of the time it just sits there doing nothing, thats a lot of wasted hardware. Out of the 200 million consoles, we only use it for 5% (average of little over a hour a day) of its lifespan. In actuality we would only need 10 million consoles to serve 200 million people, but this generation of console are not designed for this purpose. With OnLive, as soon as someone stops playing, someone else will use up that process (I'm sure my math isn't perfect with peak times and so on). It's like 20 people all chipping in to buying 1 console and sharing it, thats $10 per person instead of $200. This way, consumers will benefit from a much more efficient way of distribution and the lack of wasted hardware which sits useless most of the time with the current generation of consoles.

Only problem I see is, when a highly anticipated game like Modern Warfare 2 is released, everyone might want to log on at the same time, bogging down the servers creating a lot of lag.

Don’t forget this analogy:

Probably 10 people will play a game that can all run on 1 “console”…
While 1 person will play a game that can only run on 3 “consoles put together”… <-- This was never an option before.

[AlexTheLion]

www.gamefly.com

been around for years.

I've used them before, they were pretty good.

[Revilo62RAWR]

What I’m saying is that paying $15 per month will likely NOT get you an equivalent experience you currently get with an Xbox (assuming you actually buy games once in a while). If you want to new releases and hot titles, you can expect it to cost more than something as low as $15 a month on average.

And why would anyone eventually want to spend more on a gaming service over the internet than what they currently spend on Xbox? Because some people who don’t really play that many games to begin with, might find “cloud” gaming more appealing such that they increase “hobby time” playing different games. Simple as that. It has happened already. Video game business has increased in revenue throughout the many years. And where does that money come from??? People spent more! Whether it’s more than $0 per year or more than $100 per year….they spend more!

I’ll take myself as an example. I subscribed to WoW for 2 years and also subscribed my nephew for 3 years. In that time I spent like ($15 x 24 + $15 x 36) $900. And that’s one single game! If wow didn’t exist, I would have say…bought myself maybe 2 games during that period and say, 6 games for my nephew (birthday and Christmas). That would cost max ($60 x 8) $480. I spent MORE on gaming because of this stupid MMO service that got us hooked!

WoW certainly brought a new level of video game entertainment to me and nephew as well as 11.5 million people presently. And there are many many people who never played games (like girls) who play WoW. That means they spend an infinite amount of money MORE than before! …on gaming!

When cloud gaming becomes a new option, you might hate it, you might like it. You would be foolish if you think it’s going to be a “direct replacement of an Xbox but cheaper”. You might as well have said that “WoW will be a direct replacement of Diablo 2”.

You make no sense! Your ranting about stuff that doesn't really make much sense -.-

Ok fine you wasted your time on a game who cares if we want to waste some time to on a new system? Also people who don't like games that much aren't going to increase there game time on Onlive it's just like buying an Xbox with monthly service (Xbox live). Sounds like you don't get it you still have to buy the games you don't just pay $15 or so and play any game ever made you pay $15 plus like $60 per a game!

[TinFoil]

Wow... Some of you have really lost your minds. What brain-dead yuppie would pay $15 a month for the privilege to pay $40 for a game that he can only play if (a) the company stays profitable (b) the company isn't having hardware/Internet issues (c) the person isn't having Internet issues (d) he keeps paying $15 a month to access his game!

OnLive is going to be a hard public sell because it's complicated technology. The creators know this. It's going to be cheap, real cheap, to get people to give it a chance. If they try to charge more than $50 a Y-E-A-R, OnLive will never succeed.

Also, OnLive is only going to appeal to a small audience. At least some of your PC gamers think about 720p graphics and think, "Why would I want to go back to a resolution that low".

[AlexTheLion]

But won't Onlive upgrade once they get enough members?

[rasmasyean]

But won't Onlive upgrade once they get enough members?

I would guess that they can open it to "anyone", but either limit the amount of titles they have available by region...or indicate that a title might have too high latency. Then if they start making more money or getting investors, they expand to cover more regions.

