I was talking about 360s in general, which include the early models. Just like I won't specify "self-assembled PCs." However I do know that our PC from '98 with 128 RAM and P2 300MhZ still works, and the only console I have from back then that isn't broken is a Nintendo one.

lol, where would the 4th one go?

Actually having 4 monitors set up wouldnt be such a bad idea...in portrait mode tho and not landscape

Yes, I agree with your statement. I'm no defender of PCs. PC and console graphics have stalled because they are good enough and because it provides poor investment value for companies to go further, and consoles are much easier to use.

I see the PC games market stagnating over the next few years: not growing, and financial success being increasingly limited to the big-budget 'AAA' titles. The console market is healthier. All Ontario etc. means is that OnLive, after a time, won't be able to source customers from those who don't have a PC good enough to game. I don't believe OnLive can attract new customers to PC gaming either, because consoles are still more accessible.

Where do you see OnLive's sales coming from though? Existing PC gamers? Console gamers? Non-gamers?

4 projectors yes... 4 screen.... you get the screen edges in the middle... berk

unless you have 3 screens... and the 4th one on top of the central one :p

Thanks for the compliment, but I think your and Soleron's - and many others' - points are also quite valid (and btw I think Soleron has/had an Intel Core Duo, so he's not completely AMD fanatic ;)).

Yes. My household currently has:

- 2xIntel Core 2 Duo (desktops bought 2006, 2007)
- 2xIntel Pentium M (laptops bought 2004, 2005)
- 1xIntel CULV (ultraportable bought 2010)

But it hurt every moment of buying them (not really lol). When AMD catches up on mobile battery life I'll be able to avoid that.

hmmm, certainly seems interesting. this could appeal to those who dont have a very good computer. however, with a monthly price pplus the price of games, that might be a major turn off for some. i just dont see this going as far as many people see it going.

but....if there is still a chance to get into the beta(is there still a chance?), hell, ill give it try....

what am I then? my PC is decently awesome ya know?

My focus is more on the technology, more than the company itself.  I see that what will happen with OnLive is that, as the technology proves itself, they will get bought up by someone, and the technology used in multiple places.  I could see a cable company jumping in, if not a console maker. I see the approach catching on.  Won't say it is going to be THE future, but I see that it will make headway.

I personally can't see OnLive hanging as it is long term, because if it starts to catch on, they will get competition.  Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo have to be watching and then see that it is doable.

Ok, on the business side, I see cable companies offering it with their cable service to people, so they can get a cut of gaming revenue. 

And yes we have stagnated.  The Wii shows we have enough horsepower now for the average consumer.  I just need to look longer-term though, and what is involved.  And that there are other paths of development that would need to be considered here, such as increases in bandwidth being a reality, and computing shifting in that direction.

I don't hate it, I'm looking at it in the way of customer base penetration, how many people will it actually attract? with the upcoming ways to do motion controls, how will it compete in that market when there is latency in the control and the latency with the player's connection? how much would it be if they were to incorperate a camera, motion controllers and such? I highly doubt they'd give those out for free like cable boxes. Not to mention if you were really seriously thinking about PC gaming, you'd prolly not look at OnLive since the output is nowhere the quality of even a cheap PC atm. It's a pretty tough nut to crack. I'd say it's a little early, and there is a good chance that it will fall very hard and it'd scare off investors in the future when the tech would actually work better.