Will Onlive kill the Video Game Console?

[videogamer]

So Onlive is going to be launched soon. Does anyone truly believe that it will kill the Video game console like the Wii, and Playstation 3? In my opinion, it won't just yet. Perhaps if they can really establish themselves, gaming consoles will slowly die. I just can't imagine life without my playstation 3 though lol.

What does everyone else think?

[monkey]

I can honestly say that I really do think that OnLive will kill off video game consoles. Who needs a video game console when you can just carry around the little OnLive TV adapter, and a wireless remote and take it with you anywhere you go. OnLive will revolutionize the way online gaming is played and it will eliminate the need to constantly upgrade to the latest consoles. It's a brilliant idea and it will work.

[VaporGuar]

never. by 2010 Onlive will be dead and buried.

[videogamer]

never. by 2010 Onlive will be dead and buried.

Thats surely possible. I think it will make it though, but I guess we have to wait and see. We have to see how their system holds up and whether there are speedy issues that make gameplay unbearable. Another 9 months or so and we shall all know :)

[Phantom]

I just can't imagine life without my playstation 3

You can't imagine your life without a overpriced failure of a console that has no games?

[gronfors]

It really depends if developers jump on the idea - If more major developers jump on the bandwagon, consoles can potentially crash...

But then again, what's stopping consoles from using the same type of technology? (other than a patent)

[curtdbz]

I don't know why people are so pessimistic about Onlive. It's just an evolution to gaming. It's incredible. It may succeed, but it also may not succeed. Either way, it will do it's part in pushing the industry forward. I personally think it will succeed, being SEVEN years in development (holy). probably not the death of consoles, yet at least. But it will hurt their numbers.

[spyroth]

No, because people will not always have access to internet connections and like owning the hardware. I still think Onlive is a great alternative to people that cant afford the powerful computers.

[ZULND3R]

I honestly don't believe it will kill off consoles. It could definitely be possible that it could take a large part of the market share away depending on how well it is received at its launch. But we'll have to wait and see.

Something like this will definitely make the big 3 re-think their strategies for the next gen of consoles in 2-4 years though

[legendarytomuk]

It's a possibillity, but all we can do is speculate. I think though that all games will adapt into some form of this.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Phantom = Fanboy?. The ps3 has more exclusives and many 360 and wii owners I know either prefer or are getting a ps3. It also has the most chance of living through the drop in sales Onlive will bring withn it's blue-ray playback.

[Deft8]

I dont think it will kill them off completely, we may see Onlive for Xbox or something like that.

I don't plan on buying another console if this thing works though. $400+ for a console (like Xbox which will just break on you anyway), or a subscription to Onlive? I'll take Onlive, but not for more than $100 a year.

[ZULND3R]

I dont think it will kill them off completely, we may see Onlive for Xbox or something like that.



In an interview, their CEO stated that they are completely open to cooperating with the other big 3 consoles companies

[Deya]

Quite frankly, no. I think that Onlive and they system that it's based on is an incredibly idea, but with Onlive requiring A) A highspeed internet connection, and B) a payment method, expect to see consoles around for a very long time to come. That, and there are certain games that Onlive will most likely never get.

I don't ever think Microsoft or Sony will ever let their major exclusive titles come to Onlive. That means Halo, MGS, Final Fantasy, Gears of War, God of War and a bunch of other exclusive franchises will stay on console.

[ZULND3R]

That being said Deya, this opens a HUGE opportunity for a lot of developers to build "that game they always wanted to make" because they have access to a system where there is almost no limitation to the specs they have to meet to run the game. I have a feeling, that with time you will see some insanely advanced games coming out ONLY for OnLive which = more exclusivity.

But, in the end, I think consoles will be just fine.

[LICK3R FACE]

If they port over a game will they just port over one version (Xbox,PS3,PC) cause like sometimes different consoles have some features that the other doesn't?

[B1553r]

I think the XBox will be the first to integrate OnLive service into their console.

[Deya]

I think the XBox will be the first to integrate OnLive service into their console.

They already have a comparable service. It's called Xbox Live, lol. The point I'm trying to make is don't expect to see massive franchises from this console generation come to Onlive. Whether or not Onlive will get it's own exclusives remains to be seen, but I could see it getting nearly every multi platform game out there, provided the game companies agree.

[B1553r]

Xbox Live and the PS3 store are more comparable to the product/service that the Phantom was going to offer. In addition now days we have the D2D and Steam services. So while the Phantom product failed, we still have the technology. As far as I am concerned the OnLive service is not a matter of if, but when and who.

If ~any~ console manufacturer were able to take advantage of this service on existing consoles it would be Microsoft. First, is software. Microsoft could easily integrate this with the xbox. They already have half the work done with the netflix integration. Additionally they have the Xbox.com property, so it is just a link away to sell all those xbox games to PC users. Same thing with NXE, just head on over to the tab with your game on it, press the green button, and you are playing.

Microsoft already has 10 million+ users in the united states, signed up with xbox live, and willing to pay for download content.

Microsoft ~needs~ it. I think everyone would agree that their choice of media for the xbox was short sighted. They are stuck at 7gig games. A service like this would make blu-ray irrelevant, as far as games go.

It threatens Microsofts desktop dominance. There are more than just games at stake with this technology. If this could be made to run on a netbook, or gasp, even an iPod Touch... All the sudden everyone is carrying around a modern 8 core processor, with 16 gig of high speed ram, and an unlimited hard drive game machine on their phone. This tech has implications far beyond games. If your device can run Halo 3, it can also run a business...

XBox integration solves a valid issue that OnLive critics have... What happens when the service goes down? XBox integration eases transition. Servers busy or network congestion? Fire up your old xbox games.

I dunno, no one has more to lose, or to gain than Microsoft with this technology. No one is in a better place to leverage it. Google has been unable to monitize anything but search, this is outside of their market. Apple might buy it, but the Apple cultural distaste for anything Microsoft makes the back end a poor fit. Imagine the fallout when it is revealed that the most run OS at Apple is Windows Vista... IBM, No... HP, No... Nintendo... doesnt have the knowhow, Sony?? Sony seems dedicated to their thing, and have a vested interest in a service like this failing... The whole blu-ray thing, and "true HD" thing they have going on. This service will not do 1080p for another decade, and Sony needs to sell 1080p tvs, and blu-ray players...

Bascially, not only is this is end of consoles as we have known them, but it is possibly also the end the computer as we know it.

[Aph0ticShield]

On second thought I can completely imagine the Xbox 360 with OnLive. For instance, the xbox 360 has HD video downloads and rentals right? Then they ported Netflix HD onto their machine, though one must have a Netflix subscription and Live. This directly competes with the other video available on the Xbox.

Now suppose they did the same thing with OnLive. Right now, Xbox offers game demos and downloads. Then, porting OnLive, it competes with Xbox Live Arcade. This is irrelevant, because the console still sells. OnLive will have it's own subscription fee though and a buy/rental fee for games, besides Xbox Live. Therefore, it will be more expensive then on PC or Mac or microconsole.

