Why Microsoft's $100 Xbox Rebate is Not a Great Deal

[koss64]

For the Ps3 console swap I don't see the big deal, if the console meant anything to you and you took care of it, it should not look like its been in a street brawl. Still don't know many people who would make that switch but since most of the games are not exclusive to any console its six of one half dozen of the other.

 

[antilycus]

PS4 and XBONE are at the EOL (end of life). Streaming is the future and an android phone that runs onlive can run something that runs 10000000+ fps better than any of the new systems... yup... say goodbye to hardware.

 

[hardrock40]

Streaming is only the solution if you have fast internet so until everyone has a fast internet connection then streaming is only for the select few that live in a area that has fast internet options. For the rest of everyone they have to put up with dvd,bluray disks or suffer long download times to get the games or movies they want. Someday streaming will go main stream but that is a long ways off because of the speed issues so many people have in so many area's of the world.

 

[ubercake]

PS4 and XBONE are at the EOL (end of life). Streaming is the future and an android phone that runs onlive can run something that runs 10000000+ fps better than any of the new systems... yup... say goodbye to hardware.

I like the idea of OnLive. Running the PC as a dumb terminal definitely has its benefits (no hardware upgrades required), but the lag in multi-player still is not bearable as of yet. Also, you can't set your graphics or sound settings any better than what they offer (which I remember as medium settings).

Otherwise, streaming gaming is an excellent idea.

 

[skit75]

PS4 and XBONE are at the EOL (end of life). Streaming is the future and an android phone that runs onlive can run something that runs 10000000+ fps better than any of the new systems... yup... say goodbye to hardware.

I like the idea of OnLive. Running the PC as a dumb terminal definitely has its benefits (no hardware upgrades required), but the lag in multi-player still is not bearable as of yet. Also, you can't set your graphics or sound settings any better than what they offer (which I remember as medium settings).

Otherwise, streaming gaming is an excellent idea.

You can have my hardware if you can pry it out of my cold, dead hands.

 

[Christopher Shaffer]

PS4 and XBONE are at the EOL (end of life). Streaming is the future and an android phone that runs onlive can run something that runs 10000000+ fps better than any of the new systems... yup... say goodbye to hardware.

This is all complete bullshit, I'm sorry. OnLive went bankrupt for a reason. And I'm sorry, but streaming is not the future. It might be the future replacement of *consoles* but it will never completely replace the PC. Even that is a stretch. Physical games are likely to be replaced with download-only, but streaming only makes sense as a matter of convenience; it makes no sense on a technical level.

The primary technical reason is that nobody WANTS to fill up their internet bandwidth with graphics streaming, deal with input lag and try to maintain a good ping. If you think an Android phone will somehow magically overcome the bandwidth limitations that even a home cable connection or fiber connection cannot, you're on crack. Wireless has far more network noise (packet errors) to deal with to the point that a streamed game will have input lag even with the best broadband connection.

The other reason is going to be graphics fidelity. Streaming 1080p is just barely possible and even then the bit rate on a streamed 1080p video is no where near the actual bit rate of a Blu-ray, meaning streamed 1080p is really not going to live up to even the Xbone or PS4 playing a game natively. Once 4K moves in, 1080p streaming will be making a compromise; worse graphics for convenience or native for killer resolution? Easy choice.

Last, it comes down to ROI: if I pay a monthly fee, get a game and HAVE to stream it, but then let's say a storm takes out my internet connection and I can't play it - it no longer has ANY intrinsic value to me. I can't resell it, I can't play it again in 6 mo's when I've moved on to something else UNLESS I'm still paying the monthly fee, and then there's that: the monthly fee.

Game streaming will be popular only in select situations where traditional console gaming doesn't make sense or isn't available, and only in markets where fiber is available. It will not replace PCs (not in the next 20 years anyway) and it won't replace consoles. It certainly won't be competitive at all until it's around $9.99, meaning it will NEVER be competitive because it will NEVER be that low; the licensing cost alone won't allow them to drop it that low w/out significant subscription numbers and that's not happening any time soon, either.

