Will OnLive threaten the PS3 and the future of consoles?

[Nick]

OnLive is a new online service that stores video game data online, set to launch at the end of 2009. Either using a computer, or a special device that can be attached to your TV, the service can access games online and allow you to play them without any sort of home console. Lag has been cut back to nearly nonexistant, and the speed of your bandwidth determines the visual output. Slower connections will play at SD resolution, while faster ones can play at full 720p.

For example, you can get OnLive, plug it into your TV, and Stream games like Call of Duty or F.E.A.R. 2 straight to your TV, without needing any expensive home console.

Do you think this could threaten home consoles, like the PS3?

I personally think that high-speed internet is not reliable, nor widespread enough to make this a truly competitive service at the moment, but I think maybe in 10 years, this could possibly be where we see the industry headed.

[CASAIS]

I Think it is a step in the right direction but I don't think it will be a threat. Alot of People don't have reliable internet and I'm talking about the developed countries like US and Japan but alot of Developing nations ( Brasil, South Africa and even some European countries ) have alot to go to just catch up to where the world is now.

[Sauberbmw]

I dont think that it is a threat. consoles have been around for a very long time same with pc. many people are either console fans of PC fans so switching from those to this is going to be hard. even if it does beat out the consoles which is like a .00001% chance, it would still have to beat the juggernaut of gaming...the PC. its like Microsoft and its failed zune lol

[machado4]

the ones who dont have consoles would consider OnLive because why buy expensive consoles when you can save money for games, but im sure no one will make a switch

[SaintAvi]

I think the industry as a whole will be stepping towards digital distribution very soon in the next round of consoles, if not the one after that.

It'll help combat used game sales which hurt the developers.

The ONLIVE brand however is a unknown and I think will have a hard time going against established companies like Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft which have been in the biz for a while now. I predict that they will have a very rough start, if their pockets are deep enough to weather that however it may take hold.

I do not expect it to be a threat to the PS3 however, the PS3 already has an install base of over 20million users

[GamerMan]

It's obviously too early to get any info on the impact it will have on gaming systems and gaming stores but after reading many detailed articles and interviews today, I think it could quite easily begin to dominate over time.

[lloyd]

Could This Be The Gaming Platform To End All Gaming Platforms?!?!?! I don't think so? OnLive doesn't seem like a much of a threat to anyone really. On the drawing board it's a great idea for sure, but it faces too many feats that it would have to overcome to be successful.

Slow or even nonexistant internet access. The 5Mbps speeds needed for 720p gameplay. The severs needed to run all of that (I wouldn't be surprised if they crashed constantly). It doesn't have a fan base unlike Sony, M$, and Nintendo. The controller looks just plan ugly and uncomfortable. The prices are probably going to be high. And even at its best, right now anyway, it's delivering a sub par gaming experience.

I wanna say I hope it works out for them but at the same time I want to see it fail. It's basically added another platform into the market and I for one think it's full enough as is.

[ColinR]

I think it's a bit too good to be true. What if the server gets laggy. What if your connection fails? Im still undecided on this one. :/

[m0tl3sl4y3r]

Me, I'm probably undecided, who knows where it could go, consoles have been around 4 pretty long now and most gamers are very used to them, so it would take a while 4 a transition 2 occur. That service will probably have a lot of problems at first though. I'll still play consloe though

[DarthNemesis]

the ones who dont have consoles would consider OnLive because why buy expensive consoles when you can save money for games, but im sure no one will make a switch

Well because to play the great games made by Sony you need to buy a Playstation.

[Dustin S.]

I personally hope it fails. No im not mean and i honestly like to see other people become succesful, its just i dont want to see downloads or streaming take over, i rather own a hard copy of a game in some fashion.

The thing i hate about onlive is there is no way to save a game. So if a storm is brewing or you have an ISP ( i do have on like this) that shuts it off in the middle of the night randomly all the time, your pretty much screwed. Then yeah it works flawlessly right? Thats under there conditions which are more than likely perfect with no other computers on the line, no sharing with neighbors, and a pure source right to the console. The first buffer and im gone...

