The Many Suitors of OnLive

The Many Suitors of OnLive

head_onlive

Much has been said about the upcoming OnLive service that debuted at the Game Developers Conference a couple weeks ago.  Questions quickly arose about its validity, its paradigm shift for gaming, and how it will actually make its way to us, the gamers.  In this article, we evaluate the latter questions: How will OnLive be sold, and through who?

There are several potential methods for OnLive to reach the consumer, whether acquisition or retail, that can benefit all parties involved.  We’ve compiled a list of the most probable gaming bachelorettes.  We’ll start with monthly services & ISPs.

Comcast

This is the most obvious choice, and the most probable.  As the ISP that controls a huge majority of cable TV & broadband in the US (especially in the MidWest) Comcast and other ISPs, such as AT&T and Time Warner already implement bandwidth caps on their customers.  By bundling OnLive into their cable boxes & DVRs and charging an additional monthly fee, the ISPs can control 100% of consumer’s game interaction.  Looking to limit bandwidth issues, Comcast’s inclusion of OnLive can help them maintain and deliver a premium service (j/k!) to the consumer as a tiered package.  To play with better graphics & sound = more bandwidth needed = higher monthly cost.  A $20/$30/$40 tiered package system is likely.

AT&T and Verizon

The wireless companies often spend time competing with the lan-based ISPs for your time and money.  With GPS & 3G-enabled netbooks beginning to be offered by AT&T and Verizon, a possible step would be to include gaming into that mix, and potentially allowing that to spill onto the phone market as well – can we see an Android phone with OnLive?  Possibly.

DirecTV & Dish

Satellite providers are also potential suitors, although an issue to overcome is the potential inconsistency in connection speeds.  However, this would greatly help the providers compete with terrestrial-based providers such as Comcast and FiOS.

While the ISP-owned option is the most viable, other companies could utilize OnLive to enter the console/home gaming delivery market.

Apple

Long-rumored to be getting ready to dip its toes into the console gaming market, Apple already has a huge infrastructure for delivering content on demand: iTunes and the App Store.  Delivering full-scale, streaming games is a natural step for the fruit company.  For example, Apple already has AppleTV with High-Def output on the market.  AppleTV 3.0 could include Bluetooth gaming peripheral connectivity, a large catalog of games, an HDD for media and any game-related information, and connectivity with the iPhone.  Imagine playing Bioshock 2 in the iPhone 3.0?

Valve (Steam)

Already the #1 delivery service for games on the web, Steam is ripe for a product like this.  This would effectively allow Valve to skip Microsoft and Sony to get to the home market.  This, along with Comcast and EA, is one of the best options for the service.

EA and Activision

Long wishing for a single console to publish to, both EA and ActivisionBlizzard would do well to release one themselves.  Add in the ability for the publishers to produce their own peripherals (motion-sensitive baseball bats, golf clubs, guitars, etc) and the incoming stream of cash would be enormous.  Oh, and for ActivisionBlizzard: World of Warcraft would then be available to even more consumers, which might be a good thing for the corporate bank account.

Although ISPs and publishers seem to be some of the most obvious choices, so do the game console manufacturers themselves.  At this giant gaming juncture, where Hi Def meets digital meets “the cloud”, console manufacturers are going through some heavy transofrmations.

Microsoft

While Microsoft’s LIVE service brings in millions of dollars each year, it has no reason to fear an immediate loss of cash flow due to OnLive itself.  However, if Onlive becomes swallowed by an ISP or competitor, MS could face a significant threat, especially if Comcast or AT&T acquire the technology.  Microsoft, already facing troubles on the PC front due to the “cloud”, would do best by swallowing the OnLive service and utilize only bits and pieces of it, such as for video delivery, smaller games, etc.  Microsoft has the most robust network of servers that can bring content to its subscribers, possibly charging and additional fee to current LIVE members for an OnLive-like service.  MS also needs something to fully kick-off its stagnant “Live Anywhere” concept.  Perhaps “OnLive Anywhere” is in the books.

Nintendo

The Big N has the biggest battle with piracy of the 3 main console manufacturers.  It also has the biggest PR battle with core gamers.  The addition of OnLive to the company would help bolster its theme of selling minimal tech for maximum profit.  But, Nintendo doesn’t seem to have a significant understanding of online services yet, often failing miserably (Friend Codes…STILL?).  This would be a stretch, but not completely out of the question, especially if Nintendo decides to do a second system of gaming, a la the Sega Channel of the Nineties that brought gaming live through the television.

Sony

Sony stands to gain the most immediate boost from the addition of OnLive to its systems, especially the PS3 (if it can occur via software).  Sony’s gaming division is already thinking in “the cloud”, and with the connectivity of the PSP OnLive could find a good home built into the system.  The PS3, however, is still mired in a muddy vision and an expensive system.  But, a system that no longer needs much of a hard drive or graphics chipset can come down in price fairly quickly, something that the PS3 still needs.  Is the PlaystatiON Live coming?

Now, there is still the possibilities for other companies to come into playe (no pun intended) about incorporating OnLive.  Therefore, we present the wildcard:

Google

Google, better known as the Great Disruptor, could grab OnLive and integrate it into any device that can access it’s accounts.  PCs? Check.  Netbooks?  Check.  Cell phones?  Check.  Other game systems?  Check.  With its massive server farms spread around the world, Google already has the infrastructure needed to run OnLive, and offer it for free to its members.  This is possibly the best solution for gamers and consumers, as OnLive could be integrated into everything Google puts it paws on.  Recieving a Google Chat video invite can include streaming video of a multiplayer game.  Playing on a T-Mobile G1 versus a player using the iPhone’s Google app would be possible.  Basically, Google would continue to rule the world, ad-supported of course.

So there you have it.  Some possibilities about who could, should, and should avoid gobbling up OnLive.  Whoever does grab the product will hopefully put it to use to help bring games to the consumers everywhere, anywhere, and at a fair price.

For more information about OnLive, visit their website here.

[All images courtesy OnLive]