OnLive, the future of gaming?

[Red Exodus]

Considering how long the 360 has been out it wouldn't surprise me if some people spent that much on games since launch.

 

[Deathcarter]

I'm actually surprised you didn't notice.

Those figures are wrong. Maybe they only take into account the NPD or something, but there figures were blatanly incorrect. Heck, VGchartz puts the number at 47 wii games, and while I can't tell at a glance, it looks like well over half are third party.

http://vgchartz.com/worldtotals.php?name=&console=Wii&publisher=&sort=Total

EDIT: Although I do conceed that the Xbox 360 has incredibly high, record breaking attach rates. I could never figure out quite why, or even how for that matter. To achieve the game-to-player ratio of the Xbox 360, the average Xbox user would have to have spent between $400 and $500 on non-used games to date.

Isn't the NPD much more reliable than VGchartz due to the fact that VGchartz are only a bunch of estimates?

And I am assuming that Reggie was only talking about Nintendo's big budget AAA titles because most Wii games, including the good ones, are low budget. I don't even think the majority of Nintendo's titles (basically, anything that is not LoZ, Mario, SSB, or Metroid Prime) had that big of a budget.

 

[The Halloween Captain]

Isn't the NPD much more reliable than VGchartz due to the fact that VGchartz are only a bunch of estimates?

And I am assuming that Reggie was only talking about Nintendo's big budget AAA titles because most Wii games, including the good ones, are low budget. I don't even think the majority of Nintendo's titles (basically, anything that is not LoZ, Mario, SSB, or Metroid Prime) had that big of a budget.

The NPD is highly inaccurate because it only measures the U.S. market, which is less than half the size of the global market. Not only that, but it heavily favors the Xbox 360, which unlike the Wii and the PS3, gets the majority of it's sales from the United States.

The NPD is completely useless for measuring global game sales because it wasn't made to measure worldwide sales. Even if you don't trust VGchartz, DO NOT use the NPD outside of America.

 

[Frames]

I know this thread is really old; I'm only bumping it because the service is finally out and I wanted to see if anybody else on here signed up for it, and it would've been prudent to make another thread. Personally I have been very satisfied with the service and I look forward to seeing future titles on this platform. The overall experience has been pretty much lag free, although the service will lower/raise video/audio settings based on changes in the internet.

So...anyone else been enjoying it?

 

[TheBuzzSaw]

How are the individual game prices? Sources I read stated that many AAA games maintained the $60 price point.

 

[Frames]

splinter cell is the only one that is 60 right now...the next highest is just cause 2 at 50...the newest games will probably keep their retail prices

 

[Serris]

Bumping for mild relevance. I signed up for and got accepted to the Founding Members program, mostly for testing purposes. Can someone who's already used the service give me an idea of how it handles in practice?

 

[TheBuzzSaw]

The technology is neat, but the pricing model is all screwed up. I understand that there are plenty of operating costs, but it should not drive the marketing side of things. Paying a monthly fee AND paying for individual games is absurd. On top of that, I don't know how many of you noticed, but even the PURCHASED games are not eternal. All the games are licensed until 2013 sometime. Frankly, I think OnLive should be banned from using the word "buy" or "purchase" in any of its labeling. There should be "short-term rental" and "long-term license". Anything else gives the customer a false sense of ownership. Considering that the customer pays for absolutely nothing in return, the games should cost around $10, not the normal retail $50 or $60.

Good idea, bad execution.

 

[Wave⁂]

The possibility of them going bankrupt and me not being able to play the games I bought is very disturbing.

 

[Ryu Shimazu]

Yeah, it'd suck to sink so much money in this just to loose it all. I wouldn't risk it, that is for sure.

If I was rich though...

 

[TheBuzzSaw]

OnLive should have a system where players pay a flat monthly fee for unlimited access to games. OnLive then turns around and pays out to publishers percentages of the sub fees based on the amount of time players play those games. This shifts the incentive to making good games that people want to play more and/or recommend to more people. Trying to combine the retail prices with the pay-for-access mechanism is just silly to me.

 

[Serris]

Have you eMailed them about your idea for a new pricing model? That's the first idea I've heard that isn't terrible.

 

[Wave⁂]

On the one hand, I hate monthly fees.

On the other hand, I like good games.