麻豆官网首页入口

Whilst this service could be very good, broadband speeds need to drastically improve and companies need to really increase their download limits. Upload speeds (which are often neglected) will also need to improve. Think what it's like trying to watch an HD video on Youtube during peak hours!

"one notable voice out there is Trip Hawkins. As the founder of Electronic Arts, he is often dubbed the Godfather of the gaming industry."

Nope he's the godfather of the casual gaming industry. EA have made gaming mass market and diluted the pool with some very poor titles, their triple A titles are small in number in comparison with the dross they churn out year after year, which unfortunately people buy, play for 5 minutes, then move on to the next "new toy".

Onlive will only appeal to the elite who have the broadband connection to cope, so that rules out a large percentage of the UK population.

And I'm sorry but when such a service as OnLive is being "championed" by the likes of EA I only see it as a money making venture, not as something to move gaming forward.

Seems a good idea in principle, though I doubt the UK has the hardware infrastructure to cope with the bandwidth requirements to bring this to the majority of us.

I like the idea of not continually needing to upgrade my PC to play the latest top spec games.

Trip Hawkins is no longer at EA- there is a fairly long and bitter battle about their wikipedia entry and his omission going on!

To be fair, Mr Hawkins is best described as a liability who has occasional flashes of brilliance. And I feel, and I may upset some gamers here, that EA have made an admirable attempt to show some creativity (FIFA revisions, Skate, Dead Space) in recent years. Activision seem to be gamings new 'evil empire' as if such a thing really exists...

A couple of important points:

1. This from their FAQ:

Where will OnLive be available?
We鈥檒l be launching across the continental US. (You should mention this is your article)

For their beta program, you HAVE to be in the US. I assume that will apply for their final role out too for licensing reasons

2. On the speed issue that a couple of posters have mentioned above, for normal quality OnLive reckon you need a 1.5Mbps connection and 5Mbps if you are playing using high definition. But that is for the US - for a UK version they would have to have servers over here so that big puddle called the Atlantic is removed from the equation.

4. At 09:52am on 03 Sep 2009, tengearbatbike wrote:

And I feel, and I may upset some gamers here, that EA have made an admirable attempt to show some creativity (FIFA revisions, Skate, Dead Space) in recent years. Activision seem to be gamings new 'evil empire' as if such a thing really exists...

----

Oh yeah EA certainly have been creative recently. What with Spore a very bad DRM "mistake". And "revisions" of Madden NFL and Fifa year on year, yeah real creativity involved in publishing as a full new game, content that should be published as a roster update with a few minor tweaks to the actual game here and there.

Even their flagship FPS game series - Medal of Honor has been slowly declining in quality due to repetition and regurgitation.

Mind you Activision are no better.

The whole gaming industry needs a kick up the back side, and OnLive isn't the thing to do it. If anything it takes away gaming from the traditional way of doing things - buy DVD, install game, play. Nice and simple, no internet connection required and can be done in a matter of minutes.

And it no doubt gives yet more DRM (control) to the games industry while silently taking away control from those who actually pay for the products, the gamers.

I also wouldn't be surprised if OnLive requires a monthly subscription, similar to WoW, if not more expensive.

Gurubear becomes a better source on information regarding the blog topic than the writer!

When I first heard about this service I went over to the site to see about the beta testing and noticed that it was US only. This is clearly because of the problem with speeds accross the Atlantic and licencing laws. However, seeing this blog I assumed that it was being made available in the UK. The very fact that this information is ignored is one of teh key points in the previous blog of 'What Makes a Good Tech Story?' The answer: putting the facts in.

I also agree with the views on EA. EA are an abomination and not because they chase profits (which they haven't been able to do recently hehe) but because they fitted a number of their PC games with SecuROM, without informing customers and placed install limits on their games.

How much is this service going to cost? Because there is every chance that it could work out better value just to buy a decent computer. (You probably will still need a half decent computer anyway!)

A lot of people seem to have missed the point in this. Yes it is US based at the moment but the main thrust of this article is about Cloud based games. If this works and it is yet to be proved that it can, this could create massive ripples for everyone. Do you need and Xbox or a PS3 anymore if this works? I am excited about this but it needs to work. Regarding DRM you have got to get real, if Onlive does not work, the next Xbox and PS3 will be pushing towards this massively. PSPgo totally going DD. gamers have already bought into by buying Battlefield 1943 wait and see!

