The Future of PC Gaming if Cloud Gaming Services are Successful. Thoughts?

This post makes the assumption that Cloud Gaming Services such as "OnLive" will work flawlessly. If so, I think this will have Huge repercussions on many aspects of the Gaming Industry as a whole and a very Big Impact on PC Gaming. As such, I ask these Questions.

What will happen if it works like they say it will? What will happen to PC Gaming in particular?

So, let's assume for the sake of this discussion that it Does work like they say. You get top of the line gaming, awesome graphics, and No Lag. It uses limited bandwidth since it's basically just streaming a picture, and from now on you never have to buy a "Top of the Line" computer again. What's going to happen to the rest of the Gaming Industry and what will the affect be on PC Gaming? I have some general conclusions that I would like to share and get some feed-back on.

Firstly, if it truly runs smooth and looks good with no lag, people are going to flock to this en-mass. One connection will come with a controller that plugs into a PC or for those types of games or you can use your standard mouse and key board. Let's not forget this thing does PC games too!!! Dragon Age, Mass Effect 2, etc etc, all here in working order playable as normal with your mouse and keyboard or a controller. You can get games the day they come out without needing a pre-order. No standing in line. No hours of downloading a huge game file and then installing it and hoping your system specs can handle it. It just works.

The first and most obvious effect this will have will be in the next 3 to 5 years as people who would normally be upgrading their PC's to handle the next generation of games Won't be doing this. Why go out and buy a $600 graphics card to run "Crysis 5" when OnLive can do it right on your monitor and it still looks perfect? The answer is most people won't unless the economy makes a drastic upturn. People are hesitant to spend large sums of money especially when given a cheaper option that works just as well. Graphics Card Manufacturers are going to be the first ones to start feeling the pinch followed closely by companies that make CPU's that go faster and faster in their war to stay competitive with one another. Manufacturers who make Monitors will still be golden because PC's will always need bigger and better screens, especially since the Cloud does movies too. It won't be long until "going out to the movies" will be a thing of the past. Movies will release at home the same day they do in a Box Office.

Believe it or not, aside from Military applications, it's the video game industry that has driven our progress in computers in the last 10 years or more. Business tries to take some of the credit, but come on let's face it, we don't need uber processors and graphics cards to do spreadsheets and graphs, we need them to pwn neewbs online.

As these companies loose money due to no new sales aside from when someone's computer breaks, the drive for better and faster hardware will dry up. The only one's who will need this hardware are the companies providing the services for use in their Cloud Servers. The average gamer who just wants to play is playing all the latest games through one of these services, they won't be buying a high end graphics card anymore. The same applies for consoles. Sony, Nintendo, Microsoft, all will eventually start loosing money because people no longer need their hardware to play their games. It's done through the cloud and these companies are forced to license their games to the services to get them out to the players. Even the long standing Nintendo will eventually succumb as this system will catch on even in Japan. People won't buy a new Nintendo system just to play Mario and Zelda unless they are incredibly cheap as 90% of the other titles will all be on one Cloud Service or another. Nintendo too will be forced to adapt and either license all their games or make their own Cloud System to compete.

The next big hit will be to Video Game Stores. Vendors such as Gamestop, EB Games, assorted other toy stores. No one will be buying hard copies of games, period, because they won't have the hardware capable of running them. It will all be distributed online. For those few people who do still have computers capable of keeping up, they'll buy games through digital distributors or on special orders straight from the publisher.

Speaking of Digital Distributors, they get hit next....

For a while at first these systems will start doing better and better (seems to be happening now wouldn't you say?). As demand in stores go down demand in a virtual environment will go up because plenty of people will still want to pay for a copy of a program. Since stores won't carry what they need they are forced to go through Digital systems. These systems will see a drastic increase of business, but, Only for a Limited Time. As games and programs quickly surpass the running requirements of even the "tech savvy" home user, these people won't be able to run the latest and greatest games that are being made. Sadly in a catch 22, as the companies that make the graphics cards are now charging $2000 for a top of the line card, normal people won't be able to afford to keep a "state of the art" system on hand to play games. They too, in a short time (4 or5 years tops), will be forced to go into the Cloud to keep gaming.

