I am sure people in the gaming industry would love an Onlive model. They make their games, get payed top dollar for it and cut out the used gaming market while taking away people's rights to own the game and hitting hard piracy.

However there is no incentive for console gamers to switch. The requirements are unrealistic for most and the whole concept that you can run a game at full specs with a crappy old computer is dumb when that same person who has a crappy old computer needs to have the highest end internet connection and no cap. Your not really gonna run into to many people who will invest highly on their internet speed but cheap out on their computer.

This kind of business model is even more limiting then just standard DD which so far hasn't convinced console gamers to ditch owning hardcopies.

You made me do it. I contacted Support@OnLive.com. Here's their response:

Rikusaki

That's not saying much. "...intend to keep it that way" is not a concrete yes or no. Intentions from a Customer service rep means nothing really. They have no pull and only handle Q&As and damage control. They aren't involved in the decision making and will just as easily tell you one thing and then tell you something different when events change. They can just as easily say later on "We had to bring back the monthly charge to meet the demands needed to consistently upgrade Onlive." And it's not unrealistic to expect that.

Remember all the Customer reps and even company officials that deny 100% of the TRUE rumors that go on in gaming...like leaked price drops, new consoles, new add ons, firmware update specs, game release dates, games in production, etc.. Heck, the PS3 even spoofed this with their first batch of commercials using their current spokesman Kevin.

[QUOTE="PBSnipes"]

No one should be surprised by this, aside from the fact it took Sony so long to kill game sharing. The original idea behind game sharing was to allow people with multiple PS3s to easily transfer content (as opposed to the 360's 'one console+one gamertag' DRM), whereas all anyone used it for was to essentially legally pirate PSN content.

No. I'm guessing you forgot the original advertisements for this. You can share games with your friends. That's what Sony said.

[QUOTE="finalstar2007"]

GOOD!! i'v always wanted them to remove this gamehsare BS, i hate seeing someone bragging about how they got their PSN games or map pcks for free when others buy them, now anyone whos to gameshare will be suspended or banned! yes!

Umm what's wrong with sharing with friends. Why did Sony even offer game sharing in the first place. Why call it sharing at all?

[QUOTE="jimmarko21876"]As long as it doesn't affect my purchases to be shared between my 2 PS3's I fine with it. I will be pissed if I have to buy the same game twice to have access to it on both units!King-Espi

Looks like you and I are out of luck. This sucks though. It's actually really stupid, I'm curious to see how they do this and what is effected. Me and my friends have like this mini-circle and we all take turns buying DLC.

To the guy who said it shouldn't have even existed. Really? So you support overpriced DLC that was created before the game even hit shelves? Cool. I like to spend my money on things that are worth it and deserve it. Paying for content that was held back to be released at a later date does not fit that description.

[QUOTE="Javy03"]

2) People like me resell the games they bought and know they won't play again to buythemselves NEW games. Publishers never like to bring up the most likely scenario of gamers selling their old games to afford brand new games. So that old copy of Madden gave me money towards my NEW copy of Castlevania. Imagine how many sales might be lost if people have to keep every game they buy and can't get any monetary value for it. I am pretty sure people would be more frugal with their gaming purchases leaving a lot of games that would be bought otherwise, alone.N30F3N1X

Completely irrelevant, I don't know why so much people like to boast about this point when in truth it doesn't help their case in any way...

You sell the game to buy a new game, that means the guy buying the game from you isn't buying a new game, thus negating whatever positive effect you could gain from this wannabe transaction, other than thinking you have done your part for the society making yourself feel better.

3) Publishers and Devs need to give us more incentive to buy new. Gamestop and other stores are doing their best to convince gamers to preorder games so they can lock their money with them by giving people exclusive DLC or items for preordering new games. Devs should do something as well like offer acollectors edition version of the game for the first few months promoting people to preorder and buy new. Blazblue did this, I preordered it because it would upgrade my game to the collectors edition with a combo tutorial movie for free. It's time publishers work for our money instead of just forcing us to buy their games at their set prices with no option to trade, sell or buy used.

Javy03

It's like RedLion said - you don't care about the developers' well being, they don't care about yours.

It all works in a dog-bites-his-tail cycle.

