Topic: OnLive

This isn't about "Rent Vs. Buy". It's "Buy something you can hold Vs. Buy something you cannot hold".
Or better put, "Buying something you have control over Vs. Buying something you do not have control over".

I'm glad tennis courts are free here where I live.

How isn't it a "Rent Vs. Buy" argument? That's literally what it is. OnLive is a series of long term rental agreements. Buying physical copies is buying physical copies.

Because they expect you to pay retail price at launch for games, and the option in OnLive literally says "Buy Game". They also have 3-Day Passes which is exactly what a rental is, paying less for a limited use.

As far as I'm aware, there's no law or regulation that could hit OnLive for not completing the phrase "Buy Game," to "Buy Game License," which is, as you've said numerous times, exactly what you're doing since you don't own a physical copy of the game.

Having a short term rental doesn't mean the longer term rental isn't still a longer term rental.

But..

You're buying a "Full Pass". It clearly says it when you're getting a game.

Rent for 3 or 5 days. Or, BUY FULL PASS, not RENT. At full price. The games you buy may end up disappearing in 3 years miniumum, of course, Onlive is still in it's infancy at this point.

Here's the bottom line:

It's a liability when you can only play a game if you have internet access.

But, if you buy a physical copy of a game, you don't need the internet- at all. When you buy a game on Wii, PS3, 360, DS, PSP, 3DS, etc., you do not need to go on the internet to 'register' to unlock the game to play it. Just as BC said, it's "Plug&Play". Yes, Cloud Gaming may be the future of videogames, but we won't see that being the medium in awhile.

I'd rather own a physical copy of a game and play it on a console/computer than to connect to the internet to play a game especially if it's a single-player game.

I think the best example is the PSN situation:

You don't need PSN to play games. Even if it's down, it does not render your game unplayable (unless the game is solely focused on Online- even requires such as SOCOM4 which released within days before PSN went down). Now, if OnLive went down in a similar fashion, you CANNOT play those games you rented or purchased. Therefore, it pretty much renders the Onlive Application and even the console useless.

If it was a rent system, how is it logical to pay the exact same amount of cash to only rent a game, rather than buy it? Plus the fact that most gamers that buy new trade in their old games in, which you could not do if you're only 'renting'?
So you're paying the same, for less options. The reason why digital distribution is successful is because it's supposed to be a cheaper alternative, and when a game that is sold through DD, and fails to do just that, well both parties are to blame.

I am of course referring to general releases, and not the occasion awesome deal that OnLive does indeed use (Not to mention Steam).

But..

You're buying a "Full Pass". It clearly says it when you're getting a game.

Rent for 3 or 5 days. Or, BUY FULL PASS, not RENT. At full price. The games you buy may end up disappearing in 3 years miniumum, of course, Onlive is still in it's infancy at this point.

Here's the bottom line:

It's a liability when you can only play a game if you have internet access.

But, if you buy a physical copy of a game, you don't need the internet- at all. When you buy a game on Wii, PS3, 360, DS, PSP, 3DS, etc., you do not need to go on the internet to 'register' to unlock the game to play it. Just as BC said, it's "Plug&Play". Yes, Cloud Gaming may be the future of videogames, but we won't see that being the medium in awhile.

I'd rather own a physical copy of a game and play it on a console/computer than to connect to the internet to play a game especially if it's a single-player game.

I think the best example is the PSN situation:

You don't need PSN to play games. Even if it's down, it does not render your game unplayable (unless the game is solely focused on Online- even requires such as SOCOM4 which released within days before PSN went down). Now, if OnLive went down in a similar fashion, you CANNOT play those games you rented or purchased. Therefore, it pretty much renders the Onlive Application and even the console useless.

Pass by definition isn't permanent. You buy a pass to see a movie in the cinema, go to a play/ opera/ whatever. It's a "full pass," but that doesn't mean you own anything - you don't own the movie your watching, you don't own the opera singers.