The only way OnLive would be able to make this model work is by hammering out a deal with game publishers that proves to them that 1) They'll make more money licensing the games to OnLive than selling them to individuals (never going to happen) and 2) It makes more sense than one of the MANY direct download options already available. They'll also need to convince consumers of the same things.

This means you'll need to convince me and every other gamer that spending $29/mo and owning NONE of your games, not having the convenience of using PSN or XBL direct downloads, not using Steam, Uplay or Origin, not downloading from a retailer and REQUIRING AN ALWAYS-ON INTERNET CONNECTION JUST TO PLAY is better than one of the many options I listed.

Oh, and the Android phone that " runs 10000000+ fps better than any of the new systems" - yeah, that's just garbage. You might hit 60fps but that is in no way equivalent to doing so on a console on a full-sized screen with higher res textures.

 

[marcolorenzo]

Is this really such a surprise? Trading in games/consoles at shops and other "official" places instead of selling them yourself on eBay or Craiglist etc. always gets you less money back. You might take a 2 year old game to Gamestop and only get $5 whereas on eBay you can probably get at least half the price you originally paid. This $100 rebate is only for the average Joe who doesn't care enough to sell their old console themselves.And from the description, I'd hardly say they require you to return your console in "perfect" condition. I don't think it's asking too much to require you to trade in a WORKING console.

 

[ubercake]

PS4 and XBONE are at the EOL (end of life). Streaming is the future and an android phone that runs onlive can run something that runs 10000000+ fps better than any of the new systems... yup... say goodbye to hardware.

This is all complete bullshit, I'm sorry. OnLive went bankrupt for a reason. And I'm sorry, but streaming is not the future. It might be the future replacement of *consoles* but it will never completely replace the PC. Even that is a stretch. Physical games are likely to be replaced with download-only, but streaming only makes sense as a matter of convenience; it makes no sense on a technical level.

The primary technical reason is that nobody WANTS to fill up their internet bandwidth with graphics streaming, deal with input lag and try to maintain a good ping. If you think an Android phone will somehow magically overcome the bandwidth limitations that even a home cable connection or fiber connection cannot, you're on crack. Wireless has far more network noise (packet errors) to deal with to the point that a streamed game will have input lag even with the best broadband connection.

The other reason is going to be graphics fidelity. Streaming 1080p is just barely possible and even then the bit rate on a streamed 1080p video is no where near the actual bit rate of a Blu-ray, meaning streamed 1080p is really not going to live up to even the Xbone or PS4 playing a game natively. Once 4K moves in, 1080p streaming will be making a compromise; worse graphics for convenience or native for killer resolution? Easy choice.

Last, it comes down to ROI: if I pay a monthly fee, get a game and HAVE to stream it, but then let's say a storm takes out my internet connection and I can't play it - it no longer has ANY intrinsic value to me. I can't resell it, I can't play it again in 6 mo's when I've moved on to something else UNLESS I'm still paying the monthly fee, and then there's that: the monthly fee.

Game streaming will be popular only in select situations where traditional console gaming doesn't make sense or isn't available, and only in markets where fiber is available. It will not replace PCs (not in the next 20 years anyway) and it won't replace consoles. It certainly won't be competitive at all until it's around $9.99, meaning it will NEVER be competitive because it will NEVER be that low; the licensing cost alone won't allow them to drop it that low w/out significant subscription numbers and that's not happening any time soon, either.

The only way OnLive would be able to make this model work is by hammering out a deal with game publishers that proves to them that 1) They'll make more money licensing the games to OnLive than selling them to individuals (never going to happen) and 2) It makes more sense than one of the MANY direct download options already available. They'll also need to convince consumers of the same things.

