Network now...NEWS
Sony Doubts OnLive Approach
Sony has cast doubts over the potential of OnLive, the upcoming on-demand service that will allow users to play high-end PC games on TV sets and modest rigs.
Speaking to Edge, SCEA director of corporate communications Patrick Seybold did acknowledge that OnLive is offering a different approach to Sony, but asked: “What will be the final cost to the consumer when you start adding up what [OnLive is] selling?”
OnLive’s concept means that users won’t directly have to pay for the processing power and graphics cards that can do justice to high-end titles such as Crysis Warhead. Instead, game data is streamed to a user’s PC or TV from a powerful server.
Of course, the investment required from OnLive to set up a chain of immensely powerful servers will have to be recouped somehow, and concerns are growing that the service would therefore need to charge an inordinately high price for its games. OnLive has not yet announced a subscription price structure.
Seybold also touched on the logistics of the OnLive system: “What will be sacrificed when you [put OnLive] into a real world environment where multiple devices are plugged into one broadband connection?”
OnLive states that to run its service – which is set to launch this Winter – users will need a broadband connection running at two megabits per second. A five megabit per second connection is required to play OnLive games in high-definition.
"PlayStation's been bringing HD gaming and entertainment into consumers' homes for many years now,” adds Seybold. “With both digitally distributed and disc-based content, we have a competitive offering for consumers, whether they are tethered to the Internet or not. Only on PlayStation 3 can you get HD gaming, watch BD and downloaded movies, have ample hard drive space for music, movies and photos, built-in Wi-Fi, and free access to PlayStation Network – right out of the box.”
Seybold added that this approach has a proven legacy.
SCE had very recently filed a trademark for "PS Cloud", a move which sparked speculation that the platform holder was set to embark on the same cloud computing concepts as OnLive.
Contact Us / About Us / Advertise With Us / BeltwayBlips / TechBlips / MassiveBlips / GamerBlips / FAQ
Subscribe To Edge Magazine / Corrections / Terms & Conditions / Privacy Policy
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited, Beauford Court 30 Monmouth Street Bath, UK BA1 2BW
England and Wales company registration number 2008885
Subscribe To Edge Magazine / Corrections / Terms & Conditions / Privacy Policy
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited, Beauford Court 30 Monmouth Street Bath, UK BA1 2BW
England and Wales company registration number 2008885
I think the internets infrastructure is still far too fragile for this to run reliably I can't even begin to imagine what sort of beasty clusterf**k will be needed for an outfit like this to pull this off with decent results... Imagine upgrading that shit every few months on top of that. Pretty interesting and ambitious project.
*note: Imagine Dreamhunk as Brucie Kibbutz, a fiery little guy, posts like he's been shoving Bull Shark testosterone up his ass. Alpha baby.
there is another company that thinks they can out beat onlive here is a link!
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/perry-throws-down-gauntlet-to-onli...
More competition! Really stirs things up but perhaps in a good way. Cloud gaming is exciting and if there are more competitors, then great. -Alex, OnLive forums
I'm suspicious as the next guy about Onlive, but I will be happy enough if it works. That's the great thing about this. If they release a product, and it works as advertised, then we win. If they release a product, and it doesn't work, we still win because we didn't buy it.
Yay for us!
Brian
www.brianwoods.com
I want onlive to work, as I like PC gaming but hate having to faff around with specs, DRM and hardware upgrades in order to play them. Trouble is my broadband connection from BT is rubbish, and doesn't always work so until internet providers step up and provide the service they promise, let alone increase speeds for all consumers will have trouble making the most of this service, presuming OnLive lives up to its claims.
For those doubing it out of hand, if they can hang in there and build on this, then over time as speeds improve, and their own technology advances, it could be a much needed shot in the arm for PC gaming, making the newest titles available for more people to play.
"Must people who play on consoles are kids."
That's alot of kids playing all those multi-million selling 18 rated games.
The results froms studies I've read show that the average age is like 18-35, hardly kids.
Older than the person that posted the comment originally I would guess.
So far recently I have seen these genius lines on several occasions.
"Kids play consoles"
"Poor people play consoles"
Does it get anymore insulting?
Apparently so, as I'm going to "lose all credibilty" in my industry for daring to disagree with his comments.
Ok hot shot try me I have proof! I out right challenge your creadabiltiy! If you want I can bring bring up more proof! more links from other studies!
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2336392,00.asp
You want to try me I say bring it!
ROFL!
Firstly "challenge your creadabiltiy" again. Oh noes!
