Hello all...

So first off, I am looking to make as much of a return as possible right now. My intent is to post on here on set days of the week, 2 to 3 times a week, to get a feel for posting on a site on a regular basis (like the one that will hopefully be out in the summer). I intend to get a feel for it as if it's a task I must preform, blah blah blah yada yada. Basically I'm going to be posting opinions on events around the world or in gaming to get in the swing of a feeling of a task i must preform. You can read if you like, and comments and criticisms are welcomed. I don't know if I'll be able to find time to return to reading others blogs, I will try (of course) but time is a factor going into a new quarter at school. So, hopefully this works in favor of the latter.

Hey everyone, good to be back (sorta). Here goes, News Post 1, March 26, 2009. Posted by Scott at 3:13AM

So, obviously it was hard for me to ignore the buzz over the service of OnLive that was presented at this year's GDC and that's what I'm here to talk about now. I've read some decent articles and opinions on the 'device' (i wouldn't necessarily refer to it as a console or platform yet) and two of my preferred come from, the obvious, CNET (new window) and from CAD's Timm Buckley. Now, unexpectedly, i like the opinions of Timm more than I did any other article, because they help to power the arguments FOR OnLive.

He mentioned that the Big 3 simply won't roll over and die with the arrival of OnLive or other companies like it (OTOY mentioned in GS article). "I can't see Microsoft simply saying "Sure, don't buy our conssole, we don't want the revenue from XBL, anyway!" I agree that won't happen, but this could be the segway into the elimination of large, overpriced consoles, purchased and brought into our homes; Timm mentioned this as well.

The "idea" of OnLive, does not lead to the end of other consoles and gaming competition in some kind of gaming toltalitarian state. Instead it lands us exactly where we are today, with fanboys continuing to fret over which 'device' they're favorite games will land on. Competition won't be eliminated, but will most likely stay the same with the Big 3 adapting to the change. But why should it change?

Many don't like the idea of losing the physical tangible game disc, cartridge, gamecase, etc. to a digital download, yet everything is already on it's way there. This simple fact also downplays the idea of devs keeping loyalties toward Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo, to maintain a need for the consoles as well. It's easier for devs simply to produce game data, not having to worry about disc compressions and space limitations, and it's cheaper because they don't have to pay for the ****** discs and plastic it goes in. Yet, why would they do this if gamers/consumers still want the discs and boxes? It's because they don't care what gamers want. There is an untapped market that is ripe for the taking and that is what OnLive wants, and eventually Sony and Microsoft will want it as well.

Nintendo is the one who proved all of the above. As Timm stated: "Nintendo ****'s money and they've had an explosive case of diarrhea for the last few years". Nintendo is doing this because they did what all businesses' goal is, to find new markets, and make a profit off of them. They did it and they did it cheap and they did it right, but, what Nintendo failed is keep their prior market, the hardcore gamers. A big reason that that happened is due to the Wii being underpowered and big name devs wanted to see the full potential out of their dreams, so they went to Sony and MS. Yet, as we've seen from this generation thus far, devs don't care about loyalties anymore, which is natural for a business, since the greater profit lies in more markets. So, OnLive is going to do all of this.

It can take everything that Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo are doing right, make up for what they're doing wrong, and do it cheap. Why is cheap so important? It's because that is where the untapped market lies. Those who can't afford these high end consoles and expensive gaming prices, are the untapped market and they are large.

There is a lot of speculation as to how much this 'device' will cost. There's a simple answer: take the price of a PS3 of 360 controller (because they are high end) and add that to a cheap modem. Because that is probably what you will be buying, a controller and a cheap modem, and those on average are $60(US) for a controller and between $40-70(US) for a modem; that's ~$130 at most by my estimates. Though I could be wrong, I doubt I am.

The real question that determines if this 'idea' will sell through OnLive or not is how much they charge for the SERVICE. If the untapped market is anything like me, they will not want to pay the same price for internet as they are paying now, which is around $50/month for high quality internet. My guess is that, if it's anything over $35/month it won't fly like it could; but that is only with OnLive.

-SD

EDIT: Oh, and the argument for the technology for low latency HD streaming not being available is a load of garbage. It exists and it's existed for years. Want an answer? WoW. ...think about it...

and i haven't watched the keynote yet, either. Though, I doubt much of what I've said will change after I've seen it...

EDIT2: Just finished the key note...I can only think of few arguments against OnLive that hold, but I can't stop thinking of arguments for it...there is so much REAL potential...