In my opinion it will just become another one of those networks that are all around today. Forget what its called but their is a site that does this already, lets you streamline games for like 10 bucks a month. Service has done nothing to PS3 or Xbox. If anything it will just become a third console but thats about the most it can do, yes i said third unless nintendo ever really makes a next generation system lol. Sony will still have its exclusives, still have all the features of PS3, including Blu-ray, and will still offer alot more than it justifying the 600 dollar price tag, well 400 price tag. There is no real need to worry, it will become a standby product in less than 3 months i gurentee it.

[tonzie]

I agree with Dustin for the most part. OnLive definitely does hold some potential, but I don't really see it going anywhere.
The thing is, most ISPs also charge people for going over their bandwidth every month. When I say charge, I mean sometimes billing you over $200 extra because you went a couple MB over.
They either do this, or they shut your access off until the end of the month.
Both of these factors will become big hate factors for the average consumer, because they will happen. OnLive streams games and audio, making it more like the size of a movie. Great, but if you're playing for about 5 hours a day, that movie is going to sue up a lot of bandwidth, especially if it's HD.
My point, society is not ready for OnLive, not yet. It's too costly for the average consumer, and a lot of people won't be able to part with their current gen style, tangible games, that you can hold, collect etc.

Or maybe this is all me just hoping that OnLive doesn't succeed hahaha.

[m0tl3sl4y3r]

I agree with the 2 guys before me. I'd rather have a hard copy of a game and who knows what kind of problems that onlive can have. MOst people probably don't have a perfect internet connection. Stick with consoles is what I think.

[EIN]

The industry disagrees with all of you and is moving with it

whether for good or ill is yet to be seen



let's watch

[m0tl3sl4y3r]

The industry disagrees with all of you and is moving with it

whether for good or ill is yet to be seen



let's watch

regardless of the industry disagreeing with us or not, we are the people who will pay for all this stuff, and if we prefer consoles then they should stick with making consloes because thats how they will make more money

[EIN]

regardless of the industry disagreeing with us or not, we are the people who will pay for all this stuff, and if we prefer consoles then they should stick with making consloes because thats how they will make more money

they're trying to innovate, and if you don't like it, they straight up don't need your business.

There are plenty of people psyched about onLive, even Jaffe (GodofWar creator, who is notoriously cranky) cannot stop extolling the virtues of onLive.

people preferred CDs and cassettes back in the day for their music... and look how that industry is nowadays... stupid iTunes...

it isn't always up to the consumer; technology moves and the world moves with it.

If onLive is cheap, effective and affordable, why wouldn't it supercede consoles as the main gaming medium? Think of how much money developpers would save on production costs; the millions they would accrue by not producing thousands of hard copies of games would more than be enough of an incentive to switch over. Think of the casual gamer (who outnumber us somewhere around 1000:1) who can just pick up a little box to hook up to his bargain discount PC and begin playing immediately, compared to the chump who shells out 499$ for a console with no preloaded games on it. Digital streaming media is already a constant in networking and distribution centers, gaming is just the next logical step.

This doesnt mean consoles will die out; there will always be some niche market somewhere for someone. It just means consoles stand a good chance of being put onto the backbench of history, where people like you demand hard copies of their purchases. Think of those cooky people who pay with checks at the grocery store... that'll be the kind of people who won't switch over

[Dustin S.]

they're trying to innovate, and if you don't like it, they straight up don't need your business.


it isn't always up to the consumer; technology moves and the world moves with it.

If onLive is cheap, effective and affordable, why wouldn't it supercede consoles as the main gaming medium? Think of how much money developpers would save on production costs; the millions they would accrue by not producing thousands of hard copies of games would more than be enough of an incentive to switch over. Think of the casual gamer (who outnumber us somewhere around 1000:1) who can just pick up a little box to hook up to his bargain discount PC and begin playing immediately, compared to the chump who shells out 499$ for a console with no preloaded games on it. Digital streaming media is already a constant in networking and distribution centers, gaming is just the next logical step.

This doesnt mean consoles will die out; there will always be some niche market somewhere for someone. It just means consoles stand a good chance of being put onto the backbench of history, where people like you demand hard copies of their purchases. Think of those cooky people who pay with checks at the grocery store... that'll be the kind of people who won't switch over

Just to play devils advocate to your post. :)

At the same time the opposing side of this is just as strong and if anything its stronger. Sony and Microsoft are not going to stand by and watch this happen like that. They know how much money they are going to lose and will fight it off just like they do towards each other, thats the two biggest game companies out there saying that this new product is crap. Then they also have their true fanbases which keep them living alot better than the casual gamers that switch off to whatever is good. Let alone Sony will still play its current game. How many exclusive studios do they own? How many third parties will be willing to jump on board a PSN streaming service? Sony could easily talk companies into releasing the stream version over their network alongside the hard copies.

