Hey... that's my router and it is an AWESOME router... cheap and way better than most of the other routers out there... I run 2 PS3's, an Xbox, laptop, ipod and an ipad off the thing and have NEVER had an issue or internet drop!
I agree with most of what you've said, but I also think that consoles may well fade and not be needed. The iPad can already run OnLive... soon bluetooth controllers will be used with the iPad version and the iPad can plug into a TV for the full TV experience. I think that "cloud gaming" is a better future option rather than simply digital distribution, though likely it will initially be mixed... with most games stored on the cloud and only a few downloaded for offline play.
Meh... I still remember using a typewriter for writing my papers at university. Technology has progressed incredibly fast and I don't see it stopping any time soon. Who knows what the future will hold!
I agree with most of what you've said, but I also think that consoles may well fade and not be needed. The iPad can already run OnLive... soon bluetooth controllers will be used with the iPad version and the iPad can plug into a TV for the full TV experience. I think that "cloud gaming" is a better future option rather than simply digital distribution, though likely it will initially be mixed... with most games stored on the cloud and only a few downloaded for offline play.
Meh... I still remember using a typewriter for writing my papers at university. Technology has progressed incredibly fast and I don't see it stopping any time soon. Who knows what the future will hold!
Cloud-based gaming, I feel, is one of those dead ends I mentioned. No matter if it's a server in New York or a system in your home, there is, somewhere, a computer which needs to be able to run the game for you to be playing it. I personally feel that the same issues which currently plague digital distribution will also hold true for cloud-based gaming like OnLive.
I'm not saying it won't hold a chunk of the marketshare or have a place, but here's the thing: At the end of the day, all the games you've 'bought' on OnLive are stored on a server you have zero access to. Your ability to play your game is entirely dependent on the company keeping their bills paid, and even with the funds which come in, they've still got to essentially pay for bandwidth and operation of the servers every time you log on to play your games, even if the last game you got was six months or a year ago. Frankly speaking, it's not a sustainable method unless people abandon their consoles and move to Cloud gaming, something I don't see happening.
The real test, of course, is going to be the first really big multiplayer game. Something like Modern Warfare 3 or Battlefield 3, even with the relatively small size of the OnLive community compared to, say, Xbox Live or Playstation Network, would absolutely decimate the company's servers. Right now they're avoiding the issue by either choosing not to (or not being afforded the opportunity to) put such a game on their service, but realistically, such a title would be a financial disaster for them.
OnLive games right now are structured with the same pricing format that PC games use, i.e. 49.99. Modern Warfare 2, a game which is now nearly two years old, still has a vast online community, numbering well into the hundreds of thousands. A success like that on their service would completely cripple OnLive, entirely thanks to the way Cloud-based gaming works. It puts all the expense on the provider instead of on the consumer, and I think cloud-based gaming is going to die on the vine when those providers realize that the marginal costs associated with it are eating into their profits like hungry piranha.
Processing power requires... Well, power. You'd basically need an entire server farm to handle the player volume that Modern Warfare 2 has, and that right there would cost a lot of money. So right off the bat you have a monthly expense that you have to pay for to keep your customers happy. Then there's the bandwidth expense: OnLive and other Cloud-based gaming services have a horrific bandwidth usage, something in the order of ten to twenty times the bandwidth requirements of playing a game hosted on your console through Xbox Live or PSN. While bandwidth is cheap, it's not so cheap that OnLive will be able to handle the associated costs - According to reports, OnLive can require about a gig of transfer for every hour of gameplay... per person. That would quickly bankrupt them at just a penny a gig even if they sold a game with an online community like Modern Warfare 2 for ten times the asking price.
The problem, economically speaking, is that OnLive's entire payment structure almost requires that you buy your game, but don't play them all that much. Every minute you spend playing the game eats into their profits, and sooner or later the game they sold you starts to cost them money rather than profiting them. I really don't think that hoping people don't play the games they purchase will work out for them in the end.
Oh man, this was practically an article. Sorry about that. But to answer your question, I don't think that OnLive will be sustainable. It's a neat trick, and I can see some uses for it that wouldn't require nearly the bandwidth or the expenditure to maintain, but right now the product as presented is rife with flaws which will probably lead to a swift downfall sooner or later. And it's unfortunate because that fall will probably leave a lot of gamers with money spent on products they can no longer play, which will taint any notion of cloud-gaming and harm any truly useful and beneficial applications of the technology.
Ah, but what do I know. I'm just ramblin'.
