On OnLive Game Prices

Now that OnLive is live, details have emerged on Eurogamer.net outlining how much games will cost on the service, in addition to OnLive fees (which are not being charged yet). They show Brain Challenge for $4.99, F.E.A.R. 2: Project Origin for $19.99, Just Cause 2 for $49.99, and Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell: Conviction for $59.99. Those are all pretty much in line for the prices for those games at retail, except in this case you will need to maintain your OnLive subscription to keep playing these games, and even then, access to these titles is only certain for the next three years, as they all carry a "rental duration" which reads: "Until at least 17th June 2013."
View : : :
119 Replies. 6 pages. Viewing page 3.
Newer [  1  2  3  4  5  6  ] Older
79.
 
Re: On OnLive Game Prices
Jun 22, 2010, 12:30
79.
Re: On OnLive Game Prices Jun 22, 2010, 12:30
Jun 22, 2010, 12:30
 
It's obscure now, but with enough promotion and game tie-ins it won't be. A great example of how this will work is Hulu. No one ever heard of Hulu either until the big money content providers took the idea of web video already established by YouTube and created their own service for their content. OnLive or at least cloud gaming will be successful because those who are behind it control most of the content in the game market.

That kind of misunderstands why Hulu caught on, though.

The content owners were a bit desperate. The internet was full of their content in ways they had absolutely zero control of. So they were losing regular customers and missing out on new ones. It was very obvious that customers wanted to watch via the internet, so they had to go somewhere. It turned into Hulu, because it was much cheaper for them than partnering with Youtube, it gave them more leverage, plus they were peeved at Youtube. They really, really wanted a way to give customers what they wanted and find new ways to draw in advertisers.
For the users? It was free and it worked well. For most of them it was vastly easier than pirating. So using it was a no-brainer.

How does this compare to OnLive?
For one, the content providers aren't giddy about OnLive. They're indifferent, unlike Hulu. If it works and they get more sales they think it's cool, but it's nothing they're putting time and effort into. They're not really "backing" OnLive, like Hulu was backed. Instead they just had OnLive come in, as for rights in exchange for revenues, and the publishers said "sure, whatever, so long as I get paid. By the way, you're charging full price, same as B&M and Steam."

For customers? Well, there's definitely a group that will dig this. A small group. For the average gamer it offers no real value. You have the service itself, but signing up for a subscription is a lot of effort and a big mental barrier. Beyond that most people that know of this and want to play these games already have systems of comparable power, Then there's the mental block of paying for something they never hold. Sure, maybe now they can play it on their netbook, but is that worth overcoming the never-own mental block?

Hulu was extremely beneficial to both end users and content owners. One group got free stuff, the other monetized a new revenue stream and found a way to hold on to audience members that had been dwindling.
OnLive is marginally beneficial to both. One group gets customers they likely already have and the other has a service they can't even bring their own games to.


Not a good comparison.
78.
 
Re: On OnLive Game Prices
Jun 22, 2010, 12:05
78.
Re: On OnLive Game Prices Jun 22, 2010, 12:05
Jun 22, 2010, 12:05
 
I don't agree. There are plenty of people out there who prefer to play a game on a PC, regardless if it's multiplatform or not. Sure the hardware lasts longer than it did in years past, but you still need to "keep up" every few years if you intend to play the latest titles.

All that a PC needs to be capable of is 720p framerates to "compete" with OnLive and even then it provides a superior experience. Considering most people already own a computer, those interested in gaming aren't really being forced to add much to do modern gaming. And again, you are misinformed about modern hardware cycles. People write engines to the low end these days, they are not scaling downward anymore.

Again, Steam still requires you to have a decent gaming rig to run new titles with mid to high graphic settings

Since when does OnLive offer mid to high settings? You don't need a decent gaming rig to do what OnLive offers and spending a little bit extra cash once every three years gives you those mid to high settings you keep going on about.

The point or benefit (in their terms) is that you don't need to buy expensive hardware.

You sure need to pay for an expensive service and pay more for your games though, kind of negating the entire purpose of the exercise. This is ignoring the fact that most "convenience" gamers just buy consoles anyways. If hardware is so intimidating to PC gamers then they already have other, better options. Again, this is a solution seeking a problem. If the entire country were blanketed in fiber and their pricing structure was what they initially promised then we would be having a different discussion.
Avatar 51617
77.
 