Digital Distribution systems at this point, Must Evolve, if they are going to stay competitive. They will either loose all their games to the Cloud Gaming Servers or they will Become Cloud Gaming Servers themselves. If Impulse and Steam want to remain independent of a system like OnLive they will have to offer the same types of services it does. As such I think that is the most likely evolution of those companies who will want to stay competitive and not be a part of OnLive or license their games to them. The example I give above about "Nintendo" is, I think, the most likely outcome. Nintendo, Sony, X-Box, EA Games, Ubisoft Games, Steam, Impulse, etc etc, all these game companies and services will all offer their own "Cloud Service" or they will be forced to lease their games for use on another companies service.

As we can see, if Cloud Gaming works like they say it does, if it's lag free and plays great, the world of Video Game Entertainment is in for a BIG change. This will have far reaching applications into the industry and could spell Doom for certain aspects of it, or at least how things are now. PC gaming will be particularly hard hit. People will still be playing games on PC, but you won't need a powerful system to do it in relative **** The parts companies and manufacturers will be hard hit early on. I think N'Vidia and ATI will divide up the industry by specializing in working with certain game companies to make their games. EA, Bioware, a few others will go with N'Vidia, the rest with ATI. The common man though won't be able to afford the new "Corporate Server Edition" graphics cards.

What about Piracy? Well, with nothing to copy, Piracy will die out. People won't have files to install from their favorite games, they won't have DvD's to install, all these things are kept on Corporate Servers and streamed to paying, subscribing, customers only.

The only way a "Pirate" will actually get his hands on a game is if he hacks a server somewhere and steals it. There won't be anything to copy and burn and put online. Companies don't care about Pirates, as I guess they shouldn't, but they should care about being able to sell the games they make and the hardware being made to run them on. If this takes off everyone will be forced to adapt or get the hell out of dodge. A lot of smaller companies won't make it through this and that's a fact. I don't think Stardock has much to worry about, Impulse or no Impulse, you make your money with Windows Applications and in the coming years that might be all that keeps you afloat if things go down like this. We have very interesting times ahead, my friends. Very interesting indeed.

Thoughts on the Future of the Industry if Cloud Gaming works?

Anyone wanna summarize the OP for us people who are lazy?

Anyone wanna summarize the OP for us people who are lazy?

JangoWuzHere

Well, it's kinda hard to sum up, but in a nut shell, this shows how PC Gaming on powerful systems and consoles will both go the way of the dinosaur. You may think that's "far fetched" but if you read it, sadly, you'll see that it's not.

I don't like globalization, or the corporation for that matter, as I like to have full control over my own content, but if it means piracy is minimized and people come to see the PC's advantages as a gaming platform, then yes, I would welcome it.kdawg88

People might still be playing games "On" their PC's, but they won't be playing them with their PC's doing the work. That's how Cloud Gaming works. The server end does all the work. People won't need to buy expensive graphics cards and hardware anymore. As such the common home user soon won't have a computer that's powerful enough to do anything useful. Because the prices of graphics cards will sky-rocket the common user also won't be able to afford one anyway. The Card companies will only be afloat by selling "Corporate Edition" cards for servers. Home users won't be able to afford top of the line gaming PC's at this point, nor would they need them since their systems aren't actually running the games, they're just displaying them and acting as a control interface.

Cloud Gaming systems will also make consoles obsolete if successful. No one will buy a $400 PS4 if they can play all the PS4 games on OnLive without the PS4. As parents pay a lot of these bills I'm sure to save massive amounts of money they'd rather buy their kid the gaming service then 3 new consoles a year.

When you think about it, if this business and play model are successful, they are going to effectively Destroy Massive amounts of the Industry and PC gaming as we know it today.

You mentioned people will still buy larger monitors.

Not if they are running old GPUs: the card would have to be able to handle the resolution.

You mentioned people will still buy larger monitors.

Not if they are running old GPUs: the card would have to be able to handle the resolution.

topsemag55

This I think would depend on the technology involved. If all you're doing is stretching a picture that's being streamed to you, you can still do that and retain a relatively high resolution. TV's did it for years between the late 80's and mid 90's. Also the technology for the GPU's will still be moving forward as it does now, it's just that home users won't need them if they're using a service like OnLive.

Onlive simply won't catch on; most importantly, the industry won't let it.Bigsteve3570

I don't know about that my friend. I think a big part of the industry, and other industries, are behind this whole-heartedly. This will all but kill piracy. This will make game companies lots and lots of money and all they'll be doing is "leasing" the playability of their games to their customers. Cable companies and providers hold stock in this as it requires you to have cable internet access. The more people that want to enjoy a Cloud gaming service the more people that will need cable the more money they'll make.