I've got very mixed views about this. Ideally it could be the biggest shake up since Napster happened for music if it actually did do away with the traditional platforms and threatened them. Realistically though I can't see it happening thanks to throttling etc. Someones already mentioned about watching HD online during peak hours. Imagine if there were two people using the same connection and using this service. A lot of thought still needs to go into logistics I think.

Criticism of EA is a tad outdated.

Stuff like Dead Space and Mirrors Edge show that they are interested in new stuff not just updating their enormous back catalogue. These 'updates' to their standard franchises like FIFA, Madden Skate aren't just updates but complete overhaul's that have blown the competition away.

anyway I'm really interested in OnLive, I'd love to be able to game and not have to buy a new console every few years, and then worry about backwards compatibility etc

The governemnts digital britain review shows that we'll be a long way off something like this being possible outside of the the 40% of the population who live in large town and cities. As far as the UK is concerned one for 2020? Whist the rest of the world gets on with developing fibre networks across their countries, we have to make do with a watered down solution.

GaiKai is another remote gaming technology that makes playing /any/ game playable in any web browser possible.

I think one2escape is correct, this has awesome potential, don't get bogged down with bandwith issues etc, they will find a way round this.

Just think of how good the games can be, no more being tied to a piece of hardware in your front room that has a 'life cycle' of 4-5 years - all the hardware upgrades happen remotely and the result being you get bigger and better games constantly evolving to match the new advances in hardware. Money no longer has to flow back to Microsoft/Sony/Nintendo it will all flow to developers resulting in hopefully better games! And plus they don't have to waste development time tweaking each game for 3-4 different platforms.

This is the future of gaming I have no doubt, maybe not in the next two-three years but I think it'll start to become mainstream in five.

10. At 12:45pm on 03 Sep 2009, Blue_Blood1 wrote:

Criticism of EA is a tad outdated.


-----

Oh dear, how last year of us. Who should we be criticising this year?



11. At 1:17pm on 03 Sep 2009, littlefatpete wrote:

I think one2escape is correct, this has awesome potential, don't get bogged down with bandwith issues etc, they will find a way round this.

Just think of how good the games can be, no more being tied to a piece of hardware in your front room that has a 'life cycle' of 4-5 years - all the hardware upgrades happen remotely and the result being you get bigger and better games constantly evolving to match the new advances in hardware. Money no longer has to flow back to Microsoft/Sony/Nintendo it will all flow to developers resulting in hopefully better games! And plus they don't have to waste development time tweaking each game for 3-4 different platforms.

This is the future of gaming I have no doubt, maybe not in the next two-three years but I think it'll start to become mainstream in five.


-----

Ah gaming utopia.

Yeah like any utopia actually happens.

Sure they can be good, doesn't necessarily mean they will be and the way the internet is in the UK currently I don't see any changes taking place that will enable the large majority of would-be gaming households that either cannot afford a decent broadband connection or simply live in an area that doesn't have access to one, to play games via OnLive, if they can even afford the monthly sub and there will undoubtedly be one.

Not only that but monthly subscription based services work out as being more expensive than buying say a console and a few games here and there over the course of the consoles lifespan.

It's the future of gaming, but again it will be for the affluent minority as most things are, by the time it filters into the mainstream it will be old hat and new things will be on the forefront.

And do you really think M$, $ony, and Familytendo are going to let their income source be overtaken by such a radical means of delivering games?

Whether or not this is better than constantly replacing consoles, depends on the subscriptions involved. If I have to spend 拢400 on getting a new console every 4 years, then the subscription will have to be around 拢8 a month (plus energy costs of doing processing on home computer) to ensure it is of equal value.

As for comment made by 11 above: -

"Money no longer has to flow back to Microsoft/Sony/Nintendo it will all flow to developers resulting in hopefully better games! And plus they don't have to waste development time tweaking each game for 3-4 different platforms."

Unfortunately, even though there won't be the need to constantly replace hardware in the home, there will be constantly upgraded hardware in the Onlive servers, which will just mean instead of the money going to Nintendo/MS/Sony, it will go to Intel/Nvidia/Asus. However, I do agree with your point that developers will save money on having to code for a reduced number of platforms.