The other scenario can be a bigger company likes it if they are successful, and swallows OnLive and hence the bigger company will have the resources for a more rapid expansion.

It all depends on how their servers are set up. Maybe they can least part of existing ones out there...maybe they have to make their own data centers. That makes a big difference in their expansion rate and capabilites. But as long as they have money...whether or not they can make it back or not...they can do it.

They would have to do this fast because I think there are other companies who are doing this business and if this works good...it might become a fronteir race. We don't know that OnLive is definately better than anyone else. They are just the first to announce. There still can be another company that can go live before OnLive does.

[Revilo62RAWR]

I would guess that they can open it to "anyone", but either limit the amount of titles they have available by region...or indicate that a title might have too high latency. Then if they start making more money or getting investors, they expand to cover more regions.

The other scenario can be a bigger company likes it if they are successful, and swallows OnLive and hence the bigger company will have the resources for a more rapid expansion.

It all depends on how their servers are set up. Maybe they can least part of existing ones out there...maybe they have to make their own data centers. That makes a big difference in their expansion rate and capabilites. But as long as they have money...whether or not they can make it back or not...they can do it.

They would have to do this fast because I think there are other companies who are doing this business and if this works good...it might become a fronteir race. We don't know that OnLive is definately better than anyone else. They are just the first to announce. There still can be another company that can go live before OnLive does.

No they can't, onlive is patented till 2022 so they're the only one till then.

[rasmasyean]

No they can't, onlive is patented till 2022 so they're the only one till then.


What patent are you talking about? Link?

[Alfrayer]

I've heard about the patent but OToy and Gaikai still seem to be active...

[AlexTheLion]

But all they can be is active...they can't really come out with anything.

[Alfrayer]

Cloud technology can't be patened, only the way its utlised to provide a gaming experience. So all they have to do is SLIGHTLY alter the way OnLive do it, which i'm sure they have done slightly different anyway.

[AlexTheLion]

I suppose, but will it really rival the awesomness of Onlive?

[B1553r]

Cloud technology can't be patened, only the way its utlised to provide a gaming experience. So all they have to do is SLIGHTLY alter the way OnLive do it, which i'm sure they have done slightly different anyway.

Again... Just speculating on how this technology works... If they have written a specialized post processor effect that actually runs on the 3d card so that the video card emits a compressed frame (I think they have) that is a novel technique and quite patentable.

I can almost explain how it works in relation to mpeg2, But basically if you built the compression right into the rendering pipeline, and rendered an I-frame buffer, a P-Frame and a B-Frame buffer,(basically the same way existing renderers render different channels to compost and multitexutre a final image) instead of the final image, you would eliminate a lot of what traditional video stream compressor needs to do, and causes them to be slower than real time.

If they have developed a process and patent like that, they will have a monopoly on it for quite a few years.

[AlexTheLion]

Cloud technology can't be patened, only the way its utlised to provide a gaming experience. So all they have to do is SLIGHTLY alter the way OnLive do it, which i'm sure they have done slightly different anyway.

Hopefully, people will realize that they are just slightly altering the technology, and still play onlive.

[Aph0ticShield]

Cloud technology can't be patened, only the way its utlised to provide a gaming experience. So all they have to do is SLIGHTLY alter the way OnLive do it, which i'm sure they have done slightly different anyway.

With 5,000 pages of patents, they will have to do more than slightly alter it. A lot more.

Also, Perlman has said that OTOY is not really in direct competition with OnLive. It is not meant, really, for consumers and is really for professionals in business. The lag is not considered important with OTOY.

As for gaikai, I see patent infringement in their future, even if they developed it from the ground up and did not steal OnLive code.

[AlexTheLion]

I believe Onlive will have a huge fan base by the time any other competitor comes around.

[Alfrayer]

I hope Gaikai do infringe on patents - I want OnLive to go a while without competition.