I think the Wii is the prime example of what will happen. A new console comes out, its extremely cheap, but has no good quality to it or its games. (dont get me wrong, yes wii has a couple) Casual gamers see through this, dont care about Bluray or Xbox Live and buy it, its cheap and easy to use. Skip down the road a little ways and now Xbox is cheap and PS3 is cheap and people are tired of Wii, what has been the news stories lately? Wii falling, Sony beating Wii, Sony gaining ground, Xbox outsells both.... Same thing will happen to OnLive. First few weeks to months, OH ITS GREAT GOTTA BUY IT!, given time for MS and Sony to beat it down with its own products and bam, OnLive becomes another streaming service thats already offered eslewhere.

The industry doesn't need the easily targeted Casual gamers, they need to introduce these gamers to the bigger market. Sony's PS2 is a good example of doing this, LOTS of casual games but did they ever market for those? No, they said hey check out our Socom or Killzone instead. Sony adapts to whatever is happening and finds a way to please its core base. Notice how PS3 has yet to explore casual gamers....because they were trying to get its core PS2 fans over and happy. They will jump into the streaming market too, but being console core there will also be that market.

Its not always true that cheaper always wins either. Music industry yes, but look at how bad it was failing to begin with. Its big again because downloads work with it, Ipod had HUGE success with absolutely no competition in its way. Onlive has plenty in its way and The game industry is far from failing. Look at movies, downloads and streaming video have been around for ages yet Blu-ray (the more expensive version) is taking over, sure in store rentals are failing but thats it. The movie industry was more than happy to jump on board the Blu-ray train. Plus another example of Sony adapting, you get downloads alongside the Blu-ray.

Then the game industry. People are not going to pay the same price for a streamed game as they do for one thats in stores, they dont even do that for online movies. So its going to have to be 20 to 30 dollars cheaper (devs lose that same amount mass producing hard copies). Then selling online cuts out all the other stores that market the games for you. Gamestop, Bestbuy, all of the big names are going to stop carrying your game and will no longer market it, have you notices they market Ipod and Zune in music yet when is the last time you have seen Eminem or Metallica advertised? Let alone stores like Gamestop will be shutting down if downloads or streaming takes over, thats thousands of jobs within the industry you just lost. People wont be able to rid of games they pay for in order to get money back for future games, used game sales will be nothing. (good for the industry, absolutely the worst point for the consumer which leads to them buying less). Plus whats stopping pirates? DRM in music couldn't hold them back....Windows Live isn't doing much better for PC games, and how much money does the movie industry lose to pirates? Is all of this worth it? Just to get more "efficient" for the industry? To make a blu-ray disc its like 10 cents a disc, then you have to pay Sony which im sure will be more than happy to work with you if its threatened....

Plus another thing with the Wii. Notice how the level of games is way lower than the PS3? If OnLive is more efficient, anything and everything that comes to mind will be released. Then why bother making a Killzone 2?

Then Sony can always jump in the game too. Streaming over PSN cant be too hard...Plus they already have the perfect idea. With Patapon 2, you can go into gamestop and buy the case that comes with a code to download it. So in theory you have what you want, something in your hands....plus its saving Gamestop in the long run.

I think OnLive will be good for PC gamers as they dont have to consitantly upgrade all the time, but if it becomes a success over consoles, the industry is going to undergo MAJOR changes. Companies will shut down and the way we play games will be changed for ever, it might even lose ALOT of gamers in the run too. However OnLive is coming way too soon to be a success. Like stated, connections are terrible for this and people are going to be raped by their ISP's, then game support wont be good and so on. If the industry truly wants this they need to let Sony and MS build towards it. Sony is getting there with PSP Go, MS is planning it with Xbox Live, and PSN is already a popular streaming movie service. Let them do things right, OnLive wont be succesful...I just hate that the industry is moving in this direction, ive always hated downloads, i still buy CD's over Itunes.

