But than they would need to have a violent price cut schemes like steam has today. One of the biggest problem with DD is the of trading and used market. For industry it's great, but for consumers it's terrible, with PC there is loads of DD store(steam is main one,though) and there is competition. For consoles it would be a total monopoly since we have just one DD store per console.

If a publisher decides to sell their games for a ridiculous high price we couldn't even wait for getting it used since it isn't an option, we would have to wait for crazy sales like steam does here and there.

I respect your opinion about computers because you seem to know a lot more than I do, and I know a lot more than the average consumer.

However, one thing I am having trouble understanding is the pricing you're mentioning. The market runs at the price it does because of consumer demand. If graphics and performance do not keep increasing, then those parts won't continue to drop in price, it will be expensive and stay expensive unless there is some huge market available.

It's would be like the next generation BluRay. If the market never sees a difference in performance and quality, then they won't switch over, because it will be unnecessary. Companies won't be able to reach scale and costs won't drop. I know you say "everyone will have one", but if that's true, then there will be a plethora of higher tech in smaller and smaller packages.

Your example of running Crysis also doesn't matter very much because the video above shows Crysis at full. It's running already. The graphics will keep increasing and so will processing power, and games will keep coming out to take advantage of higher and higher technology. ie in Rome Total War: Each soldier is representative of 10 or so soldiers. In the future, you will command millions of soldiers onscreen. This is only possible through cloud processing and now that companies are looking at this platform, they will understand that they are now free to have whatever they want in a game, because the market is not restricted by PC specifications.

Never said it was a good thing for the consumer, like you said, it's a pretty bad thing. The publishers have some power over how things will play out though, and OnLive (along with DD) sounds like something they'd actually prefer as they wouldn't have to worry about used game sales affecting them.

The only plus side is they have more room to cut the price of games as they don't have to pay the costs of packaging. I'm guessing that's how Steam manages to have so many deals and sales.

DD works on PC because games on computers have always been just ones and zeros. But on consoles, the games are played by the hardware, like how music ic played by an instrument. People want to be able to touch their video games. Had Steam been on consoles, it would have failed.

The music industry companies refused to go DD, but were forced to do so by the consumers. In the video game industry, it's the other way around. The industry wants DD to gain control and to eliminate used game sales. But so far, DD on consoles have failed miserably, look at PSPgo.

joke post?

I ask because pspgo isn't the archetypal DD console. Ipod Touch/Phone is, and it's eating up the market very quickly.

This is very true. The digital download market is constantly growing. On consoles, PSN (PS3 and PSP), 360 and even WiiWare to a certain extent all have digital download models. If they weren't making money for the big 3 they wouldn't bother. Sony have even had a few PS3 games to download like GT Prologue and Siren: Blood Curse. Digital download will have a big impact in the near future whether you want it to or not.

Also, KungKras, your comparison of musical instruments to consoles makes no sense whatsoever. You say people want to be able to touch their video games (this sounds dodgy btw ), and some do. But I don't see how it's any different to the few who want to touch there physical media in the music or film industry. It's a niche group. Most people just want to be able to play the games.

I think it's viable almost immediately. I have no reason to buy a 360, and I'm not going to spend 200$ for a wii or buy new controllers, yet both systems have exclusives that I would like to play. Problem solved.

sure you might not be able to play mario or halo, but you'll be able to play fragile, boy and his blob, left 4 dead, mass effect, dead space extraction etc etc

all third parties are on board except activision

So would third party developers, including Activision, go exclusively to OnLive? If so, how long would it take for first party developers like Bungie and Polyphony to follow suit? I mean, if such a situation were to occur, we'd be looking at the end of consoles, right? XBox, Playstation, and perhaps even Nintendo would fall prey to OnLive.

Unless they can figure out how to make the consoles a necessary purchase.

For MS, this may be a difficult time because they don't yet have any real specific reason to be in the home. For Nintendo, it's also a disadvantage because Nintendo makes a huge portion of their profit from hardware margin. For Sony, it's slightly advantageous because they have the BluRay/DD/connectivitywithpsp/media center aspect. However, this is a disadvantage as well because Sony tends to lose money on hardware.