As others have pointed out, there would be a lot of issues based on the current infrastructure in the UK (I know my connection isn't reliable enough), and I have my doubts this will be anytime soon, as some areas in the UK don't even have any kind of broadband, so this could potentially lead to inequality, as at the moment these people can go out and buy the DVDs and install/play the game. However, if these problems can be overcome, then this is potentially a very good idea. I use steam, and I love being able to play my games I've bought in London when I go to visit my parents up north. It also would eliminate problems with piracy.

I do have one thought, that I'm not sure anyone would know, but in terms of energy efficiency, which is more efficient, vast data centres doing processing and compressing together with home computers decompressing and displaying, or having everything done on home computers? I just ask because I remember reading somewhere about the energy costs of running and keeping cool google's servers being massive.

12. At 1:47pm on 03 Sep 2009, ravenmorpheus wrote:-----

Ah gaming utopia.

Yeah like any utopia actually happens.

Sure they can be good, doesn't necessarily mean they will be and the way the internet is in the UK currently I don't see any changes taking place that will enable the large majority of would-be gaming households that either cannot afford a decent broadband connection or simply live in an area that doesn't have access to one, to play games via OnLive, if they can even afford the monthly sub and there will undoubtedly be one.

Not only that but monthly subscription based services work out as being more expensive than buying say a console and a few games here and there over the course of the consoles lifespan.

It's the future of gaming, but again it will be for the affluent minority as most things are, by the time it filters into the mainstream it will be old hat and new things will be on the forefront.

And do you really think M$, $ony, and Familytendo are going to let their income source be overtaken by such a radical means of delivering games?

=============================

Utopia, true true!!

But you have to admit we're living in a pretty good era for games consoles and games etc.

I didn't necessarily mean Onlive as the main distributor (you never know it could be) but one of those big three will I'm sure already have plans for this kind of system.

Maybe say a small box instead of a traditional console which retails cheaply and does some of the heavy lifting to help the bandwith. Maybe these will be manufacturer specific or maybe you pay a subscription to Microsoft and Sony or whoever you feel represents your gaming needs best.

I don't think they'll be exorbitantly expensive either otherwise people simply don't pay for them, look at the PS3 having to cut it's price to generate buyers - there's always a price point with which it becomes mass marketable and the games industry is worth billions, so it's not like people aren't willing to pay for it.

Bandwith wise, I'm positive you could run Wii quality games through a connection we currently have without too much issue - yeah it's not HD graphics or anything but look how many people have stumped up for a Wii and extra controllers!

If you can beam games to people without having them have to own a console your market has just exploded exponentially.

Utopia, true true!!

But you have to admit we're living in a pretty good era for games consoles and games etc.

I didn't necessarily mean Onlive as the main distributor (you never know it could be) but one of those big three will I'm sure already have plans for this kind of system.

Maybe say a small box instead of a traditional console which retails cheaply and does some of the heavy lifting to help the bandwith. Maybe these will be manufacturer specific or maybe you pay a subscription to Microsoft and Sony or whoever you feel represents your gaming needs best.

I don't think they'll be exorbitantly expensive either otherwise people simply don't pay for them, look at the PS3 having to cut it's price to generate buyers - there's always a price point with which it becomes mass marketable and the games industry is worth billions, so it's not like people aren't willing to pay for it.

Bandwith wise, I'm positive you could run Wii quality games through a connection we currently have without too much issue - yeah it's not HD graphics or anything but look how many people have stumped up for a Wii and extra controllers!

If you can beam games to people without having them have to own a console your market has just exploded exponentially.

--------

I'd rather it was pay as you go. It's much more affordable that way.

Oh and your example of the PS3 is rather poor in my opinion. The PS3 is still vastly overpriced and by the time it comes down to a level where the majority can afford it the PS4 will be out.

And yes if you can "beam" games to people your market grows. But also with that comes less control for the end user. I'm a firm believer in the consumer dictating how software is installed/run, the move to online services such as Steam/OnLive just takes that control away from the consumer and we become little more than sheep playing the latest games that are pushed at us with no thought as to how they actually are running on our systems or what they are doing in the background.

@12. At 1:47pm on 03 Sep 2009, ravenmorpheus wrote:

Oh dear, how last year of us. Who should we be criticising this year?

