Posted Mar 27, 2009 9:07 pm PT

I think it shows a lot of potential. It might not be a success from the get go, but it doesnt have to be.

• agree 15
• disagree 3
• = +12
• Sign in to rate this comment

Posted Mar 27, 2009 9:36 pm PT

I think there's a ton of potential in this service and pairing that with the incredible third-party support it's getting at launch, it could be a relatively quick success. But in mean success in the sense that it won't fail. It'll carve out a market and turn a profit. It'll be relevant. I'll even go so far as to say it'll change the face of the industry in its first year. But it is not going to replace consoles or tangible games that you can touch and smell. I don't see those things going away any time soon. Still, onlive definitely has me excited.

insanebear.com - A site about video games and video game culture.

• agree 9
• disagree 0
• = +9
• Sign in to rate this comment

Posted Mar 27, 2009 9:40 pm PT

My take? I hope it doesn't succeed. Many of the things you mentioned are pretty much the reasons why I don't want it to work. I currently have a data cap, I'm currently NOT paying for Live. If I'm not willing to add on to my expenses, then I'm not willing to purchase this console. Now if you're wondering why I don't want it succeed, it's simple, if it succeeds, my other viable options for consoles will soon diminish. Leaving me with nothing but this option. Not to mention, I like to own a physical media for all my games. I like looking at my collection of games

• agree 71
• disagree 12
• = +59
• Sign in to rate this comment

Posted Mar 28, 2009 12:30 am PT

I've had similar concerns. Sunday mornings my high speed internet connection doesn't provide the 5 Mbps required for HD play. On top of that, they better never have a server failure - especially on a major release date. Imagine, "I wanted to play the latest CoD but my OnLive sucked again."

• agree 16
• disagree 2
• = +14
• Sign in to rate this comment

Posted Mar 28, 2009 12:40 am PT

BTW, great blog. I really love people being honest and skeptical.

• agree 9
• disagree 0
• = +9
• Sign in to rate this comment

Posted Mar 28, 2009 12:44 am PT

When I first read about On-Live I can honestly say I was blown away. The only thing I can see stopping me from getting this service would be the subscription fee. As cool as this is, I'm really not interested in paying more than I already do for Xbox Live...(and I already feel like thats a rip off).

• agree 22
• disagree 3
• = +19
• Sign in to rate this comment

Posted Mar 28, 2009 1:12 am PT

"But, these minor hick-ups will hinder your gaming experience a lot if it happens often.Internet stability is a must if you want to enjoy." Thats one of my biggest concerns. My internet sucks, plus my luck sucks. I can imagine losing my connection at the worst possible times. By the way, I believe its spelled hiccups. I'm not trying to be a spelling nazi or anything... just thought I'd point it out

I dont think I'll make a decision on whether or not i'll buy it until I see how much it will cost exactly.

• agree 7
• disagree 1
• = +6
• Sign in to rate this comment

Posted Mar 28, 2009 3:56 am PT

I think the idea is great, however you make good points about what might be the trouble with it. But I'm all for it, especially because some games are not available everywhere. If you can just stream them, you can do it from anywhere, so that pretty much eliminates the problem. I wanna see how this thing develops, it's definitely one of the most interesting ideas of the recent past.

• agree 4
• disagree 0
• = +4
• Sign in to rate this comment

Posted Mar 28, 2009 4:03 am PT

I love the idea, but I can't see how it's possible to launch it to the public.

• agree 3
• disagree 1
• = +2
• Sign in to rate this comment

Posted Mar 28, 2009 5:09 am PT

I don't think it will work on a large scale, at least I won't be getting it. It sounds good in theory, but in reality, the majority of peoples' internet connections just aren't fast enough to be streaming games the whole time. And also, I don't want to be constantly downloading full games, and if my internet cuts out, no more games. Plus, I like having discs. I don't want onlive to become the next stage of the games industry.

• agree 26
• disagree 0
• = +26
• Sign in to rate this comment

Posted Mar 28, 2009 5:12 am PT

There's just too many technical limitations for this thing to be really successful. Also, monthly fees suck. I'm surprised I actually pay for XBL.

