I don't agree. I think the console war is it's own worst enemy because a lot of people with limited means can only afford one console. That means that they're shut out from interesting games on other platforms. People have taken sides in the console wars, but the console wars did not stem from people taking sides. If there was a platform which was available to gamers regardless of hardware that offered AAA titles, why WOULDN'T people want that?

These services are like the "anti-console war" in that it aims to unite platforms by making the availability of the titles platform agnostic. I'm more of a PC gamer then a console gamer, and I'm really stuck with Windows. I think running Windows inside OSX is a really stupid idea (TWO operating systems?), so I have absolutely no reason to consider purchasing an Apple...or making Linux a desktop option. If my games were available REGARDLESS of the platform, I wouldn't be so restricted. Plus, people who are Apple or Linux fanatics can get the same games PC players get.

I think the biggest draw for publishers is that this does away with piracy, and that I assume that publishers will license their titles to these services. Maybe they get a cut of subscription rates, and I'm sure they'd get a cut of any "sales" of titles through the service. With no physical media to produce, no boxes or manuals or CDs or cases, no shelf space to negotiate...how can publishers lose here? In essence, it probably won't cost them much (if anything) to offer their titles to the service, and they stand to reap impressive results. This could mean a real resurgance for the "home computer" (to avoid connotations of "PC") sa a game platform.

I also don't think this has much to do with consoles. Most of the titles I've seen featured in these services have been PC titles. Naturally, I wouldn't expect MS, Sony or Nintendo to jump on this (immediately), as it makes their hardware investments worthless. But what if they DID release the original Halo on the service? How many MORE people would they reach then they do by keeping it exclusive? I think there's more potential nuance that COULD be had with these services if these companies looked beyond their kindergarten behaviors.

And don't forget that people dismissed Nintendo when they announced their alternate control mechanism. "Waggle" gaming was too weird and off the grid to catch on, in the face of Sony and MS' powerhouse consoles.

In my opinion, the only company this would really truly impact is Microsoft. MS has the fewest in-house Publishers out of the big three, by a tremendous amount, with Nintendo in 2nd, and Sony having the most. What this ends up meaning, is that no matter what OnLive/Gaikai do, Sony and Nintendo are going to stick by their traditional pattern of not releasing games on PC, ergo, not on OnLive/Gaikai, which keeps their hardware relevent, no matter what.

Mario, Zelda, Metroid, Gran Turismo, Tekken, Street Fighter, Onimusha, Jak & Daxter, Ratchet and Clank, Final Fantasy, Castlevania, Metal Gear, etc.. etc.. the list continues throughout the last two+ decades of gaming. People will always return for those franchises.

OnLive/Gaikai currently have absolutely no use to me though. I've got a gaming rig, one that easily outperforms the specs that OnLive promises, and a PS3. Have been a PC Gamer for years though, so putting one together is a matter of a couple hours once I've bought the parts. Beyond that, I also prefer the enhanced look of games/movies in 1080p, so I'll always be going for consoles (Much rather have a console that plays BR/DVD/CD etc... than OnLive, a standalone BR player, a console, a PC etc...)

Whoever invests capital in these companies is a fool

@Mornelithe

Final Fantasy 7, 8 and 11 were on PC, Mario has had a few PC titles back in the SNES era (though not exactly Mario games), Street Fighter 4 is on PC, Metal Gear Solid was on PC and the new Metal Gear Rising is for PC in addition to 360 and PS3 and one of the Castlevania games were on PC (There's probably more).

Basically it's not ruled out.

But back on argument, I don't think this affects Microsoft in the slightest bit. Most of the games that OnLive provides are on Microsofts own Games for Windows platform (like Burnout), at some point I think Microsoft profits from this.

Really I don't think these streaming services will prove dangerous at all, and if they do it's nothing the big 3 can't easily provide with their own systems and a firmware update (especially Microsoft who is the only console maker in the industry with large assets in servers and software development).

Unless Onlive has other things to offer that they are keeping quiet on until launch (like the pricing) they may not be much of a threat when the service launches. All of the games they are offering are all multiplatform games currently being sold at a reduced price new or used on all major platforms(with the exception of wii on most). The most recent games they are offering are the Wheelman, Tom Clancy's Hawx and F.E.A.R. 2. Last time I checked, wheelman didn't do well and hawx and FEAR2 had decent average sales. Going back to pricing, I've noticed that what mentioned in a summer gameinformer mag has been mentioned very little online. A representative from onlive stated that customers will be charged a monthly subscription fee, a rental access fee if the customer only wants to play a certain game for a few days, and full retail value(yes, none of the cuts in cost go to the customer, only the developers and the owners of Onlive) for unlimited access to each game; and don't forget everything is server side so don't expect something for your money when you cancel the service cause you will have no more games. Using the Onlive service is like preferring to rent a car or an apartment in the long term instead of actually owning the car or a house.

Let us keep in mind that Onlive is not bringing anything new to the gaming industry, just trying to make money from it. It seems as if they are attempting to bring online "convience" to gamers but this is not true. On the consoles of the big 3, you can play with or against anyone in the world at anytime. Onlive can't offer the same thing. Mentioned in the same article, (i should just find that article and post a copy of it) playing multiplayer online is not international or even national and will have regional restrictions because their servers. You will be able to play with someone in a neighboring state but you cannot play with someone who stays much farther away, for example: florida can play with georgia yet florida can't play with california. And don't forget you can't play with others outside of the country, possibly because the service will only be a USA launch for now. Maybe they will expand internationally in the future if they do well.
As I mentioned before, Onlive is bringing nothing new to the table. Game companies make money to spend it on developing games and hardware for the loyal customer. Onlive will be making money to, um...give the customer updates I guess? The growth of the industry is due to the competition of companies with major consoles. As of recent times game developers have gotten lazy, proof of this is shorter, less engaging games that people beat within a few days with a shrug and return it to a second hand store to get ripped off. Further proof is the industry standard challenge the PS3 brings. The PS3 is new and different in hardware and software while on the other hand the XBox360(which is also a great console, not being a fanboy since I own all 3) has few differences between itself and its predecessor the xbox. Instead of developers going for something new with great potential, most of them are sticking with the 360 because of familiarity and it's easier. So with a service like Onlive that does not encourage any innovation, one could hope developers will spend more time on content than graphics but at this point in time, that is very unlikely.