[LICK3R FACE]

If xbox bought OnLive, then it wouldn't be the same service because Sony wouldnt give Microsoft some of their games

[Reykjavik]

I can honestly say that I really do think that OnLive will kill off video game consoles. Who needs a video game console when you can just carry around the little OnLive TV adapter, and a wireless remote and take it with you anywhere you go. OnLive will revolutionize the way online gaming is played and it will eliminate the need to constantly upgrade to the latest consoles. It's a brilliant idea and it will work.

I agree, but the process won't be instantaenious. Xbox 360 still has Halo, and Onlive probably never will. But once the exlusives loose popularity, then Onlive will be the best choice.

And I don't see consoles getting a ton of exclusive deals other than what they can make themselves, because Onlive is much better for the developers and publishers. Also, Onlive will get exclusives, in a way, it already has them. How many people do you know that can play Crysis? Eventually, games will be made that surpass virtually all home platforms, giving the "exclusive" to Onlive.

It isn't impossible to compete with Onlive, and I am guessing that both Microsoft and Sony have plans to start a similar service.

[dragonsowl]

Personally, i think Xbox will definitely die. Regardless of whether Microsoft buys onlive (personally i think google should, open up a game distribution sector, they are the ones with more research on cloud computing anyway)

The PS3 will be next, but it will stay in there for a while because of the fact Onlive is primarily in the U.S. Everywhere else Sony will stay strong.

Wii will last the longest, mainly because of its innovation in controllers. Until Onlive mimics it, or finds a way to hook up the wii remote to their system, wii will stay strong. This is mainly because of their nitch market of casual gamers, and once again, innovation.

[rasmasyean]

There are too many forces at play. But I'm sure it will hurt console sales in the comming future. It doesn't matter that much since manufacturers lose money on console sales just to hope to make it up eventually in game sale profits. Heck, scientists network PS3's to make a mini super-computer for thier work because it's cheaper than real computers.

Maybe the Wii might make a little money on console sales because that's a cheap POS hardware platform and they are really selling some accessories and the novelty...which they still can for Onlive type of games. But PS3's and xBoxes are expensive machines.

Ultimately, the developers might prefer dealing with Onlive rather than MS/Sony if it's more profitable or enhance profits a little. But there are going to be other competitors to OnLive so we'll see how that plays out. In a way, the OnLive box is a console or sorts. Maybe future versions will have advanced decoders <1ms in there so you can recieve super-compressed 1600p future codecs with low bandwidth. That's a "future console" then.

[rasmasyean]

Personally, i think Xbox will definitely die. Regardless of whether Microsoft buys onlive (personally i think google should, open up a game distribution sector, they are the ones with more research on cloud computing anyway)

The PS3 will be next, but it will stay in there for a while because of the fact Onlive is primarily in the U.S. Everywhere else Sony will stay strong.

Wii will last the longest, mainly because of its innovation in controllers. Until Onlive mimics it, or finds a way to hook up the wii remote to their system, wii will stay strong. This is mainly because of their nitch market of casual gamers, and once again, innovation.

Wii also has nintendo stuff. They might make their own OnLive just for thier games. They'll never give them up. LOL Master Chief will die eventually. Mario will live forever. ;)

[rasmasyean]

I don't know why people are so pessimistic about Onlive. It's just an evolution to gaming. It's incredible. It may succeed, but it also may not succeed. Either way, it will do it's part in pushing the industry forward. I personally think it will succeed, being SEVEN years in development (holy). probably not the death of consoles, yet at least. But it will hurt their numbers.

I wouldn't think that they took 7 years to develope the gaming platform. That's a bit of marketing hype if you ask me. These consoles didnt even exist then. It's more like they developed a combination of streaming hardware and software to handle on-demand high quality video. The internet also developed itself to make this even remotely possible. Anyway, the HD technology started appearing a lot last year in video conferencing startups. It's probably related.

[rasmasyean]

I dont think it will kill them off completely, we may see Onlive for Xbox or something like that.

I don't plan on buying another console if this thing works though. $400+ for a console (like Xbox which will just break on you anyway), or a subscription to Onlive? I'll take Onlive, but not for more than $100 a year.

Dude, it's ain't gonna be under $100 a year. Unless all you want is old Atari games. Cable bills cost more than that these days.

[rasmasyean]

Quite frankly, no. I think that Onlive and they system that it's based on is an incredibly idea, but with Onlive requiring A) A highspeed internet connection, and B) a payment method, expect to see consoles around for a very long time to come. That, and there are certain games that Onlive will most likely never get.

I don't ever think Microsoft or Sony will ever let their major exclusive titles come to Onlive. That means Halo, MGS, Final Fantasy, Gears of War, God of War and a bunch of other exclusive franchises will stay on console.


With the exception of maybe FF, those are fad titles. No one is going to remeber them years from now. Nintendo has a good portfolio that can possible last. But these MS and Sony ones are just like every other action hero but hyper marketed to the extreme.

[rasmasyean]

Bascially, not only is this is end of consoles as we have known them, but it is possibly also the end the computer as we know it.

That's the promise of the cloud, incidentally. And you thought the maiframe was obsolete! ;)

[Bootstrap Bill]

OnLive has one serious problem - it seems most if not all ISP's will be implementing some sort of caps on their service.

Time Warner is experimenting with a 25gb cap in Texas. Comcast has a 250gb cap nationwide.

OnLive will use a ton of bandwidth.

How can OnLive prosper when we no longer have truly unlimited Internet access?

[AlexTheLion]

yes it totally will

[AlexTheLion]

With the exception of maybe FF, those are fad titles. No one is going to remeber them years from now. Nintendo has a good portfolio that can possible last. But these MS and Sony ones are just like every other action hero but hyper marketed to the extreme.

You cannot possibly say that no one is going to remember those titles, I know lots of people (nerds) that love those titles, but whose to say Onlive wont get those titles and others? All we can do is speculate right now, but there is a lot of talk that maybe gears of war 3 will exculsivly reveal on Onlive. If it does, that could possibly pressure people like bungie and others to offer their titles on Onlive. Who knows?

[Methods]

This is why I think OnLive is the beginning of the end for consoles.

1. It's overall appeal in the technology industry: OnLive's team is amazing. If I had to take a guess most people touch a piece of technology that has evolved or been influenced by a patent held by their CEO. Not to mention their claim to have created a new compression technique that makes the core of OnLive even possible.

2. It's platform: It integrates everywhere. Windows, Linux, Mac, your TV. Where can you go wrong?

3. Cost: Console $250+ average. Decent gaming PC $1300+ minimum. Initial startup cost is probably much cheaper than a console could ever dream of. Besides how many people do you know that want to play games like Crysis but don't want to put out the money for it?

4. Availability: All you have to do is access any computer or turn on your mini console and boom. You have instant access to most big name titles without having to walk into a store. Not to mention the potential of disruptions. I can imagine the down time of this service will be that comparable to x box live.

