Games on demand is a crappy concept. I'd rather have a physical copy of the game than a digital download anyday.
Well, it isn't a crappy concept as in:
-They don't have to make physical copies of everything to sell it to you. If you don't care about what -they- pay to hand that copy over to you, well I don't know.. think about the planet?
-They can't "run out" of copies like that. You can always get it.
-Its instant, fast and consumes no time at all, leaving the consumer at home.
So tell me, why is it a crappy concept? Because you enjoy your little box? Thats not enough. The only thing I can find out that truly is negative is, that the box is a better proof that you own something (if that is ever of any use to you).
Personally, for some things I don't mind owning a digital copy of the game, for example, most Steam games. There isn't much in the packaging that screams "Buy a hard copy".
For other games, especially ones with a collector's edition (Assassin's Creed 1 and 2, Demigod, WoW), I am a sucker for picking up the hard copy for the extra goodies (mainly the soundtracks. I'm a music fiend.).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
------------------------------------------- Those who stand for nothing will fall for anything.
If you think everyone in the world will start giving all controls up like this, you are mistaken. It all sounds pretty ridiculous. I'd also wonder how the lag is there... I mean, aren't you literally playing on another computer? For you to be able to play that game with a crappy computer, thats what I understand, and with this comes delays, or some sort of lag.
No one would make me believe that this is as perfect as playing at home. Its absolutely impossible, I say.
And again, its control. The world does not respond well to control. If thats what the world wanted, they the Internet would be heavily controlled. Many tried that. But guess what, freedom is still all the internet is about.
Actually this concept is the future. It is a piracy-free platform, so in future more and more developers will be using concepts such as OnLive to distribute their games. Furthermore it's not downloading games, you play the game on their servers. This means all you need is a crapy notebook with internet conection and you can play even the most demanding games on it. It's brilliant.
However I don't think Diablo will be on OnLive. And it really isn't that neccesary since the requirements won't be that high.
The future? Maybe. And actually, I don't even think that you need a netbook... Just a TV or monitor, a decent internet connection, and their box.
However, there is no way in hell that Diablo 3 would be available through Onlive. First of all, there's Battlenet. Blizzard runs their games on their own servers; there is no way that they would allow anyone else to do that. Not to mention of course, that you would lose all multiplayer potential if you played on a service like onlive, even if you could, 'cause that would completely undermine the purpose of BattleNet! And playing a game on onlive servers that is in turn being run on Battlenet servers is just plain ridiculous.
Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Onlive targeted towards consoles, not PC games?
yea but WoW is already available on onlive (its part of it) and so is warcraft 3 so no diablo 3 has the potential too be on OnLive....
and no onlive is not directed towards consoles the fact that you play using the internet and a browser should tell you its meant for pcs or netbooks....yes the tv with controler option is available but mostly for hardcore gamers.
Where did you find this? Could you supply a link, because I have found no evidence whatsoever that WoW or Warcraft 3 is available through onlive. I have found one thread with people speculating about WoW being available through Onlive, but that's it.
And I seriously don't see why anyone would play WoW through Onlive anyway, because of the following: requires a 5 mb/s internet connection to play through onlive, plus the fact that it also has to connect to Blizzard's servers would result in increased lag; you'd have to pay twice (once to Blizzard and once to onlive for your respective subscriptions); the requirements for WoW are very low to begin with (the game was first released in 2003); and lastly, you're limited to 720p if you play through onlive, which is lower than most gamers play with anyways.
My comment about Onlive targeting console gamers references the fact that: it's concept is similar to a console, but cheaper (with the box that you plug into your tv); apparently it's threatening to take over the console market; the games that they are hosting mostly appear to be console games.