It's not even really a matter of "If" this catches on, it's a matter of "when". It will happen when the technology can do it right, and even though I haven't played OnLive, if it does what they say it does, it will deliver this technology and game-play capabilities. I don't think it will be good at all for many parts of the industry, but other parts will make so much money they won't care.

[QUOTE="JangoWuzHere"]

Anyone wanna summarize the OP for us people who are lazy?

RavenXavier

Well, it's kinda hard to sum up, but in a nut shell, this shows how PC Gaming on powerful systems and consoles will both go the way of the dinosaur. You may think that's "far fetched" but if you read it, sadly, you'll see that it's not.

I don't like globalization, or the corporation for that matter, as I like to have full control over my own content, but if it means piracy is minimized and people come to see the PC's advantages as a gaming platform, then yes, I would welcome it.kdawg88

People might still be playing games "On" their PC's, but they won't be playing them with their PC's doing the work. That's how Cloud Gaming works. The server end does all the work. People won't need to buy expensive graphics cards and hardware anymore. As such the common home user soon won't have a computer that's powerful enough to do anything useful. Because the prices of graphics cards will sky-rocket the common user also won't be able to afford one anyway. The Card companies will only be afloat by selling "Corporate Edition" cards for servers. Home users won't be able to afford top of the line gaming PC's at this point, nor would they need them since their systems aren't actually running the games, they're just displaying them and acting as a control interface.

Cloud Gaming systems will also make consoles obsolete if successful. No one will buy a $400 PS4 if they can play all the PS4 games on OnLive without the PS4. As parents pay a lot of these bills I'm sure to save massive amounts of money they'd rather buy their kid the gaming service then 3 new consoles a year.

When you think about it, if this business and play model are successful, they are going to effectively Destroy Massive amounts of the Industry and PC gaming as we know it today.

well I figure pc gaming will overtake console gaming eventually. Browser based games are clawing away at the casual market as they keep improving, free to play games like combat arms are doing damage as well. Then there is wow, one single game but bigger than any single console by itself already.

So for serious gamers, they can upgrade and spend the extra bucks like they have in the past decade, and for casuals they can just use their laptop, connect it to their tv or whatever they like. I suppose the consoles will still have some sort of market, but it will shrink quite a bit in the next decade.

[QUOTE="RavenXavier"]

[QUOTE="JangoWuzHere"]

Well, it's kinda hard to sum up, but in a nut shell, this shows how PC Gaming on powerful systems and consoles will both go the way of the dinosaur. You may think that's "far fetched" but if you read it, sadly, you'll see that it's not.

[QUOTE="kdawg88"]I don't like globalization, or the corporation for that matter, as I like to have full control over my own content, but if it means piracy is minimized and people come to see the PC's advantages as a gaming platform, then yes, I would welcome it.kdawg88

People might still be playing games "On" their PC's, but they won't be playing them with their PC's doing the work. That's how Cloud Gaming works. The server end does all the work. People won't need to buy expensive graphics cards and hardware anymore. As such the common home user soon won't have a computer that's powerful enough to do anything useful. Because the prices of graphics cards will sky-rocket the common user also won't be able to afford one anyway. The Card companies will only be afloat by selling "Corporate Edition" cards for servers. Home users won't be able to afford top of the line gaming PC's at this point, nor would they need them since their systems aren't actually running the games, they're just displaying them and acting as a control interface.

Cloud Gaming systems will also make consoles obsolete if successful. No one will buy a $400 PS4 if they can play all the PS4 games on OnLive without the PS4. As parents pay a lot of these bills I'm sure to save massive amounts of money they'd rather buy their kid the gaming service then 3 new consoles a year.

When you think about it, if this business and play model are successful, they are going to effectively Destroy Massive amounts of the Industry and PC gaming as we know it today.

OnLive will become popular after at least 5 to 10 years, when the technology will really be able to make it work, but it won't become something more than a mere alternative because of a simple reason, it will eliminate the need of dedicated platforms, you will be able to play any game you want from any platform you want on your TV/monitor/PC, etc and MS, Sony and Nintendo won't let that happen.DanielDust

How about we wait and see how good Onlive is before we declare it will change the world. Personally I do not see how they can possibly stream high def content at 60 frames per second without buffering and have acceptable user latency. Even 100ms would in my view be unacceptable for some single player games which are not designed to work without instant response.