[m0tl3sl4y3r]

Just to play devils advocate to your post. :)

At the same time the opposing side of this is just as strong and if anything its stronger. Sony and Microsoft are not going to stand by and watch this happen like that. They know how much money they are going to lose and will fight it off just like they do towards each other, thats the two biggest game companies out there saying that this new product is crap. Then they also have their true fanbases which keep them living alot better than the casual gamers that switch off to whatever is good. Let alone Sony will still play its current game. How many exclusive studios do they own? How many third parties will be willing to jump on board a PSN streaming service? Sony could easily talk companies into releasing the stream version over their network alongside the hard copies.

I think the Wii is the prime example of what will happen. A new console comes out, its extremely cheap, but has no good quality to it or its games. (dont get me wrong, yes wii has a couple) Casual gamers see through this, dont care about Bluray or Xbox Live and buy it, its cheap and easy to use. Skip down the road a little ways and now Xbox is cheap and PS3 is cheap and people are tired of Wii, what has been the news stories lately? Wii falling, Sony beating Wii, Sony gaining ground, Xbox outsells both.... Same thing will happen to OnLive. First few weeks to months, OH ITS GREAT GOTTA BUY IT!, given time for MS and Sony to beat it down with its own products and bam, OnLive becomes another streaming service thats already offered eslewhere.

The industry doesn't need the easily targeted Casual gamers, they need to introduce these gamers to the bigger market. Sony's PS2 is a good example of doing this, LOTS of casual games but did they ever market for those? No, they said hey check out our Socom or Killzone instead. Sony adapts to whatever is happening and finds a way to please its core base. Notice how PS3 has yet to explore casual gamers....because they were trying to get its core PS2 fans over and happy. They will jump into the streaming market too, but being console core there will also be that market.

Its not always true that cheaper always wins either. Music industry yes, but look at how bad it was failing to begin with. Its big again because downloads work with it, Ipod had HUGE success with absolutely no competition in its way. Onlive has plenty in its way and The game industry is far from failing. Look at movies, downloads and streaming video have been around for ages yet Blu-ray (the more expensive version) is taking over, sure in store rentals are failing but thats it. The movie industry was more than happy to jump on board the Blu-ray train. Plus another example of Sony adapting, you get downloads alongside the Blu-ray.

Then the game industry. People are not going to pay the same price for a streamed game as they do for one thats in stores, they dont even do that for online movies. So its going to have to be 20 to 30 dollars cheaper (devs lose that same amount mass producing hard copies). Then selling online cuts out all the other stores that market the games for you. Gamestop, Bestbuy, all of the big names are going to stop carrying your game and will no longer market it, have you notices they market Ipod and Zune in music yet when is the last time you have seen Eminem or Metallica advertised? Let alone stores like Gamestop will be shutting down if downloads or streaming takes over, thats thousands of jobs within the industry you just lost. People wont be able to rid of games they pay for in order to get money back for future games, used game sales will be nothing. (good for the industry, absolutely the worst point for the consumer which leads to them buying less). Plus whats stopping pirates? DRM in music couldn't hold them back....Windows Live isn't doing much better for PC games, and how much money does the movie industry lose to pirates? Is all of this worth it? Just to get more "efficient" for the industry? To make a blu-ray disc its like 10 cents a disc, then you have to pay Sony which im sure will be more than happy to work with you if its threatened....

Plus another thing with the Wii. Notice how the level of games is way lower than the PS3? If OnLive is more efficient, anything and everything that comes to mind will be released. Then why bother making a Killzone 2?

Then Sony can always jump in the game too. Streaming over PSN cant be too hard...Plus they already have the perfect idea. With Patapon 2, you can go into gamestop and buy the case that comes with a code to download it. So in theory you have what you want, something in your hands....plus its saving Gamestop in the long run.

I think OnLive will be good for PC gamers as they dont have to consitantly upgrade all the time, but if it becomes a success over consoles, the industry is going to undergo MAJOR changes. Companies will shut down and the way we play games will be changed for ever, it might even lose ALOT of gamers in the run too. However OnLive is coming way too soon to be a success. Like stated, connections are terrible for this and people are going to be raped by their ISP's, then game support wont be good and so on. If the industry truly wants this they need to let Sony and MS build towards it. Sony is getting there with PSP Go, MS is planning it with Xbox Live, and PSN is already a popular streaming movie service. Let them do things right, OnLive wont be succesful...I just hate that the industry is moving in this direction, ive always hated downloads, i still buy CD's over Itunes.