Back on topic: I would be willing to pay quite a bit monthly if we could have some games like WoW without the monthly costs and only have to pay a one off payment.

[Aph0ticShield]

I hope Gaikai do infringe on patents - I want OnLive to go a while without competition.

Back on topic: I would be willing to pay quite a bit monthly if we could have some games like WoW without the monthly costs and only have to pay a one off payment.

Well, I would be happy to have OnLive without competitors because naturally they would would charge more, but they can upgrade their servers faster and make sure that everything is going smoother within the network. They will be able to better handle the demand with the higher price also.

[Soulz]

To actually make this work they have to compete with Xbox live prices which is about 5-7 dollars a month. OnLive will have to be like 8 dollars a month or lower because you are paying to play games period. As for the games i agree with what someone said about 20&#37; off retail. The box would probably be like $50-$60 bucks hopefully. I don't know about renting because I would just play a demo instead.

[Aph0ticShield]

To actually make this work they have to compete with Xbox live prices which is about 5-7 dollars a month. OnLive will have to be like 8 dollars a month or lower because you are paying to play games period.

You and others are still forgetting that you actually have to buy new consoles if you don't have OnLive. Therefore the cost can and probably will be significantly higher than 8 dollars a month.

[Soulz]

You and others are still forgetting that you actually have to buy new consoles if you don't have OnLive. Therefore the cost can and probably will be significantly higher than 8 dollars a month.

What do you mean new consoles ??

[Tyrokiller]

He means when the xbox720 or PS4 get released.

[Aph0ticShield]

He means when the xbox720 or PS4 get released.

And don't even get me started on the costs of constantly upgrading a PC to top performance. It is nearly impossible.

[Darq]

What do you mean new consoles ??

I thought this was a cute question. ;)

Hopefully with a successful future for OnLive we'll be seeing more people ask this.

[Aph0ticShield]

I thought this was a cute question. ;)

Hopefully with a successful future for OnLive we'll be seeing more people ask this.

Wow, you are right!

"What do you mean, grandpa? You actually had to buy new a new console every time to make games look better? I thought they always just made it look better with us having to do ANYthing!"

"Yes, my grandson, we should have known better. But thanks to OnLive... things changed."

I LOLed at this:D

[AlexTheLion]

Yeah...."Back in my day you young whippersnapper....we actually had to use a disc!"

[Aph0ticShield]

Yeah...."Back in my day you young whippersnapper....we actually had to use a disc!"

:eek: "You mean it? What's a disc?"

[AlexTheLion]

Anyway...I guess lets get back on topic, in response to ap0tic's concern of constantly upgrading a PC to top performance, its so true, that's one of the reasons I'm so pumped for Onlive, no more throwing money at the newest tech for your computer that is obsolete 5 mins later. ;)

[boxedninja]

They said in an interview that it won't be much more than $5 a month, remember, it's for people that can't afford higher consoles so it's going to be pretty cheap.

[Lord Xenu]

I wasn't aware they released their pricing model yet.

[charlando]

I do not think it will be significantly higher than 5$ a month. Think about it: A lot of people are saying that one of the benefits of Onlive is that you never have to pay to upgrade your console. If they were to charge even 20$ a month that would cost almost as much as buying a new Wii every year. It would also cost more than buying an Xbox 360 and Xbox live every 2 years.

I think such a move would be unwise because it would discourage anyone that had already spent money on a next gen console or PC from paying for their service.

[rasmasyean]

You can’t equate the current products to the new products in that simple of a fashion. If you look at it that way, you could have said that TV was “free” over the air yet ppl are paying up to up to $100+ per month to get another TV programming. Why? Because one is more flexible and capable than the other.

Even if you compare getting movies to a VDR/DVD player, it’s not the same. Assuming an average DVD player costs about the same as a Wii, do cable companies charge more than $5 (or even $20) a month?

And most ppl don’t have such an attachment to a physical product beyond initial purchase at least. After a while, that physical “player” is more a piece of space taking junk than a “possession” that you have.

