That thing won't work.

If by some chance it does work though it will only effect the PC gaming industry.

Also Gamestop and other retailers won't sell this thing. So the only way you will be able to get it is by ordering it from Onlive's website. There are so many factors working against this thing.

I dont see this working well even with my 25mbps connection.

Reason being that you dont even have a single file of the game on your PC so if the server farm catches fire (Its happens) you cant use "your" games.

Thank god for Steam. I can still play games in offline mode as all games are fully downloaded.

Plus having the files on your PC means you can actually run a game at the full capabilities of your system versus based off your internet connection and PC spec.

it wont work, rendering farms are only good for scientific purposes like folding@home

Is it a nice idea? Yes. But I'm still waiting to take a vacation to Saturn. Just because I think something is cool doesn't mean it's currently feasable.

The issue is that the technology can, and will, happen. However, the infrastructure needed for decent rendering is still quite some time away. In order for this to be commercially, and economically viable, it will take years, if not decades to happen.

Cloud rendering is the way of the future. So is space-based solar power. That just doesn't mean that either is really going to happen tomorrow. OnLive has spent massive amounts of money to get their name out, but the technology is rather hokey from a realilistic standpoint.....Sure, it works, but it won't work well.

For now, the best technology out there is InstantAction (whom I work for) and Unity for browser-based solutions. And this kind of client-side tech will be the best for many more years....Like it or not.

And all for only $6,332,221 per month!

Honestly, do you think this thing is going to be free? They have to recoup costs.

OnLive sounds like a good idea in theory but in practise it would require huge amounts of money to get working. It would require hundreds of servers around the world and each of them would have to be as powerful as fastest supercomputers in the world. Assuming, of course, that there millions of players.

You can't compare servers to MMO servers because MMO servers only have to deal with relatively simple commands (most computing still happens in your own computer). Server which can have 10000 simultaneous MMO players, couldn't even handle 1000 simultaneous OnLive players even with PS2 quality. Heck, if they would play Crysis with high quality, it could not even handle 10 players.

I wouldn't say this is impossible concept but it would require more money to work than development of 360, PS3 and Wii combined.

I can guarantee if there are a few more threads on OnLive posted on here, in reference to the GDC, you will had a STRONG batch of fanboy wargasms breaking out. It will get UGLY.

Edit: And as I read the posts in this thread, it appears to be VERY true.  I will take a wait and see on this project.  Maybe it does the job, maybe it doesn't.  The videogame business will be better if they can get this to work though.

Gabe mocking the PS3 hasn't made it go away.  Wait, are we talking about the Penny Arcade Game, or the Valve Gabe?  If you mean Penny Arcade Gabe then maybe you are onto something.

OnLive working will depend on price, performance and titles that run on it.  If it does work, one can definitely see Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft coming out with similar.

BTW: I know which Gabe. I am just trying to make a point that Penny Arcade has more pull.

Penny Arcade Gabe was really excited about the idea. Actually trying it out at a demo kind of ruined it for him, though. Tycho also finds the idea unrealistic.

Take it for what you will.

I agree. I don't want a "game cloud" future. If i buy a game i want to be able to physically touch it.