Get ready for the non-console wars. Wars involving cloud computing game providers like Gaikai and OnLive will have no consoles whatsoever because every game will be streaming straight to you while being handled by servers elsewhere. The technology may be in its pre-infancy, and no one actually knows if it is going to take off, but that doesn't mean that the trash talking can't start nice and early. David Perry, founder of Gaikai, a streaming games service that was announced the day after OnLive, discusses why he thinks OnLive is not going to work.
"A pretty obvious difference between Gaikai and OnLive is the fact that they'll never have a Nintendo, Sony or Microsoft game on their system," Perry said in an interview with Develop. "OnLive is trying to directly compete with the platform holders. It's trying to rule the living room."
"The OnLive team are positioning it as something where you won't need a PS3, Xbox 360 or Wii any more; you can just have their box. OnLive's model is to try and make a micro-console. If they succeed in doing so, they will take away some market share from the other platform holders," he said, following up by describing how Gaikai is all about getting games out there for free (as long as you pay for the service) and somehow then making people buy a console and that game on the console despite being able to play it over his service already. He claims that his service will drive home console sales, while OnLive will not and thus won't get major publisher backing.
I love having stuff under my TV so this whole no-console, cloud computing thing scares me, but even I can tell that Perry is pretty much just talking smack about a competitor here as Gaikai and OnLive are pretty much offering the same console-obsoleting service.
[Via The Escapist]
Contest:
12:30 PM on 07.11.2009
| 
one being: the fact that once the console or game is gone, it is gone.
I still have my 2600 and my nes and dreamcast and on and on in a closet and I find it comforting that I do, it is like having mementos, pictures from a time in your life.
also: to a certain degree it really changes the landscape of game longevity- games are more like movies in theater releases since you are not in control of the ownership, whoever controls the servers are and what isn't popular goes away whether you like it or not since it is server space and cpu that is at stake and $ only makes sense to give it to say a "halo" or a R6 rather than a "beyond good and evil" or "Psychonauts". You will tend to see more "quality" yet under promoted titles die and go away due purely to popularity (as well as the studios themselves). The ability to actually purchase these games is what made them at all successful since whether or not you decided to purchase the games during release, they still existed on shelves and became "hidden gems" that you found later on.
also: Indie studios would be hurt by this since a studio would have to spend more in promotion and marketing in order to gain popularity to be hosted in a cloud environment which is ironic because the cloud is exactly where indies should flourish since there is no manufacturing cost but when you have one cloud to pull from you can only fit so much into it and the first thing to go is the indies.
Also, imagine your family member / neighbor starting eMule and using most of the bandwidth. Heck, even normal surfing could spoil your gameplay, given the low bandwidth and lack of QoS capable systems.
I prefer to own a physical copy of my games, the whole idea of digital distribution in home consoles doesn't sit well with me.
Plus I feel like these products would have horrible bugs attached to them if they did unleash them into the world, and it'll be quite awhile before they work like they're promising.
I give the whole idea of "cloud gaming" a big MEH