"While 53 percent of adult gamers said they used consoles"
"76 percent of teens reporting that they used their desktops or laptops to play games. "
I didn't even need to search the net for that! Thats from the article you posted above. You claimed only kids and poor people play on consoles.
http://blog.wired.com/games/2008/03/38-percent-of-g.html
"80 percent of console game purchasers were over the age of 18. "
And thats it now, some people aren't worth the effort of typing. The gene pool could use some chlorine!
you should really read the full article
"Computer-based games were popular among most age groups, with 73 percent of adults and 76 percent of teens reporting that they used their desktops or laptops to play games.
Teenagers, however, were more likely to use consoles like the Nintendo Wii, Sony PlayStation, or Microsoft Xbox. While 53 percent of adult gamers said they used consoles, 89 percent of teens were console enthusiasts."
maybe i should start starting link more info for you! yea by the way girls seem to love the wii!!! wii fit anyone!
http://www.atomicmpc.com.au/News/130531,more-than-half-of-us-adults-play...
As far as I'm concerned all you're proving is that people's Mum's are more likely to enjoy a nice game of tetris on facebook than play on a console. Teenagers are more likely to play consoles because they aren't the ones stuck at work - they have a choice where they get to play games and what do they go for? Consoles - because quite frankly even teenagers are smart enough to know that having to spend hours downloading tweaks, patches and drivers just to get a game that you paid good money for to work, only to find you have to turn down all the games settings because you haven't splashed out $500 that month on the latest and greatest graphics card so it looks nothing like the back of the box, is just too much hassle.
please change is coming another company thinks they can compete! here is proof
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/perry-throws-down-gauntlet-to-onli...
It doesn't mean that it:
a) Works.
b) Will be successful.
Yes, but you said only kids and poor people play on consoles, which from the above, is simply not true.
50%+ of adults servyed playing consoles is pretty impressive actually I think, i didn't think it would be that high.
http://www.gamespot.com/news/6169949.html?tag=result;title;0
when i read this news report at the time i they were thinking of something similar to what onlive is delivering (network integration).
it's funny to read sony has it's doubts.
Those are not doubts Sony is having. If "cloud gaming" works, then Sony like everyone else is going to jump right in . . . if there is any market share left by 2012 - 2015, when PS4 is expected to launch.
We all know it, we all live it, three to six years is an eternity in the tech and gaming industries. Having to wait that long before you can afford to launch a competing product or service is more than enough to put a huge dent, if not kill it off altogether future market share in a particular sector, if you cannot find a significant way to differentiate yourself once your product finally arrives. With OnLive launching this year, Sony stuck waiting another 3 to 6 years, Sony is likely to publicly do all they can to dissuade gamers from making the jump to OnLive until Sony themselves can provide their own Playstation-branded service like OnLive. After all, as the CEO of OnLive alluded to in a recent interview, if they have found a way to instantly stream live video games, then what is to stop them from instantly streaming every other form of video content, and adding that to the OnLive service in short order? If the video quality is high enough, and unlike Netflix and other current online streaming services, OnLive allows users to have access to all the menus and special features you normally get on a DVD, HD-DVD, or blu-ray, then OnLive would also have the potential to stop blu-ray sales cold. The very fact that most consumers rent DVDs instead of buying them, means that rental formats are always likely to dominate the home video sector. If OnLive can do what they claim it can, not only will it revolutionize gaming, but will likely become the closest thing we have had to date, of a standardize, HD home video format. So looking at OnLive from Sony's perspective, they are have a lot to lose if OnLive turns out to deliver the goods they promised to deliver.
Remember all the dirty things they said about the Xbox 360 during and after E3 2005. Almost all of that stuff, they have had to eat their words on sense. But Sony's executive staff does not strike me as a particularly smart group, so I expect that this interview is only the first shot by Sony at a smear campaign against OnLive, like the smear campaign that failed them against the Xbox 360.