[charlando]

Well cable TV provides the shows along with the delivery. They don't just provide the ability to deliver shows without the actual shows and then, for an additional charge, offer to sell you movies and tv shows that you can only watch while you still pay for cable.

Now, if Onlive did charge more than 20$ a month but provided a selection of games bundled with this service, I could see that being more comparable to cable.

[rasmasyean]

Well cable TV provides the shows along with the delivery. They don't just provide the ability to deliver shows without the actual shows and then, for an additional charge, offer to sell you movies and tv shows that you can only watch while you still pay for cable.

Now, if Onlive did charge more than 20$ a month but provided a selection of games bundled with this service, I could see that being more comparable to cable.

I'm assuming that no matter what business model we are talking about, we're counting the total cost of the service. Whether they bundle some "free" selections and have "HBO" that includes World of Warcraft, etc. is just the details.

No one is going to just buy the gadget without any content whatsoever.

[Alex]

It should be completely focused on volume and marketshare. It should be purely subscription based. There should never be any ads of any sort. Having room for the distraction of ads would strongly suggest that the service wasn't compelling enough. Never having ads of any sort is an invincible advantage- ads themselves are obsolete and companies that don't get that need to die the hard way learning it. Leave no company room to make a business out of ripping off the consumer, bundle everything. It's not all the market will bear, its rather every thing we can take out of any potential competitors hide by giving it away to the consumer. Look at the Amazon roll out, convert the first mover advantage into pent up revenue by never allowing the competition an in until it is a truely capital business. A Sony type company should never be given the slack to enter. For instance there would have been no room even for the failure that is Blu-Ray because the maker of the DVD would have included the successor technology at no premium in later $20 replacement players. Its possible to keep certain scam artists type competitors out just by never allowing them to inflate margins. It doesn't really matter what the mindless Wallstreet types want, take their money, ignore their demands completely (especially their profit demands) treat them like they treat others... but focus completely on advancing the market and providing the best value possible.

[rasmasyean]

It should be completely focused on volume and marketshare. It should be purely subscription based. There should never be any ads of any sort. Having room for the distraction of ads would strongly suggest that the service wasn't compelling enough. Never having ads of any sort is an invincible advantage- ads themselves are obsolete and companies that don't get that need to die the hard way learning it.

What are you talking about? Even cable TV has Ads. So does most of the internet.

[Alex]

As if that model by rape was the model to accept and emmulate. If you want to look for the reason for the practical or borderline collapse of our society you can look to the sponsorship model and its total corruption of our politics, civics and law. Many but not all freeways have ads and they cause death, traffic and property devaluation. This doesn't mean that ads should continue on freeways.

If someone interupts you, wastes your time, then in discouraging the practice and setting a proper example it seems you would demand instant direct and complete reparation. They simply can't buy what isn't for sale, and they can't sell us our own property. Its not even sustainable economically because when you get puffed and make a less than optimal purchase decision you are then in less of a position to participate in the next economic cycle and the whole thing in aggregate gets on a downward spiral. Product education is one thing, demand creation is really fraud.

[rodeo7]

providing the best value possible.

One way to provide the best value possible would be to have some ads to offset the subscriptions costs. But I'm sure you will ignore this entirely and continue to rant on your hatred for ads while ignoring all the benefits. Likely you will do this in a series of new threads which have nothing to do with onlive as you continue to treat this board like your own personal blog.


Many but not all freeways have ads and they cause death, traffic and property devaluation. This doesn't mean that ads should continue on freeways.

If you drive a car and crash because you are looking at ads it means you are a terrible driver who can't focus on the task at hand.

[ryanswo07]

As if that model by rape was the model to accept and emmulate. If you want to look for the reason for the practical or borderline collapse of our society you can look to the sponsorship model and its total corruption of our politics, civics and law.

Yea, that has absolutely nothing to do with our current economic situation, unless you count the credit collapse and the labor unions in the automotive industry as ads.