I agree with pretty much everything you say there dude, PC gamers will probably like it more than console gamers. I think we should just let Sony and MS stream stuff

I think there will be an amlost even split between what is going to happen with onlive

I don't know how good the quality will be though

[m0tl3sl4y3r]

they're trying to innovate, and if you don't like it, they straight up don't need your business.

There are plenty of people psyched about onLive, even Jaffe (GodofWar creator, who is notoriously cranky) cannot stop extolling the virtues of onLive.

people preferred CDs and cassettes back in the day for their music... and look how that industry is nowadays... stupid iTunes...

it isn't always up to the consumer; technology moves and the world moves with it.

If onLive is cheap, effective and affordable, why wouldn't it supercede consoles as the main gaming medium? Think of how much money developpers would save on production costs; the millions they would accrue by not producing thousands of hard copies of games would more than be enough of an incentive to switch over. Think of the casual gamer (who outnumber us somewhere around 1000:1) who can just pick up a little box to hook up to his bargain discount PC and begin playing immediately, compared to the chump who shells out 499$ for a console with no preloaded games on it. Digital streaming media is already a constant in networking and distribution centers, gaming is just the next logical step.

This doesnt mean consoles will die out; there will always be some niche market somewhere for someone. It just means consoles stand a good chance of being put onto the backbench of history, where people like you demand hard copies of their purchases. Think of those cooky people who pay with checks at the grocery store... that'll be the kind of people who won't switch over

first of all, I know they're trying to innovate

second of all, I'm not the only 1 who doesn't see that it'll work (right now anyways), just look at all of the people who have said stuff on this forum

third of all, the industry might not want to ignore a lot of people, even though people on this forum is not a lot of people

fourth of all, I won't deny that probably there is an about equal amount of people who do like this idea

I just don't think that this work right now, but I won't deny that this could very well be the future of gaming

But as for right now, I'm just gonna stick with my PS3

But I do agree with your previous post EIN, lets just wait and see

[SaintAvi]

One way or another, digital distribution will become the norm at some point in time, someone high up on gamestop even made an off camera comment that they know their days are over

[EIN]

Well Dustin I think you may have overlooked the fact that Microsoft and Sony jumping onto the streaming bandwagon will almost completely kill off their support of consoles in the long run. Reason? The market is moving that way, competition is going that way, technology is going that way, etc. And Sony has notoriously poor relationships with ALOT of their 3rd party devs... especially the non-Japanese ones. Sony also has very very few exclusive studios. How likely/capable is Sony going to be able to convince devs from abstaining to move with the new wave? And if they did, why would the devs bother to make hardcopies concurently? When onLive hits and Sony Cloud (or wtv) passes through, there will undoubtly be a back and forth war between streaming and hardware for sales and funding. While I'd love to debate more on how digital streaming media will eventually strip away hardcopies, we honestly cant say anything factual or empirical at this point.

About your point about price points and game distributors... Must be my own inner devils advocate, but I think it's out of whack. . Obviously onLive devs will gain from not having to physically produce hardcopies, but your argument about lost revenue from sales of the hardcopies just don't balance out the gain they would incur. Here's why: There are no shipping fees, printing fees, production wages or distribution rights when you stream onLive. You just finish development, send in the code, and you're done. Period. You argue that streaming will incur a drop in price point between 20-30 dollars per copy: so? It will change guaranteed. And it's still profit! Look whats been happening to DLC on XBLA and PSN (or iTunes Apps for that matter). DLC and most apps started out at the industry norm of around 1$... then the norm shifted up to around 3$... now 5$... It's now at a point where full games, which used to cost between 5-10$ are at 15-30$, while basic DLCs cost anywehre between 2$-10$... all within the period of about 2 years. And this is for EXISTING consoles, who are in a highly competive market. How much more drastic will the change be for such an inelastic product as gaming when onLive begins its monopoly? Prices will shoot through the roof before you know it, because who's gonna regulate it? onLive thats who. Until a copycat emerges. But thats just conjecture.

