I've been doing my research into this for about 6 months following the development of the "OnLive" service. They have a expanded business model that allows the purchasing of games on the service, it also allows "leasing" games (like renting it from a store). I think is going to lead to a bunch of headaches. People will be "leasing" games for a limited time, some will mistakenly think they "bought" the game, and they'll get pissed when suddenly they can't play a game they paid for.

More so, another big "feature" of the OnLive service, and cloud gaming as a whole, is you don't need the Hardware to run the game anymore. It's all handled on their end and then streamed to you on whatever system you have. You might think "Hey, awesome, I don't ever need to buy expensive hardware again!" which if popular will see a dramatic DECREASE in PC sales. People won't buy $400 graphics cards anymore. The buying of Hardware will be limited to companies and big business and as such the prices will rise so the companies that make the high end parts can stay afloat after loosing all those home users it had as customers.

People will start loosing the technological capabilities of PC's because the hardware they will have will be bottom barrel Laptops. If all that proves financially successful then the only people who will want to buy high end hardware for themselves will be pirates who won't be able to afford the hardware anyway after the drastic price increases that will come from the private sectors not buying hardware like they do today. Even consoles like the PS3 and X-Box 360 won't be needed to access the cloud. Just the little box and controller that will be provided to you by the service you chose, and a cable connection, will be all you need.

As such the companies that make consoles won't make them anymore and will decide to make only games since the hardware won't sell. Just look at "Sega" if you need an example. They don't make consoles anymore but they still make a lot of games. Eventually, if this is the future of gaming, the only way you'll be able to access it is through these services because you won't be able to afford the hardware to do it your-self.

This will have far reaching consequences in the market that will do a lot more harm then it will good if it proves to be a success. As we all know people tend to go with the crowd and the most common denominator. If every kid on the block is playing all his games on "OnLive" then you'll want too also, parents will be all for it too since they don't need to buy a $400 gaming console, and big brother will be alive and well in the system making sure everyone is playing the games they want to sell. They'll monitor every chat and interaction you have on the system, and they'll study you so they can make more money. What's worse is they jam it packed with cool little "features" to draw people in and make it convenient. It will have live video chat, movie streaming, and a community of built in users to share it all with and people will flock to it in droves.

If these companies succeed at this a bunch of other companies are going to pay the price. It won't be pretty and the people who are going to loose out in the end are users who use their high end PC's for a lot more then just gaming. Believe me, the people at "OnLive" want nothing more then for you to never buy expensive hardware again and rely totally on their system. They even say so in a interview on Gamespot, go look it up, you'll see. They make it sound all nice and flashy, but it's going to drive a bunch of other companies to the point of bankruptcy and ultimately it will lead to our over-all technological dumbing down.

Don't worry, Brad. Soon every company will have it's own version of "Impulse" or "Steam" to sell it's games through. Eventually in fact that will be the Only way you get those games. Piracy will be a thing of the past because no-one will have a store bought disk to copy and hack.

Possibly games might be pirated if someone alters the file structure and re-packages it without the DRM but if the gaming files are all held on company servers it probably won't be much of a issue. Companies can always stream the content to the user through the cloud so technically the player doesn't need a disk or even have to install anything on their end. With no files to install nothing can be copied. People are also too stupid to realize they'll just be "renting" a game for full price because no system can stay online forever. Eventually they'll loose access to the games they "bought" and people will start getting pissed off. Also the pirate community as a whole probably wouldn't be able to distribute things efficiently that way, especially with nothing to actually "copy" and no streaming service of their own.

If cloud gaming takes off the way everyone expects it to then "Steam" and "Impulse" and other Digital Distribution methods will All evolve into similar services so they can stay competitive. You'll "sell" games over Impulse but no one will ever need to download or install anything. Instead they'll pay a flat monthly "Impulse Subscription Fee" and in return they'll be able to play any game on Impulse any time they want.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that if cloud gaming is successful it will even threaten services like Steam and Impulse. We all know there are pirated versions of "Steam" games on the web. With the "Cloud" there's no files to download hence nothing to pirate. You're a smart guy, I know you can see how this will force even Digital Distributors to evolve. Eventually since the gamers will stop upgrading their hardware then the Digital services won't be able to "sell" a game because people's PC's won't be able to install and run them. Instead Digital Distribution systems will have to adapt to work in the cloud or be forced out of business.

I'm going to have to reserve my judgement here until OnLive goes, er, Live.  I suspect the repercussions of Cloud computing will have a negative impact on the industry as a whole; if the end users are no longer buying new hardware, the advances in technology we've been seeing for the last ten or so years will slow to a crawl as the demand for the new hardware dies out.  Potentially, we're going to be seeing interesting times ahead.

That's more or less exactly what I said in my two posts above, Don. Great minds think alike I guess

Ironically, it reminds me how drengin.net worked before turning into Totalgaming.net then into impulse (see https://www.stardock.net/media/article_indiesstrikeback.html )

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.

 

I don't know what games you play with your iPads but it sounds interesting.

