Sign on Options
Theme:
To Dark

OnLive Wi-Fi beta goes online in September

On-demand game-streaming service introducing wireless access this month; Labor Day special discounts all games by 50 percent, Founding Members subscription extended.

One of the greatest impediments to OnLive's promise of on-demand, anywhere game-streaming has been the necessity of a wired broadband connection to access the service's wares. Soon, that requirement will be going away, as OnLive announced today that it would begin a Wi-Fi beta-testing program this month.

One Wi-Fi, please.

One Wi-Fi, please.

Called "the most requested feature among OnLive members," Wi-Fi functionality will be offered to all PC and Mac users. The company also emphasized that Wi-Fi access remains in a beta-testing phase, and it will be offered in tandem with continued access to the service through a wired connection. OnLive also noted that Wi-Fi will be just one of several enhancements in store for the service this month.

In the lead-up to its Wi-Fi rollout, OnLive also announced today a Labor Day promotion, whereby gamers can pick up any of the service's games at a 50 percent discount over the holiday weekend. Currently, OnLive offers three different ways in which gamers can access products on the service. The Full PlayPass gives players unfettered access to a game for the duration of its presence on the service (minimum three years). Five-day and three-day passes are also available.

Lastly, OnLive said today that it would be extending its Founding Members Program through the end of the year. Sponsored by AT&T, the program offers gamers a free one-year membership to the service. Gamers who participate in the program will also be eligible to receive a second-year monthly subscription rate of $4.95. The Founding Members Program is currently the only subscription plan available for the OnLive gaming service.

More information on games that are currently available through OnLive can be found on the service's Web site.

82 Comments

  • leeko_link

    Posted Sep 4, 2010 10:05 am GMT

    I would be so happy if they had physical copy of games too but since they didn't I won't risk getting this. Also the part about always getting connected online in able to access and play any games turn me down, in able for any gaming service to be a success, you had to be able to serve your customer so they could game both online and offline and to most usually offline is better. WiiWare, XBLA and PSN games are like this but the games you download from them doesn't required you to always connect online to play them.

  • akiwak

    Posted Sep 4, 2010 8:32 am GMT

    I don't think On-Live has gained enough traction to be considered a competing system quite yet. I don't think I'll ever switch to this platform because of the way games are distributed.

    "Currently, OnLive offers three different ways in which gamers can access products on the service. The Full PlayPass gives players unfettered access to a game for the DURATION OF ITS PRESENCE on the service (minimum three years). Five-day and three-day passes are also available."

    So if you buy a game it could eventually be taken away and disappear from your library. I like to actually own what I buy.... Pass it on to my son or exchange it with a friend for a game they currently own.

  • coolkid93

    Posted Sep 3, 2010 9:46 pm GMT

    @killdamn I don't know if you noticed but I never said I wanted it to fail. All I was saying is that it was good but I'll stick to my console gaming.

  • SlowMotionKarma

    Posted Sep 3, 2010 6:39 pm GMT

    Played some demos, and it was surprisingly lite on the lag. Games were pretty responsive and looked nice (not quite as good as an installed game running my native 1920x1200, but I can imagine taking this on a road trip and being able to play in HD on a cheap-o laptop.
    BBBBUUUUUUTTTTT... the pricing structure is not going to work. You have to pay for access, THEN pay per game. Rentals need to be cheaper, since they're only 3 or 5 days, and the "full game" isn't "yours" by any stretch of the imagination. You just have unlimited access to it as long as you have a current subscription AND the license is still valid (which is only guaranteed for a few years). I'd rather pay $50 for a physical copy of the game.
    It's a great proof-of-concept, but has a lot of big hills to overcome before it's something worth a gamer's time.

  • somberfox

    Posted Sep 3, 2010 10:58 am GMT

    I've tried OnLive and I think it's a great idea, but it's got two fatal flaws. A full access pass only guarantees you game access for 3 years, and once they start charging for subscriptions you'll have to pay a monthly fee to access your games.

    Unless they change this poor business model I won't be using OnLive except as a way to try game demos without having to download and install them.

  • nonfanboygamer1

    Posted Sep 3, 2010 10:21 am GMT

    Wasn't it AT&T that said they didn't car about gamers?

  • SicklySunStorm

    Posted Sep 3, 2010 9:36 am GMT

    @bigcr47 - that's quite an ambivolent post... you said you were part of the founding members program, then said you didn't think you would ever use the service.... but then go on to talk about how cool it all is etc... so which side do you truly sit with? If it's so incredible - why wouldn't you use it? Is it just because you're not really into gaming on the move, or some other reason (cost?)