5. Current internet connections and lagless multi-player: I'm sure this part confuses a lot of people and if anything installs fear. Let me break it down to you in simple terms. The only connection you have to worry about is your own. Since all the games are hosted locally on OnLive servers the connection between you and a competitor is instantaneous.

Since the back end is in a controlled environment all that leaves is in the equation for problems is your personal connection to OnLive itself. Internet connections are affordable I can purchase a base Comcast package (12Mbps) for $30 per month. Also, I must add... most of your latency or connection between you and say Google, for example, is Google accepting your connection and preparing the data to be sent for you to view in your webrowser. With that being said OnLive claims to have narrowed down the compression and transmit of HD content to 1ms is astronomical. Average non video data takes anywhere for 3-4ms to compute before it's even transmitted. If they can backup their claims console gaming will completely become obsolete.

To conclude they obviously have to meet these goals to succeed.

*Obtain industry appeal
*Backup their initial claims with their product
*Be a cost effective solution to the current options
*Minimize initial down time of services

Personally I think they might meet these goals with flying colors. If so it's definitely a whole new ball park to play in and the rules of gaming will change.

[Aph0ticShield]

You cannot possibly say that no one is going to remember those titles, I know lots of people (nerds) that love those titles, but whose to say Onlive wont get those titles and others? All we can do is speculate right now, but there is a lot of talk that maybe gears of war 3 will exculsivly reveal on Onlive. If it does, that could possibly pressure people like bungie and others to offer their titles on Onlive. Who knows?

Dude-not exclusively... I am 100% sure they will release gow3 on Xbox 360... I am 75% sure (if it works) they will release on OnLive also.

[Deya]

You cannot possibly say that no one is going to remember those titles, I know lots of people (nerds) that love those titles, but whose to say Onlive wont get those titles and others? All we can do is speculate right now, but there is a lot of talk that maybe gears of war 3 will exculsivly reveal on Onlive. If it does, that could possibly pressure people like bungie and others to offer their titles on Onlive. Who knows?

What? Where are you getting your information from? That's a mighty big claim, especially since Epic has stated that "they are going to see Gears of War through on the Xbox 360"...

[Alfrayer]

Sorry to go off the chain of convosation but directly refering to the title of this thread, my answer is: No, considering Sony just trademarked "PS Cloud"... Anyone see where this is going?

[AlexTheLion]

What? Where are you getting your information from? That's a mighty big claim, especially since Epic has stated that "they are going to see Gears of War through on the Xbox 360"...

Sorry, I just heard it from some guy at my school that is totally into Onlive. I apologize. I shall no longer post heresay. :(

[B1553r]

Sorry to go off the chain of convosation but directly refering to the title of this thread, my answer is: No, considering Sony just trademarked "PS Cloud"... Anyone see where this is going?

Sony building their own OnLive like service would indicate to me that my conspiracy theory has some merit...

[rasmasyean]

Sony building their own OnLive like service would indicate to me that my conspiracy theory has some merit...

I guess this OnLive thing is being worked on by "everyone" and it's just an evolution of the "XBox Live" business model. It would make sense...if they can stop producing hardware expensive hardware...or maybe just hardware that can decode HD for cheap, then they don't have to go through the trouble.

[rasmasyean]

Sony building their own OnLive like service would indicate to me that my conspiracy theory has some merit...

I guess this OnLive thing is being worked on by "everyone" and it's just an evolution of the "XBox Live" business model. It would make sense...if they can stop producing hardware expensive hardware...or maybe just hardware that can decode HD for cheap, then they don't have to go through the trouble. As we can see with XBox...no one really cares about the PS3 supposedly superior hardware. People go for the titles anyway.

[core9a9]

It will eventually replace all physical media, doesn't mean this will happen overnight, but it will happen eventually, maybe in 5-10 years. onLive may or may not survive but eventually games and all digital media will be sent over a wire. Video games, inherently by design, makes much more sense to send bits over the internet, packaging of bits doesn't make much sense; having to manufacture, distribute by truck and making customers drive to a store to pick it up, why do this if bits can simply be sent over a wire?

[B1553r]

It will eventually replace all physical media, doesn't mean this will happen overnight, but it will happen eventually, maybe in 5-10 years.

Wow, you haven't been paying attention to the internet or technology have you? I don't mean to be harshly critical, but the internet has proven that it can radically change things almost over night. Repeatedly.

Almost overnight, the internet wiped out the music industry. Look at Facebook in just 3 years of service... Or twitter which has been around only a year and a half. Or the iPhone, look what that device has done to peoples expectations of their phones. Look at the wii mote, just reconfiguring the controller radically altered the gaming landscape in just three years. In my house I have a dataline bigger than most ISP's 10 years ago. Or Wifi, and Blutooth happened even faster than wifi.

Wow, I remember people making the same argument, the idea that people care about their physical media, their cd's 10 years ago. Two years ago people wanted their physical DVD's, now everyone downloads movies. The transition is already well underway for people to only ever download their games. I know my gaming has more or less become limited to Steam and XBLA, with the very occasional full Xbox title (Halo wars is a fun game btw), just because it is such a PITA to drive 20 miles to a gamestop (F' big box retailers!).

It will take a year or two for this transition to happen, once it gets started.

[core9a9]

Wow, you haven't been paying attention to the internet or technology have you? I don't mean to be harshly critical, but the internet has proven that it can radically change things almost over night. Repeatedly.

Almost overnight, the internet wiped out the music industry. Look at Facebook in just 3 years of service... Or twitter which has been around only a year and a half. Or the iPhone, look what that device has done to peoples expectations of their phones. Look at the wii mote, just reconfiguring the controller radically altered the gaming landscape in just three years. In my house I have a dataline bigger than most ISP's 10 years ago. Or Wifi, and Blutooth happened even faster than wifi.

Wow, I remember people making the same argument, the idea that people care about their physical media, their cd's 10 years ago. Two years ago people wanted their physical DVD's, now everyone downloads movies. The transition is already well underway for people to only ever download their games. I know my gaming has more or less become limited to Steam and XBLA, with the very occasional full Xbox title (Halo wars is a fun game btw), just because it is such a PITA to drive 20 miles to a gamestop (F' big box retailers!).

It will take a year or two for this transition to happen, once it gets started.

The internet has been thriving for over a decade and still majority of the people prefer to watch movies on dvds over video streams like apple tv or netflix, and hi-def video streams look like crap compared to blu-ray

Music was an easy target since it took only 5min on a slow 56k connection to download a song and the fact that napster made it possible to download an entire album in few mins for free. If we could download a version of Fallout 3 and play it within 5min for free, the gaming industry would change overnight too. I don't care how fast your bit torrent connection is, that's simply not possible, that's comparing apples to oranges and the music industry decided to fight technology instead of embracing it (epic FAIL!)

Steam, direct2drive, xbox live, ps3 network, wii ware channel and many other services has offered digital distribution for many years, but most people still prefer physical medium. Only old school arcade games and add-ons make bulk of the income with game downloads.