I'm not saying it won't hold a chunk of the marketshare or have a place, but here's the thing: At the end of the day, all the games you've 'bought' on OnLive are stored on a server you have zero access to. Your ability to play your game is entirely dependent on the company keeping their bills paid, and even with the funds which come in, they've still got to essentially pay for bandwidth and operation of the servers every time you log on to play your games, even if the last game you got was six months or a year ago. Frankly speaking, it's not a sustainable method unless people abandon their consoles and move to Cloud gaming, something I don't see happening.
The real test, of course, is going to be the first really big multiplayer game. Something like Modern Warfare 3 or Battlefield 3, even with the relatively small size of the OnLive community compared to, say, Xbox Live or Playstation Network, would absolutely decimate the company's servers. Right now they're avoiding the issue by either choosing not to (or not being afforded the opportunity to) put such a game on their service, but realistically, such a title would be a financial disaster for them.
OnLive games right now are structured with the same pricing format that PC games use, i.e. 49.99. Modern Warfare 2, a game which is now nearly two years old, still has a vast online community, numbering well into the hundreds of thousands. A success like that on their service would completely cripple OnLive, entirely thanks to the way Cloud-based gaming works. It puts all the expense on the provider instead of on the consumer, and I think cloud-based gaming is going to die on the vine when those providers realize that the marginal costs associated with it are eating into their profits like hungry piranha.
Processing power requires... Well, power. You'd basically need an entire server farm to handle the player volume that Modern Warfare 2 has, and that right there would cost a lot of money. So right off the bat you have a monthly expense that you have to pay for to keep your customers happy. Then there's the bandwidth expense: OnLive and other Cloud-based gaming services have a horrific bandwidth usage, something in the order of ten to twenty times the bandwidth requirements of playing a game hosted on your console through Xbox Live or PSN. While bandwidth is cheap, it's not so cheap that OnLive will be able to handle the associated costs - According to reports, OnLive can require about a gig of transfer for every hour of gameplay... per person. That would quickly bankrupt them at just a penny a gig even if they sold a game with an online community like Modern Warfare 2 for ten times the asking price.
The problem, economically speaking, is that OnLive's entire payment structure almost requires that you buy your game, but don't play them all that much. Every minute you spend playing the game eats into their profits, and sooner or later the game they sold you starts to cost them money rather than profiting them. I really don't think that hoping people don't play the games they purchase will work out for them in the end.
Oh man, this was practically an article. Sorry about that. But to answer your question, I don't think that OnLive will be sustainable. It's a neat trick, and I can see some uses for it that wouldn't require nearly the bandwidth or the expenditure to maintain, but right now the product as presented is rife with flaws which will probably lead to a swift downfall sooner or later. And it's unfortunate because that fall will probably leave a lot of gamers with money spent on products they can no longer play, which will taint any notion of cloud-gaming and harm any truly useful and beneficial applications of the technology.
Ah, but what do I know. I'm just ramblin'.
I dunno... it does seem that a lot of stuff is going cloud based. It's not just games. Apple's next IOS update will bring a LOT of cloud based storage to their portable devices. All of it free. Your photos, email, movies, calendars... most data that you currently store on a computer will be able to be stored on a cloud. Book stores are doing the same... with the way many of the new book stores work, your entire book collection is stored on the cloud and you only download one book for offline reading, with everything else only being accessible when internet connected.
Wifi ranges will soon be expanding greatly into the bandwidth previously occupied by TV... with new ranges and coverages possible. Being "internet connected" in the future may be even more viable than assured electricty (and would be unavailable as rarely). The costs will also decrease due to the new bandwidths available by old TV ranges with the conversion of TV to digital.
Just in the last 5 years my own internet has gone from 1 to 10 to 15 to 25 and then last month I'm now at 50mbps download speeds. Most apps on the iPad/IOS devices are now cloud based devices. I think that cloud based gaming may well be very viable in the future. (and the ability to access my data from most any device is also an attractive side benefit)
Wifi ranges will soon be expanding greatly into the bandwidth previously occupied by TV... with new ranges and coverages possible. Being "internet connected" in the future may be even more viable than assured electricty (and would be unavailable as rarely). The costs will also decrease due to the new bandwidths available by old TV ranges with the conversion of TV to digital.
Just in the last 5 years my own internet has gone from 1 to 10 to 15 to 25 and then last month I'm now at 50mbps download speeds. Most apps on the iPad/IOS devices are now cloud based devices. I think that cloud based gaming may well be very viable in the future. (and the ability to access my data from most any device is also an attractive side benefit)

surf dtoid with 

Rising (10+)
People you follow

send message
follow
followers












