Full list of OnLive pricing options

By Tom Bramwell Published 21 June, 2010

Rentals and licensing explained.

The OnLive service launched in the US last week and with it we got our first look at how much it will cost to access games through the cloud.

The initial range of pricing options includes rentals that last three or five days and an unlimited pass that provides access until at least 17th June 2013 - presumably the length of the current licensing agreements.

Buying a game through OnLive entitles you to access that game for the length of the agreed licence, providing you keep up your OnLive subscription. If you allow that to lapse, you can't access the games again until you rejoin.

The organisers are currently offering free subscriptions for the first year then reduced rates during the second for "founding members".

OnLive is a system that allows you to play PC and console games over the internet without needing fancy equipment, with the games hosted on powerful PCs in a server facility and a video stream of your actions sent to you over the net.

OnLive is due to launch in the UK in late 2011 with help from BT.

Check out the full list of pricing options below, and look out for Digital Foundry's take on the service's real-world performance very soon.

Game PayPass Options Rental Durations Demo?
AaaaaAAaaaAAAaaAAAAaAAAAA!!! - A Reckless Disregard for Gravity $9.99 Until at least 17th June 2013 Yes
Assassin's Creed II $39.99 Until at least 17th June 2013 Yes
Batman: Arkham Asylum $6.99 / $4.99 5 days / 3 days Yes
Borderlands $29.99 / $8.99 / $5.99 Until at least 17th June 2013 / 5 days / 3 days Yes
Brain Challenge $4.99 Until at least 17th June 2013 Yes
Colin McRae: DiRT 2 Demo only N/A Yes
Defense Grid Gold $13.99 / $6.99 Until at least 17th June 2013 / 5 days Yes
F.E.A.R. 2: Project Origin $19.99 Until at least 17th June 2013 Yes
Just Cause 2 $49.99 Until at least 17th June 2013 Yes
LEGO Harry Potter: Years 1-4 Demo only N/A Yes
Madballs in Babo: Invasion $9.99 Until at least 17th June 2013 Yes
Prince of Persia: The Forgotten Sands $49.99 Until at least 17th June 2013 No
Puzzle Chronicles $9.99 / $3.99 Until at least 17th June 2013 / 3 days Yes
Red Faction: Guerrilla $19.99 Until at least 17th June 2013 Yes
Shatter $8.99 Until at least 17th June 2013 Yes
Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell: Conviction $59.99 Until at least 17th June 2013 Yes
Trine Demo only N/A Yes
Unreal Tournament III: Titan Pack $19.99 / $6.99 / $4.99 Until at least 17th June 2013 / 5 days / 3 days Yes
World of Goo $19.99 / $6.99 / $4.99 Until at least 17th June 2013 / 5 days / 3 days Yes
Picture of Tom.

About Tom Bramwell

Tom is Operations director of Eurogamer Network and Editor-at-Large of Eurogamer.net. He joined the company in February 2000.

Read more articles from Tom by visiting the Tom Bramwell archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (72) Latest comment 2 years ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • bad09 #1 2 years ago

    Buy games you only own while you pay a subscription on top. Surely not enough people are planks to fall for this thing?

    A subscription, to buy and own games, I mean come on who in their right mind would do it? $60 for SP:C and it's still not your unless you pay up constantly.

  • AaronTurner #2 2 years ago

    Clearly this is going to fail now. The pricing structure is very poor.

  • TeaFiend #3 2 years ago

    This is fair enough for a short term "rent" I guess. But paying those prices for the long terms ones is a bit naff.

  • LHH #4 2 years ago

    So for $40 you get to 'own' a game for 3 years, on top of a subscription fee for the actual service.

    I predict a Crash and Burn scenario followed by a restructuring.

  • madgerald Verified Studio Head of PR & Marketing, Colossal Games LTD #5 2 years ago

    Not needing fancy equipment? You mean a console or PC that most people already own.

    I can't see who is going to pay a subscription and the cost of a game rental on top of that. The games on the list aren't that new either and they can be picked up on DD or retail a lot cheaper - and you get to OWN them.

    I give the service 1 year before it closes. Unless they radically change the subscription model.