No matter how good Onlive's compression technology is there is still the limitation from the ISP. For those of us with a bandwidth cap we would be going through hundreds of gigs a week playing single player games.

Anyone wanna summarize the OP for us people who are lazy?

JangoWuzHere

This. Pleeeease. I'm too lazy to read all of that )x

[QUOTE="topsemag55"]

You mentioned people will still buy larger monitors.

Not if they are running old GPUs: the card would have to be able to handle the resolution.

RavenXavier

This I think would depend on the technology involved. If all you're doing is stretching a picture that's being streamed to you, you can still do that and retain a relatively high resolution. TV's did it for years between the late 80's and mid 90's. Also the technology for the GPU's will still be moving forward as it does now, it's just that home users won't need them if they're using a service like OnLive.

Onlive simply won't catch on; most importantly, the industry won't let it.Bigsteve3570

I don't know about that my friend. I think a big part of the industry, and other industries, are behind this whole-heartedly. This will all but kill piracy. This will make game companies lots and lots of money and all they'll be doing is "leasing" the playability of their games to their customers. Cable companies and providers hold stock in this as it requires you to have cable internet access. The more people that want to enjoy a Cloud gaming service the more people that will need cable the more money they'll make.

It's not even really a matter of "If" this catches on, it's a matter of "when". It will happen when the technology can do it right, and even though I haven't played OnLive, if it does what they say it does, it will deliver this technology and game-play capabilities. I don't think it will be good at all for many parts of the industry, but other parts will make so much money they won't care.

if you seem to think you can stream HD video AND comehow not have control lag............you are nuts. I have a hard time streaming 480p youtube videos without it stopping to buffer let alone 720 or 1080!

if you seem to think you can stream HD video AND comehow not have control lag............you are nuts. I have a hard time streaming 480p youtube videos without it stopping to buffer let alone 720 or 1080!

lespaul1919

[QUOTE="DanielDust"]OnLive will become popular after at least 5 to 10 years, when the technology will really be able to make it work, but it won't become something more than a mere alternative because of a simple reason, it will eliminate the need of dedicated platforms, you will be able to play any game you want from any platform you want on your TV/monitor/PC, etc and MS, Sony and Nintendo won't let that happen.kevy619

[QUOTE="lespaul1919"]

if you seem to think you can stream HD video AND comehow not have control lag............you are nuts. I have a hard time streaming 480p youtube videos without it stopping to buffer let alone 720 or 1080!

kevy619

From what I've understood, the OnLive stuff is a streaming video service with you providing the input. You need a damn good Broadband! It is possible, but is up to the user to have a good line.

And a fast computer...First of all i would never use it... Also you might have to wait another 10 years before the Up/down speed for everyone is over 100/100

[QUOTE="kevy619"][QUOTE="lespaul1919"]

if you seem to think you can stream HD video AND comehow not have control lag............you are nuts. I have a hard time streaming 480p youtube videos without it stopping to buffer let alone 720 or 1080!

yourmajesty90

From what I've understood, the OnLive stuff is a streaming video service with you providing the input. You need a damn good Broadband! It is possible, but is up to the user to have a good line.

Cloud gaming as a replacement for our current PCs and Consoles is a bad idea IMO. I already have a problem with the current DRM that's out there. If I buy a game, I should be able to take it home, pop in into my PC, and play it WITHOUT being connected to the internet since I PAID for it. I didn't pay for it to be stuck with it forever, or to lease it. I paid for it to OWN it. Since I paid for it, it's my game and my right to do what I please with it. I should be able to resell it for $30 when I'm done with it, and then the next guy should be able to install it on his PC, and play it without any kind of online verification. We're going wayyyy too far here with the software rights being taken out of the consumer's hands once they've paid for it.

[QUOTE="yourmajesty90"]

[QUOTE="kevy619"] 10 years ago we had a hard time loading a jpeg image...ChiliDragon

From what I've understood, the OnLive stuff is a streaming video service with you providing the input. You need a damn good Broadband! It is possible, but is up to the user to have a good line.

Which is pretty significant since OnLive is ONLY in the US at this point...

I don't think OnLive will surpass consoles/computer anytime soon... Maybe 10-20 years from now when a 20mbit connection is common and 50mbit connections are what people who have 10-20mbit connects today use it will be a little more popular, but at this point, I don't see it surpassing anything...