Touch screen pocket PC phones have been around for almost a decade and they had most of the capabilities (it even had copy and paste) as the iPhone, just a crude version of it. iPhone and ipod touch maybe an exception when it comes to digital downloads since most apps are between 2-20mb and it takes only few seconds to download (BTW, 99&#37; of iPhone apps are crap).

The internet was thriving for over a decade when Facebook and Twitter became popular and social networking was around in the 90s but it never really caught on until recently.

I'm not sure what the wii mote has to do with digital distribution but...The concept of the Wii mote isn't anything new either, remember the Nintendo powerglove and the Sega activator back in the 80s, both failed...

Its been a slow process... and things don't usually change overnight, although it may seems so, since people never realized these things already existed when no one cared or talked about it. Remember the Sega channel back in the 90s?

[Deya]

Could this eventually overtake the physcial media model? Sure. Will it do it overnight? The answer is, quite simple, no.

This is fairly new waters. There WILL be kinks, mistakes, troubles, and everything else generally placed with new technologies and services. It'll take some time, believe me.

[B1553r]

The internet has been thriving for over a decade and still majority of the people prefer to watch movies on dvds over video streams like apple tv or netflix, and hi-def video streams look like crap compared to blu-ray

Blu-ray doesn't matter. I thought that argument was dead and buried when it was revealed that netflix has 600k stream subscribers compared to 500k blu-ray subscribers... Guess I was wrong...

When you add in all the other options for streaming and downloading movies off the internet, streaming is beating blu-ray by a large margin as the next gen movie format... When you add in Time Warner and Comcast OnDemand services, I bet streaming beats the traditional DVD...


Steam, direct2drive, xbox live, ps3 network, wii ware channel and many other services has offered digital distribution for many years, but most people still prefer physical medium. Only old school arcade games and add-ons make bulk of the income with game downloads.

Once again, look at the xbox live arcade numbers vs xbox full game sales. With the best data I have (moe of +/-10%) XBLA games sell about 600k copies a month, and full xbox games sell about 2 million a month (that was for feburary) Obviously this is anther area that is in full transition right now.

Again, the consumers have nothing to do with this equation. Many games are simply not released for download because of the piracy issues.


Touch screen pocket PC phones have been around for almost a decade and they had most of the capabilities as the iPhone, just a crude version of it. iPhone and ipod touch maybe an exception when it comes to digital downloads since most apps are between 2-20mb and it takes only few seconds to download (BTW, 99% of iPhone apps are crap).

Yeah, I am starting to come to the conclusion that you are just in denial about how quickly technology is changing. The iPhone has clearly had a HUGE impact on the cell phone business.

And I would agree, most are app store apps are crap, but the ones that are not have been revolutionary.


The internet was thriving for over a decade when Facebook and Twitter became popular and social networking was around in the 90s but it never really caught on until recently.

Socal networking started on Compuserv and AOL in the 80's. Face book and Twitter are just the latest incarnations of that trend.

My point was, it has only taken 2 years for Facebook to displace MySpace. That is a move of hundreds of millions of people, far more people than play video games...


I'm not sure what the wii mote has to do with digital distribution but...The concept of the Wii mote isn't anything new either, remember the Nintendo powerglove and the Sega activator back in the 80s, both failed...

It has nothing to do with digital distribution. It shows how technology can change the market equations overnight.



Its been a slow process... and things don't usually change overnight, although it may seems so, since people never realized these things already existed when no one cared or talked about it. Remember the Sega channel back in the 90s?

Sega Channel was very successful. It was killed by the internet. Basically the technology was picked up a couple of years later by the Phantom, and stagnated in the early 00's because of Sonys influence on gaming, because Sony needed the DVD to be successful. We have seen Sony repeat that strategy this generation with the blu-ray, only it has failed this generation.

[rasmasyean]

Wow, you haven't been paying attention to the internet or technology have you? I don't mean to be harshly critical, but the internet has proven that it can radically change things almost over night. Repeatedly.

Almost overnight, the internet wiped out the music industry. Look at Facebook in just 3 years of service... Or twitter which has been around only a year and a half. Or the iPhone, look what that device has done to peoples expectations of their phones. Look at the wii mote, just reconfiguring the controller radically altered the gaming landscape in just three years. In my house I have a dataline bigger than most ISP's 10 years ago. Or Wifi, and Blutooth happened even faster than wifi.

Wow, I remember people making the same argument, the idea that people care about their physical media, their cd's 10 years ago. Two years ago people wanted their physical DVD's, now everyone downloads movies. The transition is already well underway for people to only ever download their games. I know my gaming has more or less become limited to Steam and XBLA, with the very occasional full Xbox title (Halo wars is a fun game btw), just because it is such a PITA to drive 20 miles to a gamestop (F' big box retailers!).

It will take a year or two for this transition to happen, once it gets started.

Incidentally, I was called by a market research company this morning asking what radio stations I listened to in the past 7 days. I said I haven’t listened to one in the past 7 years. And he asked about anyone ages…blah blah in the house blah bah. And I told him I don’t know anyone that I’m aware of who listens to the radio…

[rasmasyean]

The internet has been thriving for over a decade and still majority of the people prefer to watch movies on dvds over video streams like apple tv or netflix, and hi-def video streams look like crap compared to blu-ray

Music was an easy target since it took only 5min on a slow 56k connection to download a song and the fact that napster made it possible to download an entire album in few mins for free. If we could download a version of Fallout 3 and play it within 5min for free, the gaming industry would change overnight too. I don't care how fast your bit torrent connection is, that's simply not possible, that's comparing apples to oranges and the music industry decided to fight technology instead of embracing it (epic FAIL!)

Steam, direct2drive, xbox live, ps3 network, wii ware channel and many other services has offered digital distribution for many years, but most people still prefer physical medium. Only old school arcade games and add-ons make bulk of the income with game downloads.

Touch screen pocket PC phones have been around for almost a decade and they had most of the capabilities (it even had copy and paste) as the iPhone, just a crude version of it. iPhone and ipod touch maybe an exception when it comes to digital downloads since most apps are between 2-20mb and it takes only few seconds to download (BTW, 99&#37; of iPhone apps are crap).

The internet was thriving for over a decade when Facebook and Twitter became popular and social networking was around in the 90s but it never really caught on until recently.

I'm not sure what the wii mote has to do with digital distribution but...The concept of the Wii mote isn't anything new either, remember the Nintendo powerglove and the Sega activator back in the 80s, both failed...

Its been a slow process... and things don't usually change overnight, although it may seems so, since people never realized these things already existed when no one cared or talked about it. Remember the Sega channel back in the 90s?

What would you have to say about newspapers and magazines?

Only because you are American that you think your internet will suck for the rest of your life. Japan and Korea have an average speed of at least 5 times the last time I checked. Some even 10 times.

Some of us still remeber the days when you were really exited to download that nudy pic your friend sent you...over the dot matrix printer that you have to print out 5 connected sheets and hang it on the wall and look at it from really far away.