This means you'll need to convince me and every other gamer that spending $29/mo and owning NONE of your games, not having the convenience of using PSN or XBL direct downloads, not using Steam, Uplay or Origin, not downloading from a retailer and REQUIRING AN ALWAYS-ON INTERNET CONNECTION JUST TO PLAY is better than one of the many options I listed.

Oh, and the Android phone that " runs 10000000+ fps better than any of the new systems" - yeah, that's just garbage. You might hit 60fps but that is in no way equivalent to doing so on a console on a full-sized screen with higher res textures.

When I used onLive there was about a second delay of input lag. That's pretty substantial. The graphics were decent and seemed to be set somewhere around 'medium'.

But to say streaming games will never make sense is like saying any streaming media doesn't make sense. In the days where downloading a 640x480 jpg took 20 minutes on a modem connection, I'd say streaming gaming makes absolutely no sense, but there have been great gains since those days and given enough bandwidth, streaming gaming will really take off. The cost structure will be at some price point by which people who wouldn't otherwise be able to go out and purchase a console or mid-level gaming PC would gladly pay the monthly fee to play.

I believe OnLive was really ahead of its time. The infrastructure is just not in place yet to facilitate what they were going for. Streaming is definitely the future. Software companies would rather you not own anything and pay rent with everything. And if you haven't noticed, corporations drive everything (at least in the U.S.). Streaming is what they want. They want your rent check. Subscription-based software services is where things are going as well. Subscription-based software services are like the gateway drug to cloud-based and streaming software services. You don't own anything. Look at Adobe CS cloud and MS Office365 online. All subscription based.

The bottom line is "The Man" wants your rent check. They will do everything in their power to get the infrastructure in place to make sure you pay more and don't own anything. They will have the support of the politicians whose campaigns they fund to push the infrastructure updates. There will come a time when the average person is running what would equate to a dumb terminal over an IP connection by which they run those games and applications they pay for monthly. I envision commercial ads as a regular part of the content you'll see as well as part of your stream whether you like it or not.

Streaming is the future.

 

[Christopher Shaffer]

PS4 and XBONE are at the EOL (end of life). Streaming is the future and an android phone that runs onlive can run something that runs 10000000+ fps better than any of the new systems... yup... say goodbye to hardware.

This is all complete bullshit, I'm sorry. OnLive went bankrupt for a reason. And I'm sorry, but streaming is not the future. It might be the future replacement of *consoles* but it will never completely replace the PC. Even that is a stretch. Physical games are likely to be replaced with download-only, but streaming only makes sense as a matter of convenience; it makes no sense on a technical level.

The primary technical reason is that nobody WANTS to fill up their internet bandwidth with graphics streaming, deal with input lag and try to maintain a good ping. If you think an Android phone will somehow magically overcome the bandwidth limitations that even a home cable connection or fiber connection cannot, you're on crack. Wireless has far more network noise (packet errors) to deal with to the point that a streamed game will have input lag even with the best broadband connection.

The other reason is going to be graphics fidelity. Streaming 1080p is just barely possible and even then the bit rate on a streamed 1080p video is no where near the actual bit rate of a Blu-ray, meaning streamed 1080p is really not going to live up to even the Xbone or PS4 playing a game natively. Once 4K moves in, 1080p streaming will be making a compromise; worse graphics for convenience or native for killer resolution? Easy choice.

Last, it comes down to ROI: if I pay a monthly fee, get a game and HAVE to stream it, but then let's say a storm takes out my internet connection and I can't play it - it no longer has ANY intrinsic value to me. I can't resell it, I can't play it again in 6 mo's when I've moved on to something else UNLESS I'm still paying the monthly fee, and then there's that: the monthly fee.

Game streaming will be popular only in select situations where traditional console gaming doesn't make sense or isn't available, and only in markets where fiber is available. It will not replace PCs (not in the next 20 years anyway) and it won't replace consoles. It certainly won't be competitive at all until it's around $9.99, meaning it will NEVER be competitive because it will NEVER be that low; the licensing cost alone won't allow them to drop it that low w/out significant subscription numbers and that's not happening any time soon, either.

