Thats why I said: “Why not license the gaming hardware for a cheap monthly fee as well? We already pay that way for our cable TV boxes etc right?”

I didn't say MMO's and LIVE are a service that is hardware based. But it's a step towards it. :)

It just doesn't make sense otherwise :)

Yes, it would be a fleecing of the consumer, if it were to happen. And I agree that someone, somewhere, will try it. I just don't think, and I very much hope, it won't get off the ground simply from the nature of competition between the big three. Why would they participate in a system that gloms them together with their direct competitors? If you don't have the 360 and PS3 and Wii games in your service, what do you have? You have GameTap. Sure, you might be able to con someone into paying a monthly fee to lease hardware – but if you can't get the console jockeys to do it from a lack of participation by the publishers, you've seriously crippled your potential audience.

And I know that Xbox LIVE and MMOs like WoW seem to point to the subscription model. But the key difference is in what they are selling – LIVE and MMOs are a service that is hardware based. They are, to a point, platform agnostic (LIVE is both PC and Xbox, I know its not independent of a specific platform, but it doesn't fully rely on one specific piece of hardware). WoW is a service, nothing more. It runs on multiple platforms and has a (relatively) low cost of entry from the hardware side. Selling only PC gamers (we've eliminated the consoles above) a service that takes away their PCs…I just don't see it.

@Khanzza:

I completely agree that MS or Sony, or even Nintendo, would love to lock in their customers and drain them for gobs of cash. That's what they do now! The current model for gaming locks players into a console choice, and the biggest fights are over exclusivity and market penetration and units sold. Amen.

However, Mr. Enderle's service, as you state, is flawed. Not one of the big three are going to opt into a system that makes them cooperate with each other. You're right – consumer buy-in would be tough for a hardware-based service. But even more – why would MS or Sony bother trying to sell a universal service to their customers? They've already convinced us to buy into the current model of exclusivity. Why do a 180 now?

For me, it would mean quitting gaming, but then the industry is already doing its hardest to make it so.

There is another solution though. The industry could stop trying to screw the customers by making crappy games and hyping shovelware. Not that I will expect to see any major publishers thinking about such a “strange” strategy.

Well, well.. you can always blame piracy, most crappy developers do.

Totally understand your point, and I agree that without support from the big three, it is likely not to happen.

But…if the model starts to work in other areas like PC software, movies, music etc I would at least expect the gaming industry to follow suit. Some of the casual games out there are already like that. And to be honest, there are millions of gamers paying a subscription fee to Microsoft's Xbox Live already…only they pay monthly and get very little content for free. Microsoft is already dabbing a little in this “virtual cloud”/subscription model right? MMO's like WOW already are as well.

Why not license the gaming hardware for a cheap monthly fee as well? We already pay that way for our cable TV boxes etc right?

I think it totally sucks, and it's a fleecing of the consumer. Would love to see things not going in this direction. I just think it's too late.

True, most do NOT make money off hardware. Nintendo does, even with their console at the lowest price point of the big three. Nonetheless, MS and Sony are just as invested in selling their hardware – because of the exclusive services they offer their users. They don't make money off the hardware, but they make money by having large numbers of users who have access to their “entertainment portals”. Why license away exclusive access to users? And for those gamers who own multiple consoles, they've already proven that they will shell out big bucks for access to multiple service providers (MS, Sony, Nintendo) by the fact that they bought multiple consoles. They wouldn't be interested in Mr. Enderle's “servioe”.

As for Gamefly and GameTap – sure, they're subscription models. They've already got some of my money! There's a key difference, and I think that's what I was trying to point out – they license software only. Not the hardware, and that's my point – hardcore gamers who will pay for subscription services are either PC gamers who WANT to own their hardware, or console owners who have proven they are willing to make a choice between platforms.

Sure, someone somewhere is going to try to market this approach and sell it. But without the support of the big three, they won't get very far. How can you market a “universal” gaming service that is independent of hardware, when Nintendo won't license you any of their first-party titles? Or Microsoft won't give you the rights to any of their Xbox 360 exclusives? What do you have to sell your subscribers at that point?