• agree 6
• disagree 6
• = 0
• Sign in to rate this comment

Posted Mar 28, 2009 6:25 am PT

Honestly, I don't like it; it's a solid idea, but it puts the games totally out of my control. I don't mind using steam instead of getting hard copies, because I still get the data, and there is an offline mode. And unless onlive can somehow address these issues and manage to deliver the same modding capabilities of owning your own PC, I'm just not interested.

• agree 18
• disagree 0
• = +18
• Sign in to rate this comment

Posted Mar 28, 2009 7:31 am PT

It'll be big for PC users, but those of us who prefer console gaming wont switch to PC gaming on the strength of this alone. Personally, I wouldn't pay a subscription fee simply because in taking away physical media from us, they are preventing us from buying cheap pre-owned games for £5 in gamestation, and thus the subscription fee will reflect the price of brand new games rather than budget gaming.

So yeah, it'll be as big as the market for wealthy PC gamers is. Which means the Xbox and Nintendo consoles will live on, as they appeal to almost totally different markets.

• agree 7
• disagree 0
• = +7
• Sign in to rate this comment

Posted Mar 28, 2009 7:38 am PT

It won't be an instant hit especially in the console market because very few people have a decent internet. But, it can really spike the PC market because it will allow people with crappy computers and don't have the time and money to constanly upgrade the PC over and over again. Personally, I've always wanted to play PC games but I did'nt want to spend a 1000$ for a computer then have to pay 300-500$ and then pay 50 more dollars to play one game.

• agree 3
• disagree 0
• = +3
• Sign in to rate this comment

Posted Mar 28, 2009 7:45 am PT

I most likely won't be getting this. Mostly for the reasons you listed above. I'm not a big fan for paying a monthly subscription. I don't know I guess it would depend on how high or low they price it. Also my internet is one of those bleh ones. If Cloud dosen't succeed in onlive then someone else will. I really just wonder if home consoles will become obsolete with tech like this. I really hope not.

• agree 5
• disagree 0
• = +5
• Sign in to rate this comment

Posted Mar 28, 2009 8:11 am PT

Onlive seems great to someone like me who is hopelessly broke and doesn't want to buy a PS3 and a 360 but it could be really bad for the gaming industry. First of all if it does come out and bring us a one console market that would take away what makes the gaming industry great:competition. I just don't think the gaming industry would be as strong if people were trying to just make a good product instead of trying to make their console better than anyone else's.

• agree 3
• disagree 0
• = +3
• Sign in to rate this comment

Posted Mar 28, 2009 8:49 am PT

I have a 2.7Mbps internet connection on average so I don't really care about the speed requirements, we have 4 people at my house who want to use internet DSL so we got that.

My view in general however is, it will fail. I would be really quite happy if it worked, but the idea... I don't know. Just has a bad omen about it.

• agree 2
• disagree 1
• = +1
• Sign in to rate this comment

Posted Mar 28, 2009 9:06 am PT

two words: pirate servers

• agree 8
• disagree 0
• = +8
• Sign in to rate this comment

Posted Mar 28, 2009 9:31 am PT

What do I think? I think Sony and MS should shut it down and fast before it's given the chance to really shine. I leave Nintendo out of it because they could care less about competition.

• agree 8
• disagree 1
• = +7
• Sign in to rate this comment

Posted Mar 28, 2009 9:31 am PT

@GaoFryGar- Exactly. This was one of the things that I disliked about On-Live the most. For the sake of gamers and all consumers in general, Competition=GOOD; A single console industry=BAD.

But then again there is the possibility that Microsoft or someone else would eventually come in with a similar system and provide some additional features such as having the first-party games that won't be gracing On-Live. Overall its a great idea...on paper, but it still needs work in order for me to even consider getting it anytime soon; so for now I'm gonna have a "wait and see" attitude and not get caught up in all the hype.

• agree 2
• disagree 0
• = +2
• Sign in to rate this comment

Posted Mar 28, 2009 9:33 am PT

If its going to make me buy virtual copies that I won't be able to hold onto w/o subscription, then I'd rather put the money toward upgrading my PC so I can enjoy the benefits.

