OnLive is to games what restaurants are to food:
You don't need the cook's set, it's all about the service.
Well, on paper, that sounds good, right? Yes, it does, but as I said above, the real question now is if the system can live outside of the perfect lab conditions.
They say they can already target 200 million people. We'll see.
Now, some bad, concrete and direct points for the gamer:
- Need of a connection.
If it cuts, you cry. No game, even if it was a solo.
- You don't own the game.
This, I don't like. I cherish my very property.
But let's be frank, it's been a while since you truly legally owned a game.
- Need to pay a monthly fee.
That's the base model. One can only hope it would be fair and proportional to the amount of different games you play.
- High bandwidth requirements.
I totally forgot that one. Figure out, in typical test lab conditions, you'll need 5Mbits for a resolution of 1280 x 720p pixels.
Sorry, but that's just too high, and I cannot accept anything lower for an AAA PC game.
Now, on the larger scale, the main problem is to convert the new "gamers" who have barely digested the Wii.
That said, after seven years developing that stuff and surviving on UN rice bags (myth), these guys have a major head start and it's a revolution.
Simply put, while we're certainly not going to see cheaper games anytime soon, any current game provider, be it on physical support or pure e, will most likely have to follow, or get a deal with these guys.
If it proves workable and profitable first.