Re: On OnLive Game Prices
Jun 22, 2010, 11:54
77.
Re: On OnLive Game Prices Jun 22, 2010, 11:54
Jun 22, 2010, 11:54
 
Verno wrote on Jun 22, 2010, 11:02:
That's not even true anymore thanks to multiplatform games. You don't need to "keep up" a machine so much as buy gaming hardware on a cycle near that of consoles. The days of yearly upgrades are long behind us.
I don't agree. There are plenty of people out there who prefer to play a game on a PC, regardless if it's multiplatform or not. Sure the hardware lasts longer than it did in years past, but you still need to "keep up" every few years if you intend to play the latest titles.

Well yes because it's not the same price - OnLive is more expensive. What benefit exactly are you referring to? You are saying "but it can do X!" and we're saying "Yes but you can already do Y cheaper". Doing it for the sake of doing it is not really a path to consumer success. You keep going on about the point of the service but people are harping on it precisely because unlike something like say Steam, it offers little benefit and is even costlier.
Again, Steam still requires you to have a decent gaming rig to run new titles with mid to high graphic settings. The point or benefit (in their terms) is that you don't need to buy expensive hardware. To be honest, I don't even know if that rings true or if their service is good enough to cover their claims. I just find it annoying to see people bitch about half the story. I don't consider you one of those people, but there are plenty of them early on in the thread.
"You don't get what you deserve, you get what you get."
Avatar 46094
76.
 
Re: On OnLive Game Prices
Jun 22, 2010, 11:50
76.
Re: On OnLive Game Prices Jun 22, 2010, 11:50
Jun 22, 2010, 11:50
 
Hehehe.

My favorite argument is still that "People who have a crappy PC can use this to play their games (shittily, but okay) without having to buy a PC!"

yet somehow, those people with relic hardware (and no 360 or PS3, of course), DO have a 10Mb+ internet connection somehow.

Creston
Avatar 15604
75.
 
Re: On OnLive Game Prices
Jun 22, 2010, 11:25
75.
Re: On OnLive Game Prices Jun 22, 2010, 11:25
Jun 22, 2010, 11:25
 
Well you see Creston, I don't own a computer that can handle playing a game and turning your character in-game simultaneously. Consoles are just so expensive so obviously the best solution was for me to get an OnLive subscription so that I can pay a monthly fee and more than full price for every game so that I can watch my character turn his blurry ass 2-5 seconds after I've told him to do it.
Avatar 51617
74.
 
Re: On OnLive Game Prices
Jun 22, 2010, 11:08
74.
Re: On OnLive Game Prices Jun 22, 2010, 11:08
Jun 22, 2010, 11:08
 
Fang wrote on Jun 22, 2010, 03:58:
That just means you aren't used to using KBM, it doesn't mean it is actually better. Any game with aiming is better on KBM if you ask me, including Just Cause 2 (and yes I have a 360 controller I use for racing games and beat 'em ups). If PC gamers are going to be expected to try this service they are going to want KBM to work perfectly, and it doesn't.

No, Tumbler is referring to the optimization and performance level of OnLive with it's frame rate and screen updating algorithms. That's what he means by "better". It's basically how fast you turn. Usually with a controller, you turn slower (why PC gamers hate it compared to a KBM). But if you take a mouse and jack up the sensitivity, the screen doesn't update too well. I was getting motion sick from the slow screen updates with a highly sensitive mouse. I set it back to default and the game looked and played much better.

I assume it's in their secret sauce to get the screen to update so fast on an internet connection. It doesn't handle twitches too well from what I've seen.

OnLive seems to optimize based on default settings. So just a warning if you adjust things.

That sounds like a TREMENDOUS gaming experience. After all, who hasn't played a game at home thinking "Man, if only this game TURNED SLOWER."

Rolleyes

Creston
Avatar 15604
73.
 
Re: On OnLive Game Prices
Jun 22, 2010, 11:04
73.
Re: On OnLive Game Prices Jun 22, 2010, 11:04
Jun 22, 2010, 11:04
 
Jay wrote on Jun 22, 2010, 10:48:
2 Games on OnLive + 1 year subscription fee = price of xbox360 arcade. HMMM tough call!
A fair point. But this only applies if you only intend to do console gaming, with no intention of using mouse/keyboard for shooters, RTSes and what not.
"You don't get what you deserve, you get what you get."
Avatar 46094
72.
 
Re: On OnLive Game Prices
Jun 22, 2010, 11:02
72.
Re: On OnLive Game Prices Jun 22, 2010, 11:02
Jun 22, 2010, 11:02
 
Elessar wrote on Jun 22, 2010, 10:54:
Maybe here it's a myth not to have a mid to high end gaming machine, but I don't think you're considering the many people who don't keep their hardware up.

