4 ms·

At first I was under the impression that the subscription would cover the cost of the games, much like netflix does for movies. It sounds like this is not the c

by TrevorJ 17y ago

At first I was under the impression that the subscription would cover the cost of the games, much like netflix does for movies. It sounds like this is not the case so forking over 15/month doesn't sound like such a good deal.

olegk 17y ago
Sounds like a pretty good deal to me (assuming the technology works).
- inerte 17y ago
  Why? If you have to buy the console and the games, and they're priced similary to other offers, the monthly $15 would buy you, I guess, the same as Xbox Live, the online experience/friends/matches (which people do pay, afterall). Now if the OnLive "console" (receiver?) is cheaper, it's a different story...
ivankirigin 17y ago
Millions do it for XBox live. I do.
- potatolicious 17y ago
  With Xbox Live you're getting something for your money that you otherwise would not have - social networking capabilities, multiplayer matchmaking, etc. With this... all you're getting for your $15 is the privilege of playing games that would otherwise not cost extra to play on other platforms. It's a little bit like the Steam argument - Steam DRM is "worth it" because it confers features you wouldn't have otherwise (no more disc juggling, serial numbers to remember, etc), whereas normal DRM is just pointless.
- TrevorJ 17y ago
  Yes they do, that is true however I was assuming the value proposition for onlive involved greater/cheaper access to games and not simply the low hardware requirements. xbox live is also much cheaper and isn't required for single player games. An xbox arcade is 170.00 dollars new - the same price as 11 month of the onlive service and you don't have to maintain a subscription to keep access to the games you have bought, yet you have the same advantages as onlive in terms of not having to upgrade your hardware every year to play the latest game.

4 ms·

At first I was under the impression that the subscription would cover the cost of the games, much like netflix does for movies. It sounds like this is not the c

by TrevorJ 17y ago

olegk 17y ago
Sounds like a pretty good deal to me (assuming the technology works).
- inerte 17y ago
  Why? If you have to buy the console and the games, and they're priced similary to other offers, the monthly $15 would buy you, I guess, the same as Xbox Live, the online experience/friends/matches (which people do pay, afterall). Now if the OnLive "console" (receiver?) is cheaper, it's a different story...
ivankirigin 17y ago
Millions do it for XBox live. I do.
- potatolicious 17y ago
  With Xbox Live you're getting something for your money that you otherwise would not have - social networking capabilities, multiplayer matchmaking, etc. With this... all you're getting for your $15 is the privilege of playing games that would otherwise not cost extra to play on other platforms. It's a little bit like the Steam argument - Steam DRM is "worth it" because it confers features you wouldn't have otherwise (no more disc juggling, serial numbers to remember, etc), whereas normal DRM is just pointless.
- TrevorJ 17y ago
  Yes they do, that is true however I was assuming the value proposition for onlive involved greater/cheaper access to games and not simply the low hardware requirements. xbox live is also much cheaper and isn't required for single player games. An xbox arcade is 170.00 dollars new - the same price as 11 month of the onlive service and you don't have to maintain a subscription to keep access to the games you have bought, yet you have the same advantages as onlive in terms of not having to upgrade your hardware every year to play the latest game.