  • green_dominator

    Posted Sep 3, 2010 9:18 am GMT

    Whatever, I'm not really interested in this version of the digital future.....

  • bigcr47

    Posted Sep 3, 2010 9:09 am GMT

    OnLive is an incredible new idea. I am a part of the founding members program, but i don't think I will ever use the service. They are aiming for an audience that wants to be able to play anywhere, you can play mafia 2 on a netbook from starbucks at 720p with butter smooth framerates. It fills a part of the market that has yet to be tapped into. Yes there is an input lag, and yes I can play mafia 2 at 1080 p with no lag on my pc, but it's nice to be able to play from anywhere, pick up where you left off from anywhere, it stores all your saved games on the cloud server, and you can record video clips from any game and put them on your file share tab. This service is incredible, believe me, the Tech will blow your mind. It is meant as a supplement to the market, not a takeover. And it will be very successful as soon as their library gets bigger. I have one year free, try it out, its very cool especially if you want to play borderlands of mafia from a laptop while your on vacation in the keys on a beach. believe me, there is room for this service in the marketplace, of course when they move to 1080p video it will be more worth it.

  • slvrraven9

    Posted Sep 3, 2010 8:58 am GMT

    im sorry i just cant put all my trust into something like this. i mean its built around a good idea but theres just so many potential disasters waiting to happen. i havent even considered paying for this service, everytime i try to consider it, my paranoia kicks in about potential lag, or server maintnence, or anything that might stop you from enjoying the games when you wanna enjoy them and how you should enjoy them. maybe after its been out for some years and i see a few review on games down the line i might consider it but for now....this is a no go for me.

  • Sw1tched

    Posted Sep 3, 2010 7:56 am GMT

    This thing is going to be a Cultural and Financial disaster (Ron Burgundy)

  • bowlingotter

    Posted Sep 3, 2010 7:52 am GMT

    From beta to now, OnLive has always performed surprisingly well over home broadband internet. But the very slight input lag is enough to put me off, particularly anytime I'm expected to use the mouse. Still, it's a great idea, but as long as they're insistent on treating the service like a primary gaming platform, I don't see it thriving. They should go with more a Gamefly rental subscription model instead of per-game charges and that would probably get a lot more interest.

  • sobrinito

    Posted Sep 3, 2010 7:50 am GMT

    Obviously, PC gamers who have a tricked-out rigs and terabytes of hard drive space would have no interest in this service. Neither would console gamers who don't care about PC gaming at all. For the rest of us, though, OnLive makes a heck of a lot of sense. You get to play every game for 30 minutes for free before you pay for a play-pass (the full game, not the demo); you get instant access to new games without hours-long downloads and losing gigabytes of hard drive space; you can even watch other gamers in action to get a better sense of the gameplay. If you have a Mac, you get to play the latest PC games without installing Windows; if you have a less expensive PC, you get to play games that otherwise would choke your system. It's also the only way I know to rent PC games over a weekend. In my experience, the system has been reliable, though I understand that folks with dodgy broadband connections or who live too far from the server have had mixed results.

    Will it ever replace disk-based gaming? No, but considering how expensive it's getting to keep up with the technology, it could very well become the only way for PC gaming to remain economically viable in the future.

    And hey, I'll be picking up Mafia II for $25 bucks this weekend. Can't complain too much about that.

  • TLOD

    Posted Sep 3, 2010 7:16 am GMT

    @gbrading I don't think they are either. Hopefully this will push ISPs to invest in higher speeds.

  • brown_flame

    Posted Sep 3, 2010 6:48 am GMT

    OnLive does seem interesting, but im not ready to take a plunge on it just yet, i guess i shall wait and see if it is the "revolutionary" service which it claims to be.

  • gbrading Site moderator

    Posted Sep 3, 2010 6:16 am GMT

    I still don't think broadband speeds are fast enough to support OnLive, but we'll see.

  • Igonge

    Posted Sep 3, 2010 5:14 am GMT

    I don't like the sound of this service.

  • SicklySunStorm

    Posted Sep 3, 2010 5:03 am GMT

    I don't see this as a replacement for the dedicated console or PC as yet, for the forseeable 5-10 years, but it is an interesting supplementary device... many of us (me included) don't want to give up our consoles, PCs and physical discs. Only time will tell.

  • swamptick

    Posted Sep 3, 2010 4:50 am GMT

    I hate this idea.