Whoever you want, hold on to your hive-minded sheeple opinion is you want

----------------------

Bandwidth isn't the issue, ping is. the average (average obviously not everyone) UK connection is well above the 1.5meg required, and buy the time this comes out we could be above the 5meg HD requirement as well

But with the infrastructure in the UK, being so poor and with the ISPs racing to be the cheapest rather than racing to provide the best service, it may be sometime before this is viable over here.

@ ravenmorpheus

I agree that more power needs to be given to the consumer regarding software installation etc, but how many consumers understand this at the moment.

I do think that this Cloud based gaming will eventually work, but not for a while. No matter what, some work is going to need to be done by the consumer's computer, and if you need to spend a few hundred pounds on a computer anyway, what is the point on spending 拢120 extra per year (based on 拢10 a month - not an unreasonable sum based on things like MMORPGs) when for that money after a couple of years you could buy a decent computer that will play the games on its own.

@ littlefatpete

The reason for the Wii sales are not due to the graphics, its due to the completely different way it plays! If it was regular games played with regular controllers then the Wii would never have sold.

This is for PCs at the moment and with the current graphical power and information in hi-spec games, I can't see an internet connection being fast enough to transfer the data. Look at Crysis or GTA4 on high settings. And a computer required to run these games doesn't cost much more than a regular computer if you shop carefully. Plus it does so much more than a console, web browsing, word processing etc.

"16. At 3:57pm on 03 Sep 2009, Blue_Blood1 wrote:

@12. At 1:47pm on 03 Sep 2009, ravenmorpheus wrote:

Oh dear, how last year of us. Who should we be criticising this year?

Whoever you want, hold on to your hive-minded sheeple opinion is you want"

Touche.

"17. At 4:11pm on 03 Sep 2009, The_Hess wrote:

@ ravenmorpheus

I agree that more power needs to be given to the consumer regarding software installation etc, but how many consumers understand this at the moment.

I do think that this Cloud based gaming will eventually work, but not for a while. No matter what, some work is going to need to be done by the consumer's computer, and if you need to spend a few hundred pounds on a computer anyway, what is the point on spending 拢120 extra per year (based on 拢10 a month - not an unreasonable sum based on things like MMORPGs) when for that money after a couple of years you could buy a decent computer that will play the games on its own."


----


Indeed. It is a shame that the average game player does not understand, nor wishes to understand, many aspects of being a games consumer.

And I can see a subscription for OnLive being far higher than 拢10 pcm, because it won't just have one particular style of game available.

Unfortunately the way of the world, particularly in this country, is that the affluent minority dictate what the rest of us can do and what becomes "mainstream", and if we can't afford it, tough.

Just a total aside comment here (but it is related)

I am useless when it comes to having the most up to date graphics card - I cannot even run the game I am meant to be working on at full tilt! (Wurm Online - small and independent, which means I don't get paid!)

However, it strikes me that if this system is using pure server processing to convert the graphics to a stream, then could not a similar system be used on a PC locally?

That could get round a whole pile of compatibility issues with cards that we and every other games producer runs into!

(Oh, if I am talking gibberish - which is more than likely - forgive me. I am the composer and the marketing person, not one of the Whiz Kids!! Oh, yeah - I am also old.)

No worries about trans-ocean latency!
It's just a matter of setting up another ONlive data center closer to you (the user). I think US-only restriction is just temporary to test it out and shoot major issues. This is only better for you on the other side of the 'puddle' :)

The most likely reason for the US only at the moment is probably due to distribution rights. Several games are manufactured (ie the disks burned) in Europe by a different company or division of a company in Europe than in America.

@Gurubear

I like the idea you are suggesting, but unfortunately it isn't possible. You need some form of processor to change the code into 3D graphics. In this case Onlive are using their mainframes but you use a gpu. Basically you need the gpu to create the stream somewhere along the line. Gpus are designed differently to cpus so even if you had an uber processor (intel i7 @ 4GHz or similar) you still wouldn't be able to run 3D graphics in the same way. Or to answer your question the short way: no!

The_Hess wrote:

I like the idea you are suggesting, but unfortunately it isn't possible.....

###

Oh well - fun while it lasted!