That's not even true anymore thanks to multiplatform games. You don't need to "keep up" a machine so much as buy gaming hardware on a cycle near that of consoles. The days of yearly upgrades are long behind us.

q[All people want to do is bitch about how it's the same price, but not mention one iota about the benefit or even the freaking point of the service.
Well yes because it's not the same price - OnLive is more expensive. What benefit exactly are you referring to? You are saying "but it can do X!" and we're saying "Yes but you can already do Y cheaper". Doing it for the sake of doing it is not really a path to consumer success. You keep going on about the point of the service but people are harping on it precisely because unlike something like say Steam, it offers little benefit and is even costlier.
Avatar 51617
71.
 
Re: On OnLive Game Prices
Jun 22, 2010, 10:54
71.
Re: On OnLive Game Prices Jun 22, 2010, 10:54
Jun 22, 2010, 10:54
 
Verno wrote on Jun 22, 2010, 10:48:
Ah yes, the mythical market of people who own computers but not computers capable of gaming. The same people that also do not own a single console and yet somehow still want to do regular gaming. We're aware of it, thanks Elessar. People make comparisons because in the end it's a gaming product and they are comparing it to other gaming products. By the way you pay for your own games with OnLive.
Maybe here it's a myth not to have a mid to high end gaming machine, but I don't think you're considering the many people who don't keep their hardware up. It's just not an accurate comparison, by any means. All people want to do is bitch about how it's the same price, but not mention one iota about the benefit or even the freaking point of the service.
"You don't get what you deserve, you get what you get."
Avatar 46094
70.
 
Re: On OnLive Game Prices
Jun 22, 2010, 10:48
Jay
70.
Re: On OnLive Game Prices Jun 22, 2010, 10:48
Jun 22, 2010, 10:48
Jay
 
2 Games on OnLive + 1 year subscription fee = price of xbox360 arcade. HMMM tough call!
Avatar 54872
69.
 
Re: On OnLive Game Prices
Jun 22, 2010, 10:48
69.
Re: On OnLive Game Prices Jun 22, 2010, 10:48
Jun 22, 2010, 10:48
 
Ah yes, the mythical market of people who own computers but not computers capable of gaming. The same people that also do not own a single console and yet somehow still want to do regular gaming. We're aware of it, thanks Elessar. People make comparisons because in the end it's a gaming product and they are comparing it to other gaming products. By the way you pay for your own games with OnLive.
Avatar 51617
68.
 
Re: On OnLive Game Prices
Jun 22, 2010, 10:40
68.
Re: On OnLive Game Prices Jun 22, 2010, 10:40
Jun 22, 2010, 10:40
 
I must be missing something, because all of you seem to be making an apples to oranges comparison when it comes to bitching about pricing. OnLive is completely different from buying your own rig and your own games. For those of you that seem to miss the point, their big selling point is that you don't need to buy or build a gaming PC.

Normally, most of you make intelligent posts and counter points. But this thread misses the point of this service entirely.

Disclaimer: I'm not an advocate of the service, I've never tried or used it. I'm just an advocate of a fair comparison which this thread lacks.
"You don't get what you deserve, you get what you get."
Avatar 46094
67.
 
Re: On OnLive Game Prices
Jun 22, 2010, 10:26
nin
67.
Re: On OnLive Game Prices Jun 22, 2010, 10:26
Jun 22, 2010, 10:26
nin
 
So wait. Monthly fee, retail pricing, AND lower rez? This keeps getting better and better!

It's youtube gaming for the masses.
66.
 
Re: On OnLive Game Prices
Jun 22, 2010, 10:23
66.
Re: On OnLive Game Prices Jun 22, 2010, 10:23
Jun 22, 2010, 10:23
 
Verno wrote on Jun 22, 2010, 10:15:

I want someone to do a bandwidth test on these games. Basically playing XYZ game for 123 hours = XXX GB.

It's just 720p video, probably running at a lower resolution on their server farms that is then upscaled to 720p itself. I have no clue what bitrate is used but let's say ballpark 3-4mbps since that's about right for H.264. So about 1.3-2GB per hour of gameplay, depending on compression and overhead.
So wait. Monthly fee, retail pricing, AND lower rez? This keeps getting better and better!
65.
 
Re: On OnLive Game Prices
Jun 22, 2010, 10:15
65.
Re: On OnLive Game Prices Jun 22, 2010, 10:15
Jun 22, 2010, 10:15
 

I want someone to do a bandwidth test on these games. Basically playing XYZ game for 123 hours = XXX GB.

It's just 720p video, probably running at a lower resolution on their server farms that is then upscaled to 720p itself. I have no clue what bitrate is used but let's say ballpark 3-4mbps since that's about right for H.264. So about 1.3-2GB per hour of gameplay, depending on compression and overhead.
Avatar 51617
64.
 
