 | | Price to high Price to high | |
|
 JonRup join:2008-07-20 Hilliard, OH Reviews:
·WOW Internet and..
·RoadRunner Cable
1 edit | No thanks... So 14.95 a month doesn't even get you to play games? Uh...I'd rather just buy a boxed copy at that point...
Then there's the whole "will it work?" thing haha
And I'm interested in the legality surrounding ownership of a game. When you purchase it, is it yours or OnLive's? I mean, everything is on THEIR computers... | |
|
 |  Host: Road Runner PC gaming GAMES PC gaming Tech
| Re: No thanks... It's not yours, in the same sense that renting a game from Gamefly is not yours. Which doesn't bother me necessarily, as I find the $60 per game price tage these days obnoxious.
I think the idea has merit if priced right and done right. I just doubt it's OnLive that does it right. We'll see. | |
|
 |  |  JonRup join:2008-07-20 Hilliard, OH Reviews:
·WOW Internet and..
·RoadRunner Cable
1 edit | Re: No thanks... Well, I haven't bought games on release date is quite some time. Wait a couple weeks or at most a month and you'll find a good deal on the internet.
But (if I'm reading correctly) it seems that you can either rent a game or completely buy it for a one time fee. I'm assuming this means you don't own it though, and once you stop paying the 14.95 fee the game you "bought" can no longer be played.
And maybe you should mention that the first 25,000 people to sign up get the 14.95 fee waived for three months. I might sign up just to see how it is. | |
|
 |  |  |  N3OGHCertified GLG-20Premium join:2003-11-11 Philly burbs kudos:1 Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
| Re: No thanks... I agree. I rarely buy games at release time. The only ones I think are "worth" it are the yearly sports games, to get the players right and all that.
I'm more of a FPS guy. I'm still playing COD Modern Warfare on line and having a blast.
Then again, when one works 70 hour weeks, one has little time for gaming.
I pretty much have 2 full time jobs at this point.. -- Petty people are disproportionally corrupted by petty power | |
|
 |  |  | | said by Karl Bode:It's not yours, in the same sense that renting a game from Gamefly is not yours. Which doesn't bother me necessarily, as I find the $60 per game price tage these days obnoxious. I think the idea has merit if priced right and done right. I just doubt it's OnLive that does it right. We'll see. I know what you mean. I was getting multiple games for less than $10 a pop not even 10 years ago. | |
|
 |  |  |  1 edit | Re: No thanks... I remember paying $75, more than 10 years ago, for Final Fantasy 3 at Wal-Mart. $60 isn't so bad. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  Host: Road Runner PC gaming GAMES PC gaming Tech
| Re: No thanks... said by bionicRod:I remember paying $75, more than 10 years ago, for Final Fantasy 3 at Wal-Mart. $60 isn't so bad. And you my friend are precisely why the rest of us are now forced to pay $60 for games.  | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  Reviews:
·CenturyLink
·Mediacom
| Re: No thanks... said by Karl Bode:said by bionicRod:I remember paying $75, more than 10 years ago, for Final Fantasy 3 at Wal-Mart. $60 isn't so bad. And you my friend are precisely why the rest of us are now forced to pay $60 for games. I loved that game...totally worth my after school money from working fast food! Seriously though, sixty bucks for a very short game or a game that sucks is highway robbery, but sixty bucks for a great 20 or 30 hour RPG or FPS with great online play is a pretty good deal IMO. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  dvd536as Mr. Pink as they comePremium join:2001-04-27 Phoenix, AZ kudos:4 | said by bionicRod:I remember paying $75, more than 10 years ago, for Final Fantasy 3 at Wal-Mart. $60 isn't so bad. but back then you didn't have to buy the game then pay AGAIN to actually play it[online] -- When I gez aju zavateh na nalechoo more new yonooz tonigh molinigh - Ken Lee | |
|
 |  |  |  Marduk join:2004-09-05 West Chester, PA | said by PapaMidnight:said by Karl Bode:It's not yours, in the same sense that renting a game from Gamefly is not yours. Which doesn't bother me necessarily, as I find the $60 per game price tage these days obnoxious. I think the idea has merit if priced right and done right. I just doubt it's OnLive that does it right. We'll see. I know what you mean. I was getting multiple games for less than $10 a pop not even 10 years ago. Strange....I remember buying Commodore 64 and Atari 2600 games for upwards of $50.
The same with any top-of-the line system of the time.
Xbox360 games are $60, new PC games are close to that as well...