Not too long ago image speeds and jpg standards dwindled the traditional media to the point where now the New York Times is in trouble. And recently, comes the explosion of video on the web and it's getting clearer and clearer. If don't see a trend here, you must be blind or have a really bad memory.

And in case you weren't aware, Japanese people video conference with eachother over thier Nokias that's like half the size of the smallest Windows Mobile phone.

As for Facebook, that's not a high bandwidth nor high tech application. It became succesfful because of aggressive marketing tactics and simplistic design that was accessible to everyone. It's not confusing and really easy to use as well as doesn't take forever to refresh. Unlike pioneers like "Six degrees" (which most people outside of sociology have no clue what that means), Facebook leaves the "technical science" part of it hidden from the consumer. Then they invited people to build all sorts of silly apps to waste your time with at work as well as spam your entire Outlook addressbook with an invite. But that site is so messy now and kinda sucks now with all the garbage it allowed in, especially their choice of advertisers. Who knows what will come of them in the future. Unless they shape up, Facebook will be history too, but maybe Microsoft will buy them and incorporate them into Live or something...who knows.

[Aph0ticShield]

Dude, it's ain't gonna be under $100 a year. Unless all you want is old Atari games. Cable bills cost more than that these days.

It could be $100 dollars a year, but I doubt any lower. They have said that the price will be competitive to Xbox Live (Which is $40-100, depends on if you pay month to month, or yearly)! Cable bills, btw, have pretty much always cost more than $100 a year.


OnLive has one serious problem - it seems most if not all ISP's will be implementing some sort of caps on their service.

Time Warner is experimenting with a 25gb cap in Texas. Comcast has a 250gb cap nationwide.

OnLive will use a ton of bandwidth.

How can OnLive prosper when we no longer have truly unlimited Internet access?

OnLive, the HD version will only be using on average 2mbps with a 4mbps cap. With a 250gb cap, one can play for over 2 weeks 24/7 a month (Source: GDC Announcement video). I know that I don't have the time to play that much.

As for the SD version, I can imagine that only using 1mbps on average. 4 weeks, 24/7. Can I say more?

Also expect bandwidth caps to be much higher as OnLive works out the kinks with these ISPs

[core9a9]

What would you have to say about newspapers and magazines?

Only because you are American that you think your internet will suck for the rest of your life. Japan and Korea have an average speed of at least 5 times the last time I checked. Some even 10 times.

Some of us still remeber the days when you were really exited to download that nudy pic your friend sent you...over the dot matrix printer that you have to print out 5 connected sheets and hang it on the wall and look at it from really far away.

Not too long ago image speeds and jpg standards dwindled the traditional media to the point where not the New York Times is in trouble. And recently, comes the explosion of video on the web and it's getting clearer and clearer. If don't see a trend here, you must be blind or have a really bad memory.

And in case you weren't aware, Japanese people video conference with eachother over thier Nokias that's like half the size of the smallest Windows Mobile phone.

To tell you the truth I lived in Seoul Korea for 9 years, and I'm also Korean 안녕하세요 (I miss Korean food!) I think our bandwidth was about 80mbps where i lived. My point was things don't always work out over night, even if it's innovative or the best thing out there doesn't always end up on top. The onLive service is very exciting and getting a lot of hype and I hope it will succeed, but that doesn't mean it will change things right away, it's really up to the consumers if they are ready to make radical changes and I just don't see that happening in 2 years. But that's only my opinion and I respect everyone's too...

[B1553r]

Incidentally, I was called by a market research company this morning asking what radio stations I listened to in the past 7 days. I said I haven’t listened to one in the past 7 years. And he asked about anyone ages…blah blah in the house blah bah. And I told him I don’t know anyone that I’m aware of who listens to the radio…

Ray-Dee-Ohh??? That sounds neat, what is it? Is it some new social networking thing that integrates voice chat?

[ConfusedCartman]

never. by 2010 Onlive will be dead and buried.

That's a good point to base my thoughts from:

It's too early to tell. OnLive's got three things that make it attractive: cheap hardware to play the games with (assuming the microconsole goes for around $50), constantly upgraded hardware for newer games (supposedly), and no installs. I have the money to purchase a new console each generation, but if OnLive can save me money so I can spend it on games, then I will almost definitely make the switch. However, there's a few things that I will wait for before deciding to switch or not:

Will it's community features rival Xbox Live's options? - For it's community features, I'm holding out to see if it supports a friends list, voice chat, cross-game private chat, cross-game party chat, and messages.
Will every major game be developed for the platform? -
It's already got a surprisingly strong partnership lineup, so there shouldn't be a scarcity of games by the time it launches.
Is the monthly fee low enough to justify switching? - In terms of monthly fees, I pay about $5 a month for Xbox Live. Now, I realize this is offering freedom from static hardware, but if I'm going to be paying over $10 a month for this service, I simply won't sign up. I'd rather dish out $400 once every 4 years than pay a yearly $120 fee. To be competitive, I think the service should be priced at or under $7.50 a month. In a standard console lifespan of 4 years, that would round out to about $360, which beats out any standard console.

My internet D/L speed is over 20Mbps, which is more than enough to support this service, so network connection isn't even an issue. However, many people don't have a good enough network to support it; while that number is shrinking over time, it's still big enough to be a barrier for many. The other thing about the OnLive service is the fact that while most people won't switch over now, once it comes time to buy a new console, it will look much more attractive than that clunky console that you have to lug around if you want to change your gaming location. If OnLive can offer top titles, great community features, high-quality streaming video, and do it all at a $90 yearly price point, then I think it could easily rival Microsoft and Sony.

[core9a9]

Ray-Dee-Ohh??? That sounds neat, what is it? Is it some new social networking thing that integrates voice chat?
Wow, no need to be offensive

[B1553r]

@ConfusedCartman

Thats why I have my own pet conspiracy theory. The OnLive product name f'ing OBVIOUSLY infringes on Microsofts Live trademark. OnLive was a company made to be sold.

[Aph0ticShield]

That's a good point to base my thoughts from:

It's too early to tell. OnLive's got three things that make it attractive: cheap hardware to play the games with, constantly upgraded hardware for newer games (supposedly), and no installs. I don't have the money to purchase a new console each generation, let alone new PC hardware every year and a half. For me, there's a few things that I will wait for before deciding to switch or not:

Will it's community features rival Xbox Live's options? - For it's community features, I'm holding out to see if it supports a friends list, voice chat, cross-game private chat, cross-game party chat, and messages.
Will every major game be developed for the platform? -
It's already got a surprisingly strong partnership lineup, so there shouldn't be a scarcity of games by the time it launches.
Is the monthly fee low enough to justify switching? - In terms of monthly fees, I pay about $5 a month for Xbox Live. Now, I realize this is offering freedom from static hardware, but if I'm going to be paying over $10 a month for this service, I simply won't sign up. I'd rather dish out $400 once every 4 years than pay a yearly $120 fee. To be competitive, I think the service should be priced at or under $7.50 a month. In a standard console lifespan of 4 years, that would round out to about $360, which beats out any standard console.


