Well as promised here is part two of my stupidly long explanation of what it is I think of OnLive. Last time I gave you an idea of the technical claims made by OnLive about their service which has been “stealth developed” over seven years. Now time for something slightly less technical, the human and business side of things.
Gamers can get very hard core, even those not extremely hard core can take their gaming experience very seriously. People spend good money on consoles, on graphics cards, on anything that can improve their experience beyond something that’s just passable. Yes in this day and age you may not be able to afford that brand new graphics card to get that brilliant performance from Crysis, and that is why OnLive seems appealing. Equally you probably can’t afford a top-end PC, a PS3, a XBox 360 and a Wii to play every game on. And when we get the PS4, XBox 720 and the Pii what are the odds you can afford those as well? But there is one advantage, you can have any of the games for the one, or more, console(s) you own or their previous incarnations and you will own them, not just be renting them. Similarly with the PC. OnLive only gives you a rental, and the back catalogue might not be quite as extensive as you might hope.
The other advantage of having a console or a computer running the game in front of you is that, forgoing a red ring or some other malfunction, you have control over whether that machine stays or goes. With OnLive, as with most “cloud computing” ideas, that service could die at any moment. And there would be no immediate warranty cover to replace that.
I love having the ability to run games natively because I have control over what is being done. I have physical interaction with it on a native level. I’m not sending a signal anywhere up to 1500 miles away and having the response sent the same distance back, and I’m not the only one who doesn’t like that idea. Digital distribution may well be the way forward, I love Steam, but digital distribution without sending anything to the host, that is very dodgy ground.
How about from a developer point of view? OK maybe the likes of EA and Ubisoft will grant you license to sell rent their games, but what about a Sony game, or a Microsoft Game Studios game, or a Nintendo game. These companies have a stake in the hardware market. It is likely to be a long time before Nintendo give up their great Mario or Pokémon franchises to something that isn’t their own console. What incentive can OnLive really offer the console manufacturers to relinquish their income from hardware in exchange for letting OnLive take their market and giving them only game revenue.
So if OnLive can overcome the technical issues I offered last post, they still haven’t won the war. Yes the idea of a single console is great, the PC is still my idea of the closest we have, but there are certain factors that you won’t get over, and OnLive doesn’t seem to answer everything. One day Sony, Microsoft and Nintentdo may all sit down, along with Apple, and all games will become playable on everything. It’s unlikely, and OnLive doesn’t do that.
OnLive is very unlikely to get the one market that makes or breaks a console (Except maybe Nintendo, they excrete money from every orifice though) and that is the hard core gamers. They want immediate access to things running on their hardware. This service can’t give them that, there are too many possibilities for problems with it for the hard core gamers. Maybe the casual gamers will pick it up, but there’s no wiimote here, so why choose it.
It’s a noble idea, one service to play any game, any where, any time, unless you have nonet access.. then you’re in trouble, but it is an idea that has a lot of issues to overcome, and they are big issues. If OnLive can leap over all of these hurdles I will be very impressed, and I have my hat ready to be eaten. Will I be supporting OnLive. If it promises me no lag, instant access gaming with good online play and good games, maybe, but unless I can get the exact experience I am used to with real hardware on client side playing the game, no. I’m also sure I’m not the only one thinking that.
So good luck OnLive, I wish you all the best. You have got a lot of proving to do before I buy into you though. If there’s another announcement in two days (April 1st 2009 on day of writing), I won’t be surprised.
MTFBWY
Filed under: Gaming | Tagged: cloud computing, Gaming, OnLive
[...] to me seems a tad silly. I have made a few posts before about why it is that in a technical and business sense that OnLive shouldn’t work. I even touched on why gamers wouldn’t like it in the [...]