It's sad so much people thinks closing themselves in a shell and giving the middle finger to developers will ever bring them something good other than istant gratification :|

My second point is far from irrelevant becauseas I said before, not every used game sale = a potential new game sale. Just because I sold Madden and bought Castlevania, doesn't mean the guy who bought madden would have spent those 30 dollars that month on ONLY video games. That 30 dollar used game could have easily been an impulse buy that otherwise might have been spent on liquor, movies or food. Then that same game along with some more of his money go back to gamestop to buy the new COD. So a game that would have just sat on someone's shelf helped motivate another person to buy their next new video game. This is not an unlikely scenario.

You and RedLion seem to think that the video game industry is new, which it isn't. I am 28 and some of the games I purchased when I had an NES were flat out horribly made or broken. Many of the Boxes which is all we had back then were misleading as to what to expect gameplay wise. This industry has been around making money for a long long time and things have improved because we made it HARDER for them to get away with crap not EASIER like your suggestions would be. We made review sites and magazines important sources to get info on if a game is play worthy or not and now because devs are held more responsible for their games they had to make them better and fix bugs.

As I said it's the publisher that is dependent on the game selling millions and millions of copy much more then the developer. I am pretty sure the developer gets on prearranged set amount. Of course if the game sells well then the negotiations for the next game will earn the developer more but they aren't as dependent on sales as people think.

You are not a company though, you are a person. Artists should be credited for their work IMO, simple as that. This industry doesn't have live gigs or 3D big screenings to fall back on.Kan0nF0dder

This is not 100% true either. Video game making is almost doing what Saturday Morning Cartoons used to do which is build a fanbase for a franchise and then sell them other products with their favorite characters on it. Video game studios can and do make money off of clothing,soundtracks, stickers, art books, comics, cartoons and even movies with their creations on them. If marketed correctly and as long as they can find a fanbase there is loads of money to be made in other industries with their franchise then just video games. That's not even mentioning all of the fun DLC that is easy cash for these companies, and both new and used games have to buy DLC the same way.

Then you also have to factor that many times the first game is an investment in future iterations of the franchise or other franchise. What I mean is that the sequel to a video game is usually built off of the first games engine, with teaks and improvements to make it look and play better then sold two years later at the same price as the original which was built from the ground up. This same engine might not end with that particular franchise but might be used by the same developers for many other different games and franchises. It's an investment and even though the second game didn't take as much time or as much money to make it is still sold at the same premium price as the first.

Stop worrying about how the video game industry is gonna get money, TRUST ME they had it figured out YEARS AGO.

Does it not bother you on a personal level, when you are playing through a 2nd game and enjoying it, that you payed literally nothing towards the developer that actually created the art/entertainment, but you did help make some undeserving middle-man some cash? The more you think about it, the more it seems like bottom-feeding.Kan0nF0dder

If I recall correctly theDeveloper get's a set amount for developing the game but I don't believe they receive more money depending on how well the game sells over time. That is the Publisher's responsibility and burden. They have to advertise, promote and time the release of the game appropriately to sell as many copies so they can make maximum profit. So when you buy a used game, you don't necessarily hurt the people who made the game, just the people that pushed the game.

I think it's a horrible idea to release some barebones games at 40 dollars and then fluff it up with DLC. Especially in an era where not everyone wants to play their games online. I would be pissed if my GOW III, MGS, Uncharted single player experience was heavily influenced by online DLC.

Now as for the people complaining about how the USED game market is EVIL and hurts the industry, there are some key factors to keep in mind:

1) Not every used game sale equals a NEW game sale. Just because someone picks up a used 30 dollar copy of NFS doesn't mean they would have ever bought it brand new.

2) People like me resell the games they bought and know they won't play again to buythemselves NEW games. Publishers never like to bring up the most likely scenario of gamers selling their old games to afford brand new games. So that old copy of Madden gave me money towards my NEW copy of Castlevania. Imagine how many sales might be lost if people have to keep every game they buy and can't get any monetary value for it. I am pretty sure people would be more frugal with their gaming purchases leaving a lot of games that would be bought otherwise, alone.

3) Publishers and Devs need to give us more incentive to buy new. Gamestop and other stores are doing their best to convince gamers to preorder games so they can lock their money with them by giving people exclusive DLC or items for preordering new games. Devs should do something as well like offer acollectors edition version of the game for the first few months promoting people to preorder and buy new. Blazblue did this, I preordered it because it would upgrade my game to the collectors edition with a combo tutorial movie for free. It's time publishers work for our money instead of just forcing us to buy their games at their set prices with no option to trade, sell or buy used.