An updated iPad with the ability to add a keyboard and a mouse? Thats called a Laptop - been around since the 80s m8.

That's about exactly what I thought.  What I like about battle.net is, it counteracts a lot of cheating.  Your data is on the server, where you can't hack it up.  I could foresee even turn-based games storing data on the server in an attempt to stop the whole save/reload crap.  Then things like Metaverse could gain a little more credibility, or people could download Civ IV maps and play some games apples-to-apples, or play multiplayer without having to literally sit there and wait for the other guys' turn.  This could be what was meant by "cloud computing is gaming's future".  I like pogo.com's model as well, but the problem there is, their games are Java web launch, and that is very slow and has to cater to the slowest computer out there.  People want to play Company of Heroes on their beefy overclocked, 3D, SLI Nvidia cards displaying on their twin 24" monitors.

Hi there, let me introduce you to a genre gaming called MMOs. These games rely on people paying to maintain their existence and services and frequent updates. This of course means that these games receive an extraordinary amount of support and customer service and quality products because otherwise people would not purchase them... right? Not... The crap get puts on the shelf and sold as single-player and multiplayer games still exists in MMOs. The companies are barely motivated beyond grabbing as many millions as they can get in the first month of release and then watch them perform a mass exodus in a couple of months. Customers service is lacking, buggy and incomplete releases are the norm because the companies run out of money and demand customers pay for their products right away so they can finish them (and amazingly enough people do), there have been games shut down within 3 months, banning is frequenton their forums, hacks are a problem... you name it they have it.

MMOs remind me of a line from a Jurassic Park, about having all the problems of major theme park and zoo combined, well MMOs have all the problems of other games and then some and you pay per play, or pay per period and that is not an experience that a lot of gamers want to be a part of. It's available now. Hell I even liked some MMOs and I can tell that that business model leads to some of the most greedy, poor excuse examples of gaming I have ever seen. Allods wanted to sell it's player's items in the cash shop at the tune of 7 thousand dollars. Cities XL crashed and dived within three months. Alganon had such a terrible launch, they're pretty much trying to relaunch the game. So while this is not cloud computing, it is certainly a pay to play model and it is not fairy tale story for gamers.

You're entering dangerous territory here.  Using 'Cloud' gaming as a method of DRM, and believe me it's being discussed somewhere, forces players to pay a subscription fee for their games - and if its DRM that means its mandatory - there will be no boxed version, otherwise us filthly pirates would be able to pirate it.  This isn't just the removal of the retail market, like Digital Distribution, this is the ability to put a price on everything and will most likely be abused because of the lack of additional options.

We've already seen the invention of the DLC model; no more free content, which has lead to no more mod support and the removal of the ability for players to customise their experience.  Think I'm going to far?  Modern Warfare 2 changed from dedicated servers to P2P to prevent the use of mods or custom made levels to force PC Users to pay for DLC like console players have to.  The only thing given for free are bug fixes.  Now imagine a game is broken down even further.  You want single player? No problem, that's US$19.99 a month.  Want multiplayer for the same game? Sure champ, that's an extra US$39.99 a month.  Want that new DLC Map Pack? Ha, too easy - that'll be an additional US$1.99 a month.  However, do you honestly think it'll stop there?  I imagine we'll see the 'Silver' and 'Gold' subscription models.  Want those super high end fancy graphics?  Well, that costs the companies extra you see, because their computers are doing the work, and as is the norm extra costs for them mean extra costs for you.  A Silver subscription costs you nothing extra, however those graphics settings are locked to the medium level.  Want better? That'll be an additional US$9.99 a month.  Hell, want to be put on the priority list for a server?  Want to make sure you always get in a game rather than a que (think Fileplanet) well champ that's an extra US$9.99 a month.  And they'll find ways to make money off of everything else.  And forget mod support - if every tom, dick, and harry was making mods they'd need to have servers for each and every one of them, and they'd have to process the lot.  Mods are gone.


Do you honestly think this type of self-regulating content control is going to work in favour of gamers?  Companies like Activision have already told the gaming public they intend to only support large $100,000,000.00 franchises that can be milked every year, on every platform, indefinately.  The move to 'Cloud' gaming would only further remove new games from the market due to the cost/risk ratio provided by having the service process everything.  The industry would need move towards Episodic gaming to sustain itself.  Any Episode that didn't sell well enough would be pulled form the service to save costs, and only the successful ones would continue.  Did you like Deus Ex? Often called one of the greatest games ever made?  Too bad, it doesn't make enough money - it's dropped from the service.  Game gone.  Didn't get to finish it? Too bad, it's not cost effective to continue.  You can chose between Call Of Duty X: Future Warfare IV: Redemption, The Sims V (with 21 optional expansion packs at $19.99 per month each), Guitar Hero 19, Left 4 Dead III and World of Warcraft II (with 4 optional expansion packs at $19.99 per month each).  Don't like them?  Buy an Xbox 3, Playstation IV or Nintendo Whatever you filthly pirate, because that's all you're getting.

Well said, Don, well said indeed. If you would be so inclined, I'd love your input Here.