Gamestop knows its time has come. They've out and out said it. But theres an important point to be realized here. People who work for Gamestop or Best Buy ARE NOT in the gaming industry; they are in the service industry. They do not produce games, they do not develop games, they don't even manufacture them. They have no input into the quality of a game. They simply sell a commodity, and the fact of the matter is that the venue is changing. If their services are no longer required, how will that affect the gaming industry if onLive becomes popular? It won't. Devs don't care about Joe somebody who works at Gamestop, not should they; their focus is making great games, not keeping minimum wage workers employed. We as consumers shouldn't care either because it doenst affect the quality of our consumed products (that we know of yet anyways). Hell, devs HATE USED GAMES SALES. Don't believe me? Look at EA's DNA system that they've implemented with their new sports games; you cant play online if the game has been re-sold. Jaffe threw a fit when talking about used game sales because devs never see that money go back to them anyways, its purely to the distributor. Gamestop will close (as will HMV, MusicPlus, etc.), thousands will be unemployed, but it will happen anyways in the long run, with or without onLive. And devs and publishers will find other ways and venues to market their merchandise; they always have before. But again, this is conjecture at this point, time will tell if I'm right or not.

Pirating? You're STREAMING a game... explain to me how pirating it will work? Assuming you decoded the ENTIRE game, saved it somewhere and was able to extract it again... So what? You wouldn't be able to play online with it, the space and time it would require would be exorbitant, and onLIve will almost definitely have countermeasures set up with the encoding, such as doing a critical server handshake check periodically to make sure the user is still using onLive when playing.

If you took a look at its info, you'd also see that onLive is re-releasing several existing blockbuster current gen games. This won't be shovelware like the Wii Dustin... Games like Mirror's Edge, FEAR 2, Burnout and Bisohock are slated for its release date. Hardcore games will be readily available, indeed plentiful on onLive. The beauty of it is that it will allow for gamers without master rig PCs to join in the fun. This won't be dumbing the industry down to casual gamers, as you seem to worry, but it will make the industry more accessible to casual gamers becuase they won't need to shell out for a dedicated system. onLive is NOTHING LIKE THE WII... at least not that we can see so far. This is a change of venue, not a niche market. Shovelware may come up, as it invariably does, but onLive was created to support high fidelity games, its basic purpose is designed around that function. The Wii was not. It was developped to be limited, cheap and fun to play. Comparison between the two systems is like comparing a bicycle to a Porsche. It just doesnt hold up.

If you guys don't believe what I wrote, take a look at the info onLive have put up... they are surely more comprehensive than I.
http://www.onlive.com/service/hot_new_games.html

I'm not saying onLive will destroy console gaming... I'm saying that the technology will. If it becomes successful (and it has all the chances of that happening), the industry itself will likely shift to digital streaming. When that happens, we'd be able to substitute everything we've been discussing on this thread about onLive, and replace the name with Sony Cloud or wtv oppurtunistic rival pops up, and our arguments would still hold up. And thats the real danger that onLive presents to console gamers... not the machine itself, but what the machine represents. And for the record, I'm against onLive myself because I enjoy running things on a master rig or dedicated system. But that wont stop the industry from moving forward. And we can only guess at how things will turn out at this point.

[m0tl3sl4y3r]

One way or another, digital distribution will become the norm at some point in time, someone high up on gamestop even made an off camera comment that they know their days are over

I won't deny that that digital distribution will become the norm a t some point, because it probably will

[tonzie]

I won't deny that that digital distribution will become the norm a t some point, because it probably will

I also agree, but I don't see it happening soon. At least, I hope it doesn't hahah.

[Dustin S.]

EIN just for the devils advocate again, im not saying Download or streaming or whatever wont become heavy on the industry, im mostly saying OnLive and their version of streaming will fail. Onlive isnt going to succeed, it will just be another DreamCast or Atari that gets pushed aside, where a better company runs through and takes over. Its like the Sega CD, Sony came along and destroyed it with PlayStation.

