Re: OnLive - more expensive than a console
- From: Zomoniac <the_proper_one@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2010 11:55:57 +0000
MerseyMal wrote:
In article <7vulenFfhsU1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, the_proper_one@xxxxxxxxxxx says...A player's willingness to do the same thing over and over again until their fingers bleed doesn't equate to value. One could very easily play Tetris for 750 hours a year. Would you pay £180 a year to do so?
I sense so much wrongness in Zo.
MMOs generally cost nowhere near £180 a year and give discounts for purchases of 3, 6 and 12 month subs. In the case of LOTRO i've only had to fork out a one off £100 for a lifetime subscription and a couple of major expansions :-)
As for "grinding", I don't know anyone who pays to "grind". They pay to play a game with a massive social aspect to it. Besides it's only a "grind" if you don't enjoy it because the MMO fails wrap the levelling up inside fun quests and activities.
There's nothing in multiplayer games that has ever come close to besieging a keep in DAOC with 100+ people on your side and a similar amount on the enemy side.
Does having little names over everyone else's head really add that much to pressing the 1 button over and over again?
Test Drive Unlimited let you play against hundreds of other people at once. FIFA 10 lets you have massive leagues of 10v10 matches. They don't require a sub.
So they need a few servers, but MMORPGs forgo things like half-decent visuals, dialogue, scripts and story-writing, or anything like that. Compared to a decent off-line game, the dev costs for all but the online server stuff must be negligible.
Anyway, this is all irrelevant. There is sort of a purpose to OnLive, in that it's cheaper than a cutting edge PC. They also let you rent the games rather than have to buy them. If I could sub for a month for $15, and rent the game for a few weeks for £5 or whatever, if that meant I got to experience Crysis 2 at 1920x1200 on high detail with 8xAA then I'd go for it just out of intruigue. It's a damn sight cheaper than paying for a computer than can run it.
If you can do 'proper' level gaming on a laptop or even netbook, then I can see a big market for it there.
--
Zo
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: OnLive - more expensive than a console
- From: Paul Murray
- Re: OnLive - more expensive than a console
- From: MerseyMal
- Re: OnLive - more expensive than a console
- From: James Sutherland
- Re: OnLive - more expensive than a console
- References:
- Re: OnLive - more expensive than a console
- From: Zomoniac
- Re: OnLive - more expensive than a console
- From: Sir Chewbury Gubbins
- Re: OnLive - more expensive than a console
- From: Zomoniac
- Re: OnLive - more expensive than a console
- From: Trooper
- Re: OnLive - more expensive than a console
- From: Zomoniac
- Re: OnLive - more expensive than a console
- From: Trooper
- Re: OnLive - more expensive than a console
- From: Zomoniac
- Re: OnLive - more expensive than a console
- From: MerseyMal
- Re: OnLive - more expensive than a console
- Prev by Date: Re: Heavy Rain thoughts
- Next by Date: Re: Heavy Rain thoughts
- Previous by thread: Re: OnLive - more expensive than a console
- Next by thread: Re: OnLive - more expensive than a console
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|