Whoa, you just confused yourself. Did you realize you are paying two times what you think you are. OnLive is all in one, while you are paying for BOTH a NEW console every 4 years - $400 (That is what you said) AND Xbox Live at $60 bucks a year - $240. You are officially paying $640, not to mention any PC upgrades that you may or may not do.

If OnLive works to perfection, I would say $700 every 4 years is reasonable. Graphics will be at least twice as good as Xbox 360, not to mention the free upgrades and demos and no download times.

Over 71&#37; of Americans could play OnLive

[B1553r]

Wow, no need to be offensive

I was trying to be funny;) Guess I was unfunny.

[rasmasyean]

Ray-Dee-Ohh??? That sounds neat, what is it? Is it some new social networking thing that integrates voice chat?

Too bad for you. You don't know what you missed.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5f/Girl_listening_to_radio.gif

[ConfusedCartman]

Whoa, you just confused yourself. Did you realize you are paying two times what you think you are. OnLive is all in one, while you are paying for BOTH a NEW console every 4 years - $400 (That is what you said) AND Xbox Live at $60 bucks a year - $240. You are officially paying $640, not to mention any PC upgrades that you may or may not do.

If OnLive works to perfection, I would say $700 every 4 years is reasonable. Graphics will be at least twice as good as Xbox 360, not to mention the free upgrades and demos and no download times.

Over 71&#37; of Americans could play OnLive
Whoops, I actually missed that! Thanks for pointing it out - yeah, when you take that into account, I think $13 a month is a fair price, but only if the service was reliable, consistent, and had all of the features I previously mentioned. However, many PS3 owners would disagree - while the PSN service is not great, it's functional and free. I don't see many of them them switching over so readily if the price is that high.

[Aph0ticShield]

Whoops, I actually missed that! Thanks for pointing it out - yeah, when you take that into account, I think $13 a month is a fair price, but only if the service was reliable, consistent, and had all of the features I previously mentioned. However, many PS3 owners would disagree - while the PSN service is not great, it's functional and free. I don't see many of them them switching over so readily if the price is that high.

Yes, but take into account how much the PS3 costs. Wasn't is $600-700 at launch? I can just imagine the PS4... "for only one easy payment of $1000..."

[rasmasyean]

$13 a month? Are you joking? They didn't say it was going to make playing games a steal compared to console / PC gaming. At $13 a month, you won't even pay equivalent to a PS3's useful life over a couple of years...never mind the games. Maybe it's $13 a month for "access" where you can play basic games like scrabble and chess. But when you tack on purchases / rentals of real games, you're prolly looking at $50 average or more a month. And PS3 network is not "free". You pay for it when you buy their games. It's tacked on.

But I guess it depends on what kind of gamer you are. Maybe under certain plans, it may cost you nothing in the months you don't use it. I think short term rentals, even a day is cool...for like parties and such. Not everyone is a compulsive gamer. If they just like let you pay whenever you want, they can potentially mark up higher for the time you do use and capture a lot of business from people who would never buy an XBox with 20 games.

[Aph0ticShield]

$13 a month? Are you joking? They didn't say it was going to make playing games a steal compared to console / PC gaming. At $13 a month, you won't even pay equivalent to a PS3's useful life over a couple of years...never mind the games. Maybe it's $13 a month for "access" where you can play basic games like scrabble and chess. But when you tack on purchases / rentals of real games, you're prolly looking at $50 average or more a month. PS3 network is not "free". You pay for it when you buy their games. It's tacked on.

Right of course games cost money. OnLive has stated games would be a separate price and not included in the subscription. This is why they have "Buy" and "Rent" buttons. I would say $10-20 a month, or something similar to WoW would be the base price. Yeah, according to you Xbox Live isn't $5 a month either. And pretty much yes, they said OnLive would be a steal compared PC gaming.

[rasmasyean]

Right of course games cost money. OnLive has stated games would be a separate price and not included in the subscription. This is why they have "Buy" and "Rent" buttons. I would say $10-20 a month, or something similar to WoW would be the base price. Yeah, according to you Xbox Live isn't $5 a month either. And pretty much yes, they said OnLive would be a steal compared PC gaming.

No, XBox charges you because they can. Everything Microsoft is premium. Bill Gates is a master at this...even when he's not arround anymore. They don't need to, but people would help them grow richer out of necessity.

When you play blizzard's battle.net. It's not free either. They factor it into the price of the game. But I see what you are saying. I guess it would depend on how many games they port over. If they port over a lot of juicy ones, I think you can expect the cost to be higher.

But pretty much as a consumer, if I was a real enthusiast, I would wan't OnLive offer a large range of games and even some premium and advanced features. The only way I can get this from them is if they charge me more money. BUT...if I pay this "premium service", I would not want the $13 guy to get what I get. Same thing with consoles. Harcore people can spend over a $1000 on gaming per year...unless all they play is World of Warcraft. But they get more than the person who is only into Wii Sports forever. Economics still scale. The more you pay, the better overall service you get.

[Aph0ticShield]

I can also see a little bit of what your saying and your right on one part... the better the games, the more it will cost.

Here is my reasoning... It will take a lot better servers to run the better games.

But I don't agree... battle.net is free from my perspective because you do not have to pay continuously to use it. It is a one time fee.

[AlexTheLion]

I can also see a little bit of what your saying and your right on one part... the better the games, the more it will cost.

Here is my reasoning... It will take a lot better servers to run the better games.

But I don't agree... battle.net is free from my perspective because you do not have to pay continuously to use it. It is a one time fee.

What do you mean be "better" games? Better graphics, Better gameplay? I don't know that they can charge you more for the "better" games vs. the not-as-awesome games. The average new xbox 360 game is usually around 60 bucks at wal-mart, regardless of whether it is considered to be a "good" game or not. No one really knows if it is as good as a game as the publishers say it's going to be until it is played on the mass market. So the same concept should apply to Onlive, charge the same for any new game. A good game sometimes depends on your point of view, what genre you like, whether RTS, FPS, etc. My point is, Onlive can't fairly say that a certain game is going to be better than another and therefore they can charge more for it.

[rasmasyean]

What do you mean be "better" games? Better graphics, Better gameplay? I don't know that they can charge you more for the "better" games vs. the not-as-awesome games. The average new xbox 360 game is usually around 60 bucks at wal-mart, regardless of whether it is considered to be a "good" game or not. No one really knows if it is as good as a game as the publishers say it's going to be until it is played on the mass market. So the same concept should apply to Onlive, charge the same for any new game. A good game sometimes depends on your point of view, what genre you like, whether RTS, FPS, etc. My point is, Onlive can't fairly say that a certain game is going to be better than another and therefore they can charge more for it.

I think we're talking about older games that aren't as high in demand. And perhaps games that will only play in SD or lower because you don't get anything from HD. Like a card game. It's static most of the time so it doesn't require much streaming to update the screen.