I cant quote you cus its too long lol. But about the fee's. You also have to take into account companies paying the developers to house their games. Bestbuy sells EA games, they pay EA to have those games and wont get a single copy they dont pay for, they turn around and sell that game to us at a way Bestbuy makes a profit. EA only has to print so many copies to fill that, but they already have money at hand and have no need to sell the game any further. Then you have to realise, Bestbuy isnt the only company paying them. Gamestop and all the other major sources are giving them millions too. Sure it costs some more to mass produce...Sure the price might go back up over time but in this sense you only make as much as the game sells. If bestbuy buys out 100 copies, only sells 3, well tough luck for them. Plus all these companies just opened up to producing on Blu ray and are getting into gear with the hardware etc...I dont think they will trash all of that.

And no Gamestop isnt technicly apart of the industry, but when thousands or the whole entire chain all of a sudden disapears how will consumers look at that? They no longer walk in the mall and have Gamestop staring at them in the face, or down the street, or even the thousands of games Walmart and Bestbuy have. They think Games are a thing of the past now, except the occasional advertisments that show up around town. They think its there but think its in trouble and dont want to bother with it. If Sony and MS were to do it, they would more easily transition into it over time and make things easier. Plus sure devs truly hate used games, but isntead of going straight to canceling out Gamestop why not work a deal out with them to get a percent of the profits? Think about the consumer here is all im saying. Where do a majority of gamers rest? Kids to teens...Who has the credit cards? Parents and adults. Who only needs 30 dollars because he cant afford the 60 dollar game? The kid...which then says to the parent "its 30 dollars cheaper PLEASE!!!!" That and the fact that its a service make me think even less likely of the price increase. The only reason i say this is because its a stream and your not technicly owning anything, people will be eery of this no matter what. Your basicly RENTING a game, and look how that turned out when EA said that about SPORE.

Which leads me to the next point. Its not always going to be a Stream. Microsoft doesnt want it to be a stream, they want it to be a full download and thats been known for a while. People want to own things, and a stream is completely opposite of that. Let alone i dount playing COD4 online will be nice online...I mean playing online with a PS3 as is takes enough bandwith as is, now you want to stream the entire game and then play online on top of that. I guess GTA4 would show how this works when the service launches, but i dont know about that idea.

About the games, thats why i was saying PC gamers will probably love it. But thats just for now, like i mentioned there are other services that offered games like that from the get go too. EA jumped on bored and said here is some games, then they also tagged along games like Tony Hawk and Tomb Raider or Splinter Cell, but the services failed and now they dont get anything till its old or no good. Plus Sony has plenty of support. They have so many exclusive titles heading their way right now that its not funny, and not a single one of those titles will hit OnLive at all. And ok lets say Sony really does have third party issues, you still have Microsoft thats pushing its console too and all their exclusives. All im saying is this service will just be like the others, get games late if ever and have poor support. They have no exclusives at all and since its so easy to get a game on there, everything will be released ASAP with no high importance on how good it is.

done being devils advocate for this post from here

I just want to say, yeah i agree with your points just bringing up the opposite side of discussion to get some convos going, spark interest. :) As for the service, I rather see Microsoft and Sony do it then OnLive as a gamer. As a gamer i trust Sony and the PlayStation name to do things right, so if this serves was called PlayStation 4 id probably give it a look the day it comes out. Will i like the "streaming" service or the download service, no ill absolute hate it but like we all agree its something we are going to HAVE to do and saying good bye to gamestop will be the hardest thing in the world to do. I dont stream movies, dont download movies, never downloaded a song, and never purchased a stream in my life because of this and if hard copies of games are offered ill be more likely to buy those than the downloads. Lets say hard copies come out later, ill wait, be more than happy to do that. Plus another idea that came to mind is that with streaming services, Sony and Ms wont offer consoles that offer more than just games anymore, otherwise its still a console war, so with that being said doesnt that mean we are one more step closer to the universal console? That would suck for so many reasons haha.

[EIN]

too much conjecture and postulation, not enough fact... avoidance of the point doesnt refute it.


time will tell whose more right because all we have is guesswork

[salamando3000]

From my point of view, this won't work. As I see it, the main pro of this system is it eliminates the need to constantly upgrade hardware. Some will argue reduced cost due to not needing to press discs/cases/distribute, but that's also true for digital distribution. With streaming alone, here's just some of the problems I thought of...

