OnLive launching June 17, CEO Perlman interview inside

Ambitious HD game-streaming service to debut on PC, Mac during E3, micro-consoles to follow; will cost $15/month; 1080p, 60fps service coming 2011.

One year after it was unveiled at the 2009 Game Developers Conference, OnLive finally has a launch date. Company CEO Steve Perlman announced today at his keynote address at the GamesBeat mini-conference at GDC 2010 that OnLive will go live on June 17. The service will initially be available as an application for the Windows and Mac operating systems, with a micro-console that can be attached directly to HDTVs to arrive later on in the year.

OnLive goes live in the lower 48 states on June 17.

OnLive goes live in the lower 48 states on June 17.

OnLive's launch will be limited to the contiguous lower 48 United States and will cost $14.95 per month. According to the OnLive Blog, the first 25,000 thousand people to sign up will have the service fee waived for three months. (To apply, sign up on the official OnLive site.) Multi-month pricing and other promotions will be announced prior to the service's debut.

OnLive's monthly fee does not include the purchase price of games themselves, which can be rented or bought from publishers directly at a lower-than-retail price. Publishers supporting the service with PC titles include Electronic Arts, Take-Two, THQ, Ubisoft, Epic, Atari, Codemasters, and Warner Bros. Interactive Entertainment. At the DICE Summit last month, Perlman demonstrated both Crysis and Unreal Tournament 3 running on the service with minimal lag.

The June launch will only be the start of the OnLive rollout. The service will offer 1080p high-definition gaming at 60 frames per second starting in 2011. An international launch is also planned for an undetermined date.

For those unfamiliar with OnLive, the service aims to offer lag-free PC gaming via the Web. The company claims that since the heavy lifting of graphics processing will be done on the service's servers, it will offer high-definition gaming on any PC or Mac, regardless of graphics card or CPU speed.

The addition of the micro-console will also allow the service to be streamed directly onto televisions, without the need for a standard game console. Perlman sees this as a positive because OnLive games will not be tied to increasingly antiquated consoles. He promised that the OnLive servers would receive graphical upgrades every six months in order to provide the latest PC graphics.

For a detailed look at OnLive in action, read GameSpot's coverage of Perlman's DICE presentation or watch the OnLive announcement video below.

489 Comments

  • SolidTy

    Posted Dec 7, 2011 9:12 pm GMT


    I'm not a fan of this idea, streaming games...but I know others dig it, so good on them.

  • wildfire1983

    Posted Dec 7, 2011 7:38 pm GMT

    is this even legit it seems to good to be true.. it might be a scam i never heard of onlive before just my opinion

  • howlingmage

    Posted May 20, 2010 11:38 pm GMT

    I can not see this working in the uk just yet cos most broadband providers still have caps on how much you can download a month.

  • SirWilliam86

    Posted Apr 3, 2010 7:13 am GMT

    "Honey"
    "YES mom"
    "We're moving!"
    "Where?"
    "Someplace where the only connection you can get is dial up!"
    "WTF, I just spent 200 dollars buying games for On Line. Wait, can I get 4G there?"
    "Probably not!"
    FAIL

    That is hilarious. LORL

  • SirWilliam86

    Posted Apr 3, 2010 7:06 am GMT

    So this guy is talking about taking the hardware part out of gaming. I might be wrong about this but wouldn't that take out well Microsoft,Sony,Nintendo,Nvidia,ATI,evga,asus,Gskill,XFX,MSI,zotac and all the other gaming hardware makers and distributors What about GameStop I love going to GameStop to buy a game and interact with other gamers in person. Also I have a hard time believeing that it will run games as nice as my bad ass gaming PC. What about things like Physx, or mod support Another thing the price is going to be $14.99 a month......um i've had my xbox 360 for I guess about four years now paid $400 for it when it first came out and have paid $50 a year for XBL (Xbox Live) that equals $600. On the other hand you can pay $14.99 a month for four years equaling $719.52....Lets say I build a PC then in a year or so new hardware comes out pay about $200 for a year of OnLive or pay about $200 for the new hardware.Yea and I hope a bunch of people don't buy games then it goes under and you all loss your money spent.

  • HonorOfGod

    Posted Apr 2, 2010 12:48 am GMT

    If this goes good than all Sony and MS have to do is stream games through the current consoles lol even Nintendo can do it, even game devs through there own sites.

  • WICGuardian

    Posted Mar 23, 2010 9:34 am GMT

    Hey Pop yoo made a very intresting point. Why don't they introduce this in other countries and give less fortunate a chance to play?

  • tsyunami

    Posted Mar 16, 2010 10:45 pm GMT

    "Honey"
    "YES mom"
    "We're moving!"
    "Where?"
    "Someplace where the only connection you can get is dial up!"
    "WTF, I just spent 200 dollars buying games for On Line. Wait, can I get 4G there?"
    "Probably not!"
    FAIL

  • Lionheart96mt

    Posted Mar 16, 2010 8:20 pm GMT

    A few questions for those who would pay money for all these games that you buy. What will happen If OnLive fails and goes under? What will have happened to all the money you spent on your games when they can't pay for the servers? You would have spent hundreds on it and you would not be able to play it. It's a risk to consider before you go about this. I love the idea but its risky.

