| Mail |
You might also like: WoW Insider, Massively, and more

Reader Comments (24)

Posted: Dec 8th 2009 11:40AM Captain Planet Planeteer Power said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
Doesn't this guy kinda HAVE to say something like that?
Reply

Posted: Dec 8th 2009 12:21PM DaFreak said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Personally i can only see benefits. If it works the way they claim it will.

Better for the consumer
+ no more getting up for inserting discs!!!! :p
+ Can't lose a disc nor can it be stolen
+ more features (think netflix and its algorithms like advising what you might like)
+ virtual cabinets. Very important for collectors that want to see all the stuff they own. (Database features - no more manual sorting, call (using voice or touch) for all titles developed by a certain developer or genre and they will be displayed in beautiful ways like coverflow or something similar)
+ no more crazy costs for hardware
+ lower game costs for the consumer (think steam deals and bigger market is lower prices + competition between online platforms will increase dramatically)
+ supercomputers can run games more beautiful than the best hardware you can afford
+ social features (the usual, what are m friends playing, watching them play, voice chat through different games, achievements,...)
+ Expand the platform, why not offer movies and music. In the future people will laugh at us when they find out we had channels that controlled what we see instead of choosing ourselves what we want to see from a database of every piece of video ever made.
+ tie in other social features > why not give it functions like last fm / flicker / facebook / twitter / ... for people who want to use it
+ internet browsing together with the social features like stumble and what news a i following
> basically this one little box could do it all and do it better by tying everything together through a global network

Better for the producer
+ less cost is more resources available for use on game development
+ direct contact with the players (what do we want?)
+ statistics about games (think steam, death rates and choke points made visible to improve gameplay)

Better for the environment
+everything from the boxes and plastic used for shipment, to the fuel used for cars, boats, planes shipping them and the boxes and the discs themselves will be cut out of the loop. Not to mention the energy used for making all this stuff that is just used for shipment.

and prolly lots more that i am forgetting at the moment and even more features that still need to be invented.

If onlive doesnt work the way it does and brings us unplayable lag then ofcourse it will fail. But one day in the not so far future everything will slide into place and the revolution will begin!
Reply

Posted: Dec 8th 2009 12:30PM RKN said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
DaFreak, you and others seem to be forgetting in regards to the environment with digital distribution, they need a lot more hard drives and servers than now, and servers eat up electricity which is not good for the environment as most of our electricity comes from polluting sources.
Reply

Posted: Dec 8th 2009 12:48PM (Unverified) said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
Being able to buy a game used only a few months later at 80% off is ten times greater than all that stuff you said DaFreak. Digital distro changes all that..
Reply

Posted: Dec 8th 2009 1:41PM DaFreak said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I would be willing to pay more for a game if i can have all those features i described. In theory the system of used sales could also be digitized but i agree that i don't see that happening any time soon =p In digital form games could be sold again indefinetly. In theory you would only need 1000 copies of a 7 hour game for millions of people. This system would not work on digital formats. Perhaps with a limit. You are allowed to sell your game a month after you buy it. This would mean that people have to rate it on their "want scale". Do you want it badly enough that you wanne pay full price at launch or would you pay half price a month later?

On the environment issue. The electricity used for maintaining servers and producing the hardware neccesary is negligible to what the entire music/movies/games distribution sector is using now. The fuel for all the shipping alone would compensate for that.
Reply

Posted: Dec 9th 2009 2:20PM TheJerit said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@DaFreak

So your saying that those 50,75,80,90% off sales I see on Steam all the time are just for my eyes only?! Perhaps that is why I've been feeling a little smug lately....
Reply

Posted: Dec 8th 2009 11:45AM MystileArmor said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I like boxes, manuals, posters and all that good stuff. OnLive and the whole lot can suck it, as far as I'm concerned. If it really comes down to an all-digital distribution thing, I'll just hook up all my old consoles and that'll have to do.
Reply

Posted: Dec 8th 2009 11:46AM copa said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
God this is such a bad idea. We are talking about rendering graphics on a remote server. Over the internet.

Everybody here who gets flawless 720p streaming at 60fps on their console, put your hands up.

Now, of the people with your hands up (not that many, I see!) how many are happy to play an action game with over 100ms of controller lag?

OK. Onlive now has two guaranteed customers at launch.
Reply

Posted: Dec 8th 2009 11:52AM Sidebuster said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Onlive seems like it would be good to customers, but in the long run it hurts us more. It's one thing to own the physical media, and even having the digital version on your own drive (so at least you have something). But with this service they can really just let you buy a game and then later on delete it from their line up. When you ask them why they'll give you some lame reason and you S.O.L.. I'm all for online distros like Steam, but this is only a rental service where the games cost full price.