The only way OnLive would be able to make this model work is by hammering out a deal with game publishers that proves to them that 1) They'll make more money licensing the games to OnLive than selling them to individuals (never going to happen) and 2) It makes more sense than one of the MANY direct download options already available. They'll also need to convince consumers of the same things.

This means you'll need to convince me and every other gamer that spending $29/mo and owning NONE of your games, not having the convenience of using PSN or XBL direct downloads, not using Steam, Uplay or Origin, not downloading from a retailer and REQUIRING AN ALWAYS-ON INTERNET CONNECTION JUST TO PLAY is better than one of the many options I listed.

Oh, and the Android phone that " runs 10000000+ fps better than any of the new systems" - yeah, that's just garbage. You might hit 60fps but that is in no way equivalent to doing so on a console on a full-sized screen with higher res textures.

When I used onLive there was about a second delay of input lag. That's pretty substantial. The graphics were decent and seemed to be set somewhere around 'medium'.

But to say streaming games will never make sense is like saying any streaming media doesn't make sense. In the days where downloading a 640x480 jpg took 20 minutes on a modem connection, I'd say streaming gaming makes absolutely no sense, but there have been great gains since those days and given enough bandwidth, streaming gaming will really take off. The cost structure will be at some price point by which people who wouldn't otherwise be able to go out and purchase a console or mid-level gaming PC would gladly pay the monthly fee to play.

I believe OnLive was really ahead of its time. The infrastructure is just not in place yet to facilitate what they were going for. Streaming is definitely the future. Software companies would rather you not own anything and pay rent with everything. And if you haven't noticed, corporations drive everything (at least in the U.S.). Streaming is what they want. They want your rent check. Subscription-based software services is where things are going as well. Subscription-based software services are like the gateway drug to cloud-based and streaming software services. You don't own anything. Look at Adobe CS cloud and MS Office365 online. All subscription based.

The bottom line is "The Man" wants your rent check. They will do everything in their power to get the infrastructure in place to make sure you pay more and don't own anything. They will have the support of the politicians whose campaigns they fund to push the infrastructure updates. There will come a time when the average person is running what would equate to a dumb terminal over an IP connection by which they run those games and applications they pay for monthly. I envision commercial ads as a regular part of the content you'll see as well as part of your stream whether you like it or not.

Streaming is the future.

Infrastructure is indeed a major point of concern and likely a major factor contributing to the downfall of OnLive. However, I don't believe that's the only limitation preventing streaming from being "the future" - not by a LONG shot. I'd also LOVE to see the politicians who are "pushing" infrastructure updates. The only one I've heard is Obama, and so far there's no funding which is why our broadband is a fraction of the speed of Europe's.

I don't want to get into a political debate, but I will say that upgrades to our infrastructure should be welcomed, would create jobs and are, as of right now, a myth. In addition, the powers that be in the broadband world would love nothing LESS than game streaming. They don't even want Netflix streaming, and not only due to content but also due to the bandwidth that is used. Communications companies must look at their entire network bandwidth as a whole - the more of this used by a single user, the less they have to spread around. They have no financial interest in yet another streaming service.

Even if the broadband infrastructure existed to support this, the business model doesn't. The companies making these games have a much higher profit margin selling the games directly to consumers than they would ever have in a streaming model. This, in addition to the MANY, MANY valid reasons I already listed will prevent game streaming from being a reality for at least a very long time to come.

Regarding replacing the console w/a monthly subscription I still think most people will look at ROI when it comes to gaming: how much can I get out of it when I'm done, how much am I going to spend to keep it going and is it worth what I spend monthly vs. my other options. The answers from the streaming perspective are all negative when we talk about gaming. Video makes more sense as your replay value on a game vs. a movie is far different.

As long as consumer demands are there for ownership and quality, game streaming will be a pipe dream.