But I guess you cannot blame Sony outright for such a surreptitious public display. They are losing market share all over the place. This generation alone, they have gone from over 77% market share with the PS2, down to only 20% market share with the PS3 - that's a loss of over 57% market share, and at the rate PS3s, Xbox 360s and Wiis are selling, is not likely to change any time the remainder of this generation. And now OnLive comes along with an announcement that could potentially put an end to the console wars altogether if their service actually delivers what they claim. Sony gained their thrown in console gaming, because SEGA missed the boat in the shift from 2D gaming to 3D gaming. Sony has fallen off the top of the hill, because they missed the boat not only on online and digitally distributed entertainment, but also on casual gaming. So they lose huge chunks of market share to Microsoft and Nintendo respectively. Having fallen all the way down to only 20% market share, Sony is in a position where they really cannot afford to miss the boat on any more industry paradigms. Yet they are literally stuck halfway into the life cycle of the PS3 (which is still years away from breaking even, much less turning a profit), and along comes OnLive announcing that the "next generation" of gaming could launch this year. Seeing Sony use one hand in an attempt to scramble to catch up with the competition, and the other hand to tell gamers that the idea will not work, when you think about it, is the reaction we should have been expecting out of Sony the moment OnLive made their announcement last Monday. After all, that is the exact same strategy they have been using in regards to the Xbox 360 and the Wii, for several years now . . . it is also the exact same strategy that continues to fail them against the 360 and Wii . . . go figure.
With unlimited broadband not really meaning unlimited and the increasing likelihood of people being charged for going over the sheer thought of streaming games rather than doing a one off download is destined to fail.
I'm skeptical too, but the fact that all these major corporations are scrambling to assuage shareholder concerns (nVidia, Sony, and others) about the impact of this announcement leads me to suspect that there's something to this technology. OnLive might not be the company that eventually delivers, but I think these other companies were probably already working on similar alternatives and were caught by surprise at how quickly someone came to market before them.
All Onlive will ever be able to do is to prove whether or not a subscription based online rental service will work yet. If it does, Sony and MS will give them a good chase for their money. A new console blockbuster game can instantly be provided to anybody, courtesy of predownload à la Steam. If Sony and the publishers want to make online game rentals an option then we will have it by the end of next week.
A new hardware buster showing the "superiority" of the PC/Onlive will first of all mean huge upgrade costs for Onlive that have to be revovered later. The people who dig that graphical superiority will also be the ones to point out the flaws of the compression. it's not exactly lossless what they are doing there, so if you look closely, the detail textures will wash out considerably.
Onlive totally sold the people with their "kids in a candy store" approach to showing us how to jump between "top tier" games. Once we have to pay for each piece of candy and the games are not "top tier", that feeling is quickly going to vanish.
I have had a good laugh at non-gaming sites (read BBC) covering this story. Talk of entire sectors of the videogame industry falling are plain silly. All this is, as any good accountant will tell you, is moving goal posts for costing. The chips needed to run Crysis at full speed need to be somewhere, and they need to be paid for. It is irrelevant whether they are in your living room, or on a server. Somebody HAS to pick up the bill. This idea has potential, but until the net can run at good speeds everywhere, it will be a niche product, and the costing will be hidden in smoke and mirrors. Either it will be expensive to use, or performance will be degraded as more users tap into the servers.
Nice link. He sounded confident enough, though, he keeps using the word "beta".
Thing is, even if it works perfectly, would everyone want it to work? If it becomes big, it's gonna effectively kill a lot of established industries out there; PC performance hardware manufacturers, Big hardware companies like Intel, AMD, Nvidia, ATI could all take a hit; Console manufacturers; Console peripherals makers; not to mention the packaged game dealers, game resellers, brick and mortar shops; I mean literally thousand of jobs will be made redundant and therefore eliminated.
I remembered the guy who several years back devised a way for vehicle engines to use water instead of gasoline. Nothing has been heard of him again.
big business to needs to awake up, it's their fault for messing with us pc gamers and pc gaming. All those years of pc gaming dying. All those years of big bussiness bashing us does have affect on a adapting platform. All those years of retailers treating us like dirt. The pc is is the best tool man has ever created to date. I mean the media , sony and micro soft loves the words pc gaming is dying all the time. So pc gaming and pc gamers adapted.
Oh the pc indsutry will be around it will just be not as rich as use to be. People still need computers and game devs, modders will still be around. Hardware companies will be just less important. As for console gaming it's game over! agin it it's only a matter of time. if it wasn't for online it would have something else like flash gaming. By the way flashing can compete with onlive. also there will be more of fight between micro soft and apple. Micro soft will lose alot more power now that games are now able to be played on apple.
PC is dying GARBAGE!
Agreed Nick, what a load of garbage.
The PC industry will continue to change, hell, it always has and always will.
The console industry will also to continue to change.
Claiming that either is dying is just utter nonsense.
Oh really last time i checked retail has thin profits, alot of console games are not selling. Lets talk about the amount of money micro soft and sony has lost on consoles. rented games and used game markets. high porduction costs that game devs are dum enough to do. Man that is alot of money being lost!