Re: On OnLive Game Prices
Jun 22, 2010, 10:04
64.
Re: On OnLive Game Prices Jun 22, 2010, 10:04
Jun 22, 2010, 10:04
 
eRe4s3r wrote on Jun 21, 2010, 23:03:
Wow, thats .. thats.. thats absolute retarded pricing. Retail pricing for a time limited rental game ON TOP of a monthly subscription fee???

Who is ever stupid enough to fall for that scam?

Sadly, I suspect there's plenty of Homer Simpson clones in the world gladly willing to embrace this. I can even hear the "WOOHOO!".
63.
 
Re: On OnLive Game Prices
Jun 22, 2010, 10:02
63.
Re: On OnLive Game Prices Jun 22, 2010, 10:02
Jun 22, 2010, 10:02
 
I want someone to do a bandwidth test on these games. Basically playing XYZ game for 123 hours = XXX GB.
62.
 
Re: On OnLive Game Prices
Jun 22, 2010, 09:56
62.
Re: On OnLive Game Prices Jun 22, 2010, 09:56
Jun 22, 2010, 09:56
 
Prince of Persia
Amazon: $29.99
OnLive: $49.99

Splinter Cell: Conviction
Amazon: $49.96
OnLive: $59.99

Just Cause 2
Amazon: $34.94
OnLive: $49.99

So that's obviously shit and that's without shopping around for the lowest price, just using Amazon as a baseline.

OnLive "Rental" prices average out to about $5 per game for every 3-5 days depending on the title. Gamefly or it's many international clones costs you $15.95 for one game at a time or $22.95 for 2 games at a time, that's with unlimited time.

OnLive's eventual subscription costs will most likely be $16.00+ USD month after inflation in 2011. This gives you nothing but "access" to the service itself with no games. Xbox Live Gold and PSN+ give access to free betas, discounted DLC/indie/etc titles, demos and so on for $50.00 a year and some people consider those a ripoff.

You have no direct ownership in OnLive. You are paying $50+ per game for literally nothing. Even in the extreme case of Steam you have a product on your hard drive that you can then tinker with. On consoles you own the disk itself. You must pay for OnLive FOREVER if you want to keep access to your game library and even then they only guarantee titles for three years of time.

OnLive gives you a blurry, possibly laggy experience with potential framerate issues and so on due to it's shared hosting nature. It is basically the Dreamhost of gaming. Poor visuals even compared to consoles and higher prices. OnLive has been purposely cherry picking accounts to activate one at a time closest to their data centers so that they can have positive word of mouth. What are they so afraid of if everything works as advertised?

They advertised themselves as the Netflix of gaming last year and all of that turned out to be lies. OnLive said they would pen deals with ISPs to get around peoples issues with usage restrictions. That didn't happen. OnLive said there would just be a subscription fee. That will happen...in addition to you buying all of the software at more expensive prices too. OnLive claimed they would launch the service this year. That didn't happen, you cannot call this a "launch". Activating accounts in the single digits every day is a beta, not a product launch.

OnLive is a solution seeking a problem. The trouble is that it's just not a good one. Maybe one day someone will do this kind of service right but OnLive succeeding would be a disaster for the industry and more importantly the consumer.

This comment was edited on Jun 22, 2010, 10:19.
Avatar 51617
61.
 
Re: On OnLive Game Prices
Jun 22, 2010, 09:42
Prez
 
61.
Re: On OnLive Game Prices Jun 22, 2010, 09:42
Jun 22, 2010, 09:42
 Prez
 
Verno wrote on Jun 22, 2010, 08:40:
If you can do basic multiplication then you are not the target market for this product.

LOL! Well said.
“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.”
- Mahatma Gandhi
Avatar 17185
60.
 
Re: On OnLive Game Prices
Jun 22, 2010, 09:23
60.
Re: On OnLive Game Prices Jun 22, 2010, 09:23
Jun 22, 2010, 09:23
 
I've Got The News Blues wrote on Jun 22, 2010, 05:03:
This service is insane.
It is now because you have other options. Some day in the not too distant future it will be the only choice for AAA games, and then it will look much more reasonable.
Im sorry but... Are you fucking stupid? Did your mom eat led paint chips as a kit? I can not stress how moronic this statement is.

Lack of options does not force people to think its more reasonable. Lack of options pisses people off and drives them away. We are not talking about a necessary commodity here.
119 Replies. 6 pages. Viewing page 3.
Newer [  1  2  3  4  5  6  ] Older