OnLive technology demonstrated at Columbia University

I wasn't thinking about this correctly, the tech can be easily replicated but the device is for people who do not have gaming hardware. That said I still believe its not going to succeed for technical and marketing reasons.

Gaikai was practically announced the same day as OnLive. Only problem is it runs in a web browser, but the software-exclusive variant has been in the public eye for just as long. It's pretty telling though that OnLive gets all the attention, might mean it'll stand a chance. It's certainly appealing to me as someone who primarilly plays console games, but I'd still rather own my products. I don't want my games stored on a server a few hundred miles away.

Fail?! This is aimed at hardcore gamers who have no consoles, a market ripe for the taking.

The tech will work but as a business it's doomed.

"This is aimed at hardcore gamers who have no consoles"

There is no such blasphemy! Every hardcore gamer has a console.

@ Awetoebawt (PSN: thebertrams)

Actually, we have computers...

What I think he was getting at was that some hardcore gamers have no consoles. PC can be represented as a gaming console.

Shag, if you are based in the US and have no interest in it, can I use your ZIP code to apply for the beta?

Screw that, It'll only work in the US anyway I'm guessing.

Won't any US zip code do?

last time i checked,this generation of consoles are closer to what a pc.

I mean, in the past, when talking about nintendo and sega genesis, we never cared about their cpu's, ram or either they had a gpu, right?

This time around we do!!! Guess what, thats what PC's are based on, so, we can confirm that since the begining, consoles are also pc's

Did you not hear him say "For people on PC, you just download a 1mb plug-in." They ARE offering it as a PC application. They get their money through subscription, not selling the stupid console.

I don't know the standard format for zips or how top tell if the one I enter is valid.

In the video, he states that the servers need not be further than 1000 miles away. It won't work unless you live in the united states anyway.

Well try 33064 thats in Pompano Beach, FL.

As a business... this seems pretty fail to me. If they make their money on subscriptions, why wouldnt anyone go the gamefly route? It's basically the same thing more or less. I see no advantage for gaming companies to switch over to an all digital format just to cater to the onLive's user base. They're trying to revolutionize the gaming industry with this, but I dont think there's enough to entice every thread involved in the full delivery of gaming to participate and accept this new way of gaming.

@ Morisato

Guessing you didn't watch the video? Dude pulled up the graph on why companies would want to get in bed with OnLive. Publishers get to keep more of the money and cut Gamestop out in the process (not to mention pirates). It's a no-brainer for the publishers. Also, one of slides said you can buy OR rent games, so there goes the Gamefly argument.

Even if OnLive fails, another company will pick up the mantle because streaming delivery is the future of media. It's just hard for companies and people to accept that their old business models and methods of consuming are going to change. If you need need a shoulder to cry on, go talk to the music industry...

I didn't watch the video... i dont really care enough to watch a 50 min video about it but despite that, what you have listed still doesnt convince me that it's a no brainer as you've stated. Gamestop allows you to buy and rent as well so it's back to on par with each other. While at first, it might deter piracy, just like every console ever made, hackers and pirates will always be able to hack the supposed unhackable protection... and being that it's already all digital, I would only assume that it's just that easier to pirate once someone cracks the code. And while I'm sure there is some hate towards Gamestop from the publisher, I doubt it's as strong as public perception would like you to believe. If you're a publisher and you choose to go out of your way to try and sink Gamestop, you're doing business wrong. And while, as expected, publishers do receive a larger percentage of the sale, a larger percentage of a lower number is still a lower number. I doubt there is a demographic of gamers interested in owning only onLive and not a console, which would be the only reason anyone would choose to purchase an onLive version of a game as opposed to actually owning a copy for their 360 or ps3.

And the best part:

Debuts in "Winter 2009" (From one of their slides)

Holy crap! Either they're going to make a huuuuge announcement in the next 2 days, or someone's slides need to be updated. :-)

A beta tester I know says it works great.

copa, why not just wait and find out? Don't be such a Negative Nancy about it

Unless OnLive somehow gets around the laws of physics, there's really no way it can do anywhere but down.

So you are the type that Tony Hawk is talking about.