Of course, you could buy xbox and PS2 games for $5-10, but who wants to do that? | |
|
 |  |  |  |  jester121Premium join:2003-08-09 Lake Zurich, IL Reviews:
·voip.ms
| Re: No thanks... said by Marduk:Strange....I remember buying Commodore 64 and Atari 2600 games for upwards of $50. Same here -- and that was 25 years ago.
Of course many here at BBR are determined to stomp their feet and complain bitterly when a company chooses not to ask for opinion on pricing matters. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  Host: Road Runner PC gaming GAMES PC gaming Tech
| said by Marduk:said by PapaMidnight:said by Karl Bode:It's not yours, in the same sense that renting a game from Gamefly is not yours. Which doesn't bother me necessarily, as I find the $60 per game price tage these days obnoxious. I think the idea has merit if priced right and done right. I just doubt it's OnLive that does it right. We'll see. I know what you mean. I was getting multiple games for less than $10 a pop not even 10 years ago. Strange....I remember buying Commodore 64 and Atari 2600 games for upwards of $50. The same with any top-of-the line system of the time. Xbox360 games are $60, new PC games are close to that as well... Of course, you could buy xbox and PS2 games for $5-10, but who wants to do that? Long ago I stopped buying new games. Now I rent console titles through Gamefly, and buy games through Steam when they go on sale. With very few exceptions. | |
|
 |  |  Reviews:
·Cox HSI
| said by Karl Bode:Which doesn't bother me necessarily, as I find the $60 per game price tage these days obnoxious. Why is it anymore obnoxious than paying for, say, an iPhone? -- "Don't steal. The government hates competition." Beyond AM. Beyond FM. XM | |
|
 |  |  |  Host: Road Runner PC gaming GAMES PC gaming Tech
| Re: No thanks... said by BillRoland:said by Karl Bode:Which doesn't bother me necessarily, as I find the $60 per game price tage these days obnoxious. Why is it anymore obnoxious than paying for, say, an iPhone? The iPhone's browser is actually useful for work. Kind of a stretch to even compare the two, unless you're just trolling me for phone because you know I own an iPhone and you don't approve for whatever reason... | |
|
 |  |  sivranBack to Opera againPremium join:2003-09-15 Arlington, TX kudos:1 Reviews:
·RoadRunner Cable
| Whaddya mean "these days"?
Even back in the 16-bit days, new games were 50-60 bucks. Granted they gradually came down in price, but if you wanted that new game, you shelled out up to 60 bucks for it. -- I used to think I was a democrat. Then I thought I was a republican. Lately though, I'm just cynical. | |
|
 |  |  |  Host: Road Runner PC gaming GAMES PC gaming Tech
| Re: No thanks... said by sivran:Whaddya mean "these days"? Even back in the 16-bit days, new games were 50-60 bucks. Granted they gradually came down in price, but if you wanted that new game, you shelled out up to 60 bucks for it. And $60 was unimpressive then, too.
The nice thing now, I'll admit, is if you're patient and don't need new release titles you can often pick them up for a song at a later date. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  DrModemPremium join:2006-10-19 USA kudos:1 | Re: No thanks... said by Karl Bode:said by sivran:Whaddya mean "these days"? Even back in the 16-bit days, new games were 50-60 bucks. Granted they gradually came down in price, but if you wanted that new game, you shelled out up to 60 bucks for it. And $60 was unimpressive then, too. Well that means they have been actually dropping in price over time, if the price has remained constant amid inflation... $60 in 1995 is equivalent to about $85 now.
If you go back to the Atari 2600 era as one of the posters above said, $50 in 1977 is equivalent to $177 now. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  Host: Road Runner PC gaming GAMES PC gaming Tech
| Re: No thanks... Well, I don't think $177 is a good price for a game either. 
Especially given the rapid decline of smart games and the huge spike in mindless shooters that, like Hollywood, cater to the lowest common denominator. | |
|
 |  dvd536as Mr. Pink as they comePremium join:2001-04-27 Phoenix, AZ kudos:4 | said by JonRup:So 14.95 a month doesn't even get you to play games? lol. thanks but no thanks! so whats the "out the door price"? -- When I gez aju zavateh na nalechoo more new yonooz tonigh molinigh - Ken Lee | |
|
 |
 |  ThrowDemsOutIf you can't convince 'em, confuse 'emPremium join:2002-03-03 Mullica Hill, NJ kudos:4 | Re: I Hope It Succeeds said by Selenia:Not sure if I'm actually interested in the service yet(we'll have to see). However, this will blow over every ISP's dreams of caps if it attains success. Right now, these caps mostly cause uproar from techies like some of us. If they cap low and Jr runs up a huge bandwidth bill, there will be uproar from the mainstream consumer about ISPs gouging us for bandwidth. I hope few on my local cable node decide to use this service. That is all we need - a few kids playing games non-stop eating up 5 mbps of bandwidth each during prime hours. Of course, Comcast's throttling of heavy users on congested nodes should shut them down if necessary. | |
|
 |  |  beaups join:2003-08-11 Hilliard, OH | Re: I Hope It Succeeds $60 is an absolute steal for a game that is good. I've played so many hours on COD MW and MW2 that I'd say it' darn cheap entertainment. Hell I'd pay $150 if I had to buy them again.
