So you are one of the few happy customers who is prepared to pay for an OnLive subscription to get the benefits you listed, great for you. I can make a list of downsides of cloud gaming that would be at least as long, which are prohibitive for me to use the service.
The million dollar question is how many people there are that -like yourself- prefer paying for a service like OnLive, compared to the number of people that will simply buy their own hardware, or just use whatever hardware they already have anyway.
You can justify spending money on OnLive as much as you want, but my point was not that the service is completely useless, just that the target audience is too small to make the service profitable. Hardcore gamers build their own rigs or are prepared to buy a console once every few years, casual gamers will play on whatever they have available, people who don't play games don't care. It appears there's just not that many people who are so hell-bent on being able to play all their games, anywhere, on any platform that happens to be available, that they want to pay for a subscription service that somewhat allows them to.
I'm not really sure why I'm even debating this anymore (like I had to when OnLive just launched and got flamed by hordes of people with the same arguments like yours, because OnLive would surely be the future of gaming). I think the 'economics of OnLive' more or less have proven my point sufficiently.
My untested hunch is that there is a good enough market for these services.
I might be a customer too, I'm a former gamer that now has to cope with work, study and very soon a family, having an "instant-on" service would be worth it for me.
And why is it prohibitive for you? It says it used to cost U$ 4.95/month, which I perceive as really cheap (as compared to U$ 50 for a title like Diablo III).
Much like the Nintendo Wii, I don't think that hardcore gamers is the target demographic.
Edit: see sshirkov's comments, I fall in the same demographic I guess.
For starters, there are no data centers near enough where I live, so the service is not available ;-)
But even if it were, there are many reason a service like this has no value for me:
- I have 2 consoles, a tablet, a laptop and a desktop, so when I'm at home I already have plenty of options. I can't imagine this will ever change, because I need my computers for work, and the games I like most are very often console exclusives.
- I never take my tablet on the road, and I only take my laptop with me if I need it for work, so a cloud gaming service for playing away from home doesn't make much sense for me.
- In terms of cost savings, I don't really see the benefit either. To play OnLive games you still have to pay for the game license (in addition to the subscription fee). Since I buy almost all my games second-hand or over a year after their release, I'm not going to save a lot of money on the games themselves. All my consoles have tradionally lasted over 6 years, so the write-off on them is minimal. On a side note: if I was strapped for cash and couldn't afford to buy hardware or games, I wouldn't be subscribing to any subscription gaming service anyway, I would spend however little I had on useful things.
- I don't really play games a lot, less than 10 hours a week, and I almost exclusively play a single game at a time until I finish it. This means it takes really long before I finish games, often over 2 or 3 months. This basically means the rental-model for individual games does not work for me.
- I like to play classics and 'vintage' titles, e.g. PS2 games or classic XBLA games. OnLive seems to mostly target mainstream, popular and newer games.
If I think long enough I can come up with other reasons why a cloud gaming service like OnLive is not for me. Just to be clear: I can see how it would be great for certain players, but I'm highly sceptical about their numbers, and how much they would be prepared to pay for the service.
My conclusion is (and has always been) that when it comes to cloud gaming, downsides > benefits, and costs > profits, which makes it a no-go in terms of business case. I have yet to see someone prove me wrong (GaiKai being acquired for big $$$ doesn't count, because it was obviously bought by Sony for other reasons than profitability).
Ah, I didn't get the point that you have to pay for the game license. I thought it was something like a Netflix for games.
That would be a deal-breaker for me.
Thanks for the clarification and explaining the downsides.
Many wouldn't apply for me (my latest console is a PS2, for example), but certainly the non-availability in my region is probably a given, and having to pay for each game is the deal-breaker for me (unless the price is minimal/equivalent to a rental).
1. Buy the game outright (or until OnLive folds ;-)
2. Rent the game for a short period
3. Buy a bundle (the 'Play Pack') which gives you access to a huge list of indie or older games for a pretty low monthly cost). They are a mixed bag. Some old A-list games, some really interesting indie games and some junk.
The million dollar question is how many people there are that -like yourself- prefer paying for a service like OnLive, compared to the number of people that will simply buy their own hardware, or just use whatever hardware they already have anyway.
You can justify spending money on OnLive as much as you want, but my point was not that the service is completely useless, just that the target audience is too small to make the service profitable. Hardcore gamers build their own rigs or are prepared to buy a console once every few years, casual gamers will play on whatever they have available, people who don't play games don't care. It appears there's just not that many people who are so hell-bent on being able to play all their games, anywhere, on any platform that happens to be available, that they want to pay for a subscription service that somewhat allows them to.
I'm not really sure why I'm even debating this anymore (like I had to when OnLive just launched and got flamed by hordes of people with the same arguments like yours, because OnLive would surely be the future of gaming). I think the 'economics of OnLive' more or less have proven my point sufficiently.