Slippery Slope.
Reply

Posted: Dec 8th 2009 11:57AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I'm still too much of a collector to ever support this idea. I think I'd be put off of gaming if they went to an all-digital model.
Reply

Posted: Dec 8th 2009 12:00PM Sidebuster said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I don't like collecting games because it reminds me of all the money I wasted on games when I could have saved it all for a down payment on a house or something.
Reply

Posted: Dec 8th 2009 12:00PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Is the PlayStation Store down for anyone else? Mine is saying that "This service is not available in your country/region"...
Reply

Posted: Dec 8th 2009 12:16PM Vertimyst said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Yeah, the Store's down for me too. I'm in Canada, if that's relevant.
Reply

Posted: Dec 8th 2009 1:06PM CaramelZappa said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Yup, it's down.
Reply

Posted: Dec 8th 2009 11:58AM RKN said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Well so far, OnLive is only slated for PCs. On that front, I'd like it to be a success in to bring console gamers to PC gaming, to increase its numbers and increase developer support for the platform.

Whether an OnLive service comes to consoles, I think consoles will move to all digital in the near future. Look at how commercialized gaming has become, especially console gaming, all the milking of it. These companies sell all these rehashes, DLC, peripherals and most of you lap it up. They would love to be able to eventually sell you a game and they keep all the profits, no more reselling of the game. But that also means no more borrowing of games, gifting of games, etc.
The PSPGo is just a harbinger of things to come. I am a bit afraid of the next console cycle and what screwing over of customers and gamers it will bring.

Now if PC gaming only became "OnLive", I'd be pretty pissed, that'd be even worse than only having console gaming. I'd like to play on my own computer, with my own settings, mods, tweaks, etc.
Reply

Posted: Dec 8th 2009 12:12PM ducttapeBigSexy said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
OnLive sounds cool, but I won't be getting it. I like physical media that doesn't rely on a remote server to work (one of the many reasons I'm sick of PC gaming: activation).
Reply

Posted: Dec 8th 2009 12:40PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
In 1999, when he was an executive at BMG Music, Strauss Zelnick gave a presentation for a small group of students at Harvard Law School during which he said that he didn't think that Napster and digital music in general would have much of an effect on the music business. We all know how that turned out.

I bring this up to illustrate that Strauss may not have the foresight necessary to judge the impact Onlive will have on the future of gaming.
Reply

Posted: Dec 8th 2009 12:47PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Informative article like always, but the joke at the end was definitely the icing on the cake. Great way to close.
Reply

Posted: Dec 8th 2009 1:25PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
latency - controllers
latency - video
latency - hardware to television/monitor
no trade in value makes you really think about the purchase = less games sold for sure

i like the fact that games feel like baseball cards with their value

i don't even use streaming on my directv or xbox 360 let alone for a game

dedicated players are so freaked over latency they use wired controllers on their fps games - and it helps
Reply

Posted: Dec 8th 2009 2:07PM Marco le Polo said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Yea! I like shipping games out via Goozex and I like getting games in the mail. We'll see how long all who cherish the tangible can hold out.
Reply

Posted: Dec 8th 2009 2:17PM kmcroc said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I don't care for onlive ,i prefer going to the store & looking for my next game or at the magazine talking about games.plus w/ all the crap cable companies are pulling on allowing download speeds ,also relying on a server locate who know where or if they are being maintained . ill stick to my collection of booklets 7 extra case if you don't mind .
Reply

Posted: Dec 8th 2009 3:32PM Joeybeast said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Where's the public beta?
Reply

Posted: Dec 8th 2009 7:35PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
What if with onLive, you don't buy games at all? What if it was more like Hulu, for games?
Since everything is server side, there's no additional cost to switch games for clients.
Developers will benefit since they get to receive an amount proportionate to the popularity of their game, as any game available means less incentive to pirate games. Former pirates would definitely be on board since the experience is the same and they get to support only the good developers.
Clients benefit since no longer are they restricted to only the games they buy. That means every age group can enjoy what they want.

And it could just be my awesome cordless mouse, and 25fps computer, but to me, even a ping of
Reply

Posted: Dec 8th 2009 8:30PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
quack quack quack
Reply
Sorry, you must be logged in to leave a comment.

Featured Stories

Engadget

TUAW

Massively

WoW