I don't think Raerden Studios' OnLive service that was presented at the GDC in San Franciso will need an introduction here. OnLive has raised high expectations and the question remains wether the service will be able to live up to it. HD gaming streamed to your pc or tv without expensive equipment, it sure sounds nice.

 

Makes me think wether OnLive will also revolutionize the way review copies are distributed to the press. We already tasted some of this with the PlayStation & Xbox Network, but OnLive would be able to take this way further. Imagine having an OnLive press account - or a publisher's OnLive account - and having access to all their games.

 

What's more, publishers would be able to see exactly how many hours you have spent playing their game for a review and probably also see a lot more statistics about your playing prior to publishing an article about it. Would you consider this as an invasion of your privacy? Would you mind that publishers have access to that information?

I certainly think a system like OnLive will be able to make some massive changes for gaming, but I don't think it will happen soon. Outside of the states anyway - our internet is pretty bad in Australia in comparison.

 

I think this type of system brings a lot of positive things with it, but also a few negatives (most of which can probably be eliminated with faster connections in more places).

 

For reviews - yeah. I think it would open a lot of new channels for PR outlets, and could possibly do the same for media outlets, especially smaller independent ones. 

I think publishers will realize that review scores don't correlate with total play-time, so I wouldn't imagine any danger of being denied a review copy based on your gaming habits.

 

On the other hand, it might have a psychological effect on reviewers. Knowing you're being watched or recorded could alter the conditions you play under, or atleast your perception of them.

Actually the UK would have a pretty good chance of making that work as it has broadband access available to over 90% of the country now. I don't think even the US could do that. Many Scandinavian countries have near 100% broadband access available. I'm pretty sure the US couldn't even boast 50% broadband availablity.

 

Problem is that the infrastructure isn't really built to handle that kind of thing yet. Look at how lag affects MMOs and online FPS games. Can you imagine the outrage from people who don't normally play online and understand the hiccups of lag?

 

It would be very interesting though for game distribution for console games to press. No more regionalisation issues and the game could be distributed to the press as easily as enabling their account to have it. And they wouldn't have to worry about preview or press release copies of games being given to non-press.

Well, assuming there won't be any lag, I'd be perfectly fine with having my reviews being watched. My only quarrel would be if I had to review a game under my own account on the OnLive database, because then that might be an invasion of my privacy. If whoever I'm working for at the moment allowed that I use a separate account for reviewing, which could be watched--and if OnLive even allows multiple accounts--I think it'd be an excellent approach to game reviews.

This is actually an excellent topic, because I've never thought of digital distribution as usable means in the workplace, but now I'm starting to give DLC a little more credibility.

I think it's a good thing that publishers are able to see how long you have played the game before you wrote an article about it. It's also a way for the press to show the publishers we are really serious about reviewing the games.

So yes, I hope that this idea is going to be realised very soon so we are able to play those games.

It can go two ways (Duh!):

1: It gets accepted by many developers, publishers etc. and the community stands behind it. They organise the internet connection, which has to be tip-top of course, and it makes a start to take over retail sales.

2: It lags due to internet problems and a small community who embraces the concept. Publishers and developers don't work together with OnLive and the whole project dies a slowly, but painful death.

If we get option numer one, we can get a much easier distribution of review copies, for say key-codes we can fill in to download a game. It would be, in my opinion, absolutely awesome!

It depends, I've had colleagues tell me that PR companies can get pretty upset if they don't feel you give their game enough attention. If a game warrants a bad review but you only played X amount of hours with it, a PR company may get upset knowing this and remove you from their list. Inconvenient in the least!

OnLive is nothing more than an awesome way to milk money out of investor's until they read up on how the internet does (or in this case doesn't) work. It's the new Gizmodo.

Sometimes, you just "know" when a game is bad after spending maybe 6 to 8 hours with it. It MAY get better, but chances are good that only the hardcore will want to slog through the previous hell of 8 hours to get there. If you did the same as a reviewer and wrote it down like that (and the stats are shown on OnLive) should that count against you?

Honestly, I don't know alot of journos who can actually FINISH a game before deadline (Especially things like RPG's, SRPG's, rhythm games, "endless" types et al)