Maybe it will be a bit different concept - not pay per game but sub based - fixed monthly fee and play naything you want from the available games library. Also - I'm pretty sure the types of the games (at least in the start) would be those not greatly affected by latency - so rather that top notch FPS and so on it will be nore Adventure, platform or puzzle games of middle to low grade. On other hand - for an affordable fee - why not - instead of purchasing a bunch of low rated games to play them just for a few hours for the same money.
Cloud Gaming would indicate that games would be sold at lower prices. But as always, there's a downside. Those who do not have a connection which is fast enough to allow excessive streaming and extremely low ping value would suffer. It's a good idea, but not one that will be appealing to all.
Paying the same thing that you already paid for is not really that funny.
I don't have sound here at my workplace, but I think this could be thread related.
oVERSoLDiER that video is thread related
One of the guys suggests Steam as the Cloud Service as opposed to OnLive or GaiKai, which is interesting. But like the other guy in that video, I immediately thought of OnLive (which I am a member of).
Cloud Gaming is a good thing and a bad thing IMO...
It's good because:
- It removes the necessity of expensive hardware.
- It removes the platform exclusivity issue (I see it as an issue anyway) and potentially allows everyone to play the same software regardless of the system!
- Allows the potential for better (read: Cheaper) priced software.
It's bad because:
- Countries with a poor internet infrastructure will suffer.
- There will always be latency.
- The legal grey area surrounding "ownership" of the software still needs to be refined. Since all software is licensed according to platform/system/region specifics, a similar license will need to be agreed when paying for the software.
As for actually using OnLive as a service I have found it to be a great alternative to console specific gaming. I personally buy games on OnLive that I wouldn't buy for console (RTS and Adventure style games). The pricing for the UK store seems fair, 3 day and 5 day renting commonly around £4-£5 with the full ownership price around £10-30 or a £7/month all you can play subscription.
As for ownership, there is a statement on their website that they will support games for a minimum of 3 years but for longer if it is a more popular game:
We expect to keep all games supported for as long as people continue to play them, but at a minimum, all current games will be supported for 3 years after their release on the OnLive Service.
I actually played some UT3 using their service and it was laughable at best. The king of twitch based shooters being played with movement lag? Gross.
On the flip side, I also played through some hours of Batman Arkham Asylum which was completely playable. The movement lag is not less noticeable it's just more bearable.
At the time, OnLive wouldn't let me play with wireless. It would refuse me access unless I plugged in through ethernet. I've heard they allow wireless now but your results will vary with that. The picture quality is good but a little muddy. But, obviously, better than if you have a bad computer.
So, you pay for a subscription to OnLive and then you have to buy or rent games as well. It's the main reason I didn't keep up my subscription. There's free games and cheap packs of games as well as renting so it's not a complete money sink. It might not actually require a subscription anymore though looking at their site right now. I got a year for free and once that was up I cancelled my account. You all might be able to try out OnLive right now for yourselves.
Sure you can buy the disk, but that doesn't matter. In order to actually play the game, you have to be connected to the internet at all times. Even in single player mode. I travel a lot, and used to play lots of games on the road, trains, air planes, hotels. With games like this I wouldn't even have the option of playing them, or would have to pay additional for an internet location in some places just to play the game I supposedly purchased.
It's disgusting really and I for one refuse to support companies that are going to produce games this way. As I said before, there are already more games available than I can play in my lifetime. I don't need whatever the hyped game of the month is and will vote with my wallet. There is no reason they could have allowed you to play the game while offline and then re-sync your account the next time you can get connected.
There are going to be lots of unplayable games in the future, and I think that is pretty sad. Just like when Yahoo or Wal-mart or one of those companies (can't remember, think there has been a few) decided to get out of the MP3 business and shut down their DRM servers, all customers who purchased music through them couldn't play their music anymore. It's a load of B.S.
I think the fact that you're device is effectively a thin client and doesn't actually do any processing except for displaying streamed output and sending your input would be a good enough reason
It's not like the Assassin's Creed DRM which required you to be online to play... you're connecting to a server which is doing all the processing for you. So OnLive and GaiKai would never be able to allow you to play a game while offline and then sync your data.
Also, YMMV with regards to latency etc. (and that is why I tend to stay away from FPS games with OnLive) but I find the lag to be negligible in games such as Batman:AA... However I do have a 60Mb internet connection
I've been thinking more and more about how this "popular cloud service" could logically be Steam instead of OnLive etc. Portal 2 already has the integration, PlayStation Plus has the cloud save feature (although I don't know anyone who actually has a P+ subscription!), the Steam store has a nice mix of casual "PlayStation-Mini" style games for the Vita and Hardcore for the PS3, and it would tie in with the PS3-Vita Transfarring or Remote Play abilities nicely.
Happy to open this for debate though!
Unfortunately from how things look the cloud is the future of gaming. I for one won't buy into it. Sure the cloud has its advantages but none of which I really care for, but the disadvantages turn me off.
No offline play: my PS3 is offline 90% of the time, the other 10% is used mostly for trophy syncing, some multilayer, updates, and sending/receiving messages. No interest in an always-on game system.
Internet Connection Required at all times: sorry but I have had some issues with downtimes from every ISP I had. Couple that with power grid issues, and you will twice as likely encounter downtime.
If the service goes, everything, and all your investment, goes with it. Not interested in the risk. Sorry.
But it WILL be the future of gaming whether some of us want it or not. The mainstream market embraced digital with the iTunes music, despite having less sound quality than the CD, and DRM-laden Digital Distribution on PC is at its strongest. Steam is popular, but it is also DRM no matter how you spin it. Online passes also didn't stop games from selling millions, and there is no shortage of gamers defending the rumored anti-used games technology in the PS4 and Xbox720.
The truth is, the games industry would love us to be able to play their games without actually possessing them, for consumer control and copyright protection purposes. The cloud is the only way for publishers to really achieve that goal, and you bet it is going to happen. The consumer is willing to let it happen.