The games will be full priced as well? I just don't see the market for this. They tout not having to upgrade your PC as an advantage. Are they going after the people who are interested in PC gaming but have little expendable income? If you're wealthy enough to afford:

1. A high bandwidth connection
2. A computer
3. OnLive monthly subscription fee
4. Full price for games

Then why would you ever take all the disadvantages as a tradeoff to not needing to upgrade your computer?

1. Having your save games locked on a cloud.
2. Being at the mercy of not being able to play your game if OnLive decides to "discontinue" a certain type of PC that can only play the game that you own.
3. Not being able to keep a physical disc for resale.
4. Degradation of game experience when others in household begin using internet.
5. Lock in to paying OnLine a monthly fee for the rest of your life to play a game that you own.

The days of needing a new video card every year are gone. Most developers build their games to scale down to very old hardware.

I think this really only gets the bean counters at EA and Activation excited because it's an opportunity to avoid the large royalties of Sony and Microsoft and a chance to control the resale market. It might get a small clique of gamers excited on the ability to live broadcast (eg: Counter-Strike gamers that want to watch a live tournament). But given the direction that EA wants it's MMA game to go, broadcasting live games may become a expected feature (like video recording and posting) in many games today.

So what really is the consumer advantage for OnLive?

@Mark Wong

You might as well ask why anyone would get a 30 year mortgage when they could get a 5 year mortgage. Some people, like me, would prefer to pay less money now for a big desktop PC or console even if this means paying more over the long term.

Then again maybe there are only two games I feel are worth playing every year. So maybe I buy or rent them and end up spending $100/year via onlive. I could do this for 5 years before equalling the cost of a bare-bones gaming PC.

@Ian Fisch

First off, there is no guarantee that the Founding Members Program is going to be continued, or that the normal pricing structure is even going to be as low as $4.95/month.

Second, most people have at least a barebones pc, and paying for it again through OnLive doesn't sound like a good business decision.

Third, OnLive will delete your account if you stop subscribing for a year. You never actually own anything through the service. You are essentially renting everything.

I went through there FAQ at this address:

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/28957/E3_Dell__ATT_More_Game_Makers_Partner_W
ith_OnLive.php#comments

http://www.worldofgame.net/4.shtml

cheapest wow gold: 10000G only $29.99

No Virus No Lie

@Ben

I'm not sure where you're getting your statistics about most people owning a bare bones PC. For example I own a laptop now. It's only 2 years old and cost me $1500 (It has a built in wacom tablet function) that couldn't dream of every playing Crysis. Most of my friends have similarly-powered laptops. A lot of them have Macs. OnLive is the only way they could play cutting-edge PC games without buying new hardware.

I have a 3 year old computer, a old GeForce 8600, and I NEVER had a game don't run here, anything that I want to play, just works (obviously, I don't tried playing Crysis... But is because the game is REALLY not my taste... In fact, I think the game is bad, and the engine is bad too, since other engines do the same using less power).

So, I don't get the people saying: "OOoooh, use OnLive, because this way you won't have to upgrade your PC!"

Seriously, my previous PC, worked everything but Mass Effect, and it was a first generation Pentium D with a GeForce 7300...

I have a cousin, that used the same Pentium II 233 for 10 years, even games that claimed to REQUIRE 400Mhz, 600Mhz, worked fine on his machine... I also maintained myself a Pentium III 700Mhz for 4 years! It had a onboard GPU (an S3 Savage) and several games worked fine (specially from the NFS series...)

So, I REALLY don't get... I play on PC, because it is CHEAPER than playing on console (I don't own a console, it is too expensive).


And finally: I hate the idea of "renting" games. And I also hate the idea that I need internet to play (specially, because I know that only a small percentage of the world actually has broadband internet... percentage mostly concentrated on US, Northwest Europe and Japan)

I remember the same kind of discussions arising when Steam came, too. It's the same thing there, really - if Steam shuts down one day, the games are gone. And a bunch of other arguments. Yet Steam is, to say the least, accepted today.

And this is only bad if you want to own games. If all you want is to play games, however, it really doesn't matter, does it? If I've played a game and experienced it, I'm done with it. If I can pay a bit less to play it a shorter time, fine. I can pay a bit more to access it longer. Like burrowing from a Library.

