OnLive Impression: Should You Care?

[Tom Goldman]

OnLive Impression: Should You Care?

OnLive launched more than two months ago, so is it worth taking a look into the cloud?

First off, this isn't meant to be a definitive review of OnLive [http://www.onlive.com/], but a casual impression based on around fifteen hours of using the service. OnLive is bound to evolve as its creators figure out how to use the technology they have. However, we can certainly make a judgement of OnLive based on what is available at the current time.

Quick overview: OnLive is a cloud gaming serivce that streams videogames you would normally play on a PC or Mac (or console) to that same computer from OnLive servers, negating system requirements. The only requirement is a wired broadband connection. Simply install the service and you can start playing right away after you've made a game purchase, though OnLive recommends that users have a dual-core CPU and a monitor that can display 1280x720 resolution.

The big question is: Does it work? Yes, actually. Testing it from my home (not a secret OnLive testing facility) OnLive works really well. Forget latency tests: I didn't notice any lag at all between my input and the actions on screen. It was as if I had installed Mafia II [http://www.amazon.com/Mafia-II-Xbox-360/dp/B000ZK698C/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=videogames&qid=1283042464&sr=8-1] (released the same day as retail) and was making my rise through a criminal organization right here on my PC and not through the internet. I will definitively say that gamers with inferior PCs can benefit from the service OnLive provides. It was also nice to be able to start playing a game on my home computer, and then to continue it at another location (with a wired connection) through my laptop, on which the positive play experience was duplicated.

But it's not perfect. Users of OnLive have to face the fact that access to their games is dependent on a stable internet connection. It's not OnLive's fault if my internet connection falters, but it's still a factor beyond my control that I personally don't want affecting my gaming experience. Also, you cannot leave a game sitting to go eat dinner. If a game doesn't save your progress regularly, you may have to replay portions if you get distracted for 15 minutes or longer, because OnLive automatically disconnects idle players.

One other minor negative is that the graphics aren't going to be as good as with an installed game at maximum settings. Comparing my home install of Borderlands [http://www.amazon.com/Borderlands-Pc/dp/B000WQ1XIA/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=videogames&qid=1283042716&sr=8-3] to the OnLive streaming version of Borderlands, it looked like OnLive also locks its titles at maximum or near-maximum settings, but there is a small amount of blurring that occurs at times (which I also noticed in Mafia II). For people that wouldn't be able to play these games on their computers otherwise, this is a negligible aspect of the service.

Further, the cost structure is not going to be perfect for everyone. For the current year OnLive has no monthly fee, but players must either pay full price for games for unlimited play or pay a smaller fee to receive a shorter play pass (3 days or 5 days), like a rental. OnLive users must also acknowledge that they only own their purchased games as long as they're subscribed to the service, which will cost them at least $4.95 per month if they sign up early for their second year (after the first free year), so presumably this cost will rise for those that get in late. This makes sense, just like the monthly subscription to an MMOG makes sense, as OnLive has to keep up its servers and hardware. However, it is a factor that should be kept in mind.

Which is why OnLive isn't for me. I built my own computer late last year, and enjoy the practice. I would rather purchase a physical or digital copy of a game that I own forever and run it on my home computer at high settings perfectly. I understand exactly what OnLive CEO Steve Perlman meant when he said OnLive is not for hardcore gamers [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/102173-OnLive-CEO-Says-Service-Is-Not-For-Hardcore-Gamers] now, but that doesn't mean it's not a great piece of technology, and it also doesn't mean OnLive is not for the other kinds of gamers out there.

OnLive is for anyone with an older PC that wants to play Mafia II on that old hunk of junk right now. Don't have a powerful videocard? No problem. OnLive is free for a year if you sign up by the end of 2010, so for now it's simply a streaming storefront. Even if it ends up with a monthly fee of $10 or $20 a month, that fee is replacing the cost of purchasing, building, or upgrading a computer. If the average computer can produce high-level videogame performance for around 3 years, that $360 to $720 for 3 years of OnLive would probably cost less than said computer.

