OnLive dates launch, pricing for US

Controversial games streaming service OnLive will launch in the US on June 17th backed by Electronic Arts, Ubisoft, Take-Two Interactive, THQ and Warner Bros. Interactive Entertainment.

Details for the cloud-based gaming service, which was unveiled amidst much attention at GDC last year, are to be given in a Wednesday keynote this morning at the GamesBeat one-day event at the 2010 Game Developers Conference.

The serivce launches on PC and Mac, and costs $14.95 a month.

Major publishers have already backed the service - and while specific titles, pricing and revenue share models will be made public closer to the E3 launch, McGarvey told us that a few of the launch games include Ubisoft's Assassin's Creed II and Prince Of Persia: The Forgotten Sands, as well as THQ's Metro 2033.

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
SuperStrokey11233052d ago (Edited 3052d ago )

Please work the way they claim it will, id really like it especially at those prices!


Wait a second, they said the it will be 14.95 a month but then mention game prices on will be announced later... so its 14.95+ the games? Thats stupid unless the hardware is free of course.

ndc1233052d ago

I think they meant that they haven't decided on pricing for people choosing the a la carte route.

Christopher3052d ago

How will DLC be handled?

If we do a la cart, will we own the game for use with the service, much like Steam, for all time?

Will you offer a tool that will analyze your connection to the local OnLive server cluster so people can test the performance capabilities of the service, perhaps even providing the first week for free with a limited selection of games?

presto7173052d ago

Plus if you have a gaming pc then you really dont need on live.

Mr_Bun3052d ago

Yeah, but if you have a Mac, OnLive seems pretty least on paper

hazardman3052d ago

plus the price of games..I'm pretty sure your gonna have to buy the equipment as well..The funny thing is people are actually looking forward to this, but bullsh!t all day about gamers having to pay for Xbox Live!!(which I already pay for @ $50yr.) OnLive seems like a great idea but unless there's some free to play games and the equipment is free i won't be getting it..

gaffyh3052d ago

This is totally NOT worth it for $15 a month + cost of games. Why not just bump it up to $30 a month and free games?

FamilyGuy3052d ago

That's... not good.
It ends up costing more than a console. Unless games are in the $10 and below range this service isn't worth paying for.

The whole point is being able to play maxed out (PC) games without having to spend all the money associated with having a high end pc. At $180 a year you could spend that money on updating a pc throughout the year.

$180 per year will kill this service. Should be like $100 or so for the box and $50 a year.

HolyOrangeCows3052d ago (Edited 3052d ago )

EDIT: Oh, that's right, you have to pay for individual games. That's $168 a year WITHOUT games. In less than TWO years, you will have paid more than you would for a PS3. No thanks.

RedDragan3051d ago

Personally, this is not a console killer in my opinion. There are two many flaws and too many supposed analysts are missing out some of factors going against such a development.

1) We are entering a HD era for gaming, and the UKs internet is better than many other nations right now. It is due to be improved further and that is only targetting a 2mbps speed everywhere. True 1080p is approx 36mbps... that's a gap of about 34mbps... or over 90%.

2) What if your internet connection blips for a few seconds, do you lose connection to the server like other such streaming services? Would hate for the game to freeze while playing online.

3) What if your ISP goes down?! Well, not games for a few hours, not really a problem with consoles because you can still play single player games if you have no internet. You cannot do that with this apparent console killer.

4) It is subscription based. So if you choose not to renew the subscription then you get ZERO games to play. It isn't as if you can sign up, play the games you want, then unsubscribe and continue to only play those games you were interested in.

5) What is stopping Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft doing the same with their own consoles... which would have exclusive 1st party content?! I am sure 3rd parties would support those services as well.

OnLive might well change how we play games AFTER 10 years into the future, but I very much doubt it will kill consoles. Instead, I think Sony's, Microsoft's and Nintendo own streaming consoles will kill OnLive.

Why do I say this? Because OnLive requires you to buy the hardware or as they put it themselves "the last console you will have to buy", that's why! Sorry OnLive, but you'll get a little bit of fame but then the industry leaders will swallow you whole!

inveni03051d ago (Edited 3051d ago )

This is going to fail at that price. This is like going to a restaurant, paying a $15 cover charge, and then having to pay $60 a plate to eat. If the monthly fee was competitive with Live, then this would skyrocket into success. But who is going to pay $15 a month to play the games they own?