The whole idea of cloud computing is interesting but there are a few things that worry me - most of them revolving round "independence of use."

Many years ago I was involved (in a very small way) with promotions surrounding the JavaStation network computer from Sun Microsystems. This was a discless computer that relied on being networked for all its applications. The theory was that the user had no headaches about keeping the computer up to date as it would always be using the newest version of the applications from the central server.

Sound Familiar?

I don't know all the reasons this never worked, but some listed were network speeds and the fact that the terminal itself would go out of date easily.

But there were other worries too that revolved round the idea of being off line. At that time large, often Unix based networks based on the terminal model were common in business and there was a real issue about being disconnected from the network - for what ever the reason. The growth of more highly powered desktop machines was therefore jumped on by business as this allowed independence from the network meaning a user could keep working.

The other issue was cost of software. Independent computers allow for carefully managed updates. Using a cloud, every one is kept constantly updated - which is very nice. However, that also means that people are up to date whether they need to be or not. They also have to be connected, whether they want to be or not ... and so on.

I am not against cloud computing in the least - I think it opens corporate development paths in an efficiently managed way. However, I can see problems that will make people very nervous just around the corner.

The other day, a simple error took large parts of the Google Mail system off line for an hour. I missed out on that, but I imagine it was frustrating for many.

But mail is just your communication device, it is not a core work tool for most. However, their word processor is. Imagine everyone's word processor going off line for an hour, or two, or even a day. I think companies would jump back into local copies very quickly.

Strangely, Google, one of the main promoters of Cloud Computing obviously has a quiet worry about the validity and security of the entire concept and happily promote Google Gears (allowing you to take online systems off line) without ever batting an eyelid at the contradiction!

@ The_Hess

That's what I was getting at with the Wii, it's got very average graphics but a novel method of control, hence the popularity for a much broader spectrum of casual gamer and thus more revenue (for Nintendo at least!) - the low end graphics means it's quite easy to pump this through an existing broadband network.

@ ravenmorpheus

"Oh and your example of the PS3 is rather poor in my opinion. The PS3 is still vastly overpriced and by the time it comes down to a level where the majority can afford it the PS4 will be out"


you seem to have an odd understanding of supply and demand, you may feel the PS3 is overpriced, but as of the end of June 09 they'd shipped nearly 24m of them, that's hardly a small install base. As a comparison the 360 has sold 30m and the Wii 50m. Sony keep spouting the line that they see the PS3 as a 10 year console. What would you pay for it out of interest?

"Unfortunately the way of the world, particularly in this country, is that the affluent minority dictate what the rest of us can do and what becomes "mainstream", and if we can't afford it, tough"

Not really sure what you mean by this, but at the end of the day if something is overpriced or simply not good enough, people don't buy it and it doesn't become mainstream, basic economics

@ littlefatpete

I fully agree with what you are saying, but the Onlive will not be using a Wii controller (at least for the time being!) so the compromise of graphics/gameplay will not be the same. If it were to introduce a 'black box' - TV link and sensor bar similar to the Wii, or even offer this as an add-on to the Wii then it could become very popular.

Those who believe that the PS3 is overpriced, look at what it offers and compared to alternatives it is actually not bad value for money. If you solely use a computer/console for gaming then pound for pound the PS3 wins hands down. It offers supperior graphics to an X-Box 360 and has a much more powerful processor that has yet to be fully utilised. The PS3 has quite a future ahead of it and its sales are beginning to reflect this.

@ Hess

Agree on the 'black box' whatever it becomes or whoever makes it. Pretty soon there'll be one of these that does everything, a single media centre for the home - we're getting there in jumps and starts

At the moment though I believe the 360 offers better value for money - it does everything the PS3 does apart from iplayer and web browsing (personally I don't see this as a killer app as it were) it's a bit like trying to browse the web on a non smart phone.

We could argue about game quality all day ;-) But I think the 360 has a great stable of games (I own one) and there's still plenty I've got to play and not much really that's drawing me to a PS3. And the Project Natal add-on if it lives to the hype could be awesome.

No doubt the PS3 has better hardware, but could this be clever thinking on Microsofts part that in another 2-3 years when the 360 is maybe feeling the strain, Microsoft have a new generation of console, if it's even a console! ready to ship that's priced similar to the aging PS3 but blows it out of the water performance wise.