@Rob: sorry, your URLs are only partial. I'd love the check them out!

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-et-scifi2-2008jun02,0,3454022.story“ title=”http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-et-scifi2-2008jun02,0,3454022.story“ target=”_blank” ref=”nofollow”>http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-et-sc…

This will be the first big test of a centralized gaming model. By placing the gaming engine in the cloud they expect to be able to address the latency problem with MMOs. Intel has been pushing this concept for about a year now.

Also:

http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2008/jul08/07-22GamefestPR.mspx“ title=”http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2008/jul08/07-22GamefestPR.mspx“ target=”_blank” ref=”nofollow”>http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2008/jul0…

This is Microsoft moving, more slowly, in the same direction.

Most game companies DO not make money on the console hardware, they make it off the game royalties. Even game accessories such as game controllers etc have little if no margin on them.

What Rob is describing above could actually happen and that's the point. Everything is going to a subscription model (if you are a Gamefly, or Gametap user, you already know this). MS Office is available in subscription-based format, movies are (ala video on demand/Netflix etc) and so is music (iTunes, Napster etc), so it only makes sense that games will.

I think it's B.S. as well – for the record. But I still think companies will push for this.

From a business software perspective, I could see this working. Businesses are usually concerned with cost efficiency and technology is a big part of an operating budget.

But gamers are not businesses – by and large they're just people who enjoy a hobby, albeit a hobby that happens to be the most profitable form of entertainment at the moment. And this is why your “solution” just isn't feasible. For example, gamers who want to play high-end PC games are, for the most part, also hobbyists who enjoy building their own machines and squeezing every last bit of performance out of them.

For those who just want great visuals but don't want the entry cost (both financial and in terms of time invested) of a high end PC, just go with a console. Sure, they probably have to choose one console, or maybe two if they're lucky, out of the three, but that's a choice most are willing to make. Plus, its a one-time investment for the hardware. What are the chances that, over the span of two to three years, your solution would cost them less in monthly fees than, say, the cost of one piece of hardware? Not likely.

Besides, why would say, Nintendo ever license their content to your service? They make money off every hardware purchase. There's no reason for them to invest in something like that. For that matter, why would Microsoft or Sony? They have a vested interest in selling you hardware. Its called Xbox Live and PSN.

Its a nice idea, in theory. And it *would* be great for gamers. It just wouldn't have the support of the key players. Besides, if I want a large library of games that doesn't depend on my hardware, I subscribe to GameTap (which I do).

As far as harmonizing technology, increasing dominance of consoles would do that, if it ever happens. The industry also could make pc hardware a known quantity, or at least reduce driver variables etc., by working toward some kind of “gaming machine certification” system among pc and video card makers and game companies, which wouldn't have the drawback of hosting everything … maybe it's time the ESA got useful again.

Companies are continuing to look at ways to thwart piracy and this model would essentially guarantee specific user access, unlike the rampant piracy we see today.

While performance in business based applications like Citrix arenâ??t feasible for gaming, keep in mine that 1.) The application was not built for multimedia in mind and 2.) The general population in North America has appalling internet connections â?? both up and down â?? compared to what is being deployed in Korea and Japan.

Imagine what could be with 20+mbps up/down.

Itâ??ll happen people. Give it time.. It will happen.

I feel that this is one of the worst ideals that could come out of the pipe. I will tell you this if the industry went in this direction I would be the first one to protest.

What this faux-trend (if it's not just some fantasy of the author) shows is 1) game-makers not being game-players and 2) no respect for the consumer.

And to be fair, you would likely see the cable operators like Verizon and Comcast getting in on this versus having a seperate box from the likes of Nintendo or Microsoft.

Bandwidth and a net connection would be the limiting factor here as a lot of people would like to have their consoles independant of the net.

If you have ever used a Cytrix client, operation is extremely slow on the workstation in most instances. You would want the hardware to be powerful and local – not remote.