People said the same thing about DVDs/CDs/Hard Copies... iTunes, Steam, Impuse, Direct2Drive, AmazonUnBox,EA Store, etc... They have been around for years and you can get ALL modern games from digital distribution, but they are all still sold on disc and can be purchased at retail... iTunes and MP3s have been around for nearly a decade, yet you can still buy CDs...

Good Feedback so far everyone. Let me remind you all though, this thread isn't a discussion on whether or not the Technology will work. Even if the Technology isn't quite there yet to work the way they say it will when OnLive launches, the bottom line is it Will Be There soon. Much sooner then later I'd say. This discussion is about "What Will Happen to the Industry as a Whole" when these types of services mature.

I really do think they will Destroy parts of the market. People won't spend money on High End hardware they don't need. If they can do their gaming on a low end PC, without a $400 graphics cards or a $400 console, and still have it look just as good and play just as good as if they had the hardware sitting right there, then people simply Won't spend that kind of money. These Cloud Services will completely Dominate the market and change the way the majority of people play games forever.

No-one seems to have mentioned Gaikai so far. I don't know what games it has to offer, but I'm certainly against paying OnLive's 15$ a month to be able to buy/play the games which I will additionally pay 40-50$ for. It just sounds ridiculous.

And yes, this brings up the whole 'Ubisoft DRM' issue again. People without rock-solid internet connections are out of luck, which means that if this technology is to change the world, it has to push for better internet connections in whatever way it can. I guess that if it really turns out to be that attractive, we would stop spending money on hardware and start spending cash on upgrading our internet connections.

I for one, am excited by this prospect. It transforms the PC into an all-in-one gaming platform.

honestly, services like this are better, if we actually had good quality lines (which we dont) and good quality internet service providers (which we don't)

it would be better, where more people could play these games on higher/maxed settings, than just those that can afford the latest hardware..

then again the monetary system is a whole other problem period... so we won't get into that.

this is of course, the service works like it is supposed to. and we have quality lines like i said before, with quality providers...

i know i will get bashed on for saying it, but hey the future, can't be traditional forever.

At the moment OnLive is not good for FPS games because its just simply too unresponsive...although for nearly all other games it tricks you into thinking its very responsive by predicting your actions...long story short, FPS's are probably THE biggest genre in gaming currently and if singleplayer feels like a high-ping multiplayer map then people will be turned off.

No-one seems to have mentioned Gaikai so far. I don't know what games it has to offer, but I'm certainly against paying OnLive's 15$ a month to be able to buy/play the games which I will additionally pay 40-50$ for.alert0

People in the UK cant really get the speeds to even run normal games of this service and so it will fail in the UK and no marger update to our cables (were using old slow ones mainly atm) will be done anytime soon.

USA will be the only country to fully get this service going and if you can't go international I dont think it will get as high and mighty as you say well anytime soon.

Still when one day this service does get big I think it will draw people back to the PC.

I think cloud gaming will be good for the industry. The computer hardware market will be less of a consumer driven business, and more corporate driven because it will only be large companies in need of higher end hardware. The overall cost of developing games will go down because publishers will no longer have to worry about distribution expenses, which include manufacturing the software, shipping it en mass, and paying royalties to the companies that sell it.

In the end, more money will go into the developer's hands because piracy will be all but be eliminated and the cost of digital distribution is astronomically cheaper. This in turn leads to the possibility of the computer hardware market thriving exponentially because it will no longer be held down by the pockets of the consumer, but supported by corporations with a sharp increase in return rates.

People always have their blind views on what they believe to be better so I don't think anything will "die" any time soon. If this cloud gaming thing really works though I would be more than happy to use it.

If only Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft actually let their exclusive games be released on a system like this, cloud computing could be the "Super Console" all of us have been waiting for. That being said I highly doubt that is going to happen.

Either way I'm going to give OnLive a try since I can't always take everyone opinion seriously about it. If I think it's worth it I might buy a netbook and play Crysis 2 on it or something like that. I think it's really interesting and I hope they don't go down the tube too fast.