  • Amblin #6 2 years ago

    I love this idea! I pay you for a sub to a game I can never own. So I can pay for 3 years game access but if I drop Onlive I am left with nothing. No game. Nadda. Nowt.

    This was always my concern. The move to a place where we the consumer pay for access but never attain ownership. At least with a PC/console I own the game. It is mine and I can play when I like.

    This is the future? I hope not.
    Edited by 1 at 21/06/10 @ 20:21

  • Geordiemp #7 2 years ago

    Prices higher than most games you can buy new on-line.

    Bought borderlands for £ 17 new and own it, look at the price for long term rebtal - $ 49 !!!!!!

    Who is on the cloud ?

  • X3Entente #8 2 years ago

    im still playing games i got 10+ years ago, infact recently ive been reliving half life and the almighty deus ex and on average the games i play are 5 years old . this licnesing says a lot about the disposable nature of games that the industry is heading in

  • Poorandugly #9 2 years ago

    The only way I can see this work is if once you pay for the subscription you get to play all games, even new ones, for as much as you want.

  • CaptainQuint #10 2 years ago

    If this meant I could experience the visual wonders of Crysis as seen on the highest spec pcs, I'd be up for trying this service out; but since I don't see it in the list I assume it's unlikely to be possible, therefore I'll stick with my trusty Xbox. Besides, graphics aren't everything, indeed from what I played of Crysis (on medium settings) the gameplay itself is still fixed firmly in past, in that's it's nowt special in that department.

  • madgerald Verified Studio Head of PR & Marketing, Colossal Games LTD #11 2 years ago

    @poorandugly - you're on to something there. Take a look at the business model of the online DVD rental market. Pay a monthly subscription, rent a DVD or game for as long as you want. Different subscription packages allow you to rent more than one at a time.

  • Darren #12 2 years ago

    Doesn't look very appealing to be honest but perhaps that's why the subscription fee is initially free for the first year and then reduced for loyal members thereafter?

    I'm not personally interested in this service at all as I have a PC that is already more than capable of playing those games but I'd imagine that it might have limited appeal to the kind of people who rent rather than buy movies and they'll be the ones who'll take advantage of the rental service. It isn't going to be of much appeal to the core gamer though, I'd imagine.

    Still interested in seeing how this service does though because I don't believe it can work as it's 10 years too soon.

  • bad09 #13 2 years ago

    @ madgerald

    Even on PC there is Metaboli. Pay £13 a month download as many games as you want and play them for the life of your sub no extra fees...well apart from the "fancy equipment" of a PC that is.

  • brseg #14 2 years ago

    >UK in late 2011

    LOL. BT will be praying onlive fails and they dont have to try to implement this over our crappy 2Mb lines.

    @Poorandugly - agreed, that would be a good idea. You rent the whole service with 1 payment, get to play everything. Probably onlive couldnt convince publishers to do it that way. But, as it stands, theres very little to attract people to this service.

  • madgerald Verified Studio Head of PR & Marketing, Colossal Games LTD #15 2 years ago

    @bad09 - ahhhh right, cheers - not up on my PC rental market LOL

  • Darren #16 2 years ago

    @CaptainQuint - I doubt you'll see Crysis running on this service at full settings because they'll be customised and fixed at the server end no doubt in order to guarantee a certain level of performance, likely at 1280x720 (and definitely not 1920x1080 as that'd require too much bandwidth). I can't imagine you'd be able to change the graphics settings either and they'll probably be set to medium levels to save on hardware costs at OnLive's end. That's my guess anyway but we'll find out soon enough.

  • Dylbot #17 2 years ago

    It's odd that it's been live for a week or so and we haven't heard anything about the user experience, latency, quality etc. I'm still convinced that it's all smoke and mirrors to leech investor money.

  • Kami #18 2 years ago

    I had to double take at this news. HOW MUCH?!

    Okay, the files are streamed via the system so you don't have to worry about hardware, okay, awesome, except that... well... consoles have fixed hardware (more or less) during their lifecycles. And prices come down, so will these? And what of Metaboli? Of rental services like LoveFilm and GAME Rentals?

