Peter Moore wants to be convinced by OnLive, already a fan of Arc controller
By Vlad Savov 
posted February 9th 2010 7:38AM
posted February 9th 2010 7:38AM
Peter Moore, formerly the big cheese in charge of Xbox, is now the head of EA Sports, but he's lost none of the forthrightness that's made him a popular man to interview in the past. In his latest sitdown with CVG, Peter expressed his admiration for the nascent OnLive cloud gaming service, but also noted that he remains uncertain as to whether it will actually work when millions of people decide to play the same game at the same time -- a reservation we probably all share. He did point out that the sort of readily accessible gaming OnLive represents was in his company's plans, and would be expanded with more browser-based games. Finally, as someone who's seen the PlayStation 3 Arc controller in action Peter should be well qualified to assess it, and he describes it as a "great complement to what's out there," claiming that it brings a substantially different experience to Nintendo's Wii Remote. Check out the source for the full interview.
I can't wait till the OnLive fad, fades away as we all see what a failure this concept it will be. It already failed with the Phantom, and it will quite frankly be one of the worst things to happen to consumers in a long time. Though I'm sure the industry will love it.
Not only do you have to ~50 dollars a month (that's the last estimate I heard about it, it could've easily changed since then) to just access your games, that doesn't even cover the cost of actually purchasing the game itself (again, which I've heard will have no major discount for it being a digital copy) and even if you pay a singleplayer game only like ME2, or Fallout 3, or what have you. You still have to pay the subscription fee.
Not to mention you're not even so much as getting 720p HD from all the beta shots I've seen, with compression artifacts seen all over. And forget adding mods to any games, you don't even so much as have the game installed on your computer. This isn't like a digital download like through Steam, where at least you have it stored on your HDD, or downloading a game through XBL or PSN, where again, it's still stored on your HDD. No, this is just "streamed" to you, so you have no control over what you want to do with the game. And lord knows you can't re-sell it or exchange it. And when OnLive goes under, what happens to your games then? It's not like they have a Steam Model, where they can give you the ability to play without using the Steam Servers, no, they can't even do that. Because you don't own any portion of the game itself.
@Prevacator
please, don't be so pessimist.
OnLive will rules..... and i bet that the first game ported for Online will be Dukem Nukem Forever.
@magallanes
Being delusional about OnLive doesn't negate all the FACTS I just stated. I hope you're ready for the companies to destroy any control you had left over games when this comes out.
@Prevacator I agree with you, I'm more of a single player kinda guy and most of all, I love my physical formats. So, I don't really care about onlive.
@Prevacator What facts? All I see are a bunch of assumptions slapped together on a product that isn't even out yet. I'd still like to give it the benefit of the doubt. If/when it is released, if it sucks, I won't use the service, and neither will everyone else. Until then, quit playing Nostradamus.
@saposmak
Everything has already been verified except for the pricing of the games, and of the subscription fee. Everything else is factual of what will happen with OnLive.
@Prevacator I bet you feel pretty stupid now that they just announced that it will cost $15 monthly.
so much for your $50 monthly
@bozs13
Nope. Have fun paying 15 dollars a month, just to play the games you still have to pay for. And once you stop paying, you lose your games. And even if you play singleplayer, you still have to pay a subscription.
You're the only idiot if you actually believe this will take off.
Until I see an ARC tattoo he is blowing smoke.
The way I see it, the only two benefits that OnLive may have is reducing possible vectors for hacking by limiting the multiplayer client to just being responsible for accepting a video feed and sending input to the server, and having your save games stored in the cloud (like Steam already does).
I'm pretty sure EA will have its own onlive clone. Why share your revenue with a third party if you can have it all...GRRRREEEEEEEED.
@broli
because EA doesn't have the money or the people to build their own system, especially when perfectly good platforms exist already...
SMAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAART
Sure the biggest game company on this planet doesn't have either but instead I have flying pigs.
Story aside, from that picture of Peter Moore, I think he will make a good Bond villian...The title of the movie should be "Encounter with The Red Ring of Death"
So proud that this guy was born in the same city as me, proper legend!
", is now the head of EA Sports"
Then, let's talk about Tiger Wood.
;-)
I'm an OnLive beta tester. I don't actually need the service, as my desktop has a quad core, and a GTS250, but I thought what the hay, I'll for it.
For someone used to playing games at 45+ FPS you will notice some lag! It averaged a little under 1 second.
Now I do live in AZ, and their server is in California, but their reach is said to go out past New Mexico, and Colorado, according to their website.
I can't speak for those people who live in California, who may have a really low ping, and have almost no lag whatsoever. But it's not budget effective to have a data center in every state in the US.
Other then that, the interface looks pretty nice, it does lag and skip quite a bit. And if I'm paying a large monthly fee for the actual service, and not the games, then I would want to expect close to zero lag.
For something that's been in beta as long as OnLive has, I was hoping they got it down by now.
If 50 bucks really is their monthly service fee, they won't get anywhere. After about three months, you've already paid the cost of a high end graphics card (like the GTS 250) and you can run all the games you want. (Except maybe Crysis their servers only ran it at about 20-25 FPS)
Who knows what will happen in the end, but I'm gonna be sticking with steam for quite a while before I'd ever consider switching.
He definitely looks like the devil's advocate in this picture .. Awesome
If it did cost $50/month as a poster said above, then it will fail completely. No one is going to spend $600/year for online games. I'd rather have the ten games to purchase and keep.
Of course, people spend over $1000/year just to use an iPhone or some other "smart" phone, so you never really know.
I can see paying $20/month for OnLive service, maybe an extra $5/month for newer releases.
@Meekermoloko
GameTap is $9.99 for their top of the line service, but they have less newer hits and you have to download the games (instead of streaming).
I think OnLive should've tried it out in Europe first since they have faster ISP averages over there, but then they risk the competition here.
One thing they really need to worry about is Microsoft taking the idea and putting it on their 360 somehow. That would be a 37 million console advantage.
Tell me that's not the face of a man that made a deal with the devil. Even the outfit. Dang Peter...
Peter Moore is an abject failure.
Dreamcast. Would have been wonderful is the Broadband Adapter was included instead of a shitty add-on.
Xbox. Would have been wonderful if the HD-DVD drive was included instead of a shitty add-on.
50 bucks a month? ahahaha, we got big babies who complain about xBox Live being 50 bucks a year. This won't fly, and after that debacle with the Sidekick phones happening a few months back, I wouldn't want my stuff on a cloud.