• agree 4
• disagree 0
• = +4
• Sign in to rate this comment

Posted Mar 28, 2009 9:56 am PT

I wonder if these people have any concept of how serious a jolt they've delivered to this industry. This has the potential to be, and I do not exaggerate, the most monumental revolution in the history of console gaming.

Still, there are some serious issues that need to be addressed and, as with any seriously disruptive technology, there's no way to tell whether or not they'll succeed. Are there enough people that trust their internet connection enough to buy into this? Will people pay the subscription fee? Are people ready to move on from physical media? And after all, doesn't having the hardware sitting right there in front of you give you a certain sense of security that nothing is going to happen to disrupt your playing experiences?

But most importantly...

What about exclusives? Honestly, this is the single biggest reason I buy a game system. I bought my Wii for games like Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess, Super Smash Bros. Brawl, Metroid Prime 3, and Super Mario Galaxy. I bought my PS3 for games like Resistance, Metal Gear Solid 4, and Uncharted. Consoles have a tendency to attract great exclusives in a way PCs just don't, in my opinion. (I would never go a console generation without playing the best first-party games Nintendo has to offer.) If this thing is only going to offer a lineup of high-quality PC games, it might be no deal for me.

• agree 4
• disagree 2
• = +2
• Sign in to rate this comment

Posted Mar 28, 2009 11:11 am PT

Well ... I'm an old school gamer and I like to keep a collection of the games, so I really hope that retailers won't suffer because of OnLive

• agree 6
• disagree 3
• = +3
• Sign in to rate this comment

Posted Mar 28, 2009 11:35 am PT

I think it shows huge potential, and it makes PC gaming far less expensive.

• agree 3
• disagree 2
• = +1
• Sign in to rate this comment

Posted Mar 28, 2009 12:12 pm PT

Stability question: Happens in MMO's all the time. Doesn't deter anyone. Pricing: People were all in an uproar about micro-transactions concerning DLC on this gen. of consoles. Doesn't seem to even be talked about all that much anymore. I really think it comes down to your opinion of where gaming is going. I hated the idea of Steam at first. The whole tangible product thing. I only download my PC games from Steam now if at all possible. If this works, it will be, in a few years, the best way to get your gaming in. Taking into consideration that it will be easier to get the hardware repaired etc.

• agree 2
• disagree 2
• = 0
• Sign in to rate this comment

Posted Mar 28, 2009 12:35 pm PT

I'm not sure Valve & co would like to see Onlive succeed. Plus, how are we supposed to create mods without any game files?

• agree 3
• disagree 0
• = +3
• Sign in to rate this comment

Posted Mar 28, 2009 1:05 pm PT

I'm not sold on this. I have a great connection with great speed but there have been times when I've been streaming HD videos from ABC or Fox and because of the weather or some other reason the picture quality degraded or the signal strength dropped out for a few seconds. It's annoying when watching a show but it would be extremely aggravating if I was playing a game. The High speed internet infrastructure is not uniform across the country let alone the world. Until it is I don't think this service will be viable.

• agree 3
• disagree 1
• = +2
• Sign in to rate this comment

Posted Mar 28, 2009 1:50 pm PT

@MooncalfReviews
Very interesting point. I completely overlooked this part. I’m also a big fan of buying pre-owned games simply because you can get them for cheap.

@Mr_Upstage
Exclusives are also a big concern for me. I’m starting to think that this product might only affect the PC gaming community since the exclusives have minimal to no chance of ever making it to Onlive.

• agree 4
• disagree 0
• = +4
• Sign in to rate this comment

Posted Mar 28, 2009 2:30 pm PT

when they update thier servers they will boot you off your game session no thxs I rather contral my hardware from here...