At the very least, OnLive is a wonderful videogame rental service, like Perlman says, and is a great way for gamers that don't want to worry about PC issues to not have to. In a way, it brings the ease of console gaming to the PC, if users can accept the internet connectivity requirements and payment structure. The OnLive MicroConsole, which will put OnLive games on your television, also has tremendous potential, and though it'll be tough to go up against Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo, it should throw some spice into the mix when it launches.

OnLive has 26 games currently available from Lego Harry Potter [http://www.amazon.com/Batman-Arkham-Asylum-Game-Playstation-3/dp/B003C1I06U/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=videogames&qid=1283042940&sr=8-5]. A current deal running will give players a free game when they purchase Mafia II, so OnLive won't be a stranger to sales and deals either. It's not going to light the world of hardcore gamers on fire just yet, but it works, so those more casual with their PC upgrading practices could definitely benefit from what OnLive offers.

Permalink

 

[silver wolf009]

In all honesty I really dont see this as such a great idea. For one thing if you want to enjoy a good single player game, you need internet connection. I know they've fielded this question millions of times all ready but I forsee incredible lagg. I dont know about you but ive always felt better with a disk in my hands, not a line of code giving confimation that I have the game/add on. They really expect someone to pay an fee for as long as they want to play? Very few people will do that. There is no real advantage over consolse except the drive to the store, and PC already has emulators and Steam/ Steam-like knock off programs.

 

[wasalp]

Onlive is a service that holds alot of potential. The thing holding it back, to my eyes, is the payment method. Maybe if you were to only pay a monthly fee and have access to all the games it would become much more appealing...to me atleast.

 

[the_pleasure_is_mine]

I wanted to try it at the words '1 year free trial'.

... 'OnLive is not yet available for players under 18 years old' ...

Well f*ck you too.

I was never that impressed by the concept and the one chance you had to change my mind you screwed up... I'll stick with my limited edition physical copies.

 

[Twad]

A rather own my games on my PC. I mean, serioulsy, why would i bother using something like ON-live? With it i would own my full-priced games even less.

I can access my stuff whenever i want already (except with steam, some games dont want to play in offline mode for some reason).. so why add an in-between that gets in the way and also charge me to access my stuff i paid for?

As for "rentals" i just check on the net if demos are available, check some LPs or whatever else on the net, or see if my friends buyed it and ask their opinion or try it out myself.

 

[Irridium]

It sounds appealing, but honestly I like owning my games. No offence to the service or those that use it, I can see why they would. But I would much rather have physical versions of my games. And besides, I'm not too big on Digital Distribution anyway. One reason is because for me its unreliable and takes forever, and another reason is that I love, love that new-game smell.

 

[The Austin]

Should I care? I should and I do!

 

[LoopyDood]

I'd try it out if the one year free deal was available to residents outside the United States.

 

[Pandora92]

I've said this before but, not even taking ANY of the other serious issues with the service into account, playing games at 1280X720? No thanks, I like being able to play at my monitor's native resolution and have for the past 7 years or so.

 

[warprincenataku]

It's good for players who have lower end computers, I'll give em that.

But, it's not for me. Also, I live in Thailand. I don't think their service reaches me. lol

 

[Fenixius]

Basically, OnLive looks interesting, but won't work outside of the US and maybe Korea (where I expect it'll fail due to the prevalence of LAN café's) due to logistical, infrastructure-reasons. That said, I'm unsure of the average internet connection speed in Europe, so it's possible it'd work there, too? They'd definitely need local servers, though.

I'd love to know how much bandwidth it requires to stream a game at 720p. That'd have to be the minimum. If there's above about 80ms input delay, it's not viable for any game which has real-time gameplay elements.

And then there are all the concerns that Tenmar has brought up; pricing and ownership.

So yeah, I don't think OnLive is going to be very significant in the short-to-mid-term at least.