If it wasn't online it would have been something else. high production costs and retail pretty much doom consoles.
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/koster-the-web-is-kicking-the-cons...
it's only a matter of time
An article written by a PC games developer. Also, I would ask if you have actually read said article, or just the title.
May I point to the following:
"Although admitting that technically Flash can't compare to current home consoles"
"That's an upheaval because right now retail PC [gaming] is in dire straits."
He's talking about flash gaming on hand held devices, iPhones etc, how is that fighting your case?
Do you use your gaming rig to play flash game on-line over full AAA current Gen games?
You really don't have a clue what you're talking about do you.
Lol...
Also agreed. All these predictions over the last 5 years that PC gaming is dying and the more recent predictions that there won't be any more consoles after this gen is nonsense. As you said, this onlive thing may impact some PC companies but it's not going to kill it.
@andyfour
last time i check gamers around the world don't play on consoles. last time i checked certen genres and deep game can't be done on console. Pc gaming and pc gamers we adapt we don't need to fight. We are on top of the food chain in the gaming world. Pc gaming is the back bone of the pc industry. pc gaming drives both hardware and online markets. pc gamers live on computers and the net. think of pc gaming like the borg. ;) pc gaming is a service and it adapts.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZEJ4OJTgg8
That has nothing to do with what I said, if you don't understand my replies or if you simply don't have an answer for them. Dont reply.
Your first line is interesting, so you're basically saying that all of these millions of people that play games on Consoles don't exist? Are you serious?
I am a developer/Analyst, A PC developer/Analyst strangly, I have a gaming rig, 2 media PCs, a personal laptop and a work laptop, I also have all 3 current gen consoles, and a lot of older generation machines. I game on PC, I even went through a fad of only playing PC games, but as I work with them, I like to get away from them every now and again. I can sit down in front of one of my large TVs, with a friend, with a controller each and play through somethin like Res 5, and guess what, it's fun.... and sociable. So you're saying that even though I write software for said PCs and have worked in the industry for years, you are superior to me because you only play on PC, or that I am lying and don't have any consoles, or that I don't understand the IT industry.
I hate to add this, but PC gaming is not the back bone of the PC Industry, I would like to know where you get this idea from? Look at how many PCs there are in the world, then look at the percentage of those that are used for gaming. 3 of the 5 PCs in my house have never had a game installed on them, and never will. I can currently see about 50-60 PCs right now, and I can assure you that none of them have games on them and will not be used for gaming. Wake up and open your eyes.
There are games that work much better on PC, yes, there are also games on Consoles that aren't available on PC and even if they were would not be anywheer near as enjoyable.
I enjoy a broad spectrum of gaming as I have been doing it for many years.
Get off your high horse, stop talking rubbish, actually read peoples comments before replying.
Fair point. But, consoles only offer a baseline experience. Whereas on the PC the game is the best it can be.
I've got my PC hooked up to my LCD TV via HDMI to DVI cable with the GPU set to the native resolution of the TV (1080p or 720p). Also, for console type games i've got a 360 pad to play them...so it's all good.
There's a reason many prefer PC gaming as opposed to consoles. In my own experience i couldn't go back to the console versions of titles like: Bioshock, Mass Effect, Oblivion, Left 4 Dead, Devil May Cry 4, Lost Planet, The Orange Box, Grid, Dead Space, Call of Duty 4, FarCry 2, and Fallout 3 (to name a few) after playing the PC versions...why would i.
Then there's PC only games like: Crysis, Dawn of War 2, Empire: Total War, The Witcher, Darwinia, Guild Wars, etc to play also.
It's nothing to do with elitism or such, it's just that PC gamers want the best. And it doesn't need to cost an arm and a leg to get a good performance from those games mentioned above.
Whatever rocks yer boat....but for me it's the PC. It's a great platform.
I agree, there are many games that I prefer to play on PC.
I also have my computer hooked up to an LCD TV, but using HDMI to HDMI, I don't use a pad for the PC though, if it's a game thats better on a pad, I buy it on a console.
I think you've missed my point, as I said in the last post, at the moment, a good friend of mine comes round, we both pick up a pad and we play Resident Evil 5 co-op split screen on the Sofa, and all I do is come home, stick the console on and pick up the controllers, and we're playing sat next to one another. We can chat, have a couple of beers etc and just chill out and be social, whilst playing through the game. We also do the same thing with NHL arcade, Street Fighter 4, Resistance 2 and a lot of other games like that.