    I genuinely believe in Cloud Gaming - I also think it'll end the PC hardware race, and for some of us at £500+ a year maybe that's not such a bad thing. But you have to get the infrastructure, the stable connections (Oh how fun cloud gaming will be in the UK with our archaic lines...) and most importantly - the price. The price will be so essential to this - say hello to our current economy, where people would like to hold on to some of our cash if you don't mind! Oh but there's no competition, of course, you can charge what you want... so said most DD sellers until the likes of Steam came along and smacked them around the chops a bit (and even then, change is slow).

    And as launch line-ups go... I'm so not impressed. Maybe it's the 3DS last week but this is... rather embarassing, surely?

    I dunno what else to say really. Is this the best they could come up with? With all due respect, for the length of time this has been in the works, you'd expect a far more... ahem... eager launch. Not that I don't appreciate the gesture, or the idea, but this business model just seems like a joke and one I don't think anyone with half a braincell to call their own will find particularly amusing...

  • brseg #19 2 years ago

    @dylbot - heres an excellent write-up of the performance:

    ht tp://blog.wolfire.com/2010/06/Thoughts-on-OnLive

  • Kami #20 2 years ago

    Sorry, but I let out a guffaw at not being allowed to stream Mass Effect 2 on a Mac. Nothing like a little red tape to throw a spanner in the works, eh?

    I hope people don't misunderstand, I believe in Cloud Gaming, but I want to be sure that it's viable. £500-or-so a year to keep a PC in tip-top shape (sometimes more) is a normal expense for a gaming PC, but I own my hardware and software. That, to me, is a big deal and something that needs to be addressed. A subscription AND you have to pay for your games AND you don't own them AND they can be revoked if your sub goes awry or you want out early with no compensation?

    No offence to OnLive or any of it's fans, but until that is addressed, £500+ a year is still the most tempting offer.

  • solidSnake04 #21 2 years ago

    so this works then !?

  • Ceatlan #22 2 years ago

    My God, thats flippin expensive. I was expecting perhaps £10 a month subscription, then perhaps 50p for a single play of a game, £5 for a weeks rental, absolutely nothing more.

    Why the hell would I pay the full undiscounted game price for a rental ?

  • bad09 #23 2 years ago

    "£500-or-so a year to keep a PC in tip-top shape (sometimes more) is a normal expense for a gaming PC"

    Normal? While admittedly myself I am choosing to build myself another, more powerful PC in the next year (which will mean my current mid range build has served me 2 years and still play anything with ease) but not everyone needs the latest card or processor and hardly any game really asks you to.

    £500 a year is not normal PC gaming expense it's high end, there's a difference.

  • onezeonx #24 2 years ago

    Id rather buy actual games.....then can trade them when im done and get some money back!!

    Not "rent" for silly prices and lose them eventually for nothing!
    This whole idea will never take off!!

  • Kami #25 2 years ago

    "£500 a year is not normal PC gaming expense it's high end, there's a difference."

    Okay, that is true. But I'm an avid gamer and I like to keep my PC running tip-top. To me, it's like getting a car serviced every 50,000 miles - once a year, I go for a tune-up. Sometimes it's cheaper - sometimes it's been a bit pricier, but as someone who ditched the car a while back for a motorbike (don't laugh!) I just have a little extra to hand for the PC. If you're okay with running games at lower settings, that's fine - but it just annoys me when a game has been designed on a better PC. (Of course, you get anomalies like the FFXIV benchmark - medium settings? Really Square-Enix? You absolutely sure? Where did you get your dev PC's from - The Terminator?!)

    But you can see my point that Cloud Gaming should be aiming squarely at the likes of me, who spend money on the relentless persuit of technical prowess. But at the end of it all, we own our hardware, our software, our Windows 7 and everything else. Those things are ours, physical or digital - they are tangible things we have paid for, and own, and can install and download and redownload and reinstall. Cloud Gaming has to be affordable, and yes, this may be affordable. But does it make sense when you own absolutely nothing? Of course not. I don't rent my PC - I save up and straight-up buy my upgrades. Theat's mine. I own my games - either by physical copy, or fixed accounts on Steam and other services.

    £500 potentially a year on this - a top-end game a month (well above RRP), sub fees... and at the end of the year, you still don't own anything. If OnLive goes down, you lose your money and all your games. If something goes wrong with a credit card (it happens to the best of us all) you lose access and possibly the rights to your games.

