Raven - You shoundt be too pessimistic. Friendlier companies can make "friendlier" cloud systems where you dont get screwed by DRM or other useless demands/functionality and such. The big masses will go like sheep to the biggest developers (as they are today), but there should always be room for others like 1C, Stardock, Paradox and such to make their own systems.

I don't think it's being "pessimistic" so much as it is being "realistic", though, you are right my friend. Even if Cloud Gaming doesn't work as they say it will, it will Soon. When that day comes and it proves successful, the industry will be in for a Huge change. Mark my words brother, it'll happen.

I think the smaller companies will end up just making games like they do now and these games will be sold or rented through the Cloud Services. Think about it. If they get rid of store bought games and people downloading game files to their own systems, they get rid of Piracy completely. There won't be anything to copy. The companies will have total control over distribution and to make sure only paying customers are playing their games. In the end that's exactly what they all want. I don't blame them, I want to get paid for my work too, we all do.

In the end though if this is as huge as what's predicted I can see it doing way more harm then good to the PC Gaming and Tech industries.

joasoze, you should check out my other thread I started about Cloud Gaming Here . I'd like your feed-back.

I just went and poked around Onlive's site gathering some info and they do make it sound enticing. I like the idea of being able to take my game from my PC and continue it on my TV or wherever I want and the initial lineup of games isn't sounding bad at all.

But alas I may already be excluded if I wanted to try it, at least for high res. Says it'll run standard def off 1.5 connection, no biggie there. It's HD though that may get me saying they need 5Mbps. That's right at my DSL and I have the highest speed offered and usually test out at around 4.8-4.9. Of course that's just a personal limit and many have much higher speeds. At least SD is doable even with a base DSL package.

I still don't see how they are going to be able to get it totally lag free though. I mean hell just one way to the test server in a nearby city is a half second usually. With the cloud it has to go both ways before you see the result. No games that require precise timing I guess heh.

I may still check it out if they have a free trial or something, which I'm sure they will at some time or another. I can't be an old fogey yet about new technology and such. I just have a lot of doubts that the experience can match running it first hand on your own machine.

We have 1.5 Terabyte hard drives for less then $100 we don't NEED the cloud for anything thanks.  The only thing the cloud would be useful for would be consolidating patches and mods, but the "cloud" is no different then a fancy battle.net.  I really hate the term "the cloud", the cloud is not something new that's for certain.

This concept has little benefit to the customer (what, did people forget how to do backups?), but opens to door for lots of abuse by corporations.  If this becomes more and more standard, I'll just be buying games less and less.

One big danger that noone has mentioned is if you by a cloud based agame and then the provider comes out with a sequel and terminates the first game...  I don't want the amount of time I can own a game to depend on a service that will terminate it whenever it wants to make you buy something different...Imagine buying command and conquer 3 and then having it wiped so that you would have to play CnC4....Cloud computing is BAAAAAAAD!!!

Don't forget that the games would be competing on a equal platform, more realistic is that they would include old versions of the game to 'sweeten the deal' or similar to get more sales - exactly like steam and similar do.

The big question becomes what is the 'ownership model' because if you pay a sub for the ability to rent something - that would be utterly stupid (for the customer) and any system that comes up with a sub with games tied to it or a non-sbu where you get games teid to your account (like current steam) or a sub and play-all-you-can-eat system without indavidual cost will beat the first one into the ground.

Yes but steam doesnt currently have to have server space to run all these games..The cloud services would and will ax the older games after a period of time to save money.  I dont care if I"m the last person in the world that plays a game I still want to be able to play it.   Hell I'm looking at my jewel case of Lords of Magic Special edition on my desk right now.(1998) . I doubt any cloud computing service will hold a game for 12 years if only a handful of people play it.

There will be a market for cloud computing but I will be suprised and very sad if it becomes the only medium to play games. 

I welcome the idea of not needing a new gaming machine every three years. I also welcome the idea that my game won't lag because someone can't afford the overpriced gaming components. The idea that pirates would have to pay for these facilities makes me happy. The idea that the industry would change dramatically is good. The business model that was mentioned before is nothing new. A license is a contract and as such can be written in any way you can imagine. You may get people who are disgruntled about what they "thought" they had purchased, but such is business. People today think they are entitled to patches and updates just because they "bought" a game. It isn't so, unless of course that was also part of the license purchase.

Doom and gloom always precede change.

edit: On a different note. If people think that the graphics card industry will fail because of this, then do some more homework. These servers can't create the graphics to be streamed to your machine unless they have the appropriate hardware. In theory this will require a separate card per game hosted. This will change soon, but that's what the graphics card industry will have to evolve into.

edit2: Okay this is getting long and I apologize for that...but in regard to the license model. The current industry model does not support servicing a game past the burst purchasing phase after release. A model that is on a pay per play or pay per period system does. Such a system would also increase profit motivations for brand loyalty and companies like GPG would be scrambling to fix DG just to save face. Otherwise, players that would boycott particular brands would cause lease based carriers to be wary of signing those same brands. Putting the power in the consumer's hands is always a way to increase the power of the dollar and strengthen the market.

I'd just like to thank Island Dog for the shudder quotes on 'cloud' in his OP. That is one of the worst IT jargon-farts in the last decade, and IT-land is very gassy when it comes to neologisms.

What else would they call it? Sever based processing storage and content delivery? SBPSCD dosn't really work.

If this were true they would already have fixed these problems since their games require you to be online.  With cloud computing there would be LESS incentive since there wouldnt be a work around for people with hard copies.  Not to mention if these systems cant even keep up a server just to keep stats how are they going to keep up a server that has to do so much more... Plus small game companies wont be able to pay for the server space or afford the server equipment and would still have to rely on users having their own hardware.

SwerdyAss you're taking that sentence out of context. Profit motivation is what would cause them to fix games, not availability of games. If you've already made your money from selling the game, why service it? But if people can buy temporary pay per play access to your brand as a whole, then you want to keep the entire lineup looking pretty.

Couldn't it have the reverse effect? If only the company needs to purchase amazing hardware rather than every single consumer in order to enjoy the game then it's possible to have much more advanced hardware while still being cost effective. Meanwhile the competition among different service providers ensures that they're always looking to improve their hardware so they can offer even better gaming experiences and pull in users.

Makes me wonder if this kind of gaming would make the iPad even more useful or tempting. Imaging making an iPad app that allows you to play these games , all you need is an updated version of the iPad with the ability to add a keyboard and mouse or a controller that will allow you to play these games on it. Kinda interesting.