However when you drop $60 on a crap game, that's a bummer. | |
|
 |  |  |  N3OGHCertified GLG-20Premium join:2003-11-11 Philly burbs kudos:1 Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
| Re: I Hope It Succeeds True that.
Nothing worse than dog shit software.
As I said earlier, I'm still hacking away at COD MW on line. One of the best games I've ever played. Certainly was worth what I paid for it. -- Petty people are disproportionally corrupted by petty power | |
|
 |  |  SeleniaI love DebianPremium join:2006-09-22 Lanesboro, MA kudos:2 Reviews:
·Verizon Online DSL
·AT&T Wireless Br..
·Verizon Wireless..
| said by ThrowDemsOut:said by Selenia:Not sure if I'm actually interested in the service yet(we'll have to see). However, this will blow over every ISP's dreams of caps if it attains success. Right now, these caps mostly cause uproar from techies like some of us. If they cap low and Jr runs up a huge bandwidth bill, there will be uproar from the mainstream consumer about ISPs gouging us for bandwidth. I hope few on my local cable node decide to use this service. That is all we need - a few kids playing games non-stop eating up 5 mbps of bandwidth each during prime hours. Of course, Comcast's throttling of heavy users on congested nodes should shut them down if necessary. Comcast has actually been testing channel bonded DOCSIS 3.0, which I think should be able to handle the throughput just fine. Something has to push current gen network upgrades. If it becomes really popular, a distributed network setup(sort of like Akamai, but with these gaming servers) should also minimize load on internet backbones by keeping traffic local. This is an idea that can expand with time, if implemented properly. I bet gaming is one thing that drives the Japanese to want those fast fiber connections. The government kept them cheap by keeping competition open. I'm not worried about my DOCSIS 1.1 node even. It's upstream that is the issue and a dumb terminal like this isn't going to be sending much upstream. Cable, in general, does very well at doing downstream and should not get so easily saturated. It's upstream that is the problem with other kinds of bandwidth hogs like 24/7 Demonoid users that seed 200 torrents, not to mention number of connections. Besides, mostly elderly people are on my node. -- deltree /y C:\*.* | |
|
 |  |  | | QQ
If you don't like it, switch to another provider (if there is one). | |
|
 GuspazGuspazPremium,MVM join:2001-11-05 Montreal, QC kudos:15 | BAH! US only. Looks like Canadians are getting snubbed. Despite the fact that the vast majority of Canada's population is inside of OnLive's coverage zones (1000 miles from an OnLive datacenter), the service isn't being offered to us.
For my part, it looks like Montreal, with a regional population of over 3 million, is about 590 miles by road from the nearest OnLive hardware. Clearly we're comfortably within range, and yet... | |
|
 |  DrModemPremium join:2006-10-19 USA kudos:1 | Re: BAH! US only. said by Guspaz:Looks like Canadians are getting snubbed. Nah. This thing will fail, you won't be crying for it. | |
|
 |  IgnitePremium,VIP join:2004-03-18 UK | said by Guspaz:Looks like Canadians are getting snubbed. Despite the fact that the vast majority of Canada's population is inside of OnLive's coverage zones (1000 miles from an OnLive datacenter), the service isn't being offered to us. For my part, it looks like Montreal, with a regional population of over 3 million, is about 590 miles by road from the nearest OnLive hardware. Clearly we're comfortably within range, and yet... You guys would just hit your bit caps and start getting charged your overages if it were offered to you  | |
|
 |  |  GuspazGuspazPremium,MVM join:2001-11-05 Montreal, QC kudos:15 | Re: BAH! US only. Not everybody has bit caps quite yet, although it may be inevitable.
