Yay if optional

I've encountered problems with Steam games using Server saves, that is, trying to use a new local save file because the server file is corrupt, but Steam doesn't care and keeps using the server file, and then I have to fight with it

EDIT: Oh, looks like I misunderstood

EDIT: Yeah, I would give a big "No." My bandwidth cap is 105 GB, and its damn expensive, where I live with my family of five, three major internet users. It would be impossible. Increasing the cap to something capable would just cost an even more ridiculous price. Oh, I remember the days when my internet plan, a normal plan, had no cap and was an okay price... They discontinued it. Also, I enjoy offline play very much so, even if I think the future holds games that are online based

cloud gaming = not a chance. I'd continue doing what I do now. buy & play games that don't need to be online to be installed or played

Hopefully not I only heard bad horrible things about Onlive.

No shipping jobs overseas did.

Nay. Because i don't rent games, and that is what cloud gaming is.

you pay a fee and you can continue to use the game as long as the company remains financially afloat. When they go broke good luck getting a physical copy or at least a digital version on your hard drive.

I've never been a fan of the idea of virtualized gaming machines (or "cloud gaming," as the currently-preferred buzzword stands). I could see the benefit of not depending on keeping my own hardware up-to-date, but outside of that there are too many technical and logistical barriers to entry for most people. As others have said, the amount of internet bandwidth it could use would be staggering if it caught on. I could see ISP's selling more expensive "gamer" packages and such. The savings in hardware upgrades seems like it would be eclipsed by other expenses pretty quickly.

They're corporations. If you think that every single corporation isn't greedy by nature then you might want to take another look around. Corporations are greedy the same way that living organisms are hungry.

From a long-term economic perspective any kind of shift in product demand will always cost people jobs unless their skills transfer to some other still-viable industry. How many wagon-wheel makers are left now that we have cars compared to 200 years ago?

Cloud technology is cool but I would honestly hate it if it were "always on" like this. I just don't have the connection for that.

Whatever happened to choice?

We have the choice to not buy it.

Nuke it with fire.

If & or when Cloud gaming fails I wonder what the "Official reason" could be? It's not like they can simply blame piracy.

That's what you think. Obviously the servers will be housed in Somalia and be overtaken by Somalian pirates.

That's like a 4 hour turnaround, maybe less, how is that bad? I used to hover around the 700 mark and I loved it. I could downloaded like 3 games while I was sleeping.

Any company making this compulsory in this day and age would be committing suicide, IMO. The rumoured move to block used games would be another move towards this. My broadband connection, while reasonably quick and reliable, is far from perfect. The UK has a fairly solid infrastructure yet there are many in more isolated areas who're far worse off than I. In other countries it's worse still.

Aside from that, I have no love of multiplayer gaming and very rarely play online - why should I be forced to be online when playing single player? Already there are too many games where the single player experience is tacked-on as an afterthought. It would be the end of gaming for me, if not for the technical limitations, then on principal alone.

Cloud computing? It'd rather commit servercide.

The whole concept feels like a huge step backwards. Thirty or so years ago everybody was so relieved to get away from mainframes and dummy terminals, finally they were able to run their computers locally and not have to conduct absurd time-sharing with everybody else. Now we want to go back to that? Sure, the time sharing on servers is a lot more efficient than it used to be, but do I really want to be running my game on the same machine as a dozen other people?

The word "cloud" is over-used and overloaded. "Cloud gaming" is virtualized hardware wherein you would be sharing hardware with other users. "Cloud computing" encompasses a great many things, including things like cloud-based services, which are actually a big step forward in a lot of ways. Making more information and services easily available via standardized APIs, internet-wide load-balancing for said services, etc. These are good things...not anywhere close to the same thing as "cloud gaming."

Like I said, "cloud" is quickly becoming one of those over-used marketing buzzwords that starts losing its meaning after a while.

Cloud computing is basically for creating Service-Level Agreements without having to set a service level

Ha! Well, isn't that what technology is for?

Really, though, it depends on your definition of "cloud computing." At the most basic level it's just about anything that provides a service gateway that abstracts the actual hardware infrastructure behind some kind of a proxy service. From a purely technical software architecture standpoint it allows a lot more flexibility with the relationship between the service and its clients. Of course the marketing and business dev people will do whet they will do...from my perspective it makes software that needs to exchange data over a wire a lot easier to design and maintain.

But cloud gaming is going to be interactive, immersive and in full 3d!

You're probably right, I honestly don't know that much about it. I just don't want the processes taking place inside this ugly black box beside me to move on to some network black-box.

I agree completely. I certainly don't like the idea of my devices becoming non-functional because my network connection is down or there isn't one available.

Who knows?

.... You actually have issues with a data cap of 105 Gigs? Geez. My Data cap is 5 gigs, and while it's a struggle, I manage to scraqe by every month. can't imagine what I would do with an extra 100 gigs(well, beyond downloading every single mod for Morrowind/Oblivion/Skyrim that I possibly could that is).

Edit: Figured I should chime in to the original topic. I'd say a loud, resounding "NAY". For pretty much every reason already given by those who have also said Nay. Don't own the game, if company goes under you're screwed, if network has a hiccup(yours or theirs) you can't play it until the issues are fixed, etc etc.

If I buy something (whether it's a book, a video game, a movie, etc) I want it to be something tangible, something PHYSICAL. I don't want a concept, an idea, a copy of a copy, an intangible product.

The cloud is VERY useful. I don't know what I'd do without my Dropbox most days. But some things shouldn't be on there.

Mine's 25gb, and I barely get by. I usually have to purchase 3gb thresholds, for 10EUR. :/

I really should upgrade, for 2EUR more a month I can get 100gb and 12mbps, instead of 25gb and 4mbps. It's just I can't be arsed phoning, upgrading, getting the technician to change wires etc.

Lol....Yeah I'd think it's time to stop being lazy. You're paying 10 EUR for an additional 3GB, but you could instead pay 2EUR and get 75GB, plus faster speeds? I could only dream of something like that, I was extremely lucky with finding what I now have. I use a mobile Hotspot MyFi thingie through AT&T, literally the only hi-speed internet available to me besides Satellite, which is crap for anything pertaining to online gaming. This was just in the last 3-4 months as well, before that I was on a 26.4k dial-up connection for the last decade and a half.

Also, to note, I have to pay $10 U.S. per additional 1gig over data cap(and by 1 gig over, that means if I hit 5.01 Gigs out of 5 gigs, I'm paying an extra $10, whether I use the other .99 Gigs or not.

Considering I get 200kBytes down, it really wouldn't work well for me. I've tried the free trials for things like OnLive (there was another one that i tried.) and it told me my internet was too slow, lol.

I really dont know why they would want an always on connection. I didn't think pirating was a big issue for consoles? And pirating is the only reason I can think of to have an always on connection.

If they choose this path, I think the smarter thing would be to leave it to the game devs to decide on that. If they want to make the next CoD game require an always on connection, to avoid pirating, that would be the companies choice. Then there would be game devs who see it like 'If we make the game require always on connection, then we'd lose sales to all the people with crap internet'
Just my thoughts

Damn!

I should add it's not as easy as phoning the other company. We have a 'home pack' (telephone, tv, internet) so I'm not sure what would happen if I changed my ISP.