I won't be impressed until I have to specifically block it's IP addresses at work after everyone starts playing games on their pentium 4's.. Modern graphical flash based games turn work computers into soup ;)

As long as your 400 dollar laptop can handle 720p video, it should work as well as it would on a multi thousand dollar gaming computer.

I have a feeling that this thing is going to fail though. I've outlined my initial reasons before (namely that the bandwidth just doesn't exist yet), but the more I think about it, the more I wonder what exactly people are going to want to play on the PC. The PC market has dwindled so much that the only genre left is basically the MMO. Sure the FPS genre still exists, but look at the PC sales of MW2 compared to the console sales. The market for the service seems to be people with under powered computers, but really, most people in that situation have already purchased a console. I also wonder why publishers would ever sign on to allow OnLive an unlimited license to run as many instances of their game as OnLive wants when they could sell those games at retail for more money. It seems like any sane publisher would want a good chunk of OnLive's profits in exchange for the use of those licenses, which makes me wonder how OnLive is going to make any money.

mmm...Chocolate Orange...I love you holidays.

Not to totally disagree with you on dwindling PC sales, but the only reason MW2 sold so poorly on the PC was because millions of people were pirating it instead.

OnLive could do a lot of good for the gaming industry, it it works right.

No more used game stores reaping profits from developers, cutting down on piracy, and best of all, getting people who can't afford giant PC rigs into PC gaming.

the only thing that can really save OnLive is if developers and publishers make their games exclusively for OnLive. For example, Activision. It will never happen, but if they gave their games exclusively to OnLive, both companies would make huge profit.

@Storm Eagle

Piracy is absolutely a huge problem on the PC, but even if you could completely eliminate piracy on the PC side, I don't think the MW2 sales numbers on the PC would come anywhere near the sales figures on the consoles.

Piracy could just as easily be the thorn in OnLive's side that keeps it from ever being a realistic service. If I can pirate game X for free, or pay OnLive a monthly fee to play it, why wouldn't I just pirate it? (not me, since I don't pirate games, but you get the idea). To be an OnLive customer you'd need an underpowered PC, a good internet connection (that is close to an OnLive server), morals (or you'd just pirate the games), and enough money to pay the monthly fee. Looking at it another way, you can turn a reasonably new PC into a gaming PC for almost no money, and any pirate worth his sea salt would probably rather save up his money to buy a gaming PC so that he could pirate every single PC game he wants, rather than paying OnLive a monthly fee.

Awetoebot has a good point. If there were a AAA game that was only available on OnLive, then it might have a chance. That will never happen though.

(by "chance", I mean a chance to set the world on fire, and become the next big thing, making consoles and gaming PC's obsolete and pointless. It will probably make a decent profit, but it will be small potatoes compared to the next Xbox or Playstation, with their AAA titles and ever-improving online components)

Yeah I agree. They haven't even release any sort of pricing stucture. I can't imagine how this will ever compete with the big boys. Even with exclusives, would u really buy OnLive for 1 or 2 exclusive games?

I bought a PS3 for MGS4 and U2, so if OnLive has games that can wow me as much as those games did, hell yeah

@whylekat -

I pay 20 a month for the 2 game plan from GameFly. Even with all of the console releases that constantly come out, I still find myself canceling the service every couple of months because there simply isn't anything left for me to rent from them (and I never pay for it during the summer game drought). Scale that down to the amount of PC releases per month, specifically the select few that OnLive will have access to, and we're talking about a handful of games per year that are worth playing through the service. Can they really be profitable if everyone simply pays for a month of service when a new game comes out, and then cancels the second they've beaten the game?

OnLive is an interesting idea, but I just can't seem to figure out where the money is going to be coming from. It seems like OnLive could be the first major PC game rental service, but they don't seem to be marketing themselves that way.

Exactly my point, Banana.

I refuse to believe there's any sort of profitable market for a service like this. We have to assume monthy fees, or pay to play by the hour. Plus the initial cost for the box itself.

this is sort of similar to buying a smartphone. buy it on contract for $100 and you must pay for a 3g plan. Buy it off contract and pay $600 upfront, and you can avoid that 3g plan. It basically depends on if you are going to be using that 3g. If you travel alot, or if you don't like the Idea of building a high end pc but still want to play these games with your friends, onlive is great. if you have a nice pc or a console and only play at home, this is terrible.