    It's an awfully risky venture. I guess what I am saying is, until we can see a little more progress made on stability, pricing and less red tape BS - it's still makes more sense to own your own hardware and software. Sure, it might cost a bit more than a Cloud service - but at the end of it all, it's all yours - and no-one can take that away from you.

  • Ryze #26 2 years ago

    Pathetic pricing model. No chance I'd subscribe, THEN PAY ON TOP OF THAT FOR EACH GAME!

    So, if you stop subscribing, then you lose access to a $49.99 copy of Just Cause 2?!

    So where do I sign up!!!?!?!?!?!

    At least they're trying not to go bust with an unrealistic pricing model... oh wait!?

  • Dylbot #27 2 years ago

    @brseg

    Cheers, was looking for something like that. After a bit of tangible reviewage (and not just press bullshit) I could see how, priced right, it could really take off. However, my internet connection has NEVER hit 700kb/s. Hell, my work connection struggles to reach those lofty heights when I'm testing as the only user on the network. That barrier, along with the hilarious pricing structure, is going to hobble this.

  • TheStatics #28 2 years ago

    Is the idea not that the subscription costs and pricing structure are offset by the fact you don't need to buy a console or gaming PC.

    Need to go back and have a look at the comment sections when this was 1st announced... Quite a bit of egg on face now the system is a reality.

  • homerbert #29 2 years ago

    The problem a lot of people here seem to be having is that the service isn't aimed at them. Almost everyone here has a fancy PC. a PS3 or a 360, so of course the pricing is just like shit renting. But the idea is that instead of paying £200-£600 for the hardware, you get hassle free gaming over any old piece of crap PC.

    The problem I predict OnLive having is that most of the people who don't have those things aren't interested enough to pay the amounts they seem to have to charge to make this economically viable. Everyone's talking like onLive plucked those figures out of the air, but chances are those are very close to the figures they need to make the venture work.

    I don't see that happenning.

  • Kami #30 2 years ago

    I guess the question is, if it's not aimed at us gamers (who I argue it should be aimed at, seriously I'm looking at a possible upgrade when FFXIV comes out in what, 8 months time? Would be nice to have a service which could run it on great settings for a reasonable monthly fee, no?) and it's not going to interest the casual market (DS PSP DS PSP DS PSP...)... who is it aimed at? And if that's what they need to even draw even in terms of costing, is this a risk anyone with a sane mind would take?

    I remain convinced Cloud Gaming will one day have its time - and save many of us a small fortune in the process. But they have to get it right - you want to run good games on great settings, then your target audience IS gamers. Scratch that, you plan on leasing out games full stop, your market is gamers - casual, hardcore and all shades in between. And people will want a deal that makes the risk of losing it all an acceptible alternative to owning their own product.

    Cloud Gaming IS the future though. This just isn't it. Not in this format.

  • linkster #31 2 years ago

    I'm guessing the Mass Effect 2 issue is really that EA wasn't interested in a Mac version so another developer/publisher is taking it on and they'd be none to keen at seeing their potential userbase reduced.

  • YoshiMcTaggis #32 2 years ago

    People who have a crap pc will most likely have an average, capped internet plan. People with fast uncapped internet will probably have a gaming pc or console. Who is this for?
    Edited by 1 at 21/06/10 @ 14:08

  • MrScruffier #33 2 years ago

    Yeah, this doesn't seem like a good pricing structure for the long term at all, but maybe all they need to do is get established enough for someone like Sky to be convinced of the potential and then start putting the tech in their viewing boxes. You'd think that's where the real money would be. The high proliferation would presumably reduce the risk involved massively and the sub fee would end up something similar to Sky Sports, movies or HD. You could then end up with a very open market like the iphone. Or maybe we'll just get screwed. I am going off this whole idea now to be honest.

  • actionfitz #34 2 years ago

    so we buy the games... and have to pay a subscription for the privilege of playing them... but they don't really belong to us because they only exist on servers that could be taken down or the publishers don't renew the rights past 2013... also, if we eventually do get a console/pc the games still only work with Onlive so we would have to buy them again...

    huh?

  • kentmonkey #35 2 years ago

    Has "cloud" cuckoo land been done yet?

  • Stuz359 #36 2 years ago

    Oh dear.