Is this a new writer? Great article.

Fascinating comparisons and expectations for a new era in the gaming world. There is very much a foreseeable "Coup d'état" of the industry by online services such as OnLive and Gaikai.

Whoever does not see the pure economic potential of these services is numb to the treat. The accessibility and simplicity of an online platform...modern gaming in the "cloud". This same philosophy is employed by Web 2.0 companies and start-ups. A classic example of this is Google. They bring information that was once stored locally, on individual machines, to the internet (MS Office --> Google Docs, Outlook --> Gmail etc.), making rich applications that live not on your hard drive, but through your browser.

Sure, there are upfront costs in developing such companies and services, but the recurring, marginal costs are far less. OnLive and/or Gaikai are on their way to becoming natural monopolies (economies of scale, high barriers of entry (eg. developing the platform) but low recurring costs). Since there is little or no hardware on these platforms, they will be able to easily meet any quantity demanded, with little or no marginal costs. There is additionally a steady stream of revenue due to users paying periodically for subscriptions to the service.

We cannot take these new technologies and services as petty. They have great potential...something I strongly believe the big three will need to catch onto sooner or later.

-David. L

You've made a lot of bad points and you've made them without explaining most of them. Such as " I am quite skeptical that they will be allowed to cross platform initially " why wouldn't they let you play with other users on the net? I'm not saying they will, I'm just saying you don't explain your point.

I know the entire idea of making all current consoles obsolete has most of the, already annoying and whiny, gaming communities collective panties in a bunch. But, I don't think that's a good reason to make up issues where none exist. If Onlive and company don't succeed it will not be because of anything you mentioned. It will be because the tech doesn't work... If it does however (work), crappy gimmicky game play and fading exclusive titles won't save MS, Sony, or Nintendo.

Actually, propaganda, many systems and gaming titles are launched without initially being linked cross-platform wise such as, Ghostbusters, which is scheduled to be multiplayer online eventually but not yet. and as far as bad points did you mean the part where Mods help keep older video games active by community driven content? Or the part where guitar hero sells for a ridiculous amount of money and has yet managed to be incredibly successful, selling millions of peripherals?

OnLive and Gaikai seem to have two very different approaches in both their technology and their business model:
http://www.mishainthecloud.com...amed.html

It is fair to compare OnLive to the big 3 console makers - I think it is the console gamer that OnLive is ultimately going after and OnLive will afford competition in the role of a fourth console - but I'm not sure the same comparison can be made about Gaikai.

Gaikai seems to be looking for a different kind of relationship with publishers, by providing a service that pushes web traffic to the publishers. David Perry has indicated his desire to have game experiences embedded into articles, much like YouTube clips:
http://g4tv.com/thefeed/blog/post/697787/Acclaims-David-Perry-Sees-Gaikai-Games-Embedded-Into-Articles.html
This approach could also work well in current social networks and could end up expanding a market for games, drawing in customers from different directions.

I think there's plenty of room for both approaches, and I think both OnLive and Gaikai will ultimately have success based on their own business management.

“Actually, propaganda, many systems and gaming titles are launched without initially being linked cross-platform wise such as, Ghostbusters, which is scheduled to be multiplayer online eventually but not yet.”

Well, if you read my original comment you would realize I wasn’t talking about whether Onlive would or wouldn’t have net based mutli-player. I was only using it as an example to point out that the article doesn’t justify the claims that are made sufficiently. But, since you seem to want to talk about it… Going in to this (the release of these cloud based systems) with preconceptions based on console systems seems more than a little silly. Onlive and company basing their entire systems off the internet and then denying their users the ability to play with other people on the internet, would also seem a little silly.

“and as far as bad points did you mean the part where Mods help keep older video games active by community driven content? “

No, I actually mean that the article assumes the death of Mods is inherent in these systems without justifying that assumption. I.E. - If developers wanted they could provide moding tools that could be accessed in the cloud. Never allowing users to actually download the source code, but still modify it. In fact, it could make moding even better by giving moders accesses to more powerful systems and tools.

“Or the part where guitar hero sells for a ridiculous amount of money and has yet managed to be incredibly successful, selling millions of peripherals?”

No, again... There are two points on this issue; One, the idea that peripherals would provide enough of an edge for the consoles to stay afloat is laughable. Two, the notion that people won’t want to buy peripherals for the cloud based systems because they won’t want to have to both go to the store and buy the game online is a pretty weak counter point, which also ignores the fairly obvious idea that they could simply bundle games with the peripherals. I.E. You take it home, plug it in, the cloud system recognizes a serial in the device and you start playing.

Over all, the article seems to be of the mind that the developers of these systems will go out of their way to ruin their own product and the writer uses some pretty specious reasoning in order to reach that conclusion.

well I think its a great step towards the future of gaming. It eliminates the possiblity of piracy and hacks (hate gamers that hack). If any one of the 3 giants have a patnership with gaikai or onlive i'm pretty sure they'd make huge profits from it.