OnLive Impression: Should You Care?

[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.

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.

No, that's fair. It's that whole Shrink-Wrap EULA thing that says by breaking the seal you've signed the EULA. It's murky business no matter how you break it down. Thankfully, it's never really an issue.

 

[Cynical skeptic]

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.

That really just means you could use/sell the copy as a frisbee if you wanted. You have no rights to the data on the disc. Transferring ownership of the disc also transferring ownership of the data is practically a legal loophole.

 

[oranger]

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.

That really just means you could use/sell the copy as a frisbee if you wanted. You have no rights to the data on the disc. Transferring ownership of the disc also transferring ownership of the data is practically a legal loophole.

Not really, you own the physical disc, which includes the pattern graved magnetically on its surface.

 

[Thor79]

I got an account when it started up...played the demo for Splinter Cell Conviction...and haven't really touched it since. Why, you ask?

For PC games nearly all games I play I can get through Steam. Right now it doesn't look like Steam is going anywhere...and it costs nothing for me to own games on Steam...except the cost of the game itself of course. So why would I buy games I want to play on a service that will eventually cost me money to keep playing those games. Along with that the possibility of the service not surviving due to low player adoption.

As for Console games...well I hardly play those as it is...my 360 collects dust every day. I sold my PS3 a while ago for the money and haven't really had a desire to get a new one. There are very few exclusives on consoles that interest me. That's one area that OnLive could fill...giving me access to the console exclusives...but I know that won't happen...as it seems like they really only offer up the big name PC titles. If they offered console only titles that I'm interested in I might consider picking them up. But again, we go back to the whole "it'll eventually cost money to keep playing" (not to mention keep owning!)...which seriously puts a damper on any enthusiasm I have to buy games on the service.

Their pricing model really needs work...it should be a flat fee with access to all of their games. A service fee plus fee for all games prices them out of the market. They just can't compete with other services out there. Also I should never lose ownership of the games just because I stopped subscribing. Losing access is understandable, as you are paying for their services...but I shouldn't have to re-buy games EVER. That's my biggest gripe with the service...and every time I get close to considering buying something on there, that thought stops me every time without fail. I mean...buying games for the full amount with the possibility of losing them? How stupid do you think I am?

 

[Tom Goldman]

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.

Hm, good to know. They need to update what they call "recommendations" to requirements. The reason why could be that they don't want the service to run in what they deem an inferior way... just like how they block you from using it with wifi or if your internet connection is having issues.

 

[Super Toast]

I'll be getting it in a couple of years, after it gains momentum.

 

[nYuknYuknYuk]

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.

I was going to do it to, but then they hit me with that. Also, they pulled the "free" trial trick. Oh yeah its free, but you have to give us your credit card info so when it isn't free anymore, we can charge you automatically for our service, and not inform you about this practice until your bill comes. Caught the little bugger in the fine print.

This sounds awesome though. Maybe I will be able to play new games at a framerate in the double digits.

 

[clankwise]

Seems intresting to me. I love pc games but have lost the last 3 years because of the shitbox im writting this with. Im actualy thinking of getting onlive. Price seems reasonable and i hate playing a game on low or have lag.

 

[Upbeat Zombie]

I wouldn't want to pay full price to rent a game. If the games cost less than retail price Id be a lot more interested.

 

[Lord_Gremlin]

This system can become more or less popular only if it will become 100% subscription based. $ per hour. And no "buying" games at all.

Or it may become for games what cinema is for movies.

 

[Drexlor]

I am not interested. I think that they should either have a subscription with unlimited access to all games on the site for free or make the site free to use and charge for each individual game.

 

[smithy1234]

They really expect someone to pay an fee for as long as they want to play? Very few people will do that.

So what I gather is that you find it hard to believe that they expect people to keep paying money to play a game they already bought?

Umm... World of Warcraft???? Millions of players???

 

[Sol_HSA]

There's one relatively simple way to make onlive work.

Buy a game from a store, install it on your pc, or play it via onlive.

You end up owning a copy of the game, but you can enjoy it through onlive if you prefer it, just like you can install a game on several PCs if you want (in most DRM cases).

Onlive would get their money through monthly subscriptions plus some kind of revenue share from developers. Developers would get potentially larger target audience.

Additionally they could sell the games like they do currently, as onlive-only, but at reduced price. That would tie customers tighter to onlive - but this should be a secondary market.

 

[rsvp42]

I can see how it would be an appealing choice, and as someone with an inferior, 4-year-old laptop (it barely handles Starcraft 2 on the lowest settings), I think it would be a good option. I'm in a position where I can afford games just fine if I wanted, even after all my bills are considered, but it would probably take me several months to save up enough for a decent gaming desktop. But I of course have internet, so a service like this could give me the opportunity to play more recent games that I've missed out on.