Yes the connections will improve, and yes the bandwidth caps will grow, but so will the cost, and so will the size of the files you're streaming. Until it can provide a service of better or equal quality to a PC or console for less money nobody in their right mind will give it the time of day.denter21

It's irrelevant whether or not it will work from a technological standpoint. ISPs all over the world have bandwidth caps, and it's becoming more and more prevalent. You aren't just paying for OnLive, you're paying $1-2 per GB you go past your bandwidth cap (anywhere from 40-100 GB per month here in Canada). I can't imagine how they think it's going to succeed at all with the pricing models ISPs have been moving towards. Yes the connections will improve, and yes the bandwidth caps will grow, but so will the cost, and so will the size of the files you're streaming. Until it can provide a service of better or equal quality to a PC or console for less money nobody in their right mind will give it the time of day.denter21

I'm sorry, but this isn't common sense. As connections improve and bandwidth caps grow, the cost per block of data is actually cheaper. It's unfortunate that you're limited by bandwidth caps and I don't have any statistics or anything, but I'm sure a large portion of the developed world is not held down by bandwidth caps and those are the people OnLive are going to cater to. Any company with half a sense is not going to provide a cloud gaming service in an area where all the ISPs impose bandwidth restrictions.

Not only is the US government working on a national broadband plan aimed at providing high-speed internet to all of its citizens, but Google is getting ready to start testing an ultra high-speed fiber optics network with 1Gbps download speeds in select communities about the country. So although there are many places that aren't quite ready for a service such as OnLive, there are more then enough that are ready now or will be in the near future to support it.

[QUOTE="denter21"]It's irrelevant whether or not it will work from a technological standpoint. ISPs all over the world have bandwidth caps, and it's becoming more and more prevalent. You aren't just paying for OnLive, you're paying $1-2 per GB you go past your bandwidth cap (anywhere from 40-100 GB per month here in Canada). I can't imagine how they think it's going to succeed at all with the pricing models ISPs have been moving towards. Yes the connections will improve, and yes the bandwidth caps will grow, but so will the cost, and so will the size of the files you're streaming. Until it can provide a service of better or equal quality to a PC or console for less money nobody in their right mind will give it the time of day.MaxGamer

I'm sorry, but this isn't common sense. As connections improve and bandwidth caps grow, the cost per block of data is actually cheaper. It's unfortunate that you're limited by bandwidth caps and I don't have any statistics or anything, but I'm sure a large portion of the developed world is not held down by bandwidth caps and those are the people OnLive are going to cater to. Any company with half a sense is not going to provide a cloud gaming service in an area where all the ISPs impose bandwidth restrictions.

Not only is the US government working on a national broadband plan aimed at providing high-speed internet to all of its citizens, but Google is getting ready to start testing an ultra high-speed fiber optics network with 1Gbps download speeds in select communities about the country. So although there are many places that aren't quite ready for a service such as OnLive, there are more then enough that are ready now or will be in the near future to support it.

I think the "common-sense" factor that's being ignored here is human greed. If we give companies the ability to charge a subscription to have access to single-player games, where will the charges end? They won't end, because as soon as a few suckers go for this we know exactly what it's going to turn into. I also know that more and more ISPs in the US are introducing, or at least enforcing bandwidth caps recently.. much more so than a few years ago. We're years away from this being feasible, and then the companies providing the gaming "services" will start charging an arm and a leg because people will feel like they have no other option.

[QUOTE="MaxGamer"]

[QUOTE="denter21"]It's irrelevant whether or not it will work from a technological standpoint. ISPs all over the world have bandwidth caps, and it's becoming more and more prevalent. You aren't just paying for OnLive, you're paying $1-2 per GB you go past your bandwidth cap (anywhere from 40-100 GB per month here in Canada). I can't imagine how they think it's going to succeed at all with the pricing models ISPs have been moving towards. Yes the connections will improve, and yes the bandwidth caps will grow, but so will the cost, and so will the size of the files you're streaming. Until it can provide a service of better or equal quality to a PC or console for less money nobody in their right mind will give it the time of day.hartsickdiscipl

I'm sorry, but this isn't common sense. As connections improve and bandwidth caps grow, the cost per block of data is actually cheaper. It's unfortunate that you're limited by bandwidth caps and I don't have any statistics or anything, but I'm sure a large portion of the developed world is not held down by bandwidth caps and those are the people OnLive are going to cater to. Any company with half a sense is not going to provide a cloud gaming service in an area where all the ISPs impose bandwidth restrictions.

Not only is the US government working on a national broadband plan aimed at providing high-speed internet to all of its citizens, but Google is getting ready to start testing an ultra high-speed fiber optics network with 1Gbps download speeds in select communities about the country. So although there are many places that aren't quite ready for a service such as OnLive, there are more then enough that are ready now or will be in the near future to support it.