  • Megavideogamer

    Posted Sep 3, 2010 4:33 am GMT

    So On-live is really an on-line "Cyber-Arcade" With videogames "available" to play for a minimum of three years in the "Cyber-Arcade" if they do make it Wi-Fi compatible. You could visit the "On-Live Cyber-Arcade" while at Starbucks or another location with Wi-Fi access. For a $4.95 subscription per month is fair. Since I used to spend far more than that in Actual brick in mortar arcades. (When they existed) per visit. So On-live is kind of like a new version of going to the videogame arcade. Except only in CyberSpace at Starbucks or Ihop. Anywhere there is a Wi-Fi hotspot. after the beta is complete. This could catch on. On-live "Arcade gaming" for a subscription fee monthly. If they market/advertise On-live correctly could really catch on with the recent advent of ipad "gaming?" devices. If the service runs as smoothly as they promise.

  • killdamn

    Posted Sep 3, 2010 4:05 am GMT

    @coolkid93

    What do the consoles have to do with this? Nothing, OnLive does PC games, not consoles.

    I honestly don't see why you people want this service to "fail", face it, this could be what future gaming will be. Games are run in another location and you don't need to waste money on nothing but the subscription fee, which is a measly 4,95 a month. This service could potentially eliminate piratism in a way.

    Just saying this. Things change, you people have to get used to it.

  • coolkid93

    Posted Sep 3, 2010 2:36 am GMT

    Nice but I'll stick to my PS3.

  • takreem95

    Posted Sep 3, 2010 2:13 am GMT

    The Full PlayPass' prices are cheap, Mafia 2 is $49.99.

  • acasero44

    Posted Sep 2, 2010 10:59 pm GMT

    Nvm the service sucks now the games are fully priced with limited time

  • OJdaLIONKing

    Posted Sep 2, 2010 10:58 pm GMT

    Although the prospect of never having to worry about a new computer again is tempting (I'm about 2 years overdue for a new desktop myself), I rather dislike the idea of OnLive since it moves in the direction of my game *purchase* being treated more like me renting the right to play it for an amount of time a company deems permissible. I hate to sound like an old man when I'm in my early 20s, but I still prefer actually knowing I own what I spend 60 bucks or more for.

    Judging from how I've barely heard anything of OnLive in the past few months, it seems I'm not the only one thinking this.

  • zaku101

    Posted Sep 2, 2010 10:58 pm GMT

    The end of gaming laptops as we know it?

  • okassar

    Posted Sep 2, 2010 10:11 pm GMT

    Steam>OnLive

  • Megamanx266

    Posted Sep 2, 2010 10:02 pm GMT

    @Mkeegs79

    One little problem with reason #3, you don't actually download the files for the game you purchase. You just purchase the right to play said game that runs on their servers.

    The video footage of you playing the game in real time is then streamed to your computer. Your computer then sends your commands to the server which allows you to play.

    So essentially all you're paying for is an interactive video of the game..... At least, that's how I understand it.

  • Tailsfox111

    Posted Sep 2, 2010 9:29 pm GMT

    Do you know what my most requested feature is. How about a service that doesn't have massive lag and network drops every 15 minutes! That would be a good place to start.

  • carbonic_acid

    Posted Sep 2, 2010 8:46 pm GMT

    I really like OnLive's concept, since it'd mean I can play PC games without wasting piles of money to obtain frequently-changing graphics cards, processors, etc. Their Wi-Fi announcement is welcomed, and I hope they'll expand their service outside of the US soon.

  • Mkeegs79

    Posted Sep 2, 2010 7:28 pm GMT

    I am not for it for digital only for these reasons...

    1. They will monopolize the price to what they want with no competition. That even goes for the big 3. I won't be able to find that one guy for a ridiculous cheap price. I get most games new and on day one but its still in the back of my mind. This would actually affect retail sales as well. The PSPGo is an example that games won't get cheaper. They will just profit more.

    2. I can't import titles. Every once in awhile I import titles that won't come out here. I even double dip as I did with Demon's Souls European release. No more crazy Japanese titles? That would suck.

    3. I won't feel that I have the freedom to move my game around. With a physical copy, I feel attached to it. I have something I see that I bought. I don't have to worry about my system breaking and have to re-download titles. I have (for example) over 100 titles on the 360. It seems ridiculous to think of downloading that many at one time if my system breaks and they do every generation.

    That is a few of my gripes. I know some people trade and don't even have internet. They would automatically be out. My biggest thing would just be having something I can see I bought. It is something you can also actually sell.