As for liabilities. There are liabilities to owning physical copies of games as well. That's where it's up to the individual consumer to weigh up the pros and cons.

If it was a rent system, how is it logical to pay the exact same amount of cash to only rent a game, rather than buy it? Plus the fact that most gamers that buy new trade in their old games in, which you could not do if you're only 'renting'?
So you're paying the same, for less options. The reason why digital distribution is successful is because it's supposed to be a cheaper alternative, and when a game that is sold through DD, and fails to do just that, well both parties are to blame.

I am of course referring to general releases, and not the occasion awesome deal that OnLive does indeed use (Not to mention Steam).

Wait, we're discussing value for money now? I never said OnLive is good value for money. That's entirely in the eye of the beholder and has nothing to do with whether the service is a bad idea for someone who is willing to pay the money.

I'd be willing to pay because OnLive brings additional value in other areas - being able to play on inferior hardware a big one, and the potential for a future iPad version even bigger. I don't care one whit about owning a copy of a game. I rarely resell, and even more rarely trade in (lol if you think trading in is "good value." Last time I did that EB Games offered me $5 for something I spend $70 on).

So value is entirely subjective. You don't see as much value in it, that's good for you and all, but claiming OnLive has a 'broken' business model is flat out wrong.

Also, I don't know where you pulled the idea that Digital Distribution is meant to be cheaper from. It's meant to add value in different ways to retail products, and that's exactly what OnLive does.

Too much text, didn't read.

ANYWHO. I'd hope they will add more games soon and drop the console price down a bit. If they do, I'd consider getting one.

For me digital distribution isnt necessary cheaper for me its more the convince factor. I have bought a few games from Steam, and D2D as well as a couple of expansions for World of Warcraft from Blizzards online store. Its convenient cause I didnt have to drive to a store to get it I got it with a few clicks of a mouse. The difference with that and Onlive however is that I own the games. They are on my PCs harddrive. Except for World of Warcraft I dont need internet to play them, if EA or whoever makes the game shuts down it is still mine to play. I cant say the same thing with Onlive.

You brought up about renting tennis courts and movies etc, well thats not the same as OnLive. If they kept it at the 6 day price or however days you have than I can say yeah thats a rent. The only way I can see the $50 as equivalent to a rent is if you are a person who likes to play a game through but dont want to own it and than renting it over and over will surpass the $50. I guess thats one way to look at Onlive if you dont care about not owning the game is that if you pay $50 for it you have a "permenant" rental.

Yeah, that's the point. You do OWN the copy of the game. But you don't own the content. That's pretty obvious. On Steam, you do own the game because purchased it. You don't own the characters, rights, or content but you still own the game.

Imagine: You buy a game (physical copy particularly) and then it goes on to say "Okay, but you don't own that game".

So, would it be right for someone to come and steal the game from you.. Because apparently, you don't own it? The world would pretty much suck if that were true.

Also, buying a pass for movies/plays and buying a pass on OnLive are TWO entirely different things. Movie passes, you can only see that movie once, essentially. With OnLive, you have unlimited access to the game, even if you log out.

It would suck if you pay $50 for a FULL PASS and can only play it once- or, you can't play it after you beat the game.

Waltz, I think you're looking FAAAR too into this because no one said that when you buy a game, you own the content and rights of it. I sure as hell wouldn't want anyone to own my property in my comic books even though they bought it, for example. If someone bought a copy of my comic books, they OWN that copy. I can't take it away, sent a warrant out for it or anything like that. I really don't think people go out to buy a game thinking that they'll own the content of the game.

I don't for sure. I love Smash Bros., so I buy any game that comes out with that name. But I don't buy it saying "Yes! Now I have rights to Smash Bros. and own the property".

That's just being nutty

For people like myself in the Uk Onlive will launch this Autumn and you can visit the Uk site to register your gamertag ready for the launch. I will give it a try see if it will work for me and the Uk site address http://www.onlive.co.uk/.

time to see if the UK broadband network can handle it.