I think the "common-sense" factor that's being ignored here is human greed. If we give companies the ability to charge a subscription to have access to single-player games, where will the charges end? They won't end, because as soon as a few suckers go for this we know exactly what it's going to turn into. I also know that more and more ISPs in the US are introducing, or at least enforcing bandwidth caps recently.. much more so than a few years ago. We're years away from this being feasible, and then the companies providing the gaming "services" will start charging an arm and a leg because people will feel like they have no other option.

agreed, it would not work yet, and it will be years before it is feesible, but that being said, to say that it wont one-day work great is kinda only just a slightly educated GUESS.

and about the other poster, "large portion of the developed world" lol, that saying is just so funny. In many ways the U.S. is way behind Canada, and i live in the U.S. As far as Bandwidth caps, the United States suffers from it too.

if u have a low end machine its a great new service, but if u have a gaming pc then i don't see the point i like upgrading my pc and surely streaming from another computer onto yours can't be as good quality as having it on your own machineand monitorcan it?

i too will stick with my PC as long as i can.

OnLive's highest resolution is 1280x720 and from what beta testers have said there's a lot of compression in the signal. Furthermore, games like Crysis don't even appear to be running maxed out. Compare that to a beast of a rig you can buy today where you can play Crysis maxed out at some insane resolution like 2560x1600. And on top of the better graphics and performance you also get the ability to use mods and not have to bother with waiting in a queue to play your games.

Assuming that OnLive does hypothetically manage to deliver perfectly on all of its promises (which all signs are saying it won't, but let's assume for argument that it will) I think it will catch on with console gamers who want to play PC games but don't feel like shelling out thousands of dollars on a powerful rig or have the knowledge to build one or select good parts. However, I still see today's PC gamers, who are mostly enthusiasts, sticking with their own rigs. I don't think the industry would be in trouble at all. Quite the opposite in fact. PC gaming has been seeing a steady decline over the past decade as far as numbers of PC gamers are concerned and it shows in the development trends for the PC platform (compare the number and quality of PC exclusives today to the number and quality of PC exclusives 10 years ago). OnLive, if successful, would revitalize PC gaming by converting a large portion of console gamers back over to PC games. Game developers would follow the increased demand. Since I imagine they would charge OnLive hefty license fees to install games on their server farms this would ensure a developer a very significant and reliable income just from OnLive alone. This would help offset the perceived unprofitability of PC games due to piracy in publishers' eyes. I also don't see hardware makers fighting OnLive very much since, again, they can just charge obscene license fees to maintain profitability (if anything they'd be fighting for the contract to supply OnLive).

I personally hope that OnLive/cloud computing in general does succeed since I think PC gaming really needs it to. It will never replace owning a rig, but it will revitalize the industry which is desperately needed right now.

Totally agree with the posters saying it will take about 10 yrs to mature. If you live in the real world you'll know that most folks internet can indeed struggle with even watching youtube or viewing heavy web pages, and what about off-line gaming? What happens to gamesaves? What if let's say there's a massive natural disaster and thier servers go down for awhile, data is destroyed?

Now I know ther'll be backups and this sorta thing happens with other forms of cloud computing but it's just another way in which control is being taken away from the buying public and handed completly to the companies involved. If I buy a game I want a physical copy that I know is relativly safe and can acess anytime and do what I like with it.mods etc

Not saying I can't see the benefits of it, it would certainly put a dent in the GPU/Hardware companies future viability, but I for one still like single-player games and being in control of knowing what's going on and where my saves and stuff are. Wer're moving slowly towards what alot of ppl fear the world is coming to, where a few huge corps have all the data about you and keep track of everything you play etc, and they can use this as control freakery, deciding who does what and what is and isn't allowed, THIER vision of how things should run, thus stifling competition and user opinion.

Totally agree with the posters saying it will take about 10 yrs to mature. If you live in the real world you'll know that most folks internet can indeed struggle with even watching youtube or viewing heavy web pages, and what about off-line gaming? What happens to gamesaves? What if let's say there's a massive natural disaster and thier servers go down for awhile, data is destroyed?

