Although OnLive could easily fill its servers with games from publishers' back catalogues, Perlman doesn't want to send the wrong message; he wants to focus on new high-end games as well as some casual and indie titles. The games will initially cater to Western audiences (for North America and Europe) but as OnLive expands and gains more publishing partners, you can expect some more Asian influences as well.
OnLive could potentially represent the next leap forward in the distribution of games. Forget massive downloads – on demand gaming will not only satisfy gamers who want instant gratification, but it also yields considerable benefits for publishers. McGarvey stressed that this method eliminates the concern over used game sales, wipes out piracy, and it "enables a direct relationship with the consumer." This last point is hugely valuable because publishers will be able to examine all sorts of metrics about their games, gaining instant feedback from consumers.
"OnLive combines the successful components of video games, online distribution and social networking into one affordable, flexible platform that offers a new way for game fans to access and enjoy content," said McGarvey. "By substantially lowering the barriers between content and consumers, OnLive has created an environment that is highly beneficial for every facet of the video game ecosystem. With OnLive, gamers can play what they want, when they want, how they want. That level of freedom has never been possible until now."
Ultimately, if OnLive is the "transformative" technology that Rearden believes it will be, then the traditional console cycle can be thrown out the window... possibly for good. Perlman called the console cycle a "nightmare for publishers," and while the current Xbox 360/PS3/Wii generation may last longer than previous ones, there's no question that the massive costs inherent in launching a new platform have been detrimental to Microsoft and Sony (Nintendo's hardware has always been profitable). Moreover, on the publisher side, Perlman points out that companies often have to make a bet three years out on which console will lead in market share. This only adds further risk to the publishing equation. After all, who really envisioned the Wii taking the industry by storm the way it did? Publishers were left scrambling as a result.
Meanwhile, analysts have been describing the industry as being in transition from a boxed goods business to a service oriented one. As it stands now, the economics of the boxed goods model is out of whack. McGarvey told us that Eidos made the first Tomb Raider for around $1 million and the first five Tomb Raider titles for under $8 million combined. By comparison, today's high-end games cost anywhere from $10-$20 million (or even as high as $30-$40 million) and publishers have no guarantee they'll recoup their investment. Will OnLive knock over that first domino and push the industry in the games as a service direction? OnLive's major publishing partners seem encouraged.
"We are excited about the potential of OnLive and pleased to see continued innovation in the interactive entertainment industry," said Ben Feder, Take-Two CEO.
"Ubisoft is excited to be one of the premier publishing partners with OnLive Game Service," remarked Yves Guilemot, CEO of Ubisoft. "Our goal at Ubisoft is to serve the community of gamers and Onlive's platform offers a new model for consumers to access our games. With OnLive, gamers will have a new community to play with other OnLive users, capture and share recorded highlights of game play achievements with other users, demo new games on the market and purchase and play titles instantly."
Of course, OnLive isn't the only server-based gaming product in development. You may recall that the folks at Trion World Network, led by Lars Buttler, are working on something similar. Perlman made a few distinctions about OnLive, however. "Two things: we started developing long before [Trion], but independently of that the games have to be designed to play on [Buttler's] platform. You cant take Crysis and run it on his platform. They can only run proprietary software," said Perlman.
He continued, "His system requires you to have a PC and requires you to have a GPU, etc. We run on entry levels, PCs, Macs and TVs with only minor modifications, and we're playing third-party games. We offer a completely ubiquitous one console system... Trion is also a hits-based business. If the game is good they will do well. Ours is a platform. We aren't dependent on the success of one game."
Added McGarvey, "Our platform actually broadens the market, giving more people more access to more games."
Whether it's OnLive, Trion or some as yet unannounced company, GameDaily BIZ is intrigued by the prospect of server-based gaming. We've seen the future, and we like it.
Reader Comments (9)
I have to say, its an impressive concept that could work. But there are some factors that in summing it up, people have to consider: 1. No ownership of physical media you've paid for, nor control of patches or updates you want to avoid. 2. How exactly does 1 copy of the game work when perhaps 100 people want to play it at the same time from the servers? Other than virtualization I really believe this will hog down the internet on a massive scale if that promised "low latency" ever disappears? I really love the idea of running it from an old computer but there is no bullet-proof design, Lags and hiccups will occur. 3. This brings viruses and hackers into a new location to wreak havoc. Having 1,000 people playing a title like F.E.A.R. 2 with a virus embedded into it, could potentially wipe out some players. Sure its just sending just the video portion of the game without much effort but it can turn really nasty. Lastly, payment: who wants to pay to have a game when perhaps they have no connection, nor a copy of it? If you don't want to have an online account yet you're forced to pay for a service you do not need. Its all pros and cons, sure people pay for XBOX Live, and believe me, it seems like whatever this'll turn out to be, it will impact the computer manufacturers greatly. Especially ATi, and nVidia. That goes for Intel, Asus, SIS, and all the other motherboard manufacturers, I could go on with RAM manufacturers, since you won't need much ram. I believe that this will possibly separate computers needs, from their wants. The hardware will specifically be used for applications while the games will run from a different location without much effort. Only time will show us what the future holds.
