[komodo_117]

I can't imagine a source being powerful enough to do that.

1. If it catches on, it'll catch on MASSIVELY. Xbox Live gets bogged down with a few million people. and that's with locally ran games. I can't imagine what kind of super-computer would be needed in order to run this.

2. It would need a LOT of funding in order to get it to the scale of Microsoft, Nintendo, or Sony. Something I don't think these guys have.

3. It excludes people with dial-up, DSL, or those with no internet connection. Not everyone has cable. There are a great deal of gamers that still run DSL, and a great deal more that enjoy playing single player RPG's without the need of a connection, or if they are somewhere that a connection isn't available. This cuts out a a BIG percentage of gamers, something you don't want to do if you're launching something as groundbreaking as this.

Do I want it? **** yes. Will it work? Not for another 5 years.

I suspect by the time of the next-gen consoles, it'll be a feasible idea. Until then, it's only appealing to a non-massive part of the gaming culture. Just like HD.

Which, brings up another point: If it's not transmitted in 1080p within 5 years, it'll get dropped. HD is slowly becoming the standard, and I can't imagine many people settling for just 720p, when with the next batch of consoles, they will all be 1080p standard (which most are now).

[Drex17]

Even if they get it to work I think you'll be limited as to what kind of games you can play, latency will be a HUGE problem for some genres.

[Joeottoman™]

I'd like to see Halo 3 on it or something.

Actually looks really cool...

[SUR3 S}{oT (Banned)]

I like the concept except for a few things.

1) I really hope they work out a wireless controller because a wired one would suck. It really isn't a big deal though.
2) Would you be able to use a mic when playing games online? If you can't that is just stupid and a huge turnoff.

[komodo_117]

Mic's are pretty standard with online play. That's one of the killing points in Nintendo's shoddy online system, in that there is no real way to communicate with player. I understand they are moving towards a very child friendly environment, but it singles out a small portion of the overall fanbase by doing so.

Mic's and the ability to communicate and socialize online are as much a part of the online gaming experience as anything else, and it would be ridiculous to not include something like that, especially if it comes out within the next 5 years.

[Treghc]

Originally Posted by komodo_117

I can't imagine a source being powerful enough to do that.

1. If it catches on, it'll catch on MASSIVELY. Xbox Live gets bogged down with a few million people. and that's with locally ran games. I can't imagine what kind of super-computer would be needed in order to run this.

2. It would need a LOT of funding in order to get it to the scale of Microsoft, Nintendo, or Sony. Something I don't think these guys have.

3. It excludes people with dial-up, DSL, or those with no internet connection. Not everyone has cable. There are a great deal of gamers that still run DSL, and a great deal more that enjoy playing single player RPG's without the need of a connection, or if they are somewhere that a connection isn't available. This cuts out a a BIG percentage of gamers, something you don't want to do if you're launching something as groundbreaking as this.

Do I want it? **** yes. Will it work? Not for another 5 years.

I suspect by the time of the next-gen consoles, it'll be a feasible idea. Until then, it's only appealing to a non-massive part of the gaming culture. Just like HD.

Which, brings up another point: If it's not transmitted in 1080p within 5 years, it'll get dropped. HD is slowly becoming the standard, and I can't imagine many people settling for just 720p, when with the next batch of consoles, they will all be 1080p standard (which most are now).

1 is a good point. It's going to take a lot to handle everyone. But your first point also contradicts your later point of there not being enough people.

Thing is though, DSL will work. Most DSL connections will be fast enough for the tiny 1.5mbps connection supposedly needed for SD content to be streamed.

I'm kind of playing devil's advocate here, so don't take me the wrong way. I doubt it will work, but I'm trying to be hopeful and look for the signs that a service like this could actually work out. If it does, it will be a huge step forward.

[shark6428]

Well, when it comes down to it, the biggest limiter to this idea now is gonna be licensing. Internet connection isn't really an issue because those without internet connections or dial-up connections won't miss this or even have anything to compare it to. If anything, it would bring more people to pay for a better internet connection. You have to remember that OnLive isn't trying to sell you games, just a way to play them (unless I'm reading the site wrong). You send inputs via controller or keyboard, they return outputs in the form of video. In essence, it's not much different from a video streaming service like Netflix or Hulu.

Computing the amount of data needed will be able to scale with the number of customers. The more money they make, the more computing clusters they can pay for. Don't think they can do that kind of computing? Check this: http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/2009...-games_all.htm .

I certainly would like to see this succeed. Whether this happens now or in 3 to 5 years, it will happen.