Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by CardJoe, 15 Mar 2010.
lets look at it from a dollar and common sense view
Cost of games+ cost of hardware averaged per year= total gaming cost (assuming you have broad band already which most do and if you refuse for the cost then you don't multiplayer game)
Reduced cost of games+monthly subscription fee= total onlive cost
If you buy 5 games a year @ 60 dollars and $100 a year on hardware ( $300 console every 3 years) = $400 a year
IF you buy 5 games a year @30 dollars + $180 subscription fee = $330 a year
That's your savings right there.Basically you get the best graphics constantly and never have to pay to upgrade hardware or watch as graphics get progressively worse over the year. Where it doesn't make sense is if you only buy one game a year.
It's not even a comparison to a PC as it can't replace the functionality but any enthusiast gamer will probably spend more than $100 a year averaged on hardware. I spend ~1K on a gaming pc every 2-3 years before it's too outdate so that's now 200-300 a year in hardware. IF you can claim to keep a current gaming pc for under $100 a year on hardware you're lying to yourself or always running a mid to low end specced system.
Quote: Star*Dagger"you are going to be very upset with the evolution of PC Gaming over the next 10 years, since everything is moving to episodic, expansion and mmo's ... Yours in the Cold, Hard Facts Plasma,
Are you sure this is a fact or is it just based on an opinion
Saying that 'everything', every single PC game in the future will be a subscription based MMO is a bit far fetched.
So if a small child wants to play a video game in the future, he has no option but to spend his wee pocket money on monthly subscriptions because there are no casual games or hardcore pick up and play titles being made.
You are entitled to think that 'everything' will become a Massively Multiplayer Online subscription game, but maybe it's only the type of games that you are interested in that are heading in that direction. It doesn't mean everyone needs to get with the MMOs. Also doesn't mean they should comit the rest of their lives to an OnLive monthly subscription on top of their MMO subscriptions.
MMOs are for gamers like you who love MMOs. The type of games I play are not suited to this and thankfully I don't see any real signs of them heading in that direction
However, I could end up being proven wrong. But I am not going to state my opinion as a fact.
What's happening in these OnLive threads is that some people are in support of OnLive and ohers are voicing their concerns or objections to the OnLive cloud gaming service. You suggesting that they should just accept a 'cloud' based gaming future because it's inevitable is like saying nobody should enjoy driving their cars now because the future will upset them when we have all human-driven cars outlawed, and just computer-driven transport allowed on the roads. The public may well lose more and more freedom and all the other nice things they used to enjoy, but they shouldn't object to it because a highly upsetting future is inevitable.
Yes it is true that devs need to be paid. When I spend money buying a newly released game, the devs get paid. I also may not mind paying them extra to use their multiplaying servers.
I don't then need to spend the rest of my life paying monthly subscriptions to OnLive to allow me the privilage (even just for single player mode) to continue playing my game that I bought.
Star*Dagger is a known troll here. move along.
This type of stuff is too ahead of the market. People are enjoying their consoles; get an xbox 360 or a ps3 and watch movies via dvd or blu-ray - own your own games, play whenever you want with no further costs.
Paying a £15 monthly fee and then adding the cost of a game ontop of that.
In a year thats £180 just for a subscription...thats about 6 times the cost of xbox live (if were to say its £30 as some places sell it for lower than the RRP of £40)
Then add the costs of the games you buy ontop of that and your looking at a couple hundred fairly easily there (per year too!)
Thing about onlive is, its a great concept but its too ahead of its time, the UK broadband infastructure is pathetic, beyond pathetic, its horrible really.
Im annoyed at paying £20 per month for broadband and you bump that to about £35 with onlive without any games and then thats crazy.
If it was a couple quid (£2 per month for example) just for the service that is more feasible but were in a world economy thats just been through a blender, people are trying to save money and paying a monthly fee to have something that isnt tangible like an actual game in your hand is asking a lot from people I think.
Theres something about holding the case and disk when you buy it...you dont really get that excitement from clicking a button on the screen...I dont know about others but I feel it will fail and it will be down to it being too ambitious for its time.
In the future when broadband technology has caught up and become more efficient and the costs lowered...it may be feasible but were not there yet.
My bad, when I said everything I did mean 60% of the market, not *everything*. Suffice it to say that the PC Gaming market is changing, gives more to the customer and simply must charge more.
I think this is an interesting concept that will start out very slow but might be successful with casual gamers and then eventually "core gamers" (whatever that means) jumping on.
Maybe i am materialistic but I like having an original copy. I'll even pay extra to get limited editions etc. Sure, I own games on Steam, I bought L4D2 on Steam the day it came out, but i also bought an original copy of it too.
Investing in a service that only ever lets me rent games, and with no assurance that this will actually take off and the company won't close their doors 6 months down the track? Not for me.
I still regularly play older titles, I shudder to think how much they would add up to over the years if I had to have a monthly fee for the priviledge of playing them.
Like someone else mentioned, reminds me of the Phantom. Good luck to them, it's an ambitious product and may potentially stick with the casual gamer market provided the price is right and it's easy to use, but ultimately I see this failing.
To be fair though, if you weren't interested in playing a title for a while, but still went on 'renting' it, that would be your fault. I'm sure it will be possible to stop renting a game for a while, and then go back to it later on. Ofcourse what will happen to any 'save games' or progress is anyones guess.
True enough but I'm not talking about renting whole collections of games, I mean there are still some titles I play at least once a month years after the fact. Blood is probably the main one and how many years has it been since that was released?
Separate names with a comma.