March 19, 2010

OnLive Pricing Flaw

OnLive will launch this year in June for PC users.  It will run users a subscription fee of @ 14.95 a month, and will allow PC users running XP, Vista or Windows 7 or Mac users running OS X as well as smart phones to play games that would generally require much higher hardware requirements to run the same game if bough through Steam for example.  The games offered are synchronized, rendered, and stored on a server maintained by OnLive and offered online.  The cool thing about this is, if ur computer can play video, then ur in, even if u haven’t updated ur GPU in 5 years.  They will also be selling a console called the “MicroConsole” that will connect directly to ur TV making it possible to have this service without a computer.  The down sides are far too many for this to appeal to me though.  Let’s point out the obvious.

An internet connection speed of 1.5 Mbps is required to deliver games in SDTV resolution, aka resolution given from the original Xbox or the PS2 or the current Wii.  And for resolution that will be considered High Def, 4-5 Mbps will be required, I just hope ur sister is not on YouTube during anytime u want to use this service.  Besides this, the monthly subscription fee allows only for demos to be played, no full games.  And on top of that if you do decide to buy a full game through OnLive u are dependant on that service to stay up and running or will find urself without rights to your game.  So I can see how this service would appeal to people that do not have consoles and have outdated computers.  But to someone that has both a console and an updated computer, this looks like a waste of money to me.


  1. PimpmasterF - March 19, 2010 11:42 pm

    Forgot to mention the fact that Nvidia and AMD/ATI and Intel would probably have something to say about it also as the need for hardwar upgrades and/or newer hardware wouldnt really be needed and thus they would lost tons of money from potential buyers

  2. PimpmasterF - March 19, 2010 11:31 pm

    Im sure the people behind this have done their research and know what theyre doing but I also think that the competition, sony, microsoft and nintendo arent going to let something like this go unnoticed. If it were to really take off and be a huge success they would lose millions in the loss of console sales. I see more tightly wound contracts between them and developers in the future. I agree though that their target audience is the noob community, also Im curious how they intend to handle online multiplayer, Im no expert but it seems that they would have to implent a server within a server or a seperate server that connects to the source server severely hindering bandwidth or at least requiring signifcantly more than the 1.5-5mb/s requirment.

  3. DeathProof - March 19, 2010 8:50 pm

    Yea for sure it looks like it will be an epic fail. But the ppl behind this project are not noobs in the industry, and I think they will have a much younger audience of supremely noob gamers that will be attracted to this. I can just picture 12 yr olds crying to their parents to get them this while promising not to ask for another $60.00 game ever again, then getting bored, but their SOL cuz their stuck with a year contract or something like that, lol. This is something that I hope fails, but I have a feeling that the boys behind this did the research and will make a good chunk of change… We’ll see : )

  4. PimpmasterF - March 19, 2010 8:47 pm

    Oh I almost forgot to mention that if you dont have the money for games or gaming hardware its not likely you have the cash for an internet connection capable of a consitant 5mb/s. sure 1.5mb/s connections are offered for SD resolutions but SD not only brings down the experience but also kinda defeats the purpose if you ask me. Not to mention that most internet connections just arent that stable, I have a 16mb/s connection and can download most things at a consistant 2+mb/s and watch HD online content pretty well but its not perfect and videos and downloads will bottom out from time to time. I for one wouldnt want to rely on a source that isnt guaranteed to provide consistant playable quality, I dont want to be playing a game only to have my crystal clear image get all distorted and fuzzy. I didnt pay $50-60 for a game that has variable quality, yaknow

  5. PimpmasterF - March 19, 2010 8:39 pm

    I see this failing on an epic scale, (just finished god of war 3 so ive been saying epic alot lately, lol)

    I mean yes its awsome if youve got the cash to spend on games and subscription fees and dont have an up to date PC, dont know how to build one or feel buying one is too much. However Onlive ofcourse is geared towards gamers and any true gamer has either a 360, PS3, Wii or PC or a mix of the four. And why on earth would anyone with a major console or PC pay $15/mo and pay full retail to play a game they cant touch. I know this somewhat compares to Steam but at least steam has an “offline” mode to allow you to play most games bought through them. Also in the long run its cheaper to save, wait for tax returns or whatever and just buy a console or PC rather than paying a subscription fee and paying for games on a regular basis to make the subscription worth it. And like I said anyone who plays games that much has no need for something like Onlive cuz they already have a console and/or PC. So in short I really dont see this taking off too well or at least lasting for any significant length of time. But I guess we will see


Have your say

Archives - Powered by WordPress - A theme by