Exciting times indeed, I can't wait for it!

I think some aspects of a Wii style control system, and therefore market, are underdeveloped.

At Wurm Online I would love to make a Wii interface. In the game, you chop down trees, dig holes, mine under the land, fish, hunt, farm, fight and so on more or less real time (a bit sped up).

We haven't got the resources to do this, but with something like the Wii controllers, you could do a lot of the actions for real. Maybe even use the Wii-fit for walking around the game. Something like that.

With the hard grind that Wurm and games like it can be at times, but its realistic approach to what you are constructing, the result could be incredible. You would get good exercise too, having spent a few hours clearing a patch of forest for you house!!

The OnLive system is really only a change to the way games are served up - it is not changing gaming as such.

The Wii actually changed the idea of gaming - and the fact that is has sold so well, despite having pretty basic graphics, should have been a lesson to the gaming industry as to where the real market and the real interest of that market lay.

I am bemused that many games companies have spent so much time attending the teenage male market. In marketing terms it is slightly odd. When you create a premium product and want mass sales, you would normally aim older, looking at large groups with disposable income and staying power.

Now, in reality, a lot of these games are bought by older people too. At Wurm a large number of our players are mid thirties and a few have retired. And they mix well with the younger players too, generally speaking. The younger players seem to like to join villages with older mayors - less arguments and it keeps going longer.

Now, look at the sales of something like WoW or maybe one of the shooter games - look at their success within their core market. Now imagine if they had been as successful within the older market, if THAT market had been their core.

They would have sold 3 times the number.

And that is where Nintendo have been very clever. The young market is important to them, but they have also catered DIRECTLY to an older market with various uses of their gaming products. And now they have brand loyalty within the 30 to 50 age bracket - and not just second hand, but a defined market realisation in itself.

And the result? They outsell everyone.

While the idea of cloud computing is tempting for work-related items, something about it still bothers me. I think it's the lack of control in the user's hands. If I want to play a game on my PS2, I buy it, and then have the disc for as long as I want to keep it. No outside force (ignoring burglary) can take it away from me. But if the game is stored on somebody else's server, and their company suddenly goes belly-up, what do I have? Material possessions are still too deeply embedded in many people's consciousness to go along with this system. Sure, Steam has had success, but the idea still bothers me.

23. At 10:32am on 04 Sep 2009, littlefatpete wrote:

@ ravenmorpheus

"Oh and your example of the PS3 is rather poor in my opinion. The PS3 is still vastly overpriced and by the time it comes down to a level where the majority can afford it the PS4 will be out"


you seem to have an odd understanding of supply and demand, you may feel the PS3 is overpriced, but as of the end of June 09 they'd shipped nearly 24m of them, that's hardly a small install base. As a comparison the 360 has sold 30m and the Wii 50m. Sony keep spouting the line that they see the PS3 as a 10 year console. What would you pay for it out of interest?

-----

I would pay what I can afford. And currently I cannot afford a PS3 at the price it is at, drop it another 拢100 and I might be able to afford it. If supply and demand rules the roost why is it that companies do not price their products at a lower price that all can afford when they are released? They'd easily recoup their money whilst making significant growth in their chosen markets.

Instead the price only drops to a lower price which the majority can afford (and 24mil isn't a majority last time I looked at population figures) once the more wealthy people among us have bought the product at a higher price. The PS3 started at something stupid like 拢400 if I recall correctly.


"Unfortunately the way of the world, particularly in this country, is that the affluent minority dictate what the rest of us can do and what becomes "mainstream", and if we can't afford it, tough"

Not really sure what you mean by this, but at the end of the day if something is overpriced or simply not good enough, people don't buy it and it doesn't become mainstream, basic economics.

How would you explain our internet service in the UK compared to the internet service that people can get in the far east, South Korea for example. It's poor, in comparison, and yet people keep on buying it.

Consoles are always going to be aimed at the wealthier groups in society as they are rightly considered a luxury. Where the Wii wins is that it isn't aimed at ANY group, but is designed to appeal to all. There has bee mention of the 30-50 age group, but my younger brother (16) plays Call of Duty online (point controller at screen to aim). We have one in our student union which is brilliant. Proof that drink driving is dangerous: Mario Kart + Pints of Tennants! Single media centres already exist, people just haven't got the time ot set them up at the moment and their facilities are limited because of content etc.