On the other hand, if they have game rentals to accompany that $15 fee (like 2 free rentals a month), then I would sign up today. At $15, I would have to buy a game every month to warrant keeping the subscription. BUT, if rentals were included, there would be a much larger incentive. Not worrying about hardware upgrades really does sound like something I could get in to.

EDIT: Actually, I was just thinking... If you upgrade to the best video card and processor every 2 years, you're looking at $600 for the processor and $600 for the video card. That's $1200 in two years... That's $50/month. So, maybe this isn't such a bad price, after all.

EDIT 2: @1.6 OnLive has already said in some interviews that they anticipate the console being free (or next to free). It's basically a router with a TV output. On PC, it runs from a browser plug-in. I still think it's cheaper than upgrading your video card every year. In fact, I KNOW it is. I will probably use this service, the more I think about the savings.

+ Show (8) more repliesLast reply 3051d ago
tdrules3052d ago

Good luck getting it to work outside the US, we don't all run on high speed Cable, some of us still use Victorian Copper Wiring strung on telephone poles (me ;__;)

masterg3052d ago

Come on. Of course a lot of people will not have the connection it takes. Just like a lot of people can not affort other expensive gadgets. That does not mean anything for the people who do.

If it works the people who do have the connection are in for a real treat.

Motion3052d ago

The US is FAR from having the fastest networks.

August of last year we were rated 28th in the world.

Alcon Caper3052d ago

Regardless of how fast your connection is, it relies primarily on proximity from the data servers.

There aren't any servers outside of the US, right?

RH063052d ago (Edited 3052d ago )

Yea I bet that most of the top ten are small, and the US being very large with many spots still in the woods I can believe that...

Edit- Like it says..."People in Japan can upload a high-definition video in 12 minutes, compared to a grueling 2.5 hours at the US average upload speed," the report said. The smaller the country, the easier it is to rewire the country!

Cenobia3052d ago

Good luck getting it to work INSIDE the US. I can only get satellite where I live.

This is being launched too early to be a real game changer in any way.

darx3052d ago

I don't have that problem.

+ Show (4) more repliesLast reply 3052d ago
soljah3052d ago

actually no one in the US will be able to use this with out lag unless u have t1 speeds. not sure if regular cable/dsl will be fast enough.

Tony240ZT3052d ago

T1 is ~1.54mbits/sec both ways. I have 6 down and 1 up with AT&T U-verse. Many of my co-workers have the same. I used to have 10mbit/sec down 1.5 up with my local cable provider. Back in 1997 having T1 speeds were unheard of but now they are the norm for broad bandwidth in my farming town.

ImmortalLegend3052d ago

I really want to try this out for myself. If this indeed works, then this could open up a whole new arena of possibilities. The thing is, I do like owning hard copies of my games and I don't completely trust this digital movement, but that's just me.

Tony240ZT3052d ago

At this price you're not going to loose much for giving it a try. Within the last month I think I've spent $190 on heavy rain, FFXIII, and GoWIII alone. Not to mention xmas time was pretty pricy too, and I wish I had time for more.

RealityCheck3052d ago (Edited 3052d ago )

I'm right there with you, willing it to give it a try as long as there is no long term contract needed. It's funny, in another post I said their news better be a launch date, and it is.

I think they are better off launching now and improve the service over time rather then keep tweaking it forever and go out of business in the meantime.

Gamer7l3052d ago (Edited 3052d ago ) FAIL.

And at such a ridiculous price....$14.95/mo. WITHOUT THE GAMES...they'll fail faster than expected. LOL...and people complain about XBOX Live @ $4/month.

Captain Tuttle3052d ago

PS3 fanboys complain about Xbox Live being $4/month.

I'd be willing to give this a shot.

Tony240ZT3052d ago

If this is $15/month including games it's a fantastic deal. How can you compare xbox's fee that allows you to play already purchased games online, to a fee that gives you THE games?

RH063052d ago (Edited 3052d ago )

I have a PS3 and a 360...and I complain about $4 a month! When there isn't any work in this country right now other than making a stockpile of ammo at my company to fight some war that we don't have the money for. On top of that having two kids to feed, $4 bucks is $4!

hazardman3052d ago

well said......$15 is $15 right?..half way towards daipers..and $5 away from getting a gram of that gan-greeny....rather it be $4 than $15/month.. and you still have to buy the games or rent them which by the time the year end you would have spent enough to pay for Live and get some great games..

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 3052d ago
Show all comments (54)
The story is too old to be commented.