That being said, the money I'd dump into this service would simply delay the arrival of my glorious new desktop, so I think I'll pass. But for others, people who maybe can't see themselves spending all that cash on a new computer, I can see how this would be a good choice. Maybe an easy way to gift games to someone? The "rental" possibilities are nice as well. It'll be interesting to see if it can carve a niche for itself in this industry.

 

[Cynical skeptic]

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.

That really just means you could use/sell the copy as a frisbee if you wanted. You have no rights to the data on the disc. Transferring ownership of the disc also transferring ownership of the data is practically a legal loophole.

Not really, you own the physical disc, which includes the pattern graved magnetically on its surface.

Yep, hence the loophole.

If they had their (rightful) way, you'd have zero rights to the data. A situation they paid a lot of lawyers a lot of money to create in the EULA thats quietly invalidated by an old law designed to protect the rights of consumers, but also protects the rights of massive corporations who exploit it to sell each new copy upwards of five times.

... Err, sorry, wrong thread.

They really expect someone to pay an fee for as long as they want to play? Very few people will do that.

So what I gather is that you find it hard to believe that they expect people to keep paying money to play a game they already bought?

Umm... World of Warcraft???? Millions of players???

... onlive only hosts single player games with, at best, peer to peer multiplayer¿ ... uh, what¿ God fucking damnit, see what you did¿¿ Everyone has to use inverted question marks because you used all the normal ones!

 

[cerebus23]

If this were a streaming rental service, charged people 8 10 bucks for 2 3 days, then it would be really appealing. If this service really will end up supporting console games to pc and so on then it could be really interesting. No more locked out of exclusives or waiting for months for the pc version to be released.

And in this day and age not all games are created equal i like to won some games but there is many games i would just have perfered to rent because they are not simply good enough or deep enough that owning them gives me any added value for my dollar. Games have to be really good to warrant 50 to 60 dollars, or more depending where you live, single player games have to be really epic to get more than one play through, like batman AA. Then you got your call of duty games if your not into the multiplayer thing, but would like to check out the rather good but short single player part of the game a rental based service would seem ideal since you could blast thru the sp of any cod game in like 6 to 10 hours, and if you are not a multiplayer person is that worth 50 to 60 bucks?

I am sure that this service will evolve and expand as time goes on if they turn into not only a service that you can own games off of but rent games also and if there is a all out subscription give people one or two free rentals a month for their money invested that would make a subscription worth it if they had enough games on the service. And if they went that route they would generate sales in the real world and off their site if they did something like that and people discover games they enjoy.

 

[tomtom94]

I say that these sorts of services are the future of the gaming industry.
Soon, we're all going to be on fibre-optic broadband, so there's not going to be any problems on that front.
They'll give developers the chance to be their own publishers.

The other thing they do is give us the ability to have our money extorted from us every time we want to play a game, so they'll be very popular with the companies on the other end of the spectrum.

 

[Cynical skeptic]

I say that these sorts of services are the future of the gaming industry.
Soon, we're all going to be on fibre-optic broadband, so there's not going to be any problems on that front.

Fiberoptic just increases throughput, but the data itself can't travel faster than light and every router or transfer station between you and a server just increases latency.

Thats the reason every single detractor is screaming, "can't work." Not because we need more bandwidth. Bandwidth is pretty easy. Its that damned law of relativity thats stopping MMOs from being better and onlive from being a sustainable business model.

Stupid Einstein.

Not to mention, a similar service practically can't happen at all in europe. There'd need to be a server in every country, as latency always takes a significant hit from national borders.

Austrailia... I don't think its possible to place a server to effectively service even a tenth of it's population.

Seriously, cloud gaming is utterly restricted to countries with nationalized internet.

 

[Abedeus]

Nope. I just bought 5770, the only game that can't run on best settings so far is Bad Company 2 when playing Campaign mode in 32 players. Absolutely no reasons for me to care about it.

Now, when they release console games and I like them... Oooh Ninja Gaiden...

 

[tomtom94]

I say that these sorts of services are the future of the gaming industry.
Soon, we're all going to be on fibre-optic broadband, so there's not going to be any problems on that front.

Fiberoptic just increases throughput, but the data itself can't travel faster than light and every router or transfer station between you and a server just increases latency.

Thats the reason every single detractor is screaming, "can't work." Not because we need more bandwidth. Bandwidth is pretty easy. Its that damned law of relativity thats stopping MMOs from being better and onlive from being a sustainable business model.

Stupid Einstein.

Not to mention, a similar service practically can't happen at all in europe. There'd need to be a server in every country, as latency always takes a significant hit from national borders.

Austrailia... I don't think its possible to place a server to effectively service even a tenth of it's population.

Seriously, cloud gaming is utterly restricted to countries with nationalized internet.

Good name.
Well, considering some countries say broadband is now a human right, we're not far away from the futuristic societies where everyone is connected to the internet...all the time...using their heads.
I reckon humanity can find a way around a few minor laws of physics...