  • edwise18

    Posted Sep 2, 2010 7:24 pm GMT

    I hope onlive fails.

  • jcopp72

    Posted Sep 2, 2010 7:03 pm GMT

    pay for a monthly basis then pay for a virtual copy of my games, no thanks

  • jcopp72

    Posted Sep 2, 2010 7:02 pm GMT

    I will still be sticking to my PS3

  • coaltango

    Posted Sep 2, 2010 7:01 pm GMT

    me too who remembered this joke of a service

  • Sepewrath

    Posted Sep 2, 2010 6:46 pm GMT

    I completely forgot this thing even existed. Have no interest in something that makes me pay a fee just for the option to buy something, that I will never actually own.

  • z50macdaddy

    Posted Sep 2, 2010 6:35 pm GMT

    why are there so many loooong comment? I DONT NEED YOUR LIFE STORY!

  • beestung

    Posted Sep 2, 2010 6:16 pm GMT

    Wi-fi would be nice but a better selection of games is more important. I think OnLive appeals most to console gamers who want to play PC games but could never be bothered in keeping up with PC hardware. Offering only PC ports of console games is not the way to go because given the choice I'm gonna play them on a console. With PC exclusives OnLive would be the only option.

    The one PC exclusive they had, Crysis, was supposed to be a launch title and has yet to show up on the service (at least last time I checked).

  • XanderZane

    Posted Sep 2, 2010 6:11 pm GMT

    My other question is if you get a few thousand people playing out of the same data center, how will that effect the lag? Right now people are still beta testing this. They may have a few 100 people, but obviously if this actually takes of there will be thousands of people using the service. Will OnLive be able to expand fast enough to sustain the traffic? Remember the launch of WoW? lol!! That was pretty funny. The either need to trash the monthly subscription or remove the purchase of the games. If they plan on keeping both. The price for all new games should be $10. For some reason, I bet developers get a sizable % for each game sold, even though it's just a digital download. That's probably what's jacking the price up. Still, I think my idea is sound. Games that are a few months old $5. Any game over a year old should be FREE or $1. If they do this, they can still make a sizable profit with subscriptions and make a little off the games. The way the price structure is now, they will only get a few thousand subscribers I think. I'm sure they want 500K - 1 mil within a few months.

  • Iloveconnie

    Posted Sep 2, 2010 5:40 pm GMT

    This, like steam, is a little scary in the beginning, because you dont know how popular it will, if itll go out of business etc. Id wait before jumping on this.

  • FusionRain

    Posted Sep 2, 2010 5:37 pm GMT

    I've been using Wi-Fi with Onlive for a while now, all you have to do is bridge your connection. Also Onlive works flawlessly, the only problem is lack of community, and games. I'm sure it will get better.

  • spank_thru101

    Posted Sep 2, 2010 5:07 pm GMT

    @Coldfire Trilogy
    I do not own a CRT nor did I state that I did. Re-read what I posted. I have seen Onlive play on both CRT and LCD displays, neither of which were my own.

  • Bad-School-Girl

    Posted Sep 2, 2010 5:07 pm GMT

    I will get thumbsdowned for this... But I hope this flops. I don't want DD to take over.

  • kairikh

    Posted Sep 2, 2010 5:04 pm GMT

    why do i think this things gonna "flop" ??? C'mon this is just obnoxious for gamers :/

  • jhans

    Posted Sep 2, 2010 5:04 pm GMT

    Yeah I am a founding member and I have to say my opinion is rather mixed. I like the idea of being able to try as much of a game before I pay full purchase price but so far the graphics are not the best. I was also not impressed that you had to have a wired interenet connection, in this day and age of all things wireless. They seem a little behind but if they can make the improvements to the graphics and wireless works they might keep me as a customer.

  • Adam_the_Nerd

    Posted Sep 2, 2010 4:33 pm GMT

    Sorry but I'd rather have a copy of my game. Unlike Steam, an established service, this could take my money and foldup in a year or so.

  • ichc1000x

    Posted Sep 2, 2010 4:17 pm GMT

    I hope OnLive works!

  • jer_1

    Posted Sep 2, 2010 3:41 pm GMT

    No thanks to a service that doesn't even leave me a copy of a game I'm paying for...

  • gnbfd

    Posted Sep 2, 2010 3:40 pm GMT

    Now my membership is actually useful!
    Thanks OnLive

Subscribe to GameSpot's YouTube Channel

Hot Stories

Newsmakers

Featured Stories

Submit News

Got tips? Send them in!