I dont know abt the problems that will happen bcoz of this new Onlive, but hey there r people here who loves 2 play on their pcs rather than consoles....i was gettin' worried b'coz so many game developers have like stopped making games for PCs, they r just making games only for consoles....now thats not fair. With this Onlive atleast games are gonna comeback to the PCs....where we can not just play but also we can try smthin new with the game files, edit it in our own way & create something really cool....i know there r people who dont like this idea of Onlive but hey guys, they r tryin 2 take the gaming 2 the next level....sure it will create problems but by solving new problems can only we cud progress 2 new heights.... :)
OnLive is going to change the gaming industry as we know it. It's remarkable to think that in only a few months we can be playing Crysis in high-definition on any ol' laptop. -Falcon, OnLive info / forums http://www.onlive1.com
this is cool and *** at the same time... if you have to pay for the games, gamers are going to want the physical copy of the game.. if your like me, I sell some of my games later down the road, make some money back, and what about trade-ins? and with all the money sony, microsoft and nintendo have with all the video game companies and developers.. you think they are just going to let this service take over everything they've built?
@devilman2539: Good points, but people would rather own their games and have a physical copy than pay good money for a game that just sits out there in the "clouds". @everyone: I already see comments on every site an article on this is posted, and people have the same misconception everywhere. People think this is going to be like Netflix; i.e. a service that you pay a monthly fee for and can play any game for free as long as your subscription is active. That's not what this is at all. You will be paying your monthly fee for the service, yes, but in addition to that you are actually going to be purchasing the games you want to play the full version of. Do a bit of research on this. Granted, with the reduced cost of producing pressed discs, cases, inserts, and paper manuals, developers will be able to provide a lower price point, but how much lower a price is worth it? What will you pay for a game when you don't know how long it is going to be hosted on their servers? How do you feel about playing the game but never owning it? What about when your ISP has an outage or maintenance, and you can't even play a single player game by yourself because you have no internet connection? How about a server overload due to the release of something on the popularity level of a new Halo game? All of these possibilities floating around and when one of them hits, everybody who paid (and I'm being generous here) probably around 40-50 bucks for that hot new release is foaming at the mouth because they can't even play a game they just spent good money on. If the service ever does make it out of public beta, that's the kind of moment where people will wonder why they didn't just get off their asses and buy the game for an established console, instead of throwing money out there into a black hole. Seriously, have you seen how upset these people get when a developer wants to charge a few bucks for some new maps or a new game mode? "This is bull**** man, 4 dollars, that should have just come with the game" etc, etc... I rest my case.
Who knows what will happen with something like this. I don't believe this is targeting console manufacturers. If anything PC GPU companies have to worry about something like this, I personally own a decent gaming rig and if the price is right I wouldn't mind owning something like this so that I don't have to buy a new GPU solution every year. Something you guys have to understand, while people like us are very hardcore about owning our games and the control we have over our equipment...we are few. The WII console has taught us that. I mean look at that console and its install base. 1. Its not the most powerful. 2. it doesn't have as many A list games as the other consoles. 3. It's always getting criticism on all these things and yet it happens to be the best selling console of all time. It sucks but we are not the mainstream market share. Not every one can afford a high end graphics solution and there is definitely an untapped market with people that own low end machines due to our current economy. As far as the internet connectivity goes the same can be applied. There just are way more people that have high speed internet than those who don't and connection speeds are getting cheaper and faster as time goes by. Remember T1? Now we have Verizon Fios offering a faster connection at a cheaper price than Comcast. Will this destroy consoles/PCs? No. At least not any time soon but it can change everything and we have everything to gain...as long as the price is right.
How about no? People like having physical, tangible games that actually have value. For example, I won't deny that it would be pretty cool to have a holographic toilet to take a dump in, but it just wouldn't be the same without the porcelain and 2-ply.