 

[Colonel Alzheimer's]

The idea has a lot of potential, but until they allow you to own games it is not for me.

 

[Jumplion]

Is this service available world-wide or is it US only or something similar? On top of that, how many users are currently in the program? I ask this because if the service only has 100k people right now, while impressive, it would only be in the US with US internet and such. Going overseas, and with that more people, varying internet connections, etc...would probably be the biggest obstacle OnLive would have.

Overall, I'm still very skeptical of OnLive. I think when I first heard about it I got the feeling that the creators believed that it would "change the world" or something, but so far it hasn't really "rocked my world" in any way.

The main thing I dislike about OnLive is the fact that it is completely online. I cannot play any of my games unless I have an internet connection, and while I do have a fairly stable connection, that doesn't stop shit from happening. What if the servers shut down completely? What if a virus makes its way into the OnLive servers? What if my internet shuts off completely mid-game and I can't play my games? Does that mean I don't own them anymore? And again, what about people not in the US? Not everyone has a stable connection, so the time it would take just to get connected could be spent just going to the store and buying a physical copy where you know you own it.

I'm going for a "wait and see" thing with OnLive, though I've already got a pimped out computer now, so I have no use for it at the moment. It will be interesting to see what comes of it, but personally I'm seeing moderate to low success.

 

[Galaxy613]

But it ISN'T for people with older PC's, it doesn't just "Reccomend" a Core 2 Duo processor, it strictly enforces it. I was able to play OnLive games on my netbook GREAT until they "Fixed" the launcher so it excluded my hardware. And my netbook is only 1.6Ghz CPU at 1024x600, and it was working great, yet they STILL FORCE me not be able to use the service on it! I have no bloodly clue why they are deliberately holding their service back.

Stupid stuff like that, and already owning all the major consoles and my own hand-built PC pretty much makes OnLive a silly toy for me.

 

[oranger]

I think we all should care about Onlive but not for the reasons we normally think and this applies to Steam and any other online distribution. Ownership.

Mr.Perlman is absolutely right that Onlive is not for the hardcore gaming demographic from a consumer perspective even if the games are seen as "hardcore". What Mr.Perlman's demographic will be those who cannot even afford a console or a average PC but still want to play games. So to be blunt and a bit harsh is that Mr.Perlman is going for those who are wealthy enough to buy games but poor enough that they cannot really own anything.

I think the problem with this aside from consumer making that poor decision by buying games is that Mr.Perlman doesn't realize that the demographic he is looking for might not even have the internet connection required to support the service but that isn't his problem technically.

However this is also a slap to the face to those consumers because the press nor Mr.Perlman himself has really talked about the property rights to the game and what happens should the consumer ends that subscription. There is so much legal gray matter much like steam that is simply being overlooked by the game journalist community so that consumers can be well informed on the service that Onlive provides. Who really owns the games if not only does the consumer have to pay a monthly fee but also the games themselves? It just seems like a bad pricing model.

I know Onlive isn't for us here on the Escapist but as consumers we should be more informed with ownership and property rights with products like Onlive for making us ask "what do we really own?".

Actually, you own nothing, not even the subscription time you paid for. its pretty much standard practice for any online gaming system. Which is sad, you know? some games, like wow, go a step beyond this and literally own any data detected by their "anti-cheating" program on your comp when you play (The Warden even reads the addresses on your MSN, apparently...so Yeah, if you are working on say, a game while playing wow, it stands to reason they then own whatever you were working on. Its in the EULA somewhere).

 

[DTWolfwood]

I like this concept. can't say i agree with its pricing of charging you full price for the game (Full price Rental D. BUT if this was a Gamefly kinda deal ($10 a month and u get 3 picks of games each month to play) then I'll definitely give it a try.

just too bad i actually own a pretty beefy Gaming PC and isnt starving for money.

