OnLive - Pricing and Launch date could bring Failure

OnLive's pricing and launch date has been announced for the US, while it is exciting news it could also bring failure to this pipe dream.

[Bigpappy]

No doubt about that! $15 a month? I don't think so. Add some bandwidth issues and you have yourself pure home made failure of the highest grade.

[meetajhu]

There is nothing there about failure. Cloud computing is future and to do so requires a lot of money and management 24/7. For cloud computing thats actually a reasonable price i thought it would be more expensive. I won't buy onlive but i think it is the beginning of cloud computing era. If this thing suceeds it will be a massive sucess.

[Redempteur]

cloud computing is the future BUT high prices are not

[DarkTower805]

$15/month plus you still have to buy the games to play them, this is a total ripoff. The only way I see something like this being a success if if broadband providers offer this as part of their service for free, and sell the games at a low price.

[HolyOrangeCows]

$180 a year BEFORE purchasing games. It's like buying a console every year, lol.

[Claudinho69]

^^kinda like the xbox...so there will always be those people

edit:due to a PM, i meant like the xbox users because of the RROD not because of the live fee, but that too lol

[RonyDean]

Im really looking forward to checking out onLive but I do see it being one big fail. Costs to much, and I dont think most people will have enough bandwidth to use it at this time.

[Bea Arthur]

Agree, it's a great idea but it is too flawed to survive in its current state.

[keysy420]

most people wont play mmo's becuase its too much. 15 when i alread have systems isnt goign to fly

[iFLOWLIKEWATER]

Most people, I assume, are the ones besides the millions of people that have no problem paying it. And where is this guy getting $180 from? Is he talking monthly or yearly? Nevertheless, I wonder what the ones that say this will fail, will say if it doesn't?

Edit: Never mind, he/she means yearly...But still, this person, like so many that complain about such things, can't come to grips that they don't have to buy the service. This is a business...

[ScubaSteve1]

it was already set up has a failure when you have to stream the games on our internet

[zeddy]

onlive get the same games as the ps3 and the 360 and i dont see whats wrong with going to a shop and buying a copy, plus if you buy a game from onlive you wont be able to trade it in or borrow it to your mates. 360 and ps3 already have huge install bases and i dont know why anyone needs this.

[zagibu]

The promise is that you never have to worry about hardware. The platform will constantly be upgraded to run the newest games at highest settings.

But yeah, I'm not sure whether there are enough people interested in games that are not already playing on computers or consoles. I don't see the service luring away established pc or console gamers.

[Quadrix]

Odd to charge this much for something that's aimed towards people with little money who can't afford a gaming PC.

[zagibu]

Where did you find this information? I think it's more targeted towards people who want to play without having to fuss with gaming pcs or consoles. So, basically, people that are even lazier than console gamers. I'm not sure if they exist, but we'll see.

[rucky]

I'm more interested on the performance rather than the price.

[dkgshiz]

This will be dead within one year.

[Omega Zues]

First you have to pay $15.00 and then have to also buy the game as well before you can play it? Now what happens if you dont want to pay that $15.00 for the next month? What happens to all the games you bought?

[Evil Rant Monkey]

ohhhhhh... welllllll... they're still on the "onlive" servers. Just pay another $15 and they'll let you play that BFBC2 you bought brand new, a week ago, for 60 dollars, for another month.

[SolidSystem]

So we never really own our games. I might stop paying for live, but I get to keep playing my games. steam doesnt make me pay a subscription, hell theres even debate if cloud based gaming will really even run right. onlive is dead before it started.

[dkgshiz]

and then you have to pay for your games still? No thanks.

[KimoNoir]

you get the games at high quality but, you don't need the gaming computer to run it. Get it?

[dustgavin]

Hmmm...
What type of connection would it require to get high-quality graphics? Not sure about the rest of you but AT&T isn't exactly charging the cheapest rates for a fast connection.

Add in the monthly subscription plus cost of games and it seems more feasible to just invest in Gamefly for $15 a month and purchase whatever 360 or PS3 games you want to own.

[mcroddi]

In order to get an HD quality image, 720p you will need a 5 Mbps connection. 1.5 for SD. They recommend a wired connection to get around interferance. I have a 12 Mbps connection. Should provide for 1080p as they announced recently. 60fps. So yeah. That's like 40 dollars a month. Plus 15 plus rentals. Pricey!!!

[Grimhammer00]

so here it comes.
But mark my words this will fail HUGE!!!

facts:
-pay for your internet per norm (nice bandwidth required like 5mbps - 7mbps)
-pay for ONlive sub @ $15 per month
-pay to play game
-pay for rental games
-server crashes and lag issues (servers go down for maintenance...no games for you!)

This is the gaming future. This is what Sony's Cloud is all about too.
But tech isn't stable enough, with enough bandwidth for the user bases that something like ONlive wishes to have.
Never mind the fact that probably 80% percent of the target market already has a 360/PS3/Wii.....why shell out MORE money than we already do?

Analysts for years have said that the Vid-game market can't handle no more than 3 publisher/Corps. at any given time.
The market which is very large is also hyper-concentrated on Dev's exclusives and the marketing these 3 corps bring.
Onlive & Sony's Cloud would need HUGE amounts of marketing to even crack the gaming community.
Sony's Cloud already has a "in" because it's Sony's. With PS3 support and all those exclusives and future known exclusives.

I just laugh at the money that's going to be wasted.

[zagibu]

A cloud never goes down..if it does, it is no cloud.

[mortalrage]

I think it will be a success.

I know 12 million people that spent $15 dollars a month on MMO's (WoW, Aion,Age of Conan, and Champions). I see it being access, but thats my option....

[Grimhammer00]

@ mortalrage

yeah....and those same 12mill will have to pay that $15 they currently pay on MMO's on PLUS another $15 for ONlive.

Their are things that could be done to attract users - like if say Blizzard announce WoW2 only on ONlive....that'd be something.
But those kinds of chances would never take place with such a money pit as WoW.

And really, that's the kind of marketing Onlive would need to get in on the current holy trinities action.

There are still many gamers who love a single player off line game...keep that in mind too.

[mortalrage]

I was basically talking about if people are willing to pay that much for a mmo a month, there would be people willing to spend that amount for this service. I remember when MMO's came out back in the day, people complained about the $15 month fee back then. Look at it now... It's now a a standard to charge $15 a month for certain MMO's(I understand there are some mmo's that don't charge, not talking about those).

This being the first company up to bat to try this out...I'm sure there will be another company in time that pops up on the radar. Then competition will govern the price in the future.

[Claudinho69]

those idiots shoulda just did $30 a month unlimited games...imagine just 1 million people paying $30 a month

[tyrok3k]

The amount you pay for this could be put towards upgrading your computer. I doubt it will be $180 a year though as they will probably give you a big discount for paying a full year upfront.

[hazelamy]

so you'll have to pay a monthly fee and then rent or buy, although buy in this context is a bit of an oxymoron, on top?
of course even if i was interested in onlive it wouldn't matter because this is once again an "only for americans" service.
but really, if i'm going to be paying for games i want them in my house where they're not at the mercy of this company or my isp.
this will be fine for mmos and the like but for single player games i'd rather have my own hardware and disc that won't spontaneously disappear at any moment because of server issues or my net connection going down.
has the recent ubisoft fiasco given a glimpse of the future of onlive?
maybe.