My ISP has unlimited, but since the last-mile is wholesale Bell, and Bell is insisting on adding caps on the last-mile (silly as they already charge per megabit, but...), it may not last. | |
|
 |  |  | | Noooooooo.... some of us are lucky enough to be with enlightened ISPs that provide caps that are big enough for the common techie. As guspaz said previously, my ISP offers unlimited($10 more than capped) and the caps START at 200GB/month. | |
|
 |  |  |  IgnitePremium,VIP join:2004-03-18 UK | Re: BAH! US only. Shame the speeds stop at ~6Mbps. Doesn't leave much room after 5Mbps of HD stream to do anything else, and that assumes it isn't affected by wholesale shaping  | |
|
 |  |  |  |  | | Re: BAH! US only. No shaping/throttling here thanks to our use of MLPPP to avoid the incumbent and their DPI.
Sadly yes, 6mbps is our reality lol | |
|
 |  Reviews:
·Comcast
| It's called being international ! , They need to apply to do business in canada , and this company doesn't have the cash to start that yet.
Get a friend or family member in the us to subscribe for you and use it from there. Doubt they do ip checking yet. -- "It's always funny until someone gets hurt......and then it's absolutely friggin' hysterical!" | |
|
 | | Yikes! $14.95 *plus* a fee per game purchase or rental? I don't think they're going to get many bites for that. Maybe for just the $14.95/month, a la Netflix, but charging access per game is a massive dealbreaker... | |
|
 slimtim join:2002-12-12 Coldwater, MI | It Succeeds...if it's on GOOGLEBIT network I say the service will work just blazingly fine..if it's run off a 'GOOGLEBIT' network. Now to get Google to come to my town....
-TimJ | |
|
 RockCakePremium join:2005-07-12 Woodbridge, VA | No thanks 12 months of Gamefly = $220 (for 2 games at a time) 12 months Onlive = $180 (before ANY games!)
hmmm, let me think... | |
|
 |  Reviews:
·CenturyLink
·Mediacom
| Re: No thanks said by RockCake:12 months of Gamefly = $220 (for 2 games at a time) 12 months Onlive = $180 (before ANY games!) hmmm, let me think... Don't forget the price of the consoles...but yeah. At a certain point it becomes cheaper to buy and own the hardware than to pay a monthly fee. I already own a PS3, a 360, and a Wii so I think I will be passing. | |
|
 |  |  dvd536as Mr. Pink as they comePremium join:2001-04-27 Phoenix, AZ kudos:4 | Re: No thanks said by bionicRod:said by RockCake:12 months of Gamefly = $220 (for 2 games at a time) 12 months Onlive = $180 (before ANY games!) hmmm, let me think... At a certain point it becomes cheaper to buy and own the hardware than to pay a monthly fee. exactly why you can't buy your own cable box! -- When I gez aju zavateh na nalechoo more new yonooz tonigh molinigh - Ken Lee | |
|
 JehuPremium join:2002-09-13 MA kudos:2 | this is Bag of hurt | |
|
 ddg4005Premium join:2001-08-22 Bronx, NY | OnLive Broadband Game Service To Launch June 17 I don't see this lasting long. It feels more like a flash in the pan than a real alternative to gaming on PCs or consoles. -- A man must have a code -Bunk | |
|
 | | I joined I signed up to test drive it (for 3 months). But the idea of not "owning" and leasing is something I am not very supportive of. | |
|
 tomkbPremium join:2000-11-15 Tampa, FL kudos:5 | Doomed. Doomed.
Even with high priced games, at least the game is yours and can be sold to someone else later. Not a bad deal if you can enjoy your game for at least 2 months before getting rid of it. | |
|
 | | Woe is us Wow, I can see this failing very quickly.
Even if this does make it to Canada, we pay like $40-$60 for 95GB~ish caps with crappy connection speeds, and high overage fees. With Onlive, we'll be blowing through our pitiful caps in no time, so that's another guaranteed $25-$50 per month, plus the cost of Onlive itself and game rental fees. This poor company is ahead of it's time (well, at least ahead of Canada, lol). | |
|
 | | cost At this point I dont see why not to sign up for the test. 3 months of testing something out thats new for the cost of the rental(whatever that will be) seems like a neat idea. The cost of the hardware is included in the 14.95 right? | |
|
 ztmikeMark for moderationPremium join:2001-08-02 Michigan City, IN | Nothing to see here
I registered to par take in their demo but never heard from them nor have I seen anybody even talking about their service on various gaming forums or gaming news websites.
Then they release this bombshell of $15/month just to be ABLE to play their games. (that's not including the prices of the actual games you'll be paying either)
The ps3 and even the Xbox 360 is a steal compared to this service.
Not to mention you will need broadband service all-the-time to even play your games. Or the various ISPs with monthly bandwidth caps in place.