  • nuanimal #37 2 years ago

    Or... buy Red Faction: Guerrilla on PC from Amazon at £10.22...

  • CaptainKid #38 2 years ago

    These are the US prices, don't be surprised when they change the $ to the € when it comes here.
    and then add 20% just for fun.

  • Sunyavadin #39 2 years ago

    HAHAHAHAHA!!!!




    ..............no. I don't think so.

  • nuanimal #40 2 years ago

    So you're on a keen gamer who's likley to already own a console or PC and like playing games - so you might as well buy the games for your platform and own them given the pricing compare to Amazon & Play.

    So you're a casual gamer and you really don't have the money to spend on a console or decent PC, so you pay $14.99* a month plus $19.99 for Red Faction and get to play it on you PC. It costs you about $199.99 for one year - or you could buy a 360 Arcade for $149.99 & RFG for $17.73 (taken from Amazon US).

    *$14.99 is the monthly supbscription charge, but not for the first year, or second year which is $4.99

  • Retro_ #41 2 years ago

    10 Print "No thanks, I think I'll pass";
    20 Goto 10

    Found an old ZX81 book at the back of a drawer !

  • Marshall2008 #42 2 years ago

    You would be better off buying a console (they are incredibly cheap) and then buying your games. Subscriptions services will be pounded soon once the 20% VAT rate kicks in. The best deals will be in the High Street or online retailers.

  • rprince #43 2 years ago

    I don't believe you can play console games on OnLive. Unless they are multiplatform. In which case, you're still playing the PC version of that game...

  • carrotcake #44 2 years ago

    Makes sense that you need to have an active subscription to continue accessing your games. After all it still costs them money to do all the processing and then feed you the video over the internet. I do think onlive is brilliant but yes it is a hard sell when you can get games so cheaply on Steam, as long as you have a decent gaming pc to do the work on your end

  • spudsbuckley #45 2 years ago

    My god is that lame. This just backs up what i've been saying about this being doomed to failure since it was announced.

    Buy-rent a game for 3 years on an unproven platform for nearly twice what it costs to get an actual hard copy you can keep for good.

    This is going to be a smoking crater-style situation.

  • nickthegun #46 2 years ago

    The pricing is almost certainly pitched that was as you wont have to own a 'monster' rig to play games, so they are probably looking to push the value of being able to play something like crysis on a POS acer tower.

  • mingster #47 2 years ago

    I reckon this is purely aimed at mac owners. Who have more money than sense.

  • Freek #48 2 years ago

    With Steam comming to Mac there's in increase in games on that platform too, and you don't pay a subscritpion either.

  • sonicyoda #49 2 years ago

    This system was doomed from the beginning. For example, look at the PSPGo. Digital-only consoles will never work if there isn't a way for the consumer to get a good deal. Unless the supplier decides to make game bundles available or put down prices, there is no other way to get a decent price on the games. You can't sell pre-owned digital releases now, can you?

  • Nodebug #50 2 years ago

    They could easily have an option to get in the door of the rental market, I can get 2 games delivered to my door for my xbox/ps3/wii for £8.99 a month or whatever from LoveFilm, if they charged that, and I also had the option of playing games I cant run on my PC then I would strongly consider it. I would still have the option of buying games that I wanted to keep forever. OnLive would be used as a rental service for the other games, and games I cant run.

    In its current iteration, I wouldn't even consider using it. Attaching a price to a game that is close to retail or over to "temporarily have access to it" with the addition of a subscription on top is fucking ridiculous. If they don't crash and burn after the first 6 months then I hope they are smart enough to redesign their pricing structure.

  • Alivada #51 2 years ago

    Just just seems way to expensive, not to mention I like owning my games rather then renting them.
    I just canceled my LoveFilm and that was cheaper than this.

  • makeamazing #52 2 years ago

    I always thought this was doomed to failure (its 10 years too early with the rubbish network we have in place at the moment)... but with these costs it says one of two things:

    1. What the hell are they thinking, and who is stupid enough to pay that.
    2. Are they trying desperately to get their investment back and they are going to go under.

    I suspect 2. There is just no way they can get a large enough (stupid?) enough group of people to make them any money. As someone else said, i love going back to old games and giving them another spin, i can do that if i buy the game.

