PingSpike
Lifer
- Feb 25, 2004
- 21,758
- 603
- 126
Regarding the netbook/phone single platform thing. I admit there might be some demand for it. Although I'm not part of the demographic. I don't really have any interest in trying to play a AAA title on a smartphone at all. I'd rather just play it at home. Most people play time killing games on a cellphone or netbook...and why not? Trying to use cumbersome touchscreen controls while staring at a 4.3" screen is just not the same experience any way you slice it. And its not like you were going to play it on a plane anyway so basically you get to use it in an airport waiting for your flight and maybe a hotel room. I'm not sure either of those likely wifi connections would give a very optimal experience, I'd imagine it varies greatly. I don't think there is enough demand to justify the construction of supporting networks across the country as they need to do to make it work.
As Nintendesert said, the combination of long console life cycles, console centric development and better integrated chips has made the hardware cost essentially nil. And the service only sent out medium quality graphics anyway. That's a target that can be pretty cheaply met on the PC platform and cheaply and easily met with a console. That said ease of use may well trump quality of experience for a lot of people and maybe even cost.
But the business model is just nuts. We've talked about how the world of data caps and slow broadband means its a strain on end users connections and/or wallets to even be able to run the service. And a some people have talked about the cost of building/supporting/powering all the data centers. But few people mention that OnLive has to pay for all the bandwidth to send the stream to you as well. That means every time you play the game you cut into their profits. Some games take 40 hours to complete. People who buy one multiplayer game and play it for hundreds of hours (there are plenty) are just a losing proposition.
Really the only "useful" thing about this is its the perfect DRM. It cannot be cracked but you never actually have the game to begin with. But consumers still have to buy it first.
As Nintendesert said, the combination of long console life cycles, console centric development and better integrated chips has made the hardware cost essentially nil. And the service only sent out medium quality graphics anyway. That's a target that can be pretty cheaply met on the PC platform and cheaply and easily met with a console. That said ease of use may well trump quality of experience for a lot of people and maybe even cost.
But the business model is just nuts. We've talked about how the world of data caps and slow broadband means its a strain on end users connections and/or wallets to even be able to run the service. And a some people have talked about the cost of building/supporting/powering all the data centers. But few people mention that OnLive has to pay for all the bandwidth to send the stream to you as well. That means every time you play the game you cut into their profits. Some games take 40 hours to complete. People who buy one multiplayer game and play it for hundreds of hours (there are plenty) are just a losing proposition.
Really the only "useful" thing about this is its the perfect DRM. It cannot be cracked but you never actually have the game to begin with. But consumers still have to buy it first.
Last edited:
Facebook
Twitter