Onlive is Too Expensive

Onlive is a cloud based gaming service.  The hype around Onlive is based on two things:

1. You do not have to download the entire game or go out and purchase it.  You purchase it through the Onlive client and play it instantly.
2. You do not need a gaming computer to play the games.  The hardware required to receive the streaming games is minimal and can be played regardless of operating system.  In the future customers will even be able to stream to their TV via a small, inexpensive Onlive console.

Now these are big name games we're talking about here.  Games that have come out in the past year or two.  So, on paper, it sounds great.  You can play a bit of Assassin's Creed at home on your computer, head over to your friend's, bring up your account and finish the mission there with the resume play.  Your friend will be amazed that his Windows 95 computer is even capable of running a current-gen game on his raggedy old machine.

What's the problem then?  Well, the prices.  

Yes, it is true that you can play any game instantly, but this does come at a price.  For one, the games experience a slight amount of latency.  Nothing that will stop you by any means from enjoying the games, but it is noticeable.  In twitch-based games like first person shooters, it might cause frustration sooner or later.

Second, you can't adjust the graphics quality of the game.  Now I'm not sure if this is a beta thing or not, but this is going to become a major problem when you start charging full price for the games.  The low-resolution and medium quality of the games are fine for someone who doesn't own a console at all and their PC can't handle it, but what about gamers like me who already own a semi-high quality rig?  I can run every game that has been released so far (with the exception of those titles who simply have horrible optimization) on max settings at max resolution.  Why, then, should I pay full price for Onlive's games when they limit the resolution to 1280x720?

A game in 1280x720.

The website states that when higher bandwidth is available, they'll support 1080p.  Well who knows when that's going to be?  In the meantime, I've been using a 1080p display for years, and now 720 is almost unacceptable.  Asking actual gamers--those of us already playing current-gen games in one way or another-- to pay full price for a lower quality game is not going to fly well.  I honestly never expected Onlive to charge full price in the first place.  The price you see in stores takes into account the cost of the disc, the box, the manual the artwork, the shipping and everything else, but I suppose I should have directed my attention to other digital distributors like Steam to prepare myself for that.

One of the things that caught my eye when I first heard about Onlive was the option to rent.  This might be a decent piracy deterrent.  People can just pay a small amount to see if they like the game, and then buy it. I still believe this is where the majority of Onlive's potential lies, but the problem is not all games offer rentals!  I understand that they want people purchasing the whole games whenever possible.  That's $50 bucks instead of, what, $20 max to beat a longer title?  However, there are people who simply aren't going to buy a game, and you're better off offering a rental to those people because otherwise you've completely lost out on potential income.

The prices of the rentals are also unsatisfactory.  Batman: Arkham Asylum is $6.99 for a 5-day rental and is on sale right now for $39.99.  That means you pay 1/5th of the price every 5 days or the whole price in 20 days.  Services like Gamefly will charge you $15.99 for an entire month.  With shipping that is about 24 days of play time with a game for only $16.00 as opposed to $40.00 for only 20 days at reduced resolution.  Even local rental stores like Blockbuster who charge $8.00 a game or higher will end up being cheaper than Onlive.

The ramen you could have bought with the money you saved renting somewhere else.

So it is obvious that Onlive's current target must be PC and Mac owners who have machines that are not capable of running the games due to operating system or hardware restraints.  However these are people who probably aren't gamers anyways.  Gamers go out of their way to spend time and money to have access and play games.  The gamers who actually just happen to have inadequate means to play games is a relatively small amount as opposed to those of us who would just like to be able to pick up and play current-gen titles regardless of location or try them out via the rental service, but Onlive's current prices do not acknowledge this.

I predict that if we do not see a stronger library and rental prices that match the percentage of the total price of a game, Onlive's future is looking a little on the grim side.