  • mechamonkey #53 2 years ago

    Those prices guarantee failure.

  • jonfon #54 2 years ago

    20 quid for World of Goo? As in the thing that was on a "Name your price" feature-pack a month ago and will basically run on almost any machine anyway?

    Err? I'm befuddled

  • Ryze #55 2 years ago

    @homerbert and anyone else mentioning that this service will run on any old crap PC:

    The 'piece of crap PC' needs to be able to run a 720p H.264 video stream at 30fps.

    Your piece of crap PC will only be able to play SD games in jerk-o-vision... unless you buy a new video card...DOH!!!!

  • Guildenstern #56 2 years ago

    If they had console games there and there wasn't a monthly fee then it would be something to consider at least. I mean, paying 5 dollars to beat that one game I might be interested in over a weekend is better then spending hundreds on console and game itself. But the way it is now, no deal.

  • Feanor #57 2 years ago

    Which console games are playable thru OnLive? I thought it was only for PC games.

  • PearOfAnguish #58 2 years ago

    They're tapping that niche market of people who have a fast net connection but no console or half-decent PC. Big bucks right there.


  • Kaminari #59 2 years ago

    High prices + time-limited service + awful lag + shitty picture quality

    =

    perfect product for Apple bohos

  • George-Roper #60 2 years ago

    Just can't grasp what the hell they're thinking. All I can guess is that the prices are set to recoup as much of the investment as possible, as quickly as possible. There's just no way that any sane person looking at this is ever going to buy into it. All that cost and a sub on top for...nothing...

    As someone says, if they take the service down you're fucked. If they change the subscription model, you're fucked if you don't buy into it. If your net connection is flaky, you're fucked. If your 'standard' PC can't run 720p at 30fps, you need better hardware but if you buy better hardware you can probably play the games locally and own them, for way less than it costs to 'rent' them...

    I guess to an extent it's a similar situation to buying a MMORPG. The game is completely useless unless you pay a sub and as soon as you cancel that sub, you lose access to the game. The difference here is that it affects single player/offline games too.

    Never going to work. Not ever.
    Edited by 1 at 21/06/10 @ 19:44

  • lockload #61 2 years ago

    sounds like onlive have their head in the clouds as regards to pricing
    Edited by 1 at 21/06/10 @ 21:11

  • whoslotte #62 2 years ago

    Epic fail. If this is the future you can keep it. Pay subs to gain access to games you buy but never own. Then you play them in reduced quality and increased lag. All this so I don't have to own kit which I already have and is cheap.

    I feel for the saps who poured money into this catastrophe, I really do. Next they'll be reeling out 3D as the next big thing again... 8)

  • Zaiz #63 2 years ago

    ...those prices are for real.

    Holy shit. Bobby Kotick probably wishes he could charge people that, but even he's smarter.

  • SilentNinja92 #64 2 years ago

    It could do really well

    There is a market out there I think. Theres a lot of people out there who want high end pc graphics without spending at least £800 on a computer, though probably more, and then updating every year or so if you want to keep playing at the highest settings possible. Then theres sorting out servers for online games, building it yourself as getting it ready made costs too much and maintaining the thing.

    Its costly stuff and I bet there are people out there willing to trade in their ageing PC and just get a tiny little black box, and have a subscription. If you have the cash for that kind of pc, this will be cheaper anyway and so much more user friendly and space saving.

    Its where things are going. Im waiting for something like this to be integrated into tv's like satellite tv is.

  • Zaiz #65 2 years ago

    @silentninja

    You sir, are insane. You want to pay money to have permission to play games you rented at above full price? Are you crazy? And with lag, at low graphical settings, and input lag? Are you one of those OnLive guys who without fail appear in these threads assuring everyone that OnLive has no input lag and crazy things like that?

  • PearOfAnguish #66 2 years ago

    Yeah, anyone who thinks this is in any way a good thing for gaming - from the players POV - is insane. If these services really took off you could wave goodbye to big discounts, mods and the second hand market. Publishers and providers would set the prices, and you can be damn sure they wouldn't be offering games for the kinds of prices we can buy them on Amazon and the rest.

    Luckily, OnLive appear to have shot themselves in the foot already.