As for the PS3 vs 360, the 360 is deffinately better value for money. The PS3 has not yet been fully utilised by games companies due to the extra costs involved. The advantage of Blue-Ray is becoming more significant but not a decider. Personally, I prefer my PC as it does everything I need: MS Office, Internet, top games, 3D CAD modelling, music centre.

Back to the topic in hand! Onlive will probably end up being too expensive resulting in few companies signing up and in the end will fail. The market just isn't ready... yet.

The_Hess wrote:

Onlive will probably end up being too expensive resulting in few companies signing up and in the end will fail. The market just isn't ready... yet.

###

Oh, I think the market is just about perfect, if the investors can hang on for a bit of a slow burn at the front. This has a little bit of the feel of Amazon in the early days. I used to produce an online financial radio show called Moonrock Radio where the writers were very sarcastic about Amazon's chances of success following the Dot Bomb. Well, Amazon is still with us, and Moonrock is a pile of cartoons on my Facebook page!

Where the problem lies is in the future. I was talking to my eldest today and explaining about Cloud technology and how the industry was locking itself into that route almost at a blind run. Online collaboration in education is the buzz phrase and I was showing her Google apps, and some stuff on my own server to make sure she is always within online reach of her A level courses.

I do wonder what will happen when in a few years time vital school exams are being done remotely into the cloud and the whole system crashes halfway through.

Imagine it

2,000,000 school kids fail maths GCSE because (to paraphrase Google recently) an engineer made a small error.

Suddenly there is something very cutting edge about a piece of paper and a pencil.

There is a lot of strange talk on here regarding the bandwidth usage for games, and then using the ability of the graphics card to suggest bandwidth issues could rise or fall.

Playing any game on SD, it wouldn't matter if it was the Wii, Xbox 360 or PS3 level of graphics, it is purely about the amount of detail and movement being produced in game. The more action on screen, the more bandwidth required.

The issue here is being able to produce a consistent low-latency 60 fps image to be streamed to a box. If my commands can be entered into the game, and the response on screen is shown to me inside 30ms, then it'll work. Graphics in this equation, are essentially an irrelevance.

@ravenmorpheus

"If supply and demand rules the roost why is it that companies do not price their products at a lower price that all can afford when they are released? They'd easily recoup their money whilst making significant growth in their chosen markets"

they're not a charity, they're businesses owned by shareholders who require returns on their investments - no consumer is the same, companies know that they have a range of demographics, people that can afford to and will pay 拢400 on day 1 because they want it straight away, they also know that there's consumers out there like yourself who might start considering it when it's price reaches 拢150. So why would they sell all their consoles on day 1 at 拢150 if they know they've got people who will pay the premium price?

It's not about wealth either, I'm sure there's lower income households or students who've stumped up 拢400 just to have the console. The marketing campaigns create the desire for a product.

Look at Apple for example, great looking products but they're backed up with excellent useability, hence people are willing to pay a premium for them.

"How would you explain our internet service in the UK compared to the internet service that people can get in the far east, South Korea for example. It's poor, in comparison, and yet people keep on buying it."

Well when there's an option of having it or not having it, what would you do? You seem to think it's poor but by unless you're in an internet cafe or a University you've probably paid up for it. Why? Because you need to be online.

In South Korea the government invested early on and competition rules mean telephone companies have to let competitors use existing lines at low cost. This creates competition and improves the quality. The monopoly that BT have/had in the UK has stiffled the growth.

To be honest though, I've been elsewhere in the world and the fact I can d/load a movie to stream to my xbox and watch it while it downloads and an album in a couple of minutes isn't too bad in my opinion.

I can see why the industry would like to use a cloud computing solution for games, that way people can't copy them. However, not only will they have trouble with the bandwidth of people's connections but should their system become popular they will find it very hard to run any advanced games. For example, what sort of server would they need to run the graphics for 100000 copies of Crysis simultaneously at high resolution and detail settings? This is in effect a rerun of the past competition between one centralised powerful mainframe computer and many desktop computers. This obsession with centralised computing nearly destroyed IBM in the eighties. People like having their own computer which they have control of.

does that work with other countries like Saudi Arabia??!