The video at (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.164873), a recent presentation by Steve Perlman of OnLive seems to show that the service isn't just a big hype generator. So do you think that, if OnLive actually takes off, it'll be the end of consoles?

No, because current computer hardware is very cheap and no game in the last few years has pushed hardware further than Crysis. I don't think game graphics will advance as fast as hardware can from now on, because the cost of development is too great and the market that would attract too small.

For example, $600 would get you a machine that would play all current games except Crysis on high settings at 1920x1200. If you were to buy a cheap $400 Dell and use OnLive, $200 in subscription fees would not take that long to accumulate, certainly shorter than the usable lifetime of the $600 PC. OnLive as a subscription is poor value now, and will only get poorer as hardware advances but games do not.

People value consoles for three reasons, I think: exclusive games; the knowledge that just buying the disc and putting it in will guarantee a good experience; and unique control schemes. The first will not go away. The second is because most PCs can't run games well because the spec is too low and because it's hassle setting up a PC. OnLive could make some headway there. The third can't be matched by OnLive effectively. So it will damage the X360 and PS3 is anything, because they are very close in design to a PC and share many games and features. The Wii won't even be touched; its selling points can't be duplicated by OnLive.

OnLive is a technology-based solution, whereas the vast majority of customers couldn't care about technology when they decide what to buy (That's why PS3/X360 aren't selling that well - they still think graphics and tech sells). Nintendo (and Apple, for that matter) are selling an experience, and suceeding.

It's not the future, it's the "death of".

Cloud computing, server hosting... all that is just not real, too easily vulnerable to problems... fuck it. I hope it fails and the entire company goes down with it - just so they don't come up with such shitty ideas again.

Beyond that, probably less than 10% of gamers buy more than 1 game a month (on average) and very few gamers would average more than (about) $1200 per year on gaming in total (including hardware expenses). Gamers often complain about the expense of a $50 year XBox Live subscription or a $10 month subscription to a MMO, and I just don't see the market for a subscription service for access to games at (much) higher than $25 per month; primarily because people have access to an unlimited number of games at that price from online rental places.

Even from a technical perspective, you have to wonder what happens if your internet connection is less than optimal ...

Hey, you don't have to be upset about it. Competition is good, and the stronger idea will emerge victorious. OnLive won't succeed if it doesn't give customers what they want.

I'm a hardcore supporter of physical media... that is why.

I'm a very avid supporter of physical media as well, so I'll naturally oppose services like OnLive. However, the future doesn't look good with digital distribution continuing to grow stronger. I'd say in a generation or two, physical media for new release games will be phased out completely.

Exactly why does this bother you, and you think the idea is "shitty"?  Please let me know why you happen to feel that the world needs Gamestop, and its system of business, or that people MUST go to stores to buy games, or have to download everything to their harddrives (and also need to throw out your game device to play again)?  Why is this system intrinsically superior?  And what problems is it vulnerable to?  Is someone going to end up happen to write a virus that infects the device by means of the data stream, or is someone going to hack a stream and take over's control?  As far as being real, if the pipeline is big enough, then you don't need much on the console side of things.

Back to the original question about this "taking off".  Does that mean that OnLive is going to end up being the top company for running videogames, or does it mean their technology will get adopted?  For the former, you have multiple factors that will also be impacted by the second.  These factors are similar to what you have when you ask if Natal will "take off":

* Price point for the service (and device)

* Availability of software for it

* How well it works in homes

* Willingness for people to sign up for such a service

And then, if this does take off, you would expect the likes of Microsoft, Nintendo, and Sony to implement it into their business, and try to make their own version.  You may even see them licensing the technology.  Nintendo may even sign up for this, as a new way to do things, and not even include a drive in their system.

Then you face the question of the technology taking off.  It is definitely possible you see this coming in an additional technology to be used.  One could see MMOs particularly using technology like this, and other subscription-based games using this.  That is IF it actually works.

The reality here is that, we just don't know.  But we should know the way people do things does change over time, and this has potential for a new way of doing things.

This approach seems like a natural to me, if you are going digital download, and also games that are subscription-based.  There is issues with not having physical copies of games and the company sticking around though.  Like, why wouldn't this technology benefit a game like World of Warcraft?  Do an MMO and you can have a game that will be able to work on any system out there, and all you do is sell a simple plug-in.  If this approach works, then OnLive ends up being a servicing company for companies that want to run MMOs.

The industry is moving away from physical media at this point, because they don't want piracy to exist, and they also hate the used game market.  They will try to phase things out, if they can.

One can hate a business model but still like a given technology.  It is important to separate thw two.

I like the idea that you can leave the graphics processing to the servers, but still you have to pay for the bill of the connection