Chikt
04-07-2009, 08:46 PM
I recently relaunched my blog (http://diomades.blogspot.com/) and decided to do a fairly substantial writeup (http://diomades.blogspot.com/2009/04/onlive-future-of-video-games-retail.html) on something called OnLive (http://www.onlive.com/). Rather than go into all the details, I'll just copy over the writeup on my blog. I think it's something that warrants discussion.
Announced at the Game Developers Conference recently was OnLive; an on-demand videogame service that requires very simple computer hardware to play the best titles at their highest graphical settings for little more than an internet connection and a connection device. The way it works is simple in theory - it's all server-side rendering. Rather than your key presses being registered on your computer, they are sent over the internet to an array of computers which are running the game, and they bounce back video of you moving through that game at said key press. It's like having your keyboard and monitor at home, but your computer tower on the other side of the world.
Frustratingly, however, rather than the discussion of the possibilities and pitfalls of such a system most people are going back to the old tried and true debate of claiming that this system will basically be the end of retail store chains, taking out the middle man in game transactions. I felt that I could write on both matters.
OnLive will not be the end of big retail chains like Gamestop and EBGames. Why? For the same reasons that Netflix was not -and will not be - the end of hard copy Movies. There is a large customer base in both alternatives - many people like the ease of shopping from home with digital downloads, others prefer the malleable ownership and rights that come with purchasing a physical object. But possibly the biggest factor is how flawed the internet itself is.
The world is not yet seeing a wide spread of high speed internet connections as seperate governments drag their heels on improving infrastructure. Slow internet connections means people becomming frustrated with long download times and going for physical media over digital. This is particularly prevailent in international server issues, as well. Any Australian that has tried playing on an American World of Warcraft server will understand the multitude of issues that can arise - from server or client-side lag, to any number of ISP issues (which can happen multipl times over as you connect through so many different servers to connect to the U.S.), and generally slow speed, no matter how fast your internet connection is.
Undoubtedly like World of Warcraft, such a system of networked computers would require down time for servicing. And I would not be surprised if - like World of Warcraft - the OnLive system needed to go down once a week to be checked up on. Imagine if you bought all your games via the OnLive system - you could not play them at specific times, have the issue of lag, random disconnects if you are unlucky, and god only knows what other problems might arise. Of course, that would be until Australian servers were relased, and then the problems would be far less prevailent - but changes little about the fact. The internet is not perfect. Neither are computers. But you can do something about your computer not playing a game well, there's little you can do about the INTERNET not playing your game well.
Which brings me back to my point. There are going to be people out there that will adopt the system undoubtedly. It is a far cheaper, inexpensive option to computer upgrades and servicing so long as you have the internet connection to handle it. But who is OnLive targeted towards, exactly? Considering all the different niche's, I don't believe there's any one niche that OnLive fits except small parts of ALL of them. That might be a good thing and a bad thing, but as the Wii has certainly proven - being a niche product means you sell a lot more of it.
At least you can buy more than PC games at retail.
Announced at the Game Developers Conference recently was OnLive; an on-demand videogame service that requires very simple computer hardware to play the best titles at their highest graphical settings for little more than an internet connection and a connection device. The way it works is simple in theory - it's all server-side rendering. Rather than your key presses being registered on your computer, they are sent over the internet to an array of computers which are running the game, and they bounce back video of you moving through that game at said key press. It's like having your keyboard and monitor at home, but your computer tower on the other side of the world.
Frustratingly, however, rather than the discussion of the possibilities and pitfalls of such a system most people are going back to the old tried and true debate of claiming that this system will basically be the end of retail store chains, taking out the middle man in game transactions. I felt that I could write on both matters.
OnLive will not be the end of big retail chains like Gamestop and EBGames. Why? For the same reasons that Netflix was not -and will not be - the end of hard copy Movies. There is a large customer base in both alternatives - many people like the ease of shopping from home with digital downloads, others prefer the malleable ownership and rights that come with purchasing a physical object. But possibly the biggest factor is how flawed the internet itself is.
The world is not yet seeing a wide spread of high speed internet connections as seperate governments drag their heels on improving infrastructure. Slow internet connections means people becomming frustrated with long download times and going for physical media over digital. This is particularly prevailent in international server issues, as well. Any Australian that has tried playing on an American World of Warcraft server will understand the multitude of issues that can arise - from server or client-side lag, to any number of ISP issues (which can happen multipl times over as you connect through so many different servers to connect to the U.S.), and generally slow speed, no matter how fast your internet connection is.
Undoubtedly like World of Warcraft, such a system of networked computers would require down time for servicing. And I would not be surprised if - like World of Warcraft - the OnLive system needed to go down once a week to be checked up on. Imagine if you bought all your games via the OnLive system - you could not play them at specific times, have the issue of lag, random disconnects if you are unlucky, and god only knows what other problems might arise. Of course, that would be until Australian servers were relased, and then the problems would be far less prevailent - but changes little about the fact. The internet is not perfect. Neither are computers. But you can do something about your computer not playing a game well, there's little you can do about the INTERNET not playing your game well.
Which brings me back to my point. There are going to be people out there that will adopt the system undoubtedly. It is a far cheaper, inexpensive option to computer upgrades and servicing so long as you have the internet connection to handle it. But who is OnLive targeted towards, exactly? Considering all the different niche's, I don't believe there's any one niche that OnLive fits except small parts of ALL of them. That might be a good thing and a bad thing, but as the Wii has certainly proven - being a niche product means you sell a lot more of it.
At least you can buy more than PC games at retail.