Why Is OnLive Wasting its time with Gaming?

[C-Rob]

This is something I just got to thinking about while studying for my Economics final(though it has little to do with that subject). I have to ask, Why is Onlive wasting its time trying to get Gamers, you know, generally smart people who dont' like their established ways of doing things getting changed by a system that will overall give a subpar level of performance to try them out when there is a much better and much more open population that would gladly try it out due to the fact that it would make their lives a 100x easier? I'm talking about the people who use expensive proprietary software such as Photoshop and Maya and 3Ds max. The entrance cost to get these softwares are almost prohibitively expensive. And yet there are people with it on their wishlists. I believe that if someone were to make a renting service to these high-end sofwares OnLive or somethign like it could be very successful. $17 a month to gain a large remote storage site, another amount to gain the right to use each of these valuable and advanced programs would be much more acceptable. The streaming updates would be great.
These programs get upgraded year or bi yearly and there is always a higher level to purchase or once you've done something worth while, got your training in, you can have the job that will pay for the real thing, making the, "renting" part of the equation actually acceptable because no one really expects to be using the same program for the rest of their lives.

Oh, and the obvious part- Lag is irrelevant unless it's REALLY bad.

Though since it's for proprietary use it would have to be extremely reliable or there'd be a ton of people pissed off or in serious trouble when the servers decide to not work.

What do you think? If I had a small, part time income, it would make sense to use this service. It woudln't make sense though for me to game with this system. That just seems retarded due to internet connections having to be superb and a gamer wants to have the idea that they own the game they paid for forever. I dont' really understand why OnLive didn't think that maybe there was a better market to jump into. Professionals just entering computing industries and students and hobbyists who can't fork over $3000 for a suite that Adobe and Autodesk and such offer.

[erasmus777]

This is something I just got to thinking about while studying for my Economics final(though it has little to do with that subject). I have to ask, Why is Onlive wasting its time trying to get Gamers, you know, generally smart people who dont' like their established ways of doing things getting changed by a system that will overall give a subpar level of performance to try them out when there is a much better and much more open population that would gladly try it out due to the fact that it would make their lives a 100x easier? I'm talking about the people who use expensive proprietary software such as Photoshop and Maya and 3Ds max. The entrance cost to get these softwares are almost prohibitively expensive. And yet there are people with it on their wishlists. I believe that if someone were to make a renting service to these high-end sofwares OnLive or somethign like it could be very successful. $17 a month to gain a large remote storage site, another amount to gain the right to use each of these valuable and advanced programs would be much more acceptable. The streaming updates would be great.
These programs get upgraded year or bi yearly and there is always a higher level to purchase or once you've done something worth while, got your training in, you can have the job that will pay for the real thing, making the, "renting" part of the equation actually acceptable because no one really expects to be using the same program for the rest of their lives.

Oh, and the obvious part- Lag is irrelevant unless it's REALLY bad.

Though since it's for proprietary use it would have to be extremely reliable or there'd be a ton of people pissed off or in serious trouble when the servers decide to not work.

What do you think? If I had a small, part time income, it would make sense to use this service. It woudln't make sense though for me to game with this system. That just seems retarded due to internet connections having to be superb and a gamer wants to have the idea that they own the game they paid for forever. I dont' really understand why OnLive didn't think that maybe there was a better market to jump into. Professionals just entering computing industries and students and hobbyists who can't fork over $3000 for a suite that Adobe and Autodesk and such offer.

Services such as OnLive are the future. It's just an extension of the trends that started with subscription based MMOs converging with digital delivery via services such as Steam and Ubisoft's DRM. As networks become more efficient, developers will look to exploit them by moving more game files onto proprietary servers because A) it solves the piracy problem; B) developers make a crap load more money; and C) ultimately it will untie your games from a given device and you'll be able to play the same game on your desktop, the TV at your hotel room, and on your phone. Theoretically, desktops and consoles will be supplanted by a small mobile device (probably your phone) that will allow you to access the same software and data from any location.

Gamers are just going to have to get over the idea that games live in a box that sits under your desk. That model is coming to end. I know it sounds trendy, but more and more software is going to move into the "Cloud".

[Musthavename]

Yet there'll always be people who'll want to have something on their end. I don't want to rely on my internet. I don't like the idea of my data being stored on someone elses server. There will always be a market for people like me. It'll get more expensive, proportionatly smaller, and it'll grow (in terms of tech) slower, but it'll be there.

Until this technology is actually completely workable, it's not going to catch on. Just look at how annoyed consumers are at AC2 (PC). They don't want to be forced to be online for a single player game. I'm willing to bet most people who call themselves PC gamers like their PCs, and like being able to tinker with things on their end. I know I do. Other than mouse & keyboard control, mods and little tinkering is the reason I get so much more playtime off my PC than a console. All of that goes out the window with cloud computing. There's also a chance these servers could be attacked. And until we can actually get flawless, fast internet everywhere, it won't even begin to catch on.

What do you think? If I had a small, part time income, it would make sense to use this service. It woudln't make sense though for me to game with this system. That just seems retarded due to internet connections having to be superb and a gamer wants to have the idea that they own the game they paid for forever. I dont' really understand why OnLive didn't think that maybe there was a better market to jump into. Professionals just entering computing industries and students and hobbyists who can't fork over $3000 for a suite that Adobe and Autodesk and such offer.

I would assume those companies wouldn't want people to get a way to get massive discounts on their software. If you're earning several hundred plus per sale, to corporate businesses, what reason do you have to give it away cheaply?

[erasmus777]

Yet there'll always be people who'll want to have something on their end. I don't want to rely on my internet. I don't like the idea of my data being stored on someone elses server. There will always be a market for people like me. It'll get more expensive, proportionatly smaller, and it'll grow (in terms of tech) slower, but it'll be there.

Until this technology is actually completely workable, it's not going to catch on. Just look at how annoyed consumers are at AC2 (PC). They don't want to be forced to be online for a single player game. I'm willing to bet most people who call themselves PC gamers like their PCs, and like being able to tinker with things on their end. I know I do. Other than mouse & keyboard control, mods and little tinkering is the reason I get so much more playtime off my PC than a console. There's also a chance these servers could be attacked. All of that goes out the window with cloud computing. And until we can actually get flawless, fast internet everywhere, it won't even begin to catch on.

I would assume those companies wouldn't want people to get a way to get massive discounts on their software. If you're earning several hundred plus per sale, to corporate businesses, what reason do you have to give it away cheaply?

Good point about people who don't want to rely on networks. However, what's Ubisoft's response to the "annoyed consumers" you mention? Their response is: *shrug* "Tough sht." And they've gone on to sell 30% more games than the original AC did. You have separate consumer rhetoric from consumer behavior. The behavior suggests that on the whole, consumers aren't that bothered by the new network requirements.