As I have said, I play PC games so I don't know why you are listing those games, I know, I play most of them. Haven't played Total Wat yet though... must get a copy of that, love the Emprire games!
I was talking about dreamhunk being an elitist, every post is about how much he hates Microsoft and Sony, How consoles are dying, How everything other than PCs suck and it's only children and poor people that play on Consoles. I mean come on, he's either joking, a troll, or really believes all the stiff he types is true, which is frankly worrying!
As for the not costing an arm and a leg, this is where we part company, as I tend to spend a lot on PC hardware, as I want it to look as good as it can, and Crysis isn't Crysis unless it's running on an Uber rig!
:) Just kidding, it really is veeeeeery pretty though! :)
andyfour said:
I think you've missed my point, as I said in the last post, at the moment, a good friend of mine comes round, we both pick up a pad and we play Resident Evil 5 co-op split screen on the Sofa, and all I do is come home, stick the console on and pick up the controllers, and we're playing sat next to one another. We can chat, have a couple of beers etc and just chill out and be social, whilst playing through the game. We also do the same thing with NHL arcade, Street Fighter 4, Resistance 2 and a lot of other games like that.
You've misunderstood me. My point is that PC games can be just as user friendly as consoles. I can sit on the sofa and play games via my 360 pad with my PC running through my LCD TV.
And when Resident Evil 5 & Street Fighter IV come to the PC within the next couple of month i'll maybe just get another 360 pad for one on one gaming sections (It's more than likely i'll get two arcade sticks for SF IV).
Yet saying that, i've got no interest in Resident Evil 5 co-op split screen. It's so 90's.
As I have said, I play PC games so I don't know why you are listing those games.
The reason for the list is because there are loads of console type games on the PC. And if someone played the PC version of the games mentioned, then they seriously wouldn't go back to the console version as they are inferior.
I don't own any current gen system (PS3/360/Wii). But that may change when the PS3 comes down in price to around £150 mark and games like God of War 3 and Fumito Ueda's next game come out.
Until then, i'll stick with my PC and previous gen consoles.
Fair play Barla, I did misunderstand what you were trying to say. Apologies.
I agree the PC versions of a lot of games are better, I just find consoles easier, no booting up, no messing around with settings when you first fire a game up etc, etc, it's just a preference thing. Plus I played GTA4 and completed it ages ago, I have finished RE5 and Street Fighter, I think the fact that I'm impatient helps as well if you know what I mean. :)
It's just nice to be able to come in, push a button on the controller(s) and play.
I would never do away with PC gaming though, it's just that console gaming and PC gaming both have places in my life.
You're right. Consoles are great for plug n' play gaming. If you're a gamer though, a console is essential. PC's on the other hand are merely optional.
It's just unfortunate the system i want is priced way out of my league for the time being.
Agreed. But I, much like yourself I would imagine, started on PCs before consoles.
I have been through fazes of not playing consoles every now and again.
I got a wii first this generation, The XMas it came out in fact, it was a gift form my other half, and is a brilliant drinking game (we broke a lot of glasses!).
I know what you mean about the PS3, you in the UK? I didn't get my PS3 until just around a year ago, and I haven't had the 360 long at all, and don't have much to play on it.
If your a" real gamer" you would be playing on the pc. How is all them mind less action games,watered down rpg'sand weak fps doing, I wonder this that all the genres you have on consoles! I wonder whatever happened to the all the ocean games? how about sims no maybe space sims. I wonder can a console handle a rtt orrts maybe even a tbs. Please if your a gamer you have a pc and know your hardware! by the way a $300 pc is way more powerful than any consoles!
dreamhunk said:
If your a" real gamer" you would be playing on the pc.
I'm a gamer (on console or PC). Nothing more. Nothing less.
I'm interested in the "games". I don't give a shit which system the game is hosted on!
by the way a $300 pc is way more powerful than any consoles!
No shit.
Well said Barla, at the end of the day, it's all about the games, I couldn't have put it better myself.
See what I mean about elitist now? I think thats partly why I took what you were saying wrong too. I think I owe everyone on here an apology for getting carried away. ;)
Sorry everyone!
See what I mean about elitist now?
Lol, i sure do mate.
;)
Was just looking at some new HW the other day, How much would you love this -
http://www.dabs.com/ProductView.aspx?Quicklinx=5F1H&CategorySelectedId=1...
Drooooool! I want two! Shame I'm not a millionaire! Imagine Crysis on that!
