Interesting...I thought 720p would be available immediately with a 5 Mb/s connection. When this service was mentioned before, I and several others expressed concern over the clients ping and jitter having a huge effect on game play.These concerns are still valid haha. $15 dollars does seem like a lot for just a cover charge. With a <24 game library, I find it even more difficult to even consider this a good deal at launch. But I would like to emphasize that I realize my complaints may dissolve as the platform evolves. But it seems like right now, many stars must align for this to be worthwhile.

Reply

I'd have to try a demo first because I'm really not convinced that this will work as well as the more traditionnal way of playing games. Plus, the pricing is not that interesting if you need to pay 15$ every month and then some more to actually play a full game, not just a demo. Good luck OnLive!

Reply

Band Wagon

I got to jump on the posts band wagon. $15 a month to play demos and social stuff, plus you have to pay to actually play a game is just too much. You can get demos for free in many places, hence the term demo. I'll put that money toward other games. Actually if I just put that money aside for 6 months I could afford a new 32GB SSD instead.

Reply

Good for people who don't wanna upgrade, I didn't drop over a grand on my computer to stream games.

Reply

So I have to pay 15 dollars a month, and still buy the video games? And there's a better than average chance that the games will lag? I think I'll just stick to buying my games from retail, or torrenting them, and playing them on my computer as is. I'd rather take a graphics drop because my graphics card sucks than to play a game with a ton of lag.

Reply

$15 a month plus the price of renting the game? Fail.

PC gaming will still win.

Reply

Yah, the more I hear about this service (including the reported laggy and unresponsive play during beta testing), the less I am impressed. I think somebody was smokin something questionable when they came up with the pricing structure, I mean $15/month just for the basic connection? Then you pay more for a title you want to "buy" to play, but it's still all virtual and completely dependent on their service quality? Really?

So in 6 months, when the service fails due to lack of interest in overpaying for lower quality, all those suckers (err, I mean customers) who paid for games get what? A nod and a wave and a "thanks for your money" note maybe?

At least with services like Steam, you have some stability to count on for you games to be there for you. I wouldn't trust something like OnLive until it had proven it will be around for a long while. I think that if most people think like me, it will doom the service to failure before it even gets off the starting block.

Reply

I'll be amazed if this lasts more than a year. I just can't see people paying so much money for this service. The idea is interesting but I imagine the performance is going to be terrible. The price is certainly high IMO.

Reply

Wow, I thought that this concept might just bring in more people to the PC gaming community, but after seeing their marketing model, I'm afraid that it will fail.

Reply

Just what the already overloaded pipes of the Internet needs..people playing high resolution games in real time. What a tremendous waste of a finite resource. Hope it dies fast.

Reply