Yes, but also consider the cost of upgrading your PC. True, though - a couple thousand dollars every month is probably cheaper than whatever OnLive will charge you monthly. :P

And then there's internet access. In my area, we only have access to wireless internet, and while it's okay for browsing and the occasional download (when it's working right), it's not fast enough for streaming /whole freaking games/. Heck, half the time I can't even watch a streaming video, never mind a complete interactive experience.

You do realize what does this service do, dont you???

With this service, even if you have a pc with pentium 3, if you have a good broadband you can play the games like if you had a $2500 worth alienware, and with only a fee i'm pretty sure wont be higher than $30 a month, $50 would be also ok.

Steam cant offer you this kind of service, onlive does. gotta wonder why you went to compare this 2 services

ok, nevermind about steam, but what about psn?? you pay 300 bucks for a ps3 and you get the online free.

once again, you are comparing apples with potatoes pal.

OnLive its not about playing games online with other people. OnLive its about playing games on full hd, with all setting maxed out without needing to have the ultimate gamming rig. Yes, you can play online with other people, but you can also play single players games with this.

PSN its all about playing with other people. Besides, ever heard sony talking about charging for psn in the near future???

@CJLopez

"With this service, even if you have a pc with pentium 3, if you have a good broadband you can play the games like if you had a $2500 worth alienware, and with only a fee i'm pretty sure wont be higher than $30 a month, $50 would be also ok."

If you have a computer with a Pentium 3 processor, you most likely won't be able to play games in 720p, much less the resolutions you could play at with the 2500 dollar Alienware computer. Your computer will still need to be able to decode the video stream that OnLive will be sending, and without a decent computer, you'll be limited as to what resolution you can play at.

I understand your enthusiasm, but 30 a month or 50 a month is insane. A gaming PC can be built for 500 dollars that will play any PC game out there at 720p. Step that up to 700ish dollars and you'll have no problem playing any game out there at 1080p (I did this myself last year). No one is going to pay 30 a month for OnLive, and they certainly won't pay 50. I'd be shocked if their initial price is more than 15 a month, maybe with a platinum tier above that price, and a bare-bones tier at 10 dollars or so.

what's stopping this from being a service offered on XBL or PSN? just subscribe and go to the game you want to play and play it. It'd be like netflix.

I mean It's cool that I have the ability to play it on a shitty 6 year old computer...but I do have a PS3 and nice HDtv.

"You do realize what does this service do, dont you???

With this service, even if you have a pc with pentium 3, if you have a good broadband you can play the games like if you had a $2500 worth alienware, and with only a fee i'm pretty sure wont be higher than $30 a month, $50 would be also ok.

Steam cant offer you this kind of service, onlive does. gotta wonder why you went to compare this 2 services"

thats the problem right there.. there are still way too many places in america and across the world that have caps on bandwith. my friend in a rural area about an hour and a half away from where i live (i live in one of the largest metropolitan areas in the US), has a 5 gig limit to what he can do with his internet, then they start charging him for bandwith if he exceeds that. i dont think that will ever change, because if more people start getting broadband, then it only seems that the caps would be even more harsh or else the price would go up. so yeah.. having to pay high monthly internet fees and a monthly subscription to onlive to play games that you dont own and have to be online to play? doesnt sound like a good idea business wise.

This is where he ignores you.

I was concerned after he shut down the demo and then brought it back up to the baseball game for the second time.

The first time, he claimed that the game was being played by a beta tester somewhere, however when he pulled it up the second time, it seemed the game came up at exactly the same point and played the exact same way as the first....as if it was a pre-recorded demo.

Hmmm.....

"when he pulled it up the second time, it seemed the game came up at exactly the same point and played the exact same way as the first"
That's kind of the way baseball works.

Your attempt at a funny didn't miss completely.

But it was in the same inning, with the same teams, same runners on base, everything. A substantial amount of real time had elapsed, yet the game was in the same spot as before, that's all.

@Storm Eagle

You're absolutely right, check out the baseball game early on, then look at it again at 48:35 and its exactly the same...same inning, same pitch, same check to third, etc.