OnLive: the future of Video games?

[Doc Holiday]

seems cool, but I'll wait and see the execution of it.

http://www.onlive.com/

this could seriously bring an end to gaming as we know it, but for some reason I doubt it.

[outlaw4]

seems cool, but I'll wait and see the execution of it.

http://www.onlive.com/

this could seriously bring an end to gaming as we know it, but for some reason I doubt it.

Me thinks the main reason for doubt is the amount of bandwidth it would take to stream games to end users. With many ISP's already testing out the idea of charging people based on bandwidth usage, I can't imagine the monthly bill of an avid gamer who's being charged based on bandwidth usage.

(...and even if not charged by bandwidth, ISP's have already been accused of capping bandwidth)

[Doc Holiday]

Me thinks the main reason for doubt is the amount of bandwidth it would take to stream games to end users. With many ISP's already testing out the idea of charging people based on bandwidth usage, I can't imagine the monthly bill of an avid gamer who's being charged based on bandwidth usage.

(...and even if not charged by bandwidth, ISP's have already been accused of capping bandwidth)

when the fiber optic wire is finally the standard and not the exception I could see this work, and that's just a matter of time.

the charging based on bandwidth thing is something that execs that don't know poo about they're own industry are saying, think of it as the same way New Coke is viewed now, sounds like a good idea in the board room, will be doomed to failure and anyone who does it will loose they're ass till they switch back.

And I think the execs know this themselves to some extent but some moron is going to try it and loose they're ass when they do.

[Zaximus]

American internet sucks WAY too much to run this combined with ISP's charging per bandwidth soon, no way. Maybe in Korea, Europe, etc, you know, where internet connections don't suck, they could do this. Here in America we pay more than anyone in the world for very bad internet.

[stankowalski]

American internet sucks WAY too much to run this combined with ISP's charging per bandwidth soon, no way. Maybe in Korea, Europe, etc, you know, where internet connections don't suck, they could do this. Here in America we pay more than anyone in the world for very bad internet.

What he said. The US is so much larger than places like Japan and some of the European countries. Our technological infrastructure would take years of upgrading to see the quality of service that places like Japan already has. I live in a rural area and we STILL don't have anything better than dial up (I use satellite and that sucks ass/is expensive/and has unbearable download limits).

[dexterpyro]

soo...its like a 1-900 numbers for avid gamers....pay-to-play???

It sounds good on paper but i think it will take decades for everyone to get.it...I still can not get dsl or fiberoptics and wont get dsl for 2 years and fiber optics up to 5...and i live 3 miles from city limits....It will be an investment by the company to get it out there over a very long time

But i got cable internet and i signed up to be selected as a Beta tester...If they pick me i will let you know how it is

[Zod]

once everyone is on fiber optic its going to happen. The days of dvd games is just about over.

[pstall]

Me thinks the main reason for doubt is the amount of bandwidth it would take to stream games to end users. With many ISP's already testing out the idea of charging people based on bandwidth usage, I can't imagine the monthly bill of an avid gamer who's being charged based on bandwidth usage.

(...and even if not charged by bandwidth, ISP's have already been accused of capping bandwidth)

This is one of the main reasons the switch to digital transmission tv.

Plus you are going to see a push in the next 5 years to seriously upgrade broadband nationwide.

Why we haven't already is beyond me.

[goodlay]

Oh yeah, it'll be the future, but not the near future. Like others have stated, in rural areas of the country, getting anything more advanced than dial up is impossible at this moment in time. I don't think it'll be huge when it comes out, just because only a small percent of the country will be able to use it. However, in 10 years or so? This will be what video games are.

[Zaximus]

Years and years.

Check this out, we're ranked 17TH in the world in speed, 17th!

http://www.mediapost.com/publications/?fa=Articles.showArticle&art_aid=103057

[natty]

Charging for bandwidth is not a completely horrible thing imo. Although it sucks for someone like me, it took me literally 2 years to convince my mother to get off netzero, and even now she just has the road runner light. She checks her email and does a little work related stuff but 99% of the time she's perfectly fine with dial up speeds. Now myself, I'm essentially using bandwidth 24/7 with torrents. It's really not fair for my mother and I to pay the same amount for internet access.

I think it'd be a good idea for ISPs to offer plans that are much cheaper, but put caps on network usage. Maybe offer premium, uncapped, very fast internet for $50 and go as low as $10 for limited access. It would probably increase revenue and allow ISP to upgrade their networks for people that really want it.