• agree 1
• disagree 0
• = +1
• Sign in to rate this comment

Posted Mar 28, 2009 7:10 pm PT

OnLive sounds like it has alot of potential, but the killer for me is the (more than likely) monthly subscription fee. They will almost literally have everyone by the balls. If they're using a monthly fee, what happens when there's a drought of games, or there are games on the market I'd rather not play? I don't game as much as I use to and it's not unusual for me to go through stretches of half a year and not buy a new game, but in those months I would still be paying a subscription fee for OnLive. Not to mention that if I wanted to cancel the subscription, I would be losing the chance to ever play any of those games again (an issue that you brought up)

IF they opt for a "pay for the privilege" type plan, where you pay for access to certain games instead (like if say, I wanted to play Dead Space so I pay money to have access to Dead Space any time I want to play it), this cuts out alot of the "damned if you do, damned if you don't" issue that monthly fees bring up. Admittedly, this probably brings in less revenue.

I'm not exactly sure how taking care of systems requirements on OnLive's end would even work, but if that's what they say I'm inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt. Assuming this becomes a big success, I'm wondering though, whether computer hardware companies will take this lying down. This is essentially the destroyer(or the crippler, at the very least) of their business. If no gamer needs to upgrade their PC again, what's the use of mass producing these graphics cards and whatnot? .

As for how it effects console gamers... not much I would think. This seems more aimed towards PC gamers as the pain of a monthly fee is far outweighed by PC upgrade fees. Using this system just doesn't seem viable if one is a console gamer, at least at this point in time.

• agree 6
• disagree 0
• = +6
• Sign in to rate this comment

Posted Mar 28, 2009 7:31 pm PT

My biggest concern is the whole owning the game, you don´t have a tangible product, so what if the company is not successful and they just shut down the entire thing, where does all my money go? Are they going to give me the games? I don´t think so, this sounds as a very risky investment if you ask me, it might sound promising and everything but I just can´t rely 100% on the internet for my gaming habits, it is way too unstable, I´m still not convinced by it, I guess we just have to wait and see

• agree 3
• disagree 0
• = +3
• Sign in to rate this comment

Posted Mar 28, 2009 8:36 pm PT

I believe that at first, as you have said, this product will not be selling as much as some people would like to think. Average internet speed may lag the games slightly. But we will most likely see our typical internet speeds increase within the next ten years. And if that happens, this service may increasingly become more practical.

I think that the initial challenge this company will face is getting publishers to port to their console. One obvious advantage already is the fact that the publisher will lose the cost of manufacturing disks and other physical media. However, OnLive will have to show that there is a high demand for games on their system. At the same time they will have to show consumers that this system's convenience is worth the cost, which we don't even know yet. If both ends can meet, I think that OnLive will be a very competitive force in the gaming industry. The entire transportation and much of the manufacturing parts of the supply chain can be cut and give this company greater profits.





It may take some time for this product to get momentum, but the potential business model that this thing makes possible overshadows the current architecture involved in selling consoles.

• agree 2
• disagree 1
• = +1
• Sign in to rate this comment

Posted Mar 28, 2009 10:22 pm PT

Hah, so what am I supposed to do--get lazy and give up putting together custom gaming rigs on my own? Gosh, I hate the possibility of becoming over-reliant on things that are simply handed to us. Our brains are going to wither away if we don't excercise 'em, folks!

• agree 5
• disagree 0
• = +5
• Sign in to rate this comment

Posted Mar 28, 2009 11:08 pm PT

I dunno, I'm not ready for a new era yet.. I like video gaming the way it currently is.. Also, the controller is so similiar to the 360's and there's the word Live in there.. Microsoft could sue the crap out of them before they launch so to avoid the competition..

• agree 0
• disagree 3
• = -3
• Sign in to rate this comment

Posted Mar 28, 2009 11:35 pm PT

I just don't think this will replace any consoles. I LOVE to have a physical disc. You feel that you have a collection of something. Not just bunch of ones and zeros online.

• agree 5
• disagree 0
• = +5
• Sign in to rate this comment

Posted Mar 29, 2009 6:03 am PT

I remembered a Newsweek article few years ago which discused about an Indian company which sells PCs without hard disk to bring down the price to about US $100. This PC has the bareback necessities to be fully operational for simple tasks. And the very company which retails this PCs also offers the service of storing the user's data and their applications with their servers.And to be frank, it is a huge hit in India according to the article. Now back on-topic, my hunch is that this onLive service will not work with the people who enjoy playing solo campaigns BUT it will be tremendously popular among the crowd who enjoyed MMOs such as WoW. First off, MMOs required you to be online to play and onLive is able to eliminate the need of having high end PCs to game. Hence it is a win-win situation for both.

