Approvals 11/3 ▼
HighDefinition (2) - 5471d ago Cancel
CrAppleton (2) - 5471d ago Cancel
killyourfm (2) - 5471d ago Cancel
frankymv (1) - 5471d ago Cancel
Danrax (1) - 5471d ago Cancel
StixRemix (1) - 5471d ago Cancel
jaredhart (2) - 5471d ago Cancel
240°

OnLive details subscription plan and game prices

Examiner.com
"Online cloud-based gaming service OnLive went live late last week and is slowly activating accounts for people who previously signed up for the service. They've also revealed the prices and additional detail for the service and the games currently available."

Read Full Story >>
examiner.com
Create Report !X

Add Report

Reports

+ Updates (1)- Updates (1)

Updates

Changed from Pending to Approved
Community5471d ago
killyourfm5471d ago

I'm not at ALL enjoying their pricing structure.

Queasy5471d ago

The prices aren't the problem so much as the subscription requirement to keep playing the games you "purchase".

CrAppleton5471d ago

Sounds like a ripoff to me. you should get to keep what you pay for regardless of subscription

morganfell5471d ago

Smells like Son of the Phantom.

thor5471d ago

Yeah I agree.

Originally it was going to be "pay per month and play any game you want on-demand".

Now that they have seen that that system doesn't work. How do you share money between game developers? Surely they will try to make their games as long as possible rather than short and entertaining. Addictive games will take precident over short story-based games.

So now they are charging far too much. In fact for the money you'd spend in 3 years, you could have bought a half-decent gaming PC and play all these games anyway. It really doesn't cost much AT ALL to get a computer capable of playing most multiplatform games. Rendering OnLive useless unless devs want to exclusively develop for it to make the most of the service, which won't happen soon.

Gago5471d ago

im not paying full price for a game that:

1. I don't physically have

2. I can't sell

3. only works only that particular service (onlive)

nveenio5471d ago (Edited 5471d ago )

I agree that their pricing structure needs work, but I also think everyone is focusing on the negative. Here's the positive:

1) OnLive is not a single PC.
2) OnLive games require no DRM or activation keys.
3) OnLive allows you to play your games anywhere, on any platform. PC, Mac, TV, etc... Even Mobile, your games travel with you. You can now play your favorite games on your Mac while taking a break fro studying/working in the library or local coffee shop.
4) OnLive has no hardware to maintain. Freak motherboard failure? Not your problem. Bad stick of RAM? Not your problem. Sure, these things can still go wrong with your hardware, but you don't have to replace what breaks with top-of-the-line equipment.
5) Games are $10 cheaper to "subscribe to" than purchase. How many games do you buy? If you buy at least one a month, then OnLive will save you money. Buy two a month? You save even more. Can you lose those games down the road? Sure, but the money you'd make back selling the game is trivial when compared to what you save.
6) Rent...don't buy. You can rent these games whenever you want. Play it, beat it, be done. Even if it's something you need extra time with (for example, Just Cause 2), you can rent it three times for less than the purchase. If you can't "complete" the game in two weeks, then you probably never will.

I'm just saying...there's a lot of good things, too. I'm definitely going to look into the service.

The benefits of OnLive are just as powerful as the negatives. You just have to decide how you're going to utilize the service.

EDIT: @Gago - No matter what game you buy, it will always only work on one platform. The benefit of OnLive is that it works on ANY platform (via the OnLive service).

Tony P5471d ago

Sure. And all you have to do is give up control and ownership of the material you purchase.

That is a combobreaker right there. This is *far* worse imo than MS trying to do XBL on PC. Charging people to play online... Onlive is basically charging subscription fees for the single player. I hope everybody craps all over this so they can go back and tell the publishers to stuff it.

This idea sucks.

hennessey865471d ago

that was the only reason i was interested in this thing because i aint gona spend a grand plus on a pc to play it. No crysis no purchase from me im afraid. I do think this servise has potential though

Queasy5471d ago

This is the list of initial launch games. They have more coming.

hennessey865471d ago

i really do think this is the future of gaming you would never have to buy a new console again it makes perfect scense to me. If they can get the developers behind them. Ive got a 50mg connection so i should be able to play crysis in 1080p which would be amazing

crck5471d ago

You certainly don't need a 1k pc to run Crysis in 720p. A $500 or $600 machine will do that or much less if you buy used. BTW for anyone having trouble running crysis turn off motion blur in the config file. It can add 10+ frames per sec.

hennessey865471d ago

ive already spent £250 on an xbox and £230 on a ps3 so to spend another £800 £900 on a pc seems stupid to me when im mainly a console gamer. I think onlive is a great alternative to an expensive pc gaming rig

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 5471d ago
Tony P5471d ago (Edited 5471d ago )

Incredibly stupid.

OnLive restricts the games themselves to subscribers. And you still pay full price for individual games. On what planet is that acceptable?

This effectively makes PC gaming itself into an MMO. Not on my PC.