So to add all this up..this service is full of fail. Simple as that. | |
|
 |  |
 evo7 join:2009-01-03 Audubon, NJ | lol wow I definately wouldn't pay 14.95 a month just to have access to basically nothing. If it were 14.95 a month to access full games and such, I would definately do. But they want 14.95 a month plus whatever game you rent or buy? Na I'll definately pass.
It goes like this. 14.95 a month for access to everything plus full games
or
pay an upfront fee of say 100 bucks for the little micro console, and then pay for rentals or purchased games, no monthly access fee.
Plus ISP's implementing caps such as Comcasts 250GB cap will eventually be the demise of OnLive. | |
|
 1 edit | This is stupid! If you must pay $15 per month and still buy or rent the games!
They should use the Netflix model, $15 and play what you want however much you want. And buy or rent the hardware.
Sounds like a stupid idea. But maybe just buy a gaming console and buy the games you want. After all, $15 per month is $180 per year. After 2 years your would pay more than a console! Also, I would buy a PS3 because there is no monthly fee to use it.
Oh, and playing live real time video (game video) over the internet will not be reliable. A fraction of a second delay will be visible and really distracting. Normally video (movies) are cached on your device (PC) and you see the video delayed by 5 or more seconds. This can't be done with real time video games. You need virtually no delay or it will suck. | |
|
 |  tlniec join:2004-08-02 Cedar Rapids, IA | Re: This is stupid! said by AstroBoy:Oh, and playing live real time video (game video) over the internet will not be reliable. A fraction of a second delay will be visible and really distracting. Normally video (movies) are cached on your device (PC) and you see the video delayed by 5 or more seconds. This can't be done with real time video games. You need virtually no delay or it will suck. Agreed. Some types of games are relatively insensitive to latency between inputs and seeing a response to those inputs on-screen. But many (e.g. shooters, driving, music/rhythm games) don't tolerate it so well. Heck, I have seen people choose their gaming TVs/monitors on the basis of input lag -- and I imagine the differences there are probably in the single-digit milliseconds. My internet connection has an order of magnitude higher latency than that. | |
|
 | | What's the sound? Its the sound of OnLine flopping. | |
|
 |  | | Re: What's the sound? The reason why you don't see any people posting about it is that the beta testing agreement has an NDA in it which forbids the testers from talking about the service in any form. | |
|
 RRedlineRated RPremium join:2002-05-15 Williamsport, PA | Ahead of Its Time "Broadband streaming is likely an inevitable future, but OnLive may suffer from being ahead of its time."
This pretty much sums it up. I'd say it is waaaay ahead of its time, by like ten years or more. The infrastructure to support it is just not there yet. Owning local copies of media (music, video, games/software, etc.) is going to be a thing of the past, but not for many years yet. -- One nation, under Zod! | |
|
 |  DrModemPremium join:2006-10-19 USA kudos:1 | Re: Ahead of Its Time Anything like Onlive will always fall flat because of one fundamental problem: latency.
Until someone somehow develops a network system that transmits and receives so fast that network latency no longer exists, Onlive and services like it will fail every time. | |
|
 |  |  Reviews:
·Comcast
| Re: Ahead of Its Time This is true, however, from reading previous articles it would appear OnLive is using some sort of "out of this world" compression to achieve this. Theoretically, the comression/decompression of the stream is all that is needed by the little device. I'll judge it when I see it, but one can still hope this is possible...but not for that price  | |
|
 |  |  |  RRedlineRated RPremium join:2002-05-15 Williamsport, PA | Re: Ahead of Its Time said by BBBanditRuR:This is true, however, from reading previous articles it would appear OnLive is using some sort of "out of this world" compression to achieve this. Theoretically, the comression/decompression of the stream is all that is needed by the little device. I'll judge it when I see it, but one can still hope this is possible...but not for that price You can compress it all you want, but latency will still dictate when their servers receive information from your console. It's already an issue with multi-player games now, and only game data is being sent over the Internet - not video and sound. With OnLive, you will need a fast, stable connection with constant low latency.
This is certainly possible, but I just don't think we are ready for it yet. Even if it does take off, ISP's will notice a very large increase in data usage for people using the service and will probably step in and stop them from "abusing" the network. -- One nation, under Zod! | |
|
 1 edit | From what I've seen... Just a couple notes from personal experience
1. It works, you just need an average quality connection.
2. It lets you play high-end games on low-end hardware (laptops, PCs with integrated graphics, etc).
If your connection has latency low enough to support Vonage, and enough bandwidth to support Netflix streaming, you should be ok. The resolutions aren't as high as you could get by rendering the game locally on a high-end GPU, but they're decent. The service isn't for everyone, but I do see some real potential. | |
|
 |
 |
|