20th June 2010, 10:19 PM
I am so truly shocked... :P
First -- You don't mention performance. OnLive cannot match up to a high-end PC, graphically. Not even close. Really, the image quality is not very good -- we've known this for some time, but just look at the screenshots in that thread for more confirmation. Graphics detail options, etc. are very limited at best, I believe, too, so you have little control over the graphics. Also, there is more lag than there would be on a computer by your desk, which can be a problem in some games. And your geographical location and connection can affect lag. Also you need a fast, fairly high-end connection to do this... that's not going to be cheap. Lots of negatives there.
On the points you mention, though, if there's an upfront fee for buying it, sure -- you are buying a box after all. But it should be just that, a single fee. Then you pay for the games you want. I mean, their exuse is that they need to run this service and it costs money, so they need to charge a fee... and while they might sort of have a point, people are not going to like that idea... and the idea that you haven't really bought anything, and lose access to all of it as soon as you stop paying them their fees, isn't exactly going to be popular. And it shouldn't be.
I mean, I kind of see their point, the service DOES cost money to run, and the industry does have an issue with that, with how gamers (certainly including me) expect things to be free while to the companies do have to pay to keep these services running... but they're really got to come up with better ideas than this. This way is not acceptable. You suggest one way, of having games be free like Netflix rentals are. Another way would be to raise game prices a little to cover server costs or something, perhaps also add more pay content of some kind, something, have a "premium" service that requires pay or something like that (hopefully not, those things are stupid, but I'm being realistic here...)... but basic access to the games (and online multiplayer, etc, I would hope) that you have paid for should of course should be free. More than that would be great too, but in these paid DLC and fees for everything days, my expectations for that are sadly low. They aren't low enough to find OnLive a decent deal, though. :)
(On that note Sony is doing something similar with Playstation Plus, games they give you "free" through the service only remain playable as long as you are signed up to it... stop paying and you lose access to all the free games they have given you. At elast that is only free stuff, though... so far.)
I mean, objectively, it is kind of a cool idea... but it's far too early for this kind of thing to work, and even beyond that it has huge problems in control interfaces, the fact that many people do like to actually own things and that is impossible on OnLive or any other such service, the required fee to keep basic access to the service, the kind of internet connection it requires, etc, etc.
First -- You don't mention performance. OnLive cannot match up to a high-end PC, graphically. Not even close. Really, the image quality is not very good -- we've known this for some time, but just look at the screenshots in that thread for more confirmation. Graphics detail options, etc. are very limited at best, I believe, too, so you have little control over the graphics. Also, there is more lag than there would be on a computer by your desk, which can be a problem in some games. And your geographical location and connection can affect lag. Also you need a fast, fairly high-end connection to do this... that's not going to be cheap. Lots of negatives there.
On the points you mention, though, if there's an upfront fee for buying it, sure -- you are buying a box after all. But it should be just that, a single fee. Then you pay for the games you want. I mean, their exuse is that they need to run this service and it costs money, so they need to charge a fee... and while they might sort of have a point, people are not going to like that idea... and the idea that you haven't really bought anything, and lose access to all of it as soon as you stop paying them their fees, isn't exactly going to be popular. And it shouldn't be.
I mean, I kind of see their point, the service DOES cost money to run, and the industry does have an issue with that, with how gamers (certainly including me) expect things to be free while to the companies do have to pay to keep these services running... but they're really got to come up with better ideas than this. This way is not acceptable. You suggest one way, of having games be free like Netflix rentals are. Another way would be to raise game prices a little to cover server costs or something, perhaps also add more pay content of some kind, something, have a "premium" service that requires pay or something like that (hopefully not, those things are stupid, but I'm being realistic here...)... but basic access to the games (and online multiplayer, etc, I would hope) that you have paid for should of course should be free. More than that would be great too, but in these paid DLC and fees for everything days, my expectations for that are sadly low. They aren't low enough to find OnLive a decent deal, though. :)
(On that note Sony is doing something similar with Playstation Plus, games they give you "free" through the service only remain playable as long as you are signed up to it... stop paying and you lose access to all the free games they have given you. At elast that is only free stuff, though... so far.)
I mean, objectively, it is kind of a cool idea... but it's far too early for this kind of thing to work, and even beyond that it has huge problems in control interfaces, the fact that many people do like to actually own things and that is impossible on OnLive or any other such service, the required fee to keep basic access to the service, the kind of internet connection it requires, etc, etc.