  • bencarps41192

    Posted Mar 16, 2010 4:30 pm GMT

    Hey if you dont have to pay much to buy the thing then it really isnt that expensive. I mean you pay like 10 dollars a month to play WoW which is 1 game not many games. You pay 60 dollars a year for Xbox Live after paying 200 - 400 dollars for a console. So I mean if the initial thing is cheap then it sint that expensive. And if the games are cheaper online then you save more that way also. The only thing keeping me is if it has a lag when there is a lot of people but only time will tell.

  • Igetyourdogtag

    Posted Mar 16, 2010 4:02 pm GMT

    I don't see a problem with a monthly fee. If the server is what they say it is, its definitely worth it. Especially since you don't have to pay anything up front. Gaming PCs are like 600 dollars these days. 600/15=40. 40 Months until you've payed more then a gaming PC. Not to mention if it "just works" like they claim its so much better then a console or PC and I wouldn't mind spending a little bit more.

  • atrofiado

    Posted Mar 15, 2010 7:10 pm GMT

    Not only the price but the concept itself will make this project FAIL. Just think about how many people would be online, how much lag you'll get from that??
    And to think that if you don't have a strong Internet connection your games will be slow, not at the best quality or won't play at all. Better get a good computer or home console and have a smooth experience than the amounts of down times this will have.

  • PC-GAMER-CARTER

    Posted Mar 15, 2010 1:10 pm GMT

    Looks great but a little pricey

  • dannyatkinson

    Posted Mar 12, 2010 1:33 pm GMT

    Most of you equipment for a Gaming PC carry over when you upgrade.
    I upgraded my MB CPU and Video for about $200.
    My PC can play ANYTHING now.
    Yes it is cheaper. I will admit a New PC costs more but I bet I could build a decent one for about $400.

  • aghost2u

    Posted Mar 12, 2010 8:54 am GMT

    A PS3 is what $300? A decently equipped "gaming" PC" is $600. or so if you build it yourself? Capable of playing titles like MW2, BC2 etc. (we are not talking flash games here) Dannyatkinson you talk about misconceptions and stupid people, try pricing out a "gaming PC" that meets the recommended specifications for today's games.

  • dannyatkinson

    Posted Mar 12, 2010 7:51 am GMT

    How is this cheaper than building a new PC. Geez people are stupid.
    PC are cheap as Heck right now if you shop around instead of buying the first thing you see. I am amazed at how much people think it costs to play top PC games today.
    Honestly in the long run PC gaming is not like it used to be. It is dirt cheap these days.
    I recently built a new rig but can't afford a PS3.
    I just don't get it. There are some HUGE misconceptions out there.

  • maxsteel86

    Posted Mar 12, 2010 7:06 am GMT

    So you initially pay $15 a month just to access the service and on top of that, you pay to buy games? Then if you decide to no longer subscribe to the service, the games you bought are no longer available for you to play...

    There's a lot I dont like about this. The only advantage they have over a games console is that you wont have to buy a new one every 7-10 years. And what about server outages or if there's a problem with your internet connection?? They'll have to demonstrate good reliability on their end atleast but still, I think its too soon for an all digital distribution system just yet

  • aghost2u

    Posted Mar 12, 2010 5:53 am GMT

    We love our services so we can do things without thinking about them too much. You can buy a gaming PC and a few game titles (more cost up front) and maybe/maybe not save some in the end, but in three years time that once top shelf gaming PC will be almost useless for modern titles without replacing or upgrading it. The onlive service is another way to get into PC gaming and I support that, however I don't think it will replace traditional PC gaming anytime soon.

  • GeneralHawx

    Posted Mar 11, 2010 7:40 pm GMT

    OH WOW I SAVE $45 dollars for being the first 25, 000 very impressive they should get the service for free for a year and only for the first 5000 the rest can get this deal and $15 a month add that up three years later that's $540 if the people use the service for more than 3 years they can get a decent PC and it'll probably be better than this

  • Shiftfallout

    Posted Mar 11, 2010 5:05 pm GMT

    I dont like this concept. I think it is bad for the future of the industry. What drives new technology? What inspires both ATI and NVIDIA to poor tons of money competing with eachother and thus giving the consumers the latest tech? SALES with consumers. If you just have the consumer playing without purchasing the hardware, there is really no need for the technologies to advance as fast as it can or even keep prices competitive. Furthermore, games will always be ahead of the bandwidth required. Meaning, with OnLive you will always be playing with lower resolutions, low settings..ect Furthermore, I believe that owning a product you can use at any time is better than one that they own and can disappear at a moments notice. Why should you have to have internet access to play a game for example? If your internet goes out... too bad. Thus, owning the product keeps competition up, keeps better technology coming out faster and cheaper for the consumer.