[Aph0ticShield]

I think we're talking about older games that aren't as high in demand. And perhaps games that will only play in SD or lower because you don't get anything from HD. Like a card game. It's static most of the time so it doesn't require much streaming to update the screen.

We also aren't talking about specific games either, but the price of the service based on the amount of high-end games they offer.

[AlexTheLion]

We also aren't talking about specific games either, but the price of the service based on the amount of high-end games they offer.
I see what you are saying now, Thanks for the clearup

[Buckwheet]

never. by 2010 Onlive will be dead and buried.

That's what a beta test is for my friend. This summer OnLive will work out all the kinks in its service, and by its official launch this winter, OnLive could be the new beginning of video games.

[Alfrayer]

Couldn't agree more buckwheet. I think this is the new era of video gaming - an advancement in the digital revolution.

[AlexTheLion]

Couldn't agree more buckwheet. I think this is the new era of video gaming - an advancement in the digital revolution.

That is what we are all hoping for.:cool:

[Aph0ticShield]

Yeah, a technology that has all the major publishers and already has prototypes, proof of concept, and patents won't just go and die. OnLive could almost be as hard to take down as someone like Microsoft. OnLive will be so cheap to run from a business standpoint that they will be rolling in dough come a couple of years.

[Alfrayer]

Microsoft has survived some tough challanges by pumping money into the industry though, but in the same respect I think OnLive will survive because it will be pumping the least into the industry. They aren't offering large sums of money for exclusives, they are saying: "With our business model, you will earn more yourself".

[Revilo62RAWR]

You can't imagine your life without a overpriced failure of a console that has no games?Your joking right? PS3 has so many good games! Name some good games that are 360 onlys that are good! I can name like 1 Gears2 Halo 3 is no good it's to repetitive! we have so many more games that are good! We have MGS4 Motorstorm Resistance Resistance2 Going to have GoW3 ok now you name that many games! I can keep going to.

Also the PS3 is worth it's price, it's soooo much more powerful then the Xbox360

PWNED!

[Tyrokiller]

Not really, (EXCLUSIVES) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xbox_360_exclusives)

Still let's stop this before it spews into a console war, I don't think the admin will enjoy that on a onlive dedicated board.

[Revilo62RAWR]

Not really, (EXCLUSIVES) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xbox_360_exclusives)

Still let's stop this before it spews into a console war, I don't think the admin will enjoy that on a onlive dedicated board.One last post about it xD

Ok I looked at that list and only good games that are 360 exclusive are Fable 2 Gears 2 and Left 4 dead (Well I guess that's for PC too so don't count that)

[Lord Xenu]

I'm hoping the mods are keeping tabs on this and not letting it get too out of hand. Console wars end up starting fights. Careful. ;) If it gets too out of hand posts can be deleted or the topic can be locked.

As for this "killing consoles". I don't think Onlive will do that. It will just be another option for consumers. I don't really think ANY console could successfully get rid of its competition.

[Revilo62RAWR]

I'm hoping the mods are keeping tabs on this and not letting it get too out of hand. Console wars end up starting fights. Careful. ;) If it gets too out of hand posts can be deleted or the topic can be locked.

As for this "killing consoles". I don't think Onlive will do that. It will just be another option for consumers. I don't really think ANY console could successfully get rid of its competition.
Lol I'm done with it for now xD

And yeah I think your right, if some how the companies did loose so much business that it's like they did kill them, the other companies would just find a way to do a similar thing that Onlive is to try making some more money. It would be nice though if there was only one system though, no stupid exclusives, I have to admit I'm jealous of L4D and Gears2 and the communities. My friends have Xbox because they can't afford PS3 because there not 1337 xD So when I'm online playing games I don't have any real friends, also no head set works on my Japanese PS3 so yeah it's going to be nice having a good community that is cheap and has good games still.

[AlexTheLion]

Lol I'm done with it for now xD

And yeah I think your right, if some how the companies did loose so much business that it's like they did kill them, the other companies would just find a way to do a similar thing that Onlive is to try making some more money. It would be nice though if there was only one system though, no stupid exclusives, I have to admit I'm jealous of L4D and Gears2 and the communities. My friends have Xbox because they can't afford PS3 because there not 1337 xD So when I'm online playing games I don't have any real friends, also no head set works on my Japanese PS3 so yeah it's going to be nice having a good community that is cheap and has good games still.

Thanks for your maturity, and thanks for not letting your posts get out of hand.

[Aph0ticShield]

Thanks for your maturity, and thanks for not letting your posts get out of hand.

Yep, keep it clean guys or move it to the offtopic:D (Keep it clean still).

Yeah, if OnLive can offer what all the other consoles offer plus some that would really be awesome, then we won't have to have console wars because onlive will be the best hands down.:cool: So let's settle our differences and wait for OnLive, then we can have a jolly ol' unanimous console war. (That is if it works.)

OnLive will be a kill stealer and own the consoles because of their method of distribution. If Microsoft announces a cool new feature, then after that it will have to go through all these layers company fluff. Finally, a year later, it will be released. OnLive on the other hand, will look at, say Microsoft's, idea and program it in, then release it next month. No Problem.

[AlexTheLion]

I don't think that Microsoft could come up with an idea cool enough to combat Onlive anyway, although you do make a good point about company bureaucracy, anytime an idea is hatched in any company, it usually takes years to get to the public.

[Aph0ticShield]

I don't think that Microsoft could come up with an idea cool enough to combat Onlive anyway, although you do make a good point about company bureaucracy, anytime an idea is hatched in any company, it usually takes years to get to the public.

Not all companies, alex. Google, for example, used to think up something and within a month they would have it in labs.google.com for beta testing. I don't know how Google works really now because they went public. When you have a public company, thinks start to really go slow.

And don't diss Microsoft so! Yes, they can come up with good stuff, and they will pump millions into it, but once again, they are extremely slow. I mean, look at Windows 7. They have the beta out, yet they aren't about a release until 2010-2011.

[AlexTheLion]

Excuse me, "any" was a poor word choice, whereas I should have said "most", and Microsoft does make many quality products, I just don't think that they can combat Onlive, and will lose business to Onlive. I don't think, however, that Onlive will "kill" Microsoft's xbox 360, at least not until Onlive has more partners. And seeing as how Microsoft basically owns the Halo series, people will probably just keep their xbox's for that.

[Aph0ticShield]

Excuse me, "any" was a poor word choice, whereas I should have said "most", and Microsoft does make many quality products, I just don't think that they can combat Onlive, and will lose business to Onlive. I don't think, however, that Onlive will "kill" Microsoft's xbox 360, at least not until Onlive has more partners. And seeing as how Microsoft basically owns the Halo series, people will probably just keep their xbox's for that.

Nobody was suggesting that they would just go and chuck their 360's in the trash. When we are talking about killing we are talking about the next gen, like the PS4 and 720(?). Microsoft can't really go anywhere with Halo because bungie is the producer and they just decided they wanted to be separate. Microsoft cannot make a new successful Halo by themselves.