 

[Cynical skeptic]

If onlive becomes popular, costs of maintaining and upgrading server farms (much less, opening new ones) will eradicate any prayer of profit. So you'll have overloaded servers giving a uniformly shitty experience to all subscribers because onlive needs 35% more customers before they could even break even on the costs of setting up another server farm.

Gaikai can work. But only because japan nationalized their internet infrastructure, and every citizen has access to dirt cheap >70mbs lines with minimal latency (thanks mostly to the size of the island).

 

[Hiphophippo]

It sounds appealing, but honestly I like owning my games. No offence to the service or those that use it, I can see why they would. But I would much rather have physical versions of my games. And besides, I'm not too big on Digital Distribution anyway. One reason is because for me its unreliable and takes forever, and another reason is that I love, love that new-game smell.

Minor point here, but remember you don't "own" your games. You license them from the publisher whether you have a physical copy or not.

That said, while Onlive clearly isn't for me, I've said it once and I'll say it again. Services LIKE onlive (and maybe Onlive itself) are the future of gaming...It just seems about 20 years out.

 

[LunarCircle]

I think we all should care about Onlive but not for the reasons we normally think and this applies to Steam and any other online distribution. Ownership.

Mr.Perlman is absolutely right that Onlive is not for the hardcore gaming demographic from a consumer perspective even if the games are seen as "hardcore". What Mr.Perlman's demographic will be those who cannot even afford a console or a average PC but still want to play games. So to be blunt and a bit harsh is that Mr.Perlman is going for those who are wealthy enough to buy games but poor enough that they cannot really own anything.

I think the problem with this aside from consumer making that poor decision by buying games is that Mr.Perlman doesn't realize that the demographic he is looking for might not even have the internet connection required to support the service but that isn't his problem technically.

However this is also a slap to the face to those consumers because the press nor Mr.Perlman himself has really talked about the property rights to the game and what happens should the consumer ends that subscription. There is so much legal gray matter much like steam that is simply being overlooked by the game journalist community so that consumers can be well informed on the service that Onlive provides. Who really owns the games if not only does the consumer have to pay a monthly fee but also the games themselves? It just seems like a bad pricing model.

I know Onlive isn't for us here on the Escapist but as consumers we should be more informed with ownership and property rights with products like Onlive for making us ask "what do we really own?".

Regarding property rights, it should be mentioned that the "unlimited" play is currently only guaranteed for three years "until at least June 17th, 2010".

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/full-list-of-onlive-pricing-options
http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-20010687-1.html

The reason is stated by the CEO of OnLive as being due to hardware/software upgrades, and whether the company is still in existence.

So, it seems that anyone using OnLive shouldn't expect any ownership rights to the games purchased for unlimited access. As for ending the OnLive subscription, the article stated that all access is lost once the subscription ends.

 

[Irridium]

It sounds appealing, but honestly I like owning my games. No offence to the service or those that use it, I can see why they would. But I would much rather have physical versions of my games. And besides, I'm not too big on Digital Distribution anyway. One reason is because for me its unreliable and takes forever, and another reason is that I love, love that new-game smell.

Minor point here, but remember you don't "own" your games. You license them from the publisher whether you have a physical copy or not.

First Sale Doctrine (using the US example but mostly the same everywhere) means you own a copy of whatever material you bought. Inherent is the rights to sale the copy, and use the copy how you please.

Software companies try to get around this by saying they are selling you a license to use their product, not a copy of the software. The EULAs are to that effect. However courts have held up in some situations where if the EULA was not fully disclosed to the customer prior to the sell (remember not agreeing means you can't use it, and since you have to start to install it to see it you can no longer return the opened copy of the software) that the EULA is void that First Sale Doctrine applies.

EULAs get a way with it mostly because nobody challenges them. At least in the US they have a track record of losing on many of the more restrictive clauses.

Just because they put it in writing does not mean it's legal.

Sorry to go off like that, but this point tends to get me fired up. And I'm already fired up due to an earlier thread. I should probably get off the site for now.