That would be sweet. In fact there was an article on the net (i'll post if i can find it) saying that this is the GPU that next gen consoles will be based on. Yet saying, i don't think a new console is needed at the moment.
At the end of the year i'm going to get a ATI 4870 card as by that time you'll be able to pick one up for around £130. Plus i'll maybe see if i can pick up a second hand PS3 at some point.
When Fumito Ueda's next game comes out...then the PS3 will probably be an automatic purchase...screw the price. lol.
His games are fantastic. Guillermo del Toro was correct in saying both Ico/Shadow of the Colossus are masterpieces.
I'm just glad to own both of these games.
Good points. There's really only a handful of big titles not available on PC it seems.
here read up games for the pc that is just some of the games on pc!
http://adrianwerner.wordpress.com/games-of-2009/
people who fight agisnt pc gaming and pc gamers are alot like this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CN0fui9Nmg&NR=1
Must people who play on consoles are kids. Mom's and dad will be looking at cost . Now online will be cheaper to play than a console. It can be hooked up to your tv. No need for any big noisy consoles. You will be playing cuting edge pc games on online. For game devs they will be making alot more profit on their games than consoles. DD has got rid of the the middle man like gamestop. So game devs will be making what they love the muct pure profit.
agin the world doesn't play on console they play on the pc. where do you think a game dev is going to make the must money? Wow made 2 billlion while console games make only millions.I could go in to alot of reasons why pc gaming is better. there is so meny links on that facts on that topic. Now that online is here I can play all genres on my pc and tv. Game devs will not have to worry about high production cost now too. over time onlive will get cheaper if it takes off. If onlive doesn't work something else will come on the pc seen. I would like to say flashing gaming could compete with onlive too.
http://www.gamersdailynews.com/story-10017-PC-Gaming-Industry-Report-Hig...
who do you think buys hard parts every year? Big companies only buy so much computer s a if that! there was a article done some time back that people 60% or 70% people buy pc's for games. pc gaming made companies such as invida.
hardware companies don't make money on old hardware AMD is good proof of that by the way. I would also invida share last year is proof of that compared to now. Oh don't say it's because of the recssion amd before then too.
I think you contradict yourself. You say onlive is going to kill the PC hardware market, but then you say it's good for it. I have a hard time following your posts. And to compare Wow to anything is unfair. Games like Halo 3 or GTAIV made 300+ million dollars and that's about as good as anyone OTHER than WoW is going to get. That's like saying the movie Titanic made $600 million in the US alone (true) and other movies should just quit cause they only make $100 million (a very respectable number).
ok compare all the top pc game sales to consoles and you get my point. Sorry what mean to say is, onlive will affect hardware sales just like console sales are. However alot pc gamers will see no point in buying hardware no more,in past we would buy pc with our hardware for the best games. Also alot of pc gamers don't like sony or mico soft. onlive is good for us pc gamers because now we would have a company to repusent us and cater to us pc gamers. Hardware companies and micro soft pretty much betrayed us. You know think for a second millions of pc game fans don't care and don't see these things. Agin we live on the net, we have access to alot of information. Yea pc's will always be around but the price of parts may go up in the future. why less gamers buy parts. AMD and invda might go bankurpt with out as meny gamers or people buying parts.
Ok, that makes more sense.
"Yea pc's will always be around but the price of parts may go up in the future. why less gamers buy parts. AMD and invda might go bankurpt with out as meny gamers or people buying parts."
Or, PC hardware manufacturers will be forced to be more competetive with their prices so they'd lower their prices if their sales drop a significant amount. I know if they didn't charge 300-400 just for a darn GPU when my 360 gets the job done well enough in my eyes I might updgrade my PC from time to time. I might actually look into this onlive thing, but just to dabble a bit into PC gaming now that I might actually be able to play games made this decade.
You know what don't think for a second millions of pc game fans don't care and don't see these things. I mean to say by the way. In the above post
right now both amd and invida are not doing well. If intels graphics card is successful. Alot of pc gamers are looking at intel new project offset game and gaphics card by the way . I f that graphics cards sells really well amd and invida will have alot of problems. This also spells bad news console hardware companies. Amd with 80% of their hardware in consoles. As for Ibm well you have seen how much the cell costs sony. It is also the reason sony can't drop it price tag on their ps3.
Agin hardware companies don't make money on old hardware. there is no point in buying new hard ware right because there is no high end games yet. The only high end game i see in the future for pc is alan wake, operation flash point and maybe.
but at the end of the day onlive is the better product. it spell doom for consoles if it works. It's only a matter of time.