An interesting alternative to pricey consoles. It all depends on the quality and freshness of the games being available.

However, since I already have an Xbox360, and can get all these games on that system, why would any existing gamers who own a console opt out for OnLive?

It's a fascinating little device with a concept that I completely agree with... the issue I have is why should I consider it as a replacement, or even a second console, when I already have the Xbox?

This service could also be used for mobility. These games can be played on a variety of laptops and hardware configurations. When your traveling you cannot carry a large gaming rig on your back. As internet speeds become faster and more available in public places people will be able to enjoy high-end pc gaming anywhere they can take their laptop.

I myself am considering getting a few games that my current laptop can't play, but my desktop can. For example, for all the starcraft fans out there whose laptops can't support starcraft 2, if starcraft 2 gets added to the catalog they could play it at top quality wherever they want for the cost of the game and $4.95 a month. Thats not a bad deal in my opinion.

I agree that it does not make sense at all to purchase your entire pc collection on the on live service, but getting one or two and paying $4.95 a month sounds like a sweet deal to me.

I dont think its a coincidence either that AT&T is helping sponsor this founder's program. They probably intend to help it expand over all their networks, including the mobile networks if the service becomes popular.

The mortgage analogy doesn't work because the monthly cost for a 30 year mortgage is significantly less than a five year mortgage. There are people who cannot afford to be homeowners on a 5 year mortgage. A $170 console or $1000 gaming PC is a one time purchase that lasts for several years. Because there isn't the monthly attrition, more people are able to purchase these devices outright.

I heard several years ago, (don't know if it holds true to this day), Valve promised if Steam shuts down then the company would be committed to delivering physical media. Valve has had a history of being very consumer focused. I trust that Valve will be fair in their policies.

When Steam was released it delivered tangible advantages.

- You can access your library of games on any computer
- You don't need to worry about flipping discs
- Access to a larger library of games than your local store had
- You can transfer ownership of your games to anybody in the world easily

The advantages that OnLive touts are really shallow. I can purchase a 360 Arcade today for $149.99 and a $19.99 memory stick which will let me play Crysis 2. The original Crysis was an outlier.

I just don't see this working. At $5 a month, you can say that paying for the infrastructure and servers is a steal. But it doesn't offer me a perceivable advantage. When OnLive started the project years ago it may have made sense, because it would have offered a real advantage. Ten years ago I was upgrading my PC every few months to play games. Times have changed though.

And, Gaikai seems to have all of the advantages of OnLive and none of the disadvantages.

The problems with OnLive are pretty severe:

1. You have to subscribe to OnLive *and* pay full price for the games.
2. It requires (in the fine print) at least 5Mbps broadband.
3. Reportedly* it disallows use over WiFi.

* I haven't tried it myself but I've seen reports from others that the software won't permit use over WiFi. If this is incorrect, please accept my apologies.

#2 in particular pretty much shoots OnLive in the foot in the one area where it could be useful, gaming on netbooks on mobile broadband. But I only get 4Mbps with Clearwire WiMAX.

My 1st impression with onlive is less than great.
The Founding Members Program is still active but they are only taking a set amount of users at a given time & they do list requirements for getting to use the service.

Quote Taken directly from the online site (sorry if this is against Gamasutra listing policy Feel free to remove the posting if so..)
"To be eligible for this offer, you must be 18 years of age or older and located within the contiguous United States, provide a valid VISA, MasterCard or Discover card (your credit card will not be charged to take advantage of the free offer) and pass a computer and Internet connection performance test"
They also ask for your area zip code.

Although i signed up a few (3) days ago i have gotten no responce beyond,

"Thank you for signing up for the OnLive Founding Members Program (the "Offer"), presented by AT&T! You are now confirmed on the Waiting List for participation in the Offer*.

If and when there is availability, you will receive an email invitation inviting you to participate in the Offer"

So thats my first impression...
I have a 6MB connection, a pretty nice comp & little more to say than I'm losing intrest FAST!!

Man is that pricing model disappointing (I suspect the publishers are mostly to blame here for wanting full retail MSRP).

How can they expect to compete with GameFly rentals or GameStop used sales, at least on the console side where console prices are fixed? Give me a pricing model more like GameFly (and Netflix) and I am much more apt to move over.