[Alex]

One way to provide the best value possible would be to have some ads to offset the subscriptions costs. But I'm sure you will ignore this entirely and continue to rant on your hatred for ads while ignoring all the benefits. Likely you will do this in a series of new threads which have nothing to do with onlive as you continue to treat this board like your own personal blog.



If you drive a car and crash because you are looking at ads it means you are a terrible driver who can't focus on the task at hand.

But at the same time you should have the cell phone regulated out of your hands in the car because the cellphone industry found it could do some crapy research and run it like an ad to hate mongering coffeed up AM radio. I can understand no MJ and WildTurkey while driving and never the two should meet but Billboards should have went first. AM radio just didn't want people talking when they could be listening to their stupid ads.

Yes the ads are mindless usless brainwashing that actually damages the economy by puffing people into poor investment. Well that's bad enough but the key point is: never let them in and if there is room for them on your service your service isn't compelling enough and you shouldn't sleep at night. A million times better to have stupid dividend demands than the demands of advertisers (sponsorship corruption.) Here is $10 if you will try my crack? Here's some flaws for your diamonds. Here's the Star tucked into Buffet's 10K subscription mag.

[jab305]

The problem that onlive has is that the man on the street will be incredibly wary of it and pulling people away from their xbox's will be very difficult. They need to have a relatively cheap monthly subscription around $10-$15, charge a small amount for the console around $30-$50 or give it away free with a years subscription (it does seem very cheap to manufacture anyway) and then charge full in-store price for the games and take the profit that the stores/console makers would normally take. Top this up with short low cost rentals that people will impulse buy and you could be on to a money making winner.

If they put the barriers to entry into the service to high people who may well believe this service it to good to be true will just stick with what they know.

I also highly suggest that they should run a invite only (at least initally) 3 day trial so that people actually can see that it does work. Online subscription services rarely work without some form of free trial/demo product.

[rodeo7]

But at the same time you should have the cell phone regulated out of your hands in the car because the cellphone industry found it could do some crapy research and run it like an ad to hate mongering coffeed up AM radio. I can understand no MJ and WildTurkey while driving and never the two should meet but Billboards should have went first. AM radio just didn't want people talking when they could be listening to their stupid ads.

Yes the ads are mindless usless brainwashing that actually damages the economy by puffing people into poor investment. Well that's bad enough but the key point is: never let them in and if there is room for them on your service your service isn't compelling enough and you shouldn't sleep at night. A million times better to have stupid dividend demands than the demands of advertisers (sponsorship corruption.) Here is $10 if you will try my crack? Here's some flaws for your diamonds. Here's the Star tucked into Buffet's 10K subscription mag.

Your 'logic' (and I use that term very loosely) is filled with holes, lack of any evidence and screams conspiracy theorist. And since it has next to nothing to do with Onlive I'm not going to go point by point and tell you why your wrong.

I'm just going to let you ponder the irony of you posting this on a board supported by google advertisements just like a large portion of the internet.

[thehillissilent]

I would imagine that you would recieve the micro-console with a year subscription. I imagine there will be tiered subsciption.

I think there will be a $5 for basic access, demos, spectating.

I think there should be higher cost subsciption $15 a month which let you rent about 4 games ( a week duration per game). Most games can be beaten in a week nowadays anyway.

To outright buy games, which you don't really own since it's all server side, should be about $20 cheaper than retail. I beileve people should use the system similar to gamefly (but limit the rental times).

If they do this then I will subscribe.

[Naossoan]

It wouldn't make sense for onlive to charge for "buying" games.

The only way this service will work is if it uses a similar strategy as Blockbuster, Gamefly, or one of the other companies that charges a subscription fee for unlimited access to any and all games.

It does not make sense to me for me to "buy" a game that I do not have a physical or virtual copy of.

If Onlive ends up going this route as some of you suggest of having a low monthly or yearly subscription fee and still charges $40 minimum (speculated) for major titles than there's no way i will be buying into it.