This is stupid, to think that one big "multiplatform" EMULATOR (because that's basically what it is) will sell more, or sell out the consoles we own? Pft...please, get real. I would bother posting how I feel but nobody said it better other than Tim Buckley of CAD Comics: So obviously OnLive is causing a pretty big stir in the video games community, and with good reason. It's a fascinating concept that could revolutionize gaming. However it also stirs up a lot of fears and concerns and doubts that are all perfectly legitimate. The implications and possibilities (and possible failures) of a system like this are too numerous to explore completely here (at least within a reasonable amount of time), but I do want to share some of my thoughts on it, as well as concerns and what I've heard. When it was first announced, my initial reaction was "Wow, that's amazing" followed immediately by "But I don't want to give up that much control over my games.". And I don't. I don't want to rely on so many X factors to access and enjoy my games. I don't want to rely on the OnLive service functioning, as well as the internet service to deliver it. What if I wanted to travel somewhere that doesn't have internet? I could take my console. With OnLive I'd be completely cut off. I don't want to not "own" the game I'm paying for. I know more and more things are going digital these days, but there's still a lot of comfort in owning a physical copy of something you paid for. You know it's there when you need it. I imagine it's the same reason people purchase the Ctrl+Alt+Del collection books even though all of the comics are available for free online. Sometimes you want tangible stuff that you know can't disappear with an internet outage or a corrupt hard drive. I also don't like the idea of losing control over a game that I've bought. While I cannot honestly think of a time in recent memory where I chose not to patch a game because I didn't agree with the patch changes, I'm not sure I want to relinquish that option. I'm not sure I want to start playing a game, and then have it disappear because the developer decided it wasn't selling well enough. So those are some of the things, right off the bat, that turn me off about the idea. They mirror some of the general concerns I've heard murmered about the concept. "What about lag and internet/service outages?" Exactly. OnLive says they've developed new tech that all but obliterates latency but... honestly, haven't we all heard that before? The bottom line is, the service will be prone to hiccups and lag. Now most of us have come to accept this as a fact of life when we play multiplayer games online. But do we really want to introduce this variable into our single player experiences as well? Additionally, not everyone has great internet speeds, and not everyone has uncapped bandwidth. These are additional speedbumps the service has to deal with. However, there is incredible potential for a service like this. It's huge for people who can't afford the top-end gaming PCs, or who can't afford three different consoles just to play all the available games. That would be a fantastic advantage. Imagine it, having all games available through one service. How convenient would that be? But who says there's only one service? Yes, OnLive is the first, but does anybody honestly think that, if this actually works, that other companies aren't going to launch their own versions of the service? Of course they are. And then this idea of a utopian, console-free, one-stop video-gamescape goes right out the window, because we're back to different services competing for subscribers, and competing for exclusive rights to various games. Want to play the new Call of Duty? Sure thing, it's on this network. Oh, but you want to play the new Starcraft? Sorry, it's exclusive to this other service. And that's not even mentioning all of the companies who have built their business around asking us to purchase new hardware every few years. I cannot see nVidia or ATI lying down while a service says "Hey everyone, you don't have to buy a new graphics card, we'll run the game for you!". I can't see Microsoft saying "Sure, don't buy our console, we don't want the revenue from XBL, etc anyway." I won't pretend to know the architecture of the intricate web of licensing and exclusivity deals that ensnares the entire games industry, but I do suspect that some pretty strict arrangements would start popping up between developers and the console manufacturers. And I also know that a lot of development studios are owned by console manufacturers, or other publishers. I doubt Microsoft spent so much time and money acquiring a lion's share of the industry to turn around and let Bungie's new Halo game show up on a service that costs them console sales. And Nintendo... Nintendo ****s money and they've had an incredible case of explosive diarrhea for the last few years. What incentive do they have to license their titles to a start-up service that, once again, doesn't sell their hardware? I agree that OnLive is a really novel idea. A streaming version of the all-in-one console we've all dreamed of. But it's an idea whose fate ultimately rests entirely in the hands of developers, and there are a lot of considerations and loyalties (and legalities in some cases) some of these developers have to come to terms with before they license their games to the service. And the console manufacturers aren't just going to pack up shop, either. If anything, all OnLive will accomplish will be adding a fourth "console" option to the market. Which is actually really great, because as mentioned, some people miss out on some games because they don't have top-end PCs, etc. However a lot of people seem to see this heralding a complete overhaul to the gaming industry, practically over***ht. The "Death of the Console", and I just really, really doubt that. To be honest with you... I'd be surprised if it gets past being the Netflix of gaming. A great service, a great alternative... but not the end-all of gaming platforms. ~~ I agree, 100%
Cute but you still have to many people without high speed broadband, we do not have a good enough infrastructure for full digital only distribution. We would be better off with a mix and the loss of the console war model moving to universal hardware where the console makers sell hardware designs and parts that can be installed into units vendors then sell to the masses.