OnLive launching June 17 for PC and Mac, $15 per month service fee

Just to break consoles down into monthly fees, Figuring consoles come out about every five years or so, sometimes sooner sometimes later.

at between $300-600 for the console.
Assuming its on the high end at $600 if you break it down thats $10 a month for 5 years

at $300 your looking at $8.33 a month for 3 years, this is assuming that two years after launch the price was slashed several times.

Assuming the console game out at $300 your looking at ~$5 a month over that 5 year period.

For 5 years of GoLive at $15/mo your looking at $900 and when you cancel you don't have access to any of the games you purchased..... my mind boggles from all that savings.

I can see where everyone is coming from with their complaints that this is too expensive when you must, in addition, pay for the games. There's one slight flaw here though, we still don't know what they're charging for the games. They may be charging full retail price (which I would agree, is right out), or they may be significantly cheaper (consider, piracy would probably be nigh impossible with such a setup as this time around you aren't ever handing your customers a full copy of the game).

I'd think this is more likely to succeed were they to try following GameTap's model. Even if they had to push it up to $20 a month to support such a move, I'd say it would have a considerably better shot at not making everyone hate it.

As for the people worried about publishers pulling their games from the service, I'd imagine it'd work out in a way similar to what happens on Steam. The Movies is no longer sold through Steam, it's not even visible on the store page, but if you purchased it, you're still allowed to download and play the game.

I think they just need to license their tech to microsoft and integrate it into the new version of Windows home server, then have motherboards that have laptop-like switching from integrated to high end graphics on the fly and go low power to full power for streaming games on a LAN. A hex core with 8GB ram and a modern graphics card could easily power 2 or 3 games on a lan to a netbook or something similar.

The power bill in your house will go down more than 15 dollars a month compared with some power sucking gpu.

I was interested .. but $180 a year is stupid. The monthly packages probably won't be too far off that price range either. $5 a year sounds more reasonable to rent games. I'd use it to rent single player titles.

This all depends on whether how much a regular game costs.
Yeah guys, I don't have 600 dollars to build up a gaming rig.
I guess i'm the niche gamer for onLive...

Sad. I really wanted this to be affordable. The tech behind it is fascinating from what I've read.

Looking at this logically I guess I can see why it would be so expensive. The servers driving all this software have to be tremendously powerful, and would require constant upgrading. There's no telling how many licenses to each game they would have to buy. MP games use CD keys, so they might need a new copy of the game per person wanting to play it at a time (for the rental part). Not to mention their broadband bill would be amazingly high if this caught on. Add in all the R&D costs and yeah, it's a very costly project and they need to make their money back.

Sadly, between bandwidth caps, the large variances of internet speeds (many, many high speed users are only on 1-2meg internet, not everyone has 50meg FioS), the general unreliability of the internet at times, especially in rural areas, and the obvious cost (still coming out of a pretty nasty recession) and I really don't think the consumer market is just advanced enough for this sort of tech to be ready for mass deployment

this would be intriguing if the cost wasnt so high. I mean i paid 600 for the launch PS3. Im guessing whoever gets onlive would probably never need another console. so add up the subscription and the games and it would catch up 600 pretty quickly. Not even mentioning those who bought their consoles for 4 and 3 hundred.

Stuff like this makes me want to get another 360 and just be happy paying 50 a year lol I wonder if Gold Xbox Live subscriptions will increase b/c of the price comparison.

Unless games are going to cost something like 30-40, this looks like an expensive fail imo.

Glad I'm not the only one who has lost all interest in this after this news.

No thanks.

I wish the 15 dollar fee would include the actual purchase of a game every 4-6 months, a la Zune Pass. I'm quite wary of 'rental' services and I like the Zune Pass because it gives something back.

You guys are really missing the point.

Not everyone on the planet has hundreds of dollars upfront to pay for a console. OnLive will make gaming more affordable for everyone in the long term. What did you expect? All businesses have to make a profit somehow.

Do you fail to realize that this can save you hundreds to thousands of dollars annually? May I include for PC users that the cost of upgrading a desktop every time games become more graphically demanding is much less desirable than paying 15 dollars a monthly for this service.

Plus, let's also take into consideration the following:

What if your console breaks down? What if you damaged your discs or misplaced them?

For those concerned about having to be connected to the internet to play, we're in a digital age; who doesn't have access to the internet these days?

If you choose to think realistically then you will see the truth in this.

$50-$70 per month would've been acceptable for unlimited access...cancel anytime, but this offer just blows.

