this latest Games Developers conference had few major announcements - the only really huge one was the emergence of the newest independent platform, "OnLive". It utilizes a 'new' technology aptly named "cloud streaming"; the idea behind it being that, over a strong enough internet connection, other computers will be using their technology, not your computer's technology, to play the games.

So, although you're still controlling the gameplay, you could be playing on a computer without a video card and it could be running Crysis at 60 frames per second, because its not your computer that's running Crysis: OnLive's computers are, and they're constantly being upgraded with the latest tech every 6 months.

Be warned: this isn't going to be all facts - a huge part of this is my own opinion. Proceed with caution.

A lot of people have been screaming, absolutely screaming, that this is the end of consoles and PC gaming as we know it. Nay, I say! The PC has withstood so much, I doubt there's anything anyone can do to absolutely kill it. Perhaps mortally wound the thing, but not kill it. But consoles could be a different story. The large percentage of casual users and toddlers that toy around with them from time to time will continue to do just that - but the more hardcore crowd will likely see a large incentive to switch over.

The point I'm trying to make here in particular is that console gamers are used to being controlled by a single company - as Nintendo is to the Wii, and Sony is to the PS3, Microsoft is to the XboX 360. These companies can, at any time, remotely, and for any reason, because a contract says so, shut down your console. That isn't so with a PC. What I'm trying to say is that this is the same situation; a single company controls a whole platform. But I'm also saying that PC Gamers aren't really going to be that keen to switch over - maybe those that are new and have PCs that rate high end for back in 2005, and its a great way to get more people playing games on their PCs, but PC Gamers aren't going to like being absolutely controlled. Sure, I've never actually chosen to not patch something or upgrade my drivers because I disagree with what it changes, but OnLive makes the choice for you. One of the things I honestly love about the PC as a platform is that you're given such free reign - if the consoles were like socialist nations (and believe me, they're a lot more alike than you'd think) then the PC is the good ol' US of A. And like that same free nation, we're slowly, slowly stepping across that very fragile, thin boundary away from freedom.

But enough of that - I'm a commentator of games, not politics.

Back to the topic at hand: why I think that OnLive is going to fail, or at least not achieve the success that Steam has had. While both are innovative and certainly looking towards the future, Steam was just a messenger - a portal (haha, get it?) for the players to get the games faster and easier (well, most of the time) and I personally adore the service. But OnLive is changing the games themselves. It may be way more innovative than Steam, but keep in mind that not only, unless you have one hell of an internet connection (broadband is a MUST, they even said: 1.5 mb/s for standard definition, and 6 mb/s at least for high def, a whopping 720p...which isn't really that whopping) you'll be lagging like the Empire Total War demo load times. And that 720p I just mentioned? Its the maximum you'll be able to crank the graphics up to. That means that even though they have GTX 295s, they won't really be utilizing them. Keep in mind that 720p equals 1280x800. Yeah, I did not spend all that money on a good graphics card to see my resolution thrown out the window.

Here's a pic of the controller and adapter for the TV. I hear that you can also plug in a mouse/keyboard to the TV so that you can have the enormous screen and still own at Counter Strike.

Just one or two more things about OnLive: firstly, its just entered the fray way too early. This writer believes that it isn't going to reach enough people (only the hardcore crowd is really even eligible for looking into this kind of thing - its all hardcore PC games only pretty much), and although there's a first for everything, like the first man out of the trench, that first man usually gets instantly cut down by the enemy's machine guns. Brutally.

Secondly, does anyone honestly believe that Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo are going to go out without a fight? Well, Nintendo's wii will continue to sell in record numbers (you can't beat motion control in terms of sales) but that's besides the point. The big three will either try to improve their consoles to the point that they'll have so many advantages over OnLive that any new gamers are instantly going to choose the console, or they're going to look into cloud streaming themselves, and out-compete OnLive. Its sad, really.

Lastly, before I end the post, even if the big three don't enter the mysterious realm of Cloud Streaming, OnLive already has competitors. I don't have a lot of time to talk about them, but you can check out one of the latest "Hardware Insider" blog posts for more info. My point in mentioning them is to point out that, like the consoles, this will only lead to exlusives. Its inevitable and completely unavoidable - I mean, that's how capitalism works: business means edging out the competition. And when the services are so much the same, the only way you can really do that is with the games that you offer, when it comes down to it. Want to play this game, but you only have a subscription to this service? Too bad, because you'll have to pay a second monthly fee and a fee on top of that to buy the game, from a different service. I can understand having to pay for several different consoles; they're unique enough to warrant that. But would anyone here pay for both Blockbuster's and Netflix's online delivery services? I can honestly say that I wouldn't.

The beta begins this summer, and I will definitely check it out; hopefully the beta will provide a lot more information than we have, and perhaps bring some new revelations on the subject. But until then, we can only speculate.