• agree 0
• disagree 0
• = 0
• Sign in to rate this comment

Posted Mar 29, 2009 7:37 am PT

I will always, always, ALWAYS prefer physical distribution. You just can't match that pure feeling of satisfaction and anticipation you get when you walk into the store, GRAB THE THING OFF THE SHELF, and mutter excitedly to yourself all the way to the checkout, grinning at the back of the case and handing YOUR HARD-EARNED MONEY to the counter person. Digital distribution takes away the personal, rewarding feeling of walking in and just buying the thing.

• agree 2
• disagree 0
• = +2
• Sign in to rate this comment

Posted Mar 29, 2009 8:46 am PT

I have many concerns like you. Pricing and playability are major concerns. Empire: Total War is not a stand alone disk game. Its main delivery comes from Steam. Steam serving as the main source for the game puts the quality and availability of the game at their disposal. When you have trouble running the game or for that matter launching the game and need help forget it. I am very doubtful this type of gaming experience will find its way to my computer or console.

• agree 1
• disagree 0
• = +1
• Sign in to rate this comment

Posted Mar 29, 2009 8:52 am PT

For your "Internet stability" concern, after looking at the demo I believe the game stops literally where you left off, so if you are in a middle of a big boss fight and your internet goes out, you'll be able to go back into OnLive and play where you left off. It is like the servers are in the pause menu waiting for you to return. Edit: Also, I don't PC gamers would like have to go through the OnLive menus to get to their games. They just like to click an icon on their desktop and go. Perhaps OnLive can get some Direct-To-Game desktop icons, of sorts, for their service.

• agree 1
• disagree 0
• = +1
• Sign in to rate this comment

Posted Mar 29, 2009 9:56 am PT

It sounds great, but there will be several fees, otherwise, how could onlive afford the game hosting? It would be 50-100 a month, Im sure.

• agree 2
• disagree 1
• = +1
• Sign in to rate this comment

Posted Mar 29, 2009 10:09 am PT

You brought up the two main worries I have about the service Jerell. I don't think this is going to be the blockbuster that many are expecting it to be.

• agree 2
• disagree 0
• = +2
• Sign in to rate this comment

Posted Mar 29, 2009 10:16 am PT

I want to own my games, not play them off the internet.

Gametap tried this and failed pretty badly, but that wasn't for a lack of trying. It's just that, with money, gamers expect an ownership. You'll get the publishers yelling "You don't own games, you license them!" but that's how we as consumers work. We buy books, movies, and music as we're "owning" them. The Rhapsody store that allows unlimited downloading for a certain price each month also didn't do well because the user still didn't own the music. Most consumers just aren't interested.

• agree 4
• disagree 0
• = +4
• Sign in to rate this comment

Posted Mar 29, 2009 10:33 am PT

not only that i would awesome long run it would be cheaper to buy a console think about a console last 7 years for like 20$ a month that is
20x12x7=1680$ total versus like 600$

• agree 2
• disagree 0
• = +2
• Sign in to rate this comment

Posted Mar 29, 2009 10:34 am PT

If they really want to turn a profit Onlive will...... release adds that show how the process of making game systems and physical copies of games exploits third world labor and destroys the environment (I'm not saying this is what really happens, but it would be ingenious advertising in this new green age)

• agree 1
• disagree 0
• = +1
• Sign in to rate this comment

Posted Mar 29, 2009 10:44 am PT

Personally, I like having hard copies of stuff. I still prefer buying DVDs and CDs to purely digital purchases, and with the case of OnLive, I'll still be partial to purchasing a disc in a case as opposed to the rights to have visuals streamed to me from some distant server. My 360 and PC will work just fine if my internet goes out, and since I primarily play RPGs and RTS campaigns, I won't really miss multiplayer anyway.
I would like to see this emerge as a viable alternative to consoles, maybe to help push game/subscription prices down, rather than the new medium of choice.

• agree 0
• disagree 0
• = 0
• Sign in to rate this comment