Weekend Open Forum: OnLive Games on Demand -- the future of gaming or destined to fail?

Status
Not open for further replies.
This could fail or pass, depending on how it's marketed to people.
I wouldn't buy it, I can imagine all the lag no matter what they say.
 
Certain people think server oriented games can't be pirated. They CAN be pirated. It isn't as easy, but they do various memory dumps while playing and assemble it into a file, or something like that. Remember, the only enemy of steel is rust. I guess certain people are slap happy.
 
Most games are in demand only when they are fresh, new and original. And most games today are for free. This would be a good job to atleast prevent piracy. Most games are for free so why would others pay for rent, you cannot own the game. And if it requires higher bandwidth, not all possible users can play.
 
Maybe I'm too old to 'get it', but I have no interest in online gaming. I like to own (as much as you can) my software and not rely on the solvency of any company, or have to live with their decisions on what I can play.
 
It's comments like burnunit's and supyo's that make me think that this service will succeed. Much as people like owning things, it's quite apparent they're willing to do without this. Just recently there's been something posted about physical PC game sales being just 20% of game sales, and Steam (which ties you to a specific company) is going from strength to strength. So it's quite obvious to me that even with the protests, the majority of game buyers don't really care about this.
 
No way i would pay that for monthly access with no full games provided. If they had at least one major title (or even an older title that i hadn't played through), then i would be tempted to try it at least. However as is there is no way.
 
The only way it would be anything other than an epic fail would be if that $14.95 per month fee gave you access to every game in their library, anytime you chose, with no additional costs. If you are going to charge me for just the privilege of using your service, then charging me a premium whenever I want to use your service for what it is built for (actually playing a game, not just a demo), you will never EVER have me for a customer. And I can guarantee that sentiment will be virtually universal. Then if you factor in any connection issues and possible lag, downtimes, etc... There's not really much upside to this concept in cloud gaming.
 
Reloader2 said:
Is it wrong of me to hope they fail?
I just wouldn't want the future of gaming sitting in their hands. It actually scares me.
No, it's not wrong. I feel the same way. I would hate for the PC gaming industry to go this way. I've been hoping it would fail since I first heard about it. I like owning my game AND my PC.

Like other people have been saying, I think it might have been a good idea if it were an all-you-can-play approach for $14.99 a month, then it would probably do fairly well. Just look at WoW. Now, if the games that they make you "buy" are actually yours to keep even after you stop the service, then I could see that being justifiable.
 
This is destined to fail and I want it to. No matter what is stated about gaming and gamers people want to own what they buy. Renting a game is not what gamers want, at least not me.
 
And what would happen if the servers crashes?, all the gamers won't be able to access their info offline, to me it will looks the same as the DRM problem with Ubisoft this month. We will all be depending on the reliability of some server outside our control. On a Galaxy far, far away...
 
Let me put it this way, if Steam made me pay monthly, I wouldn't have it. Then again, I'm in the generation that gives their entire paycheck away to monthly fees and sees 15 bucks as nothing.
 
hello ...

i want to try the online game portal, which is free to see if it works for me & if i will go for it.

cheers!
 
tengeta said:
Let me put it this way, if Steam made me pay monthly, I wouldn't have it. Then again, I'm in the generation that gives their entire paycheck away to monthly fees and sees 15 bucks as nothing.

i have been thinking some more about this and am not sure i get the cost reasoning. One of the claimed benefits is that you won't have to keep upgrading your computer to be able to play the latest games. After 4 or so years i am going to want to upgrade my computer at this point regardless of gaming performance so that cost isn't going to go away. And at $15 a month or $180 a year i can buy a new mid-high end video card every year.

Maybe i could for adding high end gaming to more mobile devices as it would improve battery life, cost, and gaming ability (rather then having to include an embedded high end video card). Now that i say this it could make sense in that context.
 
This will fail Americas internet connections are way to unreliable at the moment maybe in 5-10 years down the line it will be a different story hopefully we have 100mb connection with 1ms latency.
what we really need is to have the next consoles bring this technology to local area networks i want to play my ps4 on any-screen of my house whether it be any TV, laptop or mobile. this will eliminate the latency issue, you could still buy physical media or digital media. that would be in all around win
imagine Networked external GPU thing
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back