    And can we stop this nonsense:

    "though probably more, and then updating every year or so if you want to keep playing at the highest settings possible."

    You can buy a game-capable PC for less than £800, and with the right choice of components you don't need to upgrade every year. My system is 3+ years old and still plays everything. Not every game needs to be played at the highest settings either. Just because those options are available doesn't mean you have to use them. You'd do well to tell much of a difference between playable-on-mid-range medium/high and 'very high' in most games.

    And besides...if someone is obsessed with the best visuals they're hardly going to be paying for a service that streams laggy, lower quality graphics, are they?
    Edited by 3 at 22/06/10 @ 03:25

  • Silvervein #67 2 years ago

    Fascinating news. Lets recap.

    For regular people:
    World of Goo. Offline game, a cheap one. Once you get it, whole internet can burn and you can still play it.

    For cloud users:
    Pay for internet+pay for cloud subscription+pay for the world of goo rental (and add VAT to base prices). And that allows you to enjoy a unresponsive game that descends into stuttering every time your net slows down. God forbid you lose your net connection completely.

    I disagree with people claiming that cloud is future. That's because game performance and all the extra fees remind me old pre-zx spectrum times, leading me to believe that cloud is, indeed, a past.

  • Dylbot #68 2 years ago

    If you're spending at least £800 on a games-capable computer then you're shopping in the wrong places. I've got a prospective build on the go (Core i3 o/ced to 4ghz, 4gb RAM, HD 5750 or poss 5770) that comes in at under £500, which'll handle anything today's gaming market can throw at it with aplomb. Hell, even my laptop has managed run everything I've tried on it at a manageable fps (if somewhat low settings in some cases), and that's a 2007 vintage. £500 might still seem like a bit much, but when you're paying £15 a month, plus what can be up to a £25 markup on games (Splinter Cell is $60/£40 - Amazon says £17.91) - even after which, you don't actually own them - the costs start racking up.

    It'd make sense as a portable content delivery system (Proper games on your netbook on the train? Yes please) but the bandwidth required negates this. Otherwise, it's a horrible idea created through a vulture-like thought process that's pretty much destined to fail. And if it doesn't, then we'd better get used to this level of consumer rights fuckery, because no business could turn down a model like this.

  • SixFootHalfling #69 2 years ago

    Will people stop saying £500 a year for maintaining a PC

    I've spent £700 over 4 years and can run anything on highest, which is pretty much exactly the cost of onlive (48*£14.95 = £717.60), but all the games I bought were cheaper, and I actually own them forever.

  • Dylbot #70 2 years ago

    @SixFootHalfling

    I said £500 for a new build, not a year. Can't just upgrade that ageing Pentium 4. A Clarkdale or Lynnfield based system should last at least three years (Core 2 Duos have been around for 4 and still hold their own) with nothing more than a RAM upgrade and possibly a second video card down the line, should you wish to eke that extra bit of grunt out of it for a relatively cheap price.

  • Bander #71 2 years ago

    The pricing really isn't so bad compared to going to an arcade to play a new game, and paying a quid for something that lasts just a few minutes.

    But arcades used to have the benefit of running games that had no chance of running on most home computers and consoles without massive visual compromises.

    Really, the OnLive service would have to either be marketed towards portable consoles and phones or inexpensive set-top boxes like DVD players and digital television. Or host games that look really fantastic because they are running on PCs that cost several thousand pounds each and need to be kept in a freezer room. Streaming games is a great idea potentially, but it needs something special to generate any interest at all.

  • Grayvern #72 2 years ago

    The rental is $14.99 so it will probably be £7.50 but more likely £10 a month in the uk.

    Which means that it's more expensive than owning a console, based on a minimum 5 year console life span.

    That and it's not very likely any single platform releases will come to onlive meaning that even with owning 1 console you will still likely be able to access everything available on onlive.

    Also maintaining PC standards isn't too expensive previous generation cards are often steals, I picked up 4850 in november for around £100. Processors and Ram probably only need replacing every 3-4 years. Also a good power supply and modular metal case and quality fans could last you several hardware revisions.

    (A 4850 is a 2 generation old card and still totally stomps all consoles graphical capabilities)
    Edited by 2 at 22/06/10 @ 23:11