[AlexTheLion]

Nobody was suggesting that they would just go and chuck their 360's in the trash. When we are talking about killing we are talking about the next gen, like the PS4 and 720(?). Microsoft can't really go anywhere with Halo because bungie is the producer and they just decided they wanted to be separate. Microsoft cannot make a new successful Halo by themselves.

Yeah, I suppose, but does anybody think that the next gen consoles will generate any revenue? Or even allow the makers to break even?

[OnLiveDream]

My pen decided to flirt with this topic on my latest editorial yesterday

[AlexTheLion]

cool, I'll check it out.

[Aph0ticShield]

My pen decided to flirt with this topic on my latest editorial yesterday

I will view it also, but you may want to put your blog URL in your signature for easy access to those on this site.

[OnLiveDream]

Done-

Thanks again aph0tic

[Soulz]

If only you could handle all your saved games yourself instead of relying so much on the server then it will definetily have a chance to kill video game consoles

[Aph0ticShield]

If only you could handle all your saved games yourself instead of relying so much on the server then it will definetily have a chance to kill video game consoles

That would be pointless because regardless, the games are played on the servers. The only reason that one would want to save their games would be if they wanted to back them up just in case the OnLive servers got erased. Chances are though that they will loose your data a lot less than if you were saving it at home (such as a console). They will also have complex RAID technology and probably backups. Your information will not be lost with OnLive, unless their servers all blow up at the same time.

[Lord Xenu]

....unless their servers all blow up at the same time.

Shhh... Don't give people ideas. ;)

[Lord Xenu]

Also, you have to keep in mind. It won't be ONLIVE that kills the console market. It would be the technology. To put is simply, each generation killed the last through technology.

2bit killed by 4bit, killed by 8bit, killed by 16bit, killed by 32bit, killed by 64bit, and so on.

chip-->Cart-->CD-->DVD-->Blu-Ray-->"Cloud" Gamewise obviously.

[Darq]

Also, you have to keep in mind. It won't be ONLIVE that kills the console market. It would be the technology. To put is simply, each generation killed the last through technology.

2bit killed by 4bit, killed by 8bit, killed by 16bit, killed by 32bit, killed by 64bit, and so on.

chip-->Cart-->CD-->DVD-->Blu-Ray-->"Cloud" Gamewise obviously.

This is an excellent point, and I think it is a perspective that not enough individuals are actually taking into account. ;)

[Lord Xenu]

Yea, it is a common theme in peoples' arguments I have noticed.

[Revilo62RAWR]

That is a good point but the thing is that this new technology coming out isn't like the others that replaced the old, it's totally new with not quite as good Graphics (720p not 1080p) and it may lag for some. So the other systems wont be replaced by Onlive since there is still alot of games that don't want the downgrade that small difference in graphics and those that wont want to have to be connected to the internet just to play a single player game.

[Redarma]

Hi all, new here. I think Microsoft might be watching this service to see if it does work as advertised. If it does work properly (and I hope it does) then maybe Microsoft would buy or invest in the service and integrate it with their next Xbox? It would make sense for them to do it.

[Aph0ticShield]

I think the next generation of gaming consoles will use cartridges for their games. If you think about how cheap memory got, it makes sense. By 2012 you can have a 64 or 128 GB game that would cost $20 to make. It would also help to combat piracy because hardware is more difficult to copy than software.

Well, I didn't know that the current DVD's were software; they are hardware, are they not? Though, they contain software. What is the difference between game cartridges and DVD's in a hardware/software perspective? I don't get it.

The gaming industry will not likely go back to game cartridges because they can just leech off of current technologies like Blu-ray.

[Aph0ticShield]

Remember that the Nintendo 64 or the NES never suffered from piracy problems.

LOL... Yeah, right. They had worse piracy then the PC! You can download every N64 and NES game on the internet right now because of the ability to plug the cartridge into a custom USB receiver and copy the file over. There was no Software protection at all, and that was the problem.

The thing is, nobody can copy a Xbox 360 game because of the software protection. Go ahead, pop one of those into your PC...:eek:. Can't copy it? No surprise here.:D Their coding is unbelievable. I actually watched an hour long lecture on Xbox 360 security; it is uncrackable.

[Lord Xenu]

OK, I'm gonna try and tackle a couple of these here.


N64/SNES piracy.

You are wrong in your point that it can't be pirated. Case in point... Hong Kong. Land of the bootlegs. You can still find them all over the net. Mostly you will find it when it comes to GBA and what not anymore. Even down to DS and DSi software. It is a huge problem and will continue to be. Now, I will agree that it is tougher, but not by much. ROM's are an ok example of this. It is only half of the process when it comes to pirating carts. The rest involved the tougher task of replicating it onto another cart. The equipment it out there and no longer too expensive. Example (http://modthis.com/2008/09/24/retro-console-mods-nintendo-64-cartridge-copier-the-z64/). This product can also copy TO a cart. This piracy is still running rampant and won't be stopped just curbed.



Software/Hardware

Even though it is in a cart form, it is still considered software. The hardware is the product used to run the software. DVD's are simply a type of media in which is used for storage. Still falling under the category of software no matter what is stored on it.

XBox Piracy

I will have to disagree with you on this one. 360 games are completely crackable. This can be proven by simply looking at every torrent site out there. While they are tough to crack any computer can recognize them provided you have the software. I would post links to these specifics but I don't want to help contribute to piracy whether I pirate or not. If you wanna find out, a simple search will do ya. PS3, 360, UMD, and Wii games are easily copied.

[Lord Xenu]

Cloud gaming is a good way to curb piracy since there is no physical media to copy. However, if you look at PS3, piracy is still happening in the way of game sharing. Plenty of people have games they didn't pay for. It is just a way to limit it.

[Twinblade]

I don't think it will kill off consoles because not everybody have internet.

[AlexTheLion]

Yeah, not everybody has internet, but not everyone has consoles either, much of the world doesn't even know what electricity is. So we are talking about the part of the world that actually plays games. But it could still kill off the console, becuase everyone that currently plays games on consoles or PC's could switch to Onlive. Just because much of the world didn't and still doesn't know what a computer is, doesn't mean that the typewriter wasn't killed off by it.

[CapnSmudge]

My opinion is that it won't kill off consoles.
Console gaming is a different beast to PC gaming, and generally speaking the gamers are different too.
Onlive is a gaming service for PC gamers, it may marginally effect the Console user base, but I suspect not.

[AlexTheLion]

My opinion is that it won't kill off consoles.
Console gaming is a different beast to PC gaming, and generally speaking the gamers are different too.
Onlive is a gaming service for PC gamers, it may marginally effect the Console user base, but I suspect not.

Onlive is going to have many console games on their service, in fact, they have big publishers like Ubisoft and Epic signed on. I don't know about you, but if Onlive is going to have publishers like that (who produce console games), I definitely think it could at least have an impact on the console market. Check out the Benefits of Onlive (http://www.onlivefans.com/showthread.php?t=411) thread to check out some benefits that could persuade PC users as well as console users. ;)