WrAiTh Sp3cTr35471d ago

Free for a year? I really can't argue with that. Everything else though is obviously up for debate.

rexus123455471d ago

It's a trap! 1st year free and 2nd year for $5 per month may sounds like a great deal, but keep in mind you have to buy games and keep subscribing to play them, so on the 3rd year, they may raise the subscription fee to whatever they want and users will HAVE TO keep paying, or else their previous purchases will be wastes.

morkendo5471d ago (Edited 5471d ago )

Unreal Tournament III is priced at $4.99 for three days $6.99 respectively for five days.

7.00 for 5 days?? and 59.99 for ONLIVE game?? thats not yours?? after u payed 60 bucks if u close ur acct. its gone??
rather have a solid disc.
no thanks

nycredude5471d ago (Edited 5471d ago )

WTF! All that hype and talking and all for this crap! Sheesh this is an inferior version of Steam, only you have to pay to have access. So you pay to use the service and then you have pay again for the game or you can rent it. However way you choose to use it in the end you have nothing physical! Wow talk about a scam. I hope they revise this cause it's obvious if this is the way the prices will be it will die a quick death. Seriously there are way better deals than this readily available at your local Gamestop, and you get a disk! Steam has sales almost every day, just the other day I bought Mass Effect 2 for $23!

Wow there's more to it. It is not guarantee you will be able to play the game in the future!? You need a wired connect with at least 5mbps... The more I read the more I smell complete failure.

What do you guys think?

+ Show (4) more repliesLast reply 5471d ago
frankymv5471d ago (Edited 5471d ago )

Why would I pay to play these games on my Mac/PC when I can play them in "real time" on my console?

Furthermore, with all major titles moving to consoles primarily, what is the point if you are a console gamer?

thor5471d ago

Well there is the OnLive "console" which is just a small box you plug into your TV. I think it works with 360 controllers but I could be wrong. Still, the price is the major stumbling block for most people - if they can afford OnLive, they can afford a decent PC or console.

NYC_Gamer5471d ago

might aswell build your own gaming pc...

BeaArthur5471d ago

Sounds like the pricing is better than we originally thought but I'm still concerned about the lag.

Queasy5471d ago

I signed up for the free year but got an error stating that I don't have the correct UDP ports open on my firewall and told me to check the FAQ.

Gues what wasn't in the FAQ...the UDP ports that need to be opened.

Show all comments (39)
80°

Pure Arts Reveals Borderlands Collectible

Pure Arts Reveals Borderlands Collectible that fans should l8ve.

Create Report !X

Add Report

Reports

+ Updates (1)- Updates (1)

Updates

Changed from Pending to Approved
Community29d ago
100°

Why Assassin's Creed 2 and 3 Had the Best Writing the Series Has Ever Seen

IGN - Assassin's Creed's focus on character-driven storytelling has been buried by its RPG sandbox features, and the series is weaker for it.

Create Report !X

Add Report

Reports

+ Updates (1)- Updates (1)

Updates

Changed from Pending to Approved
Community90d ago
RaidenBlack91d ago

A rare W opinion piece from IGN.
IMO, Ubisoft needs to setup two primary AC dev teams. 1 would focus on and release character-driven OG-style AC games for OG fans and the other would continue the current RPG-ified AC style for current fans.
Release by them Bi-annually and alternatively. There'd less fatigue and a boost to quality.

ZeekQuattro90d ago

I definitely appreciate 3 more after playing it again in recent years along with the Liberation game. Back when 3 was new I was still riding high on AC2 and Brotherhood so when I played 3 I felt a bit let down. Even the ship battles grew on me.

-Foxtrot90d ago

AC2 - Yes

AC3 - Urm...I don't know

I feel they kind of dropped the ball with AC3 and with the way the story went it just didn't make sense to me at all. I felt it would have made more sense lore wise if they had it so the Red Coats were mostly Assassins and the Templars were mostly the Colonists who wanted this "new world" as a fresh start for their operations, to build a country up they'd have full control of from the start so they manufacture the war as something else while really it's just a front for the Templars vs Assassins.

It just meant that since the Red coats lose the war it explains how the Templars have gained full control of future America and how the Assassins have slowly died out by then. This entire event would have been the turning point of how things went to s**t for the Assassins and how there's not many of them left in the present.

Haythem was a lot more interesting than Connor and he should have been the main Assassin of AC3.

lucasnooker90d ago (Edited 90d ago )

I thought AC2 was the greatest of the series and it is but replaying it recently, I stared to see more flaws in the game. Basically every single mission is an assassination besides a few tailing missions lol. Still, the implementation of all the new mechanics were great. The smoke bombs, disarming guards, story, hidden tombs, swimming, flying machine, multiple locations, etc. it definitely felt a bit more special to me at the time of release though

isarai90d ago

Dunno about 3, the 1st act was cool, then i couldn't tell you what happens after that. But 2 was so good! The entire acts 1-3 were al memorable, whereas i really couldn't even tell you what happens in any other AC game

80°

Years Later, Batman Arkham: Asylum's Intro Scene Still Sends Chills Down Your Spine

Batman: Arkham Asylum's powerful intro paves the way to an excellent gameplay experience, even almost 15 years later.

Create Report !X

Add Report

Reports

+ Updates (1)- Updates (1)

Updates

Changed from Pending to Approved
Community187d ago