1) Price. This system is fairly similar to an MMO - buy a game, pay monthly for the ability to play the game on someone else's servers. Only difference here is that their computers do the rendering, meaning they'll need more hardware per person. Even then, most MMO's cost ~ 15 bucks a month. So, I could see a monthly access fee of that. Now then, let's look at how much that really means. If we say the launch of the PS2 marked the beginning of a generation, and the launch of the 360 marked the end, we have a generation that lasted some 5 years. At 15 bucks a month, that's some 900 dollars. For that much, you could just buy all of last gens consoles, and actually own them. Even now, you could by a 360 Arcade, PS3, and Wii for that much.

2) You don't actually own anything. This is more like renting somebody else's computer to play a game. If you stop paying your subscription, you can no longer play the games you acquired (I'm hesitant to say "buy", but you probably will). So, if you want to play a game years later, you gotta hope the companies still up (a dead company won't still run these servers), and fork over some more money for another subscription.

3) Uptime. I can currently play my console whenever I want. Well, as long as power's running. With this, I have the power problem, plus the problem of server outages/network throttling/any other myriad of problems. And new games...I'd be very surprised if they could adequately meet demands for their servers without some kind of queue (and queues suck).

4) More than one game system per line. How would this even work? Imagine a LAN party with 16 people trying to play unreal tournament on their machines? The lag would be immense, unless they had some magical compression technology and were hoarding it all to themselves.

5) Input LAG. Currently when playing a game, it's fairly simple. You hit a key, it talks to console, console responds. With this, the key has to travel wherever the servers are before it registers. With most people, the ping will be bad enough to make really precise operations (headshots) impossible...cause by the time you pull the trigger, your target's already a half second the other way.

6) Mods. More of a PC thing, but it seems impossible to mod a game when you don't actually have the game. And lets be honest - Mods are one of the few things PC gamers can dangle over console gamers heads.

[m0tl3sl4y3r]

I also agree, but I don't see it happening soon. At least, I hope it doesn't hahah.

I also hope it doesn't happen soon

[EIN]

From my point of view, this won't work. As I see it, the main pro of this system is it eliminates the need to constantly upgrade hardware. Some will argue reduced cost due to not needing to press discs/cases/distribute, but that's also true for digital distribution. With streaming alone, here's just some of the problems I thought of...

1) Price. This system is fairly similar to an MMO - buy a game, pay monthly for the ability to play the game on someone else's servers. Only difference here is that their computers do the rendering, meaning they'll need more hardware per person. Even then, most MMO's cost ~ 15 bucks a month. So, I could see a monthly access fee of that. Now then, let's look at how much that really means. If we say the launch of the PS2 marked the beginning of a generation, and the launch of the 360 marked the end, we have a generation that lasted some 5 years. At 15 bucks a month, that's some 900 dollars. For that much, you could just buy all of last gens consoles, and actually own them. Even now, you could by a 360 Arcade, PS3, and Wii for that much.

2) You don't actually own anything. This is more like renting somebody else's computer to play a game. If you stop paying your subscription, you can no longer play the games you acquired (I'm hesitant to say "buy", but you probably will). So, if you want to play a game years later, you gotta hope the companies still up (a dead company won't still run these servers), and fork over some more money for another subscription.

3) Uptime. I can currently play my console whenever I want. Well, as long as power's running. With this, I have the power problem, plus the problem of server outages/network throttling/any other myriad of problems. And new games...I'd be very surprised if they could adequately meet demands for their servers without some kind of queue (and queues suck).

4) More than one game system per line. How would this even work? Imagine a LAN party with 16 people trying to play unreal tournament on their machines? The lag would be immense, unless they had some magical compression technology and were hoarding it all to themselves.

5) Input LAG. Currently when playing a game, it's fairly simple. You hit a key, it talks to console, console responds. With this, the key has to travel wherever the servers are before it registers. With most people, the ping will be bad enough to make really precise operations (headshots) impossible...cause by the time you pull the trigger, your target's already a half second the other way.

6) Mods. More of a PC thing, but it seems impossible to mod a game when you don't actually have the game. And lets be honest - Mods are one of the few things PC gamers can dangle over console gamers heads.

you just listed most every potential bad thing that could happen to onLive and its potential clones. However, the devs have already addressed most of these issues as best they can technologically (points 3-5). Lag is the first thing they addressed. Economically (points 1-2), however, fail because they're out to make a profit, so its a given about the pricings. We have to just deal with it. Go check up on their solutions on their website.