Now I know ther'll be backups and this sorta thing happens with other forms of cloud computing but it's just another way in which control is being taken away from the buying public and handed completly to the companies involved. If I buy a game I want a physical copy that I know is relativly safe and can acess anytime and do what I like with it.mods etc

Not saying I can't see the benefits of it, it would certainly put a dent in the GPU/Hardware companies future viability, but I for one still like single-player games and being in control of knowing what's going on and where my saves and stuff are. Wer're moving slowly towards what alot of ppl fear the world is coming to, where a few huge corps have all the data about you and keep track of everything you play etc, and they can use this as control freakery, deciding who does what and what is and isn't allowed, THIER vision of how things should run, thus stifling competition and user opinion.

sgac

The natural disaster point is invalid since the same thing could just as easily happen to your house and take out your computer. If anything it's safer at OnLive since they'd probably have several redundant backups. I mean, name the last time a large service like google, yahoo, Xbox Live, netflix, etc. lost all their info. It simply doesn't ever happen because all of these companies are well aware that if they lose most or all of their data then they may as well file for bankruptcy and liquidate everything because they're finished.

As for this being another step toward big brother...that is one of the most paranoid things I've ever heard. What harm is OnLive going to do to you with your save files? I can't really think of anything. You might now try to retort by saying you were talking about credit card info, home address, telephone #, and all the other stuff that will probably be required during account creation and I will thus pre-emptively refer you to the fact that this practice has been going on for well over a decade now. Even by signing up on GS you provided more information than what the US census collects.

All I know is that a while back I read that AT&T claims that they will not have the hardware to handle the bandwidth being demanded by the masses. http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2008/04/att-exec-resurr/

I know it's a 2008 article, but if you think about it, even our President claims that we are way behind in technology in comparison to Europe or some parts of Asia when it comes to delivering high speed internet to the masses.

More videos, more games, and more of this possible Cloud gaming system will only eat up more bandwidth. Unless they can figure out how to compress all content that goes through the pipelines of the internet then eventually smooth streaming will soon be a thing of the past until a new type of communication other than the internet is created. Remember the internet was created by our military as a different weapon against the Soviet Union. That means that since the 1950s they've been working on the internet. There's no way a technology like that can last forever without completely changing how we can connect to it.

Gaming may go cloud, but normal computing I think will not. Most consumers will always need some kind of basic computing hardware in some form and that means old PC games will always be playable as long as the data is preserved. Network bandwidth and redundancy is an issue too, as the infrastructure is susceptible Me personally, I am against Cloud computing in the consumer space for the most part. It has the capability to ruin privacy for computer users.

[QUOTE="MaxGamer"]

[QUOTE="denter21"]It's irrelevant whether or not it will work from a technological standpoint. ISPs all over the world have bandwidth caps, and it's becoming more and more prevalent. You aren't just paying for OnLive, you're paying $1-2 per GB you go past your bandwidth cap (anywhere from 40-100 GB per month here in Canada). I can't imagine how they think it's going to succeed at all with the pricing models ISPs have been moving towards. Yes the connections will improve, and yes the bandwidth caps will grow, but so will the cost, and so will the size of the files you're streaming. Until it can provide a service of better or equal quality to a PC or console for less money nobody in their right mind will give it the time of day.hartsickdiscipl

I'm sorry, but this isn't common sense. As connections improve and bandwidth caps grow, the cost per block of data is actually cheaper. It's unfortunate that you're limited by bandwidth caps and I don't have any statistics or anything, but I'm sure a large portion of the developed world is not held down by bandwidth caps and those are the people OnLive are going to cater to. Any company with half a sense is not going to provide a cloud gaming service in an area where all the ISPs impose bandwidth restrictions.

Not only is the US government working on a national broadband plan aimed at providing high-speed internet to all of its citizens, but Google is getting ready to start testing an ultra high-speed fiber optics network with 1Gbps download speeds in select communities about the country. So although there are many places that aren't quite ready for a service such as OnLive, there are more then enough that are ready now or will be in the near future to support it.

I think the "common-sense" factor that's being ignored here is human greed. If we give companies the ability to charge a subscription to have access to single-player games, where will the charges end? They won't end, because as soon as a few suckers go for this we know exactly what it's going to turn into. I also know that more and more ISPs in the US are introducing, or at least enforcing bandwidth caps recently.. much more so than a few years ago. We're years away from this being feasible, and then the companies providing the gaming "services" will start charging an arm and a leg because people will feel like they have no other option.

But if you don't have a gaming PC, then $10 or $15 a month to "rent" one doesn't seem greedy at all.