While I can see alot that can go wrong with this, I also see alot that can go right as well. My chief concern is whether or not you can play your downloaded/purchased games OFFLINE. Because everyone goes without internet once in a while - myself included. Steam (valve's service) won't let you play if you're not connected - AFTER YOU'VE ALREADY PAID FOR IT! The Wii, on the other hand, will allow disconnected play. Thus, I've stuck by the Wii. If OnLive can use the Wii's approach, I'm onboard. If it uses steam's approach, it'll fail. Most people won't tolerate that crap. I wouldn't.

@reaverthewizard Ditto. I own a DS and love it! DS, Wii and PS2 are all heavy hitters in my book for very practical reasons. PS2 has tons of good, cheap games, plays my old PS1 favs (bc should be a LAW in gaming) and doubles as a DVD player. DS is THE best handheld ever. And the Wii's Virtual Console is the main reason I bought it. I litterally have more VC games for Wii than Wii and GameCube games combined. In fact, if DSi lets us play the NES, SNES and Genisis games from our SD card - I'll buy a DSi for certain! My SD card is loaded to the gills with Old School goodies as it is.

Installing on a console.....Along with $400 (for the PS3), $60 per game and NO backward compatibility! Then these gizmos cost as much as a next-gen console. Gaming's getting too expensive and too complicated. No wonder Wii is winning.

While the PS3 probably is more powerful, MOST games aren't going to reflect it. Most developers are, quite understandably, going to create games on par with XBox 360's capabilities. Simply because it would probably take longer to try and "one-up" the 360 version. Personally, I feel that they're BOTH awesome consoles. I'm more of a Wii man, myself. But I may actually get a PS3 a couple of years from now, when the BC model hits $300. That'll probably be 2 or more years away.

I probably won't buy a PS3, for obvious reasons. I'll stick to my PS2 and, possibly, get a Wii. But at least Sony acknowledged that their consumers preferred Dual Shock (rumble) over "six-axis". It's still pretty crappy that Sony makes them pay $55 for what SHOULD HAVE COME WITH the PS3 in the FIRST place. Sony should try a 'tade-in' arrangement. They owe those consumers that.

JLuke360, XeroComplex and Diernes... I see y'alls points completely. The 8800 video card I'm getting will work wonders for my PC games. Oblivion actually looks really close to its XBox360 counter-part , even on my crappy 8500. I have yet to use Dx10. But the 8800 should pull it off with little or no problems. But if your rig is a couple of years old, hold off on Vista (and Dx10) until you buy a new PC with Vista already installed. @DJ_Quack_Quack Many of us see little reason to spend the cost of a new PC... JUST FOR GAMES. When we could upgrade our vid cards for half the price and game on a device we already use regularly. Most of what gamers like are on PC or PC bound anyway. And with PCs, your investment carries over with the hardware upgrade. I can take my old games, vid card, RAM etc... and install them in my next PC when I get one 2-3 years later. Aside from the Wii, consoles don't even offer that. WITH CONSOLES, YOUR INVESTMENT DOESN'T CARRY OVER WITH THE HARDWARE UPGRADE.

The PC I bought came with Vista. So I'm stuck with it. But I've recieved the "updates" pretty regularly. Most of them have been for "Windows Defender", M$s own security patches. My performance is pretty solid. Nonetheless, I can totally understand why many PC owners are avoiding Vista. It was, initially, a pain in the ass. And VISTA IS A RESOURCE HOG! Vista requires 512MB RAM (it eats up 400+MB), 1GHz CPU and takes up 30GB of harddrive space. My PC came built for Vista at Best Buy. My rig specs are 3.33GHz CPU, 2GB RAM, 120GB harddrive and a nVidia GeForce 8500(512MB) video card. I'm getting a GeForce 8800 tomorrow, literally. But if you already own a PC built a couple of years ago...wait until you buy a brand new PC with Vista already installed. That's my advice.

@maricatu Thanks for the info. I find it very funny (and fraudulent) that Crytek continues to claim they've sold 1million copies of Crysis. It's such a resource hog that only a handful of PCs on the planet can run it on max. I know some serious 'tech-heads', and NONE of them have bought nor plan to buy this game. I'm perfectly happy with Unreal Anthology/UT2004 and Oblivion. Can't wait for Mass Effect in May.

I, normally, go with nvidia. But price is also a factor. In order to use nvidias 8800 or 9600 GPUs, I'd have to upgrade my power supply first. I currently have a crappy 300W. I'll need a 450W for either 8800 or 9600. They require 425W. But if ATI can run their Radeon 3800s on 300-350W, I may "jump the fence".

I've got a GeForce 8500GT(512MB) and Oblivion looks pretty damn close to its XBox360 counter-part. I'd know, I own both versions. I'm considering getting either a GeForce 8600GT or 9600. I don't want 8800 because it'll require 1GB RAM and my rig has 2GB RAM (that's its max capacity). But if I get the 9600 I'll have to buy a new power supply. My current (sh---y) power supply is 300W. I'll need 450W for 9600. 8600 runs on 300W. Both 8600 and 9600 only require 512MB RAM. My BIG CONCERN is in May when I get Mass Effect for my PC. I hope like Hell an 8600GT will pull it without too many comprimises.