OnLive: paradigm shift or interesting but useless?
If there’s one event in the gaming convention circuit that always gets me thinking, it’s GDC. Last year, I spent a lot of time thinking about the ideas presented in the Game Designer’s Rant, specifically Ubisoft designer Clint Hocking’s speech, the video of which I’m determined to find and post later. This year, it seems the hot topic is the idea of utilizing “cloud computing” in the gaming industry, specifically as it pertains to game distribution.
Preamble: A Quick Explanation
To put it simply, cloud computing allows a user (that’s you, by the way) to access data, software applications, or computer hardware through a number of online resources. This allows regular joes to access all of their data from basically any computer, and it allows certain businesses the ability to limit how much money they spend on hardware but treating computer processing like a utility service they pay for based on usage.
To bring it back to games, Valve’s Steam service is a prime example of this. You can buy a number of games through Steam, and that purchase is then stored on the Steam servers. Then, you can go onto any other PC, download the Steam application, and from it, download your game, as well as your saved game data for that game, onto that PC through the Steam application. You have instant access to all of your Steam-bought games no matter what PC you’re on.
Ok, so this isn’t a new concept to most of us affluent on the subject, but now one company has taken it a step further with OnLive, an interesting idea that looks to use cloud computing to change game distribution. How this works is kind of weird, honestly. You can use the service on your PC through a plug-in for your browser, or a small, PSP-sized device that plugs into the HDMI port of your TV. You pick your game through the service, start to play, and the game is then streamed to you over the OnLive service. Mechanically, it works like this: you press a button on the controller. That signal is then sent to one of OnLive’s servers, on which the game itself is housed. The server takes that button input, plays the game for you, and then streams that interaction back to you through the internet.
Apparently this has taken them 7 years to perfect, and all reports of the early beta sound promising. So far 9 major developers are signed onto the service, including Atari, Electronic Arts, and Ubisoft. The service includes PC, Xbox 360, and PS3 games.
The Big Picture
The benefits of OnLive for PC/Mac gamers should be immediately obvious; instead of having to spend a wad of cash on a top-of-the-line PC to play, oh lets say Crysis, now all you need is relatively fast Internet connection–which, last time I checked, is already owned by a large portion of North Americans. The hardware requirements to run the game are already met by the OnLive server they’re housed on, and all you need to do is order the game through the service.
I will say, this has serious potential to expand the PC gaming market. One of the biggest road blocks for PC gaming is that some people feel prohibited by the amount of money you need to spend on a gaming PC–though, that depends on opinion, since a decent gaming PC doesn’t actually cost much more than a PS3. By simply asking users to pay their Internet bill every month, this makes PC gaming far more accessible, since it essentially turns any modern computer–including Macs–into a gaming-ready device.
But what is the plausible scope of this service? Unfortunately, the whole thing seems kind of limited. I really only see two groups of people who will really benefit from this service. The first group includes people who own videogame consoles, but don’t game on PC’s because they either find the cost of PC gaming to exorbitant or their current PC is out of date or wasn’t purchased for gaming purposes. Students are a prime example of this, since they buy laptops–often Mac laptops–to take notes and do homework. The second group includes people who don’t game at all, but may be interested in getting involved with it. Now, this could include younger kids who rely on their parents to buy games/consoles for them. Not only do the parents not have to buy expensive PC’s or consoles, paying a subscription fee–which is how OnLive is going to be monetized–is probably going to be an easier sell than paying a large lump sum for a console or games. Just look at World of Warcraft.
Drawbacks
Now that I’ve given the service its due, it’s time to get skeptical. There are a number of reasons this service could flop, not the least of which being pricing. The idea here is that this is going to be a subscription based service, but what will the payment models be? They’ve stated that the resolution at which the game will play on your monitor or TV will depend on the speed of your Internet connection. Does that mean they’ll charge different prices for people in different Internet speed brackets? Will someone with DSL pay less than someone with high-end Cable or T1 lines? This seems a little complicated, and perhaps they won’t nickel-and-dime you that hard. However, in one of those interviews, they did discuss charging different rates depending on whether you’re purchasing, or simply renting a game, and it sounded like the rental method would have different pricing depending on how long you wanted to “rent” the game for through the service.
The bigger issue here is support. Now, let’s keep in mind that 9 major publishers have professed support for this. That’s fine and dandy for PC-exclusive games, like Dawn of War II, but what about console games? There are plenty of highly-popular titles that are either console exclusive (like Gears of War or Metal Gear Solid 4) or first-party titles published by Microsoft, Sony, or Nintendo themselves. If those companies are using those exclusive games in order to sell their consoles, then why in the hell would they ever want them to end up on OnLive, a service that would essentially kill any claim to exclusivity those games would allow the Big 3?
There’s another issue here, one that may make OnLive seem like a good idea that’s coming a bit too late. With all of these high-profile third-party games showing up on OnLive, the service is (for now) ignoring a burgeoning new part of the videogame industry: small, affordable, downloadable games, like those found on Xbox Live Arcade or the Playstation Network. Two of the best games of 2008 were arguably Castle Crashers and Braid, both games that were developed and sold over Xbox Live. Now, I’m not saying small games won’t be developed for OnLive in the future (in one interview, the guy does say that there’s a software development kit for the service), but it’s something they’re going to want to jump on very quickly. These small games, as well as downloadable content packs–like the The Pitt addition just released for Fallout 3 a few days ago–are a big part of the industries future, and if they don’t become a part of OnLive, the service may end up looking like nothing but a dumping ground for third-parties who want to make more money off their expensive games.
Anyways, those are just some thoughts. We’ll be discussing OnLive in further depth in the second segment of this week’s User Created Content.
–Ram