Perhaps I would be spending more money by spending $20/month subscription than $40/game, but personally I would be more inclined to do that as I have unlimited access to all the games I want. Not just 1 game.

Also I saw previously someone saying their computer is not good enough to run this. I think you are missing the point here. The point is that essentially all the computing needs are removed from the customer.

As soon as this service comes out and if it is to my liking the first thing I will be doing is selling my PS3, all my games, my wii, and my gaming pc and picking up a slick, small netbook and a Dell studio hybrid PC which is basxically the size of an optical drive. I can't wait for that day to come.

[thehillissilent]

It wouldn't make sense for onlive to charge for "buying" games.

The only way this service will work is if it uses a similar strategy as Blockbuster, Gamefly, or one of the other companies that charges a subscription fee for unlimited access to any and all games.

It does not make sense to me for me to "buy" a game that I do not have a physical or virtual copy of.

If Onlive ends up going this route as some of you suggest of having a low monthly or yearly subscription fee and still charges $40 minimum (speculated) for major titles than there's no way i will be buying into it.

Perhaps I would be spending more money by spending $20/month subscription than $40/game, but personally I would be more inclined to do that as I have unlimited access to all the games I want. Not just 1 game.

Also I saw previously someone saying their computer is not good enough to run this. I think you are missing the point here. The point is that essentially all the computing needs are removed from the customer.

As soon as this service comes out and if it is to my liking the first thing I will be doing is selling my PS3, all my games, my wii, and my gaming pc and picking up a slick, small netbook and a Dell studio hybrid PC which is basxically the size of an optical drive. I can't wait for that day to come.


I agree about not liking "buying games" since you don't really own anything. However, that is up to publishers to decide pricing. Personally, I'd rather have it like Gamefly where you can rent a certain amount of games at one time. But they have mentioned about people outright buying games on the service.

[rasmasyean]

Let go of that "physical copy" silliness. You don't "own" anything but the rights to use it...regardless of how it's stored.

I suppose iTunes is a major failure since ppl buy songs that only work on iPods and have no physical copy. What a stupid business principle!

Yeah, and your games are MUCH more important than music and warrant special treatment. As we all know that when a "famous game developer" dies, millions of ppl attend his funeral and they make a movie about him and his latest incomplete game.

[thehillissilent]

Let go of that "physical copy" silliness. You don't "own" anything but the rights to use it...regardless of how it's stored.

I suppose iTunes is a major failure since ppl buy songs that only work on iPods and have no physical copy. What a stupid business principle!

Yeah, and your games are MUCH more important than music and warrant special treatment. As we all know that when a "famous game developer" dies, millions of ppl attend his funeral and they make a movie about him and his latest incomplete game.

Ok, I know that we buy a license to use the product. However, there is nothing like "physically" having something. I'd rather have Blurays than digital downloads for movies. One of the biggest reasons is availability and quality. You can never gurantee whether a company llike Netflix will have a movie up all the time for you to see same for Onlive. I still rather play NES games using the catridge than an emulator, because it's nothing like physically owning it.

Why are you brining up Itunes? You seem really insecure. I don't use ITunes and can care less. I make my own mp3s. I refuse to buy overpriced Mp3s from Itunes. (Also, there are plenty of other sites housed in Russia where you can legally buy DRM less mp3s for 10 cent a song!) I hate Ipods and Zunes because of the stupid DRM. I like freedom to do what I want with what I "own". I don't know what gives you the right to think any less of people who like physical goods. I actually like the second hand market. I like my media any way I can get it.


As far as famous game develpors, why are you running off on a tangent for. Yeah, it's videogames. i've been playing them for over 25 years. I seen all types of changes. I also work in the field of IT where cloud computing started. But you know what.. that's not important. I still like physically owning my games even if most of the recent games are throwaway 5-10 hour affairs even if all I own is a license.

I like Onlive, but I realize that we lose control for convienence.