This is how I see it. I ran the numbers last night at work. With each console generation the majority of gamers have 2 or more gaming platforms. We either have a PC we spend $200.00 a year on to keep up to date plus a wii, xbox, or a ps3. Gamers each generation spend over $800.00 on consoles and accessories over the said lifespan of that generation not counting pc upgrades. Just using console money spent alone, this service will provide you with 53 months worth of hardware usage without having to buy a console or deal with red rings or death, etc. And again, not mentioning pc hardware upgrades, it's even higher. So now, rather than having to buy 3 different platforms with 3 different accessory sets for each console, you can have gaming on the go, on weak computers and in in your living room for less than you would have spent anyway.

Also imagine this scenario:

Studios can now offer console type games via digital distribution and cut out used games sales. (Remember all you gamers who hate Gamespot---this is a good thing)

Now, rather than dealing with a retail front, studios can sell games cheaper and provide deals similar to steam. (Remember Steam over the Christmas Holidays---how many of you bought those cheap games)

Just from a cost perspective, this service as presented does nothing but save the gamer money. I know we are all cheap, but just remember. When sony releases their new console in 5 years, you're not going to have to fork over $700.00 to be able to play the most up to date games. No shortages, no bs with pre-orders. No gamestop ripping you off. If you are a gamer and you don't like this service, you might just be a noob.

First of all, they clearly stated there would be no lag/latency problems. Of course many people may be skeptical of that claim, but as you can see they will be demoing OnLive at E3, and we will see how effective their service really is. So in time child, in time.

Yes, I can see how people who already own the consoles from this generation wouldn't care as much to use OnLive, but there are plenty of people who don't. The average person is lucky to survive, especially in this economy right now, and for them this service is like a light from the heavens shining upon their ever long unfulfilled gaming desires.

Now, if you take into consideration the price tags of each console during their initial launch, I'd say OnLive has more than a "chance".

The PS3 alone was around $600 if I remember correctly. So if the PS4 ends up being the same price (unlikely if Sony learned anything from their mistakes, but it won't even matter if it's 500 dollars), and then let's assume the new Xbox is maybe $400-500 when it's first released. It's only logical that the vast majority of people would turn to OnLive in order to save money and avoid paying out such a ridiculous price for a console.

Considering the average price of just one game for the PS3 or Xbox 360 is $60, if you buy just 8 games that is $540 dollars, which is already more than the console you paid for. I don't know about you guys, but these days I think gaming is a rip off; and all these game companies and gamers wonder why people pirate? It's even bad enough to dish out $60 cash only to find out you don't even like what you're playing at all (and yes I know that's what reviews are for). The same thing applies to movies and anime as well. And then they even overcharge you for DLC content that doesn't provide more than a half hour of new game play or anything else worth it.

It's not my intention to have a huge rant or complain about this, but I'm making a point about the realistic money saving that OnLive can bring to us. There are some of you who already pay the same price monthly to play an MMORPG, and I can even mention the costs of Xbox Live. So what's the difference for you people out there?

Onlive is the future, physical media will not last forever. Sony's PSP Go was a demonstration of this, but because it was released too early it didn't sell well. Sony had the right idea, and it's my view that they may have been just testing the market to see what options they had right now, which is a normal type of any business strategy quite frankly. Receiving games digitally is cheaper because obviously these companies wouldn''t have to spend money on manufacturing costs for any physical media like they do now.

In the end it's not console companies that matter anymore in this digital age. To embrace OnLive you have to forget about the past and move to the future, the same has happened with any kind of innovation in human history.

Game makers don't care if consoles die. A console itself would obviously have no worth without being able to play the games you love, it's just a piece of hardware and nothing more. With this said, a true gamer wouldn't care how he/she plays their games. If you need any more proof so you can even look on OnLive's site and see how many developers and famous people support their company and realize it's potential; there are quite a lot.

With the removal of physical media game companies will no longer have to worry about losing money from pirating. So who do you think they'll support? The answer is clear as day.

This is most likely the future whether any of us like it or not, it just makes more sense in end.

I've spent hundreds on Steam, my collection is worth nearly $2k. The only way I lose those games is the near-impossible scenario where the stars align and Valve goes out of business, Steam isn't bought off by another company, and they refuse to unlock their DRM. And even in that scenario, the games are still on my PC and someone would release a crack, guaranteed.

With this, no stars have to align. I just stop paying the monthly fee and my hundreds of dollars might as well have been flushed. If OnLive goes under there is likely no company interested in saving them nor any hack to unlock my games. They just vanish.

No f'ing way. How about I give you $20/mo and you be the GameTap of new shit?

.

The only way this would work if it was free for the first 3 years to get a customer installed user base before charging monthly. Gamers are already very happy with their systems. I have a Quad Core Nvidia powered pc that I love. Pc gamers are geeks at heart and we tend to enjoy being able to "geek" once in the while and tweak our hardware to maximum efficiency. To take this element away is almost like rippin out all of our hardware and saying, "you won't need this crap anymore just play from our pc!".

This is DOA.