YES, I KNOW. You missed the point.

My original config was using the CHEAP HD 5570 (~$60) which would play current games at that resolution. You then said it was worth paying more in order not to have to upgrade the hardware. I then said if you paid more for a really expensive graphics card like the HD 5870 then it would last a lot longer and you'd be paying for the privilege.

A decent gaming PC is cheap. OnLive is expensive. A gaming PC you won't have too upgrade is expensive.

In short, I am going to ask this:

Do you believe the model currently used by PC will be continued indefinitely, or do you believe eventually cloud computing is the future of computing?  In short, is Cloud Computing NEVER going to supplant the PC's current model to be able to do gaming?  Or, a more specific question about the technology of OnLive, do you believe Cloud Computing, to render graphics over a network, and have computing done elsewhere, will serve NO function at all in gaming at any point?  OnLive will end up going bankrupt and no one will end up taking anything from it to any degree?

If you are saying that OnLive is going to fail, but in the next decade or two, it will become part of the ecosystem of gaming in a relevant manner, I would be able to agree that.  If you believe it will fade away, and computing power will still reside on the client side FOREVER, then I would debate you on it.

I believe that computing will continue as it is for about 5 years. Then processing power will be a commodity for all but high-end scientific research - every computer that you could buy will have the power to play any video game and will cost the same as the cheapest PC you could buy today. There will be no differentiation in the market.

If the lowest-end computer you could buy is capable of that, where is the space for cloud computing? Since you need some kind of computer to access OnLive, you might as well use the client to play games too. And the client will always have going for it that you can own a copy of the game, or something halfway between ownership and cloud like Steam.

The reason this will happen is the following: 1) Plateauing of graphical fidelity of video games. There hasn't been any technical advancement since 2007. 2) On-die integration of fast GPUs (Llano and Sandy Bridge next year) followed by frequent die shrinks until current high-end graphical power is on the lowest end CPU models (will take 4 years, I estimate).

Cloud computing has a role to play in business and scientific research, which still need all the processing power you can throw at it. Remember that all computing was originally 'cloud' (timesharing on a mainframe) and the reason we went to clients was for cost reasons and that interconnects (and now the Internet) speed and latency can't keep up with hardware advancements.

Beyond that, in about 10-15 years time, video games will not be something rendered with conventional rasterisation on a monitor anyway. It will be virtual reality: input and output connected directly to the senses or the brain. And for that, ultra low latency and adaptation of the environment to you as a person is key and client will still be needed.

So let's talk in the short term, no more than 10 years away, because no one really knows whether "games" or "graphics" as we use the terms will last that long. Where is the opportunity for the cloud to become widespread before graphics power is a commodity availible on the lowest of Dell/HP boxes?

I see huge potential in this for 3D gaming.

I really don't know the exact details how it works, but I assume its just a video stream which your computer is downloading while you are playing over the net on the fly.

If they partner up with Nvidia or IZ3D and use their drivers and are able to send side by side video signal of the gameplay @ 1080p (720p per frame/eye) which 3D video player on your machine plays in stereoscopic 3D...jackpot! That would really be worthwhile financially and hassle wise as you need big bucks to game in 3D and you got to fiddle with settings for every game.

So I suddenly ended up with two, not just one, lifetime memberships to OnLive and here is all I have to say.

OnLive has out-consolified the consoles. It is a much better plu-and-play than the consoles. Doesn't have any hardware problems. It is more convenient, it is faster, and it is cheaper (at least for me, I get 2 years for $5).

That said, it is even shittier at actual gaming than the consoles as well when compared to the PC. Even less modability, even less open, even less settings, even less everything that the consoles have less of than PC gaming, except controls.

Bottom line, it is a far better console than any console out there, except for the Wii maybe, and its problems are also worse than the consoles' problems. All in all, PC gaming is fine, consoles are in hot water if this tech starts off.

People who have subscribed on Neogaf are saying that there is some notiable lag at some point's and the resolution on some games are completely janky, is it true? This is a picture of Borderland's running on the service that someone posted, for anyone who's played they game, you can tell that it look's pretty bad.

Lag is give and take. On my "badass-2nd-best-badnwidth-after-the-pentagon" connection I had nearly no noticable lag. On my shitty home connection it was worse. The games look pretty meh and run at 1280x270 and the textures and everything is smudgy.

The 360 version looks better than that screen shot.  It's pretty blurry and the game can look much better.

considering they have to heavily compress the 720p video at 30fps currently, the 60fps needed for 3D effect (30fps per eye) and there is no current Internet connection that can deliver that 100% of the time, which is needed because dropped frames in 3D can be a serious problem (more headaches etc) so no I don't think OnLive will support 3D in the next 5 years sorry.

That picture looks like someone drew black lines through it. It is possible that people are scared by the technology, and how it will change things so they go into hater mode.

I did the demo of Borderlands and it looked better than my 360 version of Borderlands to me.