I know we have one thread going on "Cloud Gaming" already, but, I wanted to have another conversation on the subject without breaking down the integrity of the topic and "generalness" of that thread. Here I'd like to talk about one thing,...
What will happen if it works like they say it will? What will happen to PC Gaming in particular?
So, let's assume for the sake of this discussion that it Does work like they say. You get top of the line gaming, awesome graphics, and No Lag. It uses limited bandwidth since it's basically just streaming a picture, and from now on you never have to buy a "Top of the Line" computer again. What's going to happen to the rest of the Gaming Industry and what will the affect be on PC Gaming? I have some general conclusions that I would like to share and get some feed-back on.
Firstly, if it truly runs smooth and looks good with no lag, people are going to flock to this en-mass. One connection will come with a controller that plugs into a PC or for those types of games or you can use your standard mouse and key board. Let's not forget this thing does PC games too!!! Dragon Age, Mass Effect 2, etc etc, all here in working order playable as normal with your mouse and keyboard or a controller. You can get games the day they come out without needing a pre-order. No standing in line. No hours of downloading a huge game file and then installing it and hoping your system specs can handle it. It just works.
The first and most obvious effect this will have will be in the next 3 to 5 years as people who would normally be upgrading their PC's to handle the next generation of games Won't be doing this. Why go out and buy a $600 graphics card to run "Crysis 5" when OnLive can do it right on your monitor and it still looks perfect? The answer is most people won't unless the economy makes a drastic upturn. People are hesitant to spend large sums of money especially when given a cheaper option that works just as well. Graphics Card Manufacturers are going to be the first ones to start feeling the pinch followed closely by companies that make CPU's that go faster and faster in their war to stay competitive with one another. Manufacturers who make Monitors will still be golden because PC's will always need bigger and better screens, especially since the Cloud does movies too. It won't be long until "going out to the movies" will be a thing of the past. Movies will release at home the same day they do in a Box Office.
Believe it or not, aside from Military applications, it's the video game industry that has driven our progress in computers in the last 10 years or more. Business tries to take some of the credit, but come on let's face it, we don't need uber processors and graphics cards to do spreadsheets and graphs, we need them to pwn neewbs online.
As these companies loose money due to no new sales aside from when someone's computer breaks, the drive for better and faster hardware will dry up. The only one's who will need this hardware are the companies providing the services for use in their Cloud Servers. The average gamer who just wants to play is playing all the latest games through one of these services, they won't be buying a high end graphics card anymore. The same applies for consoles. Sony, Nintendo, Microsoft, all will eventually start loosing money because people no longer need their hardware to play their games. It's done through the cloud and these companies are forced to license their games to the services to get them out to the players. Even the long standing Nintendo will eventually succumb as this system will catch on even in Japan. People won't buy a new Nintendo system just to play Mario and Zelda unless they are incredibly cheap as 90% of the other titles will all be on one Cloud Service or another. Nintendo too will be forced to adapt and either license all their games or make their own Cloud System to compete.
The next big hit will be to Video Game Stores. Vendors such as Gamestop, EB Games, assorted other toy stores. No one will be buying hard copies of games, period, because they won't have the hardware capable of running them. It will all be distributed online. For those few people who do still have computers capable of keeping up, they'll buy games through digital distributors or on special orders straight from the publisher.
Speaking of Digital Distributors, they get hit next.... (Pay Attention here, Brad, this is you)
For a while at first these systems will start doing better and better (seems to be happening now wouldn't you say?). As demand in stores go down demand in a virtual environment will go up because plenty of people will still want to pay for a copy of a program. Since stores won't carry what they need they are forced to go through Digital systems. These systems will see a drastic increase of business, but, Only for a Limited Time. As games and programs quickly surpass the running requirements of even the "tech savvy" home user, these people won't be able to run the latest and greatest games that are being made. Sadly in a catch 22, as the companies that make the graphics cards are now charging $2000 for a top of the line card, normal people won't be able to afford to keep a "state of the art" system on hand to play games. They too, in a short time (4 or 5 years tops), will be forced to go into the Cloud to keep gaming.
Digital Distribution systems at this point, Must Evolve, if they are going to stay competitive. They will either loose all their games to the Cloud Gaming Servers or they will Become Cloud Gaming Servers themselves. If Impulse and Steam want to remain independent of a system like OnLive they will have to offer the same types of services it does. As such I think that is the most likely evolution of those companies who will want to stay competitive and not be a part of OnLive or license their games to them. The example I give above about "Nintendo" is, I think, the most likely outcome. Nintendo, Sony, X-Box, EA Games, Ubisoft Games, Steam, Impulse, etc etc, all these game companies and services will all offer their own "Cloud Service" or they will be forced to lease their games for use on another companies service.
As we can see, if Cloud Gaming works like they say it does, if it's lag free and plays great, the world of Video Game Entertainment is in for a BIG change. This will have far reaching applications into the industry and could spell Doom for certain aspects of it, or at least how things are now. PC gaming will be particularly hard hit. People will still be playing games on PC, but you won't need a powerful system to do it in relative style. The parts companies and manufacturers will be hard hit early on. I think N'Vidia and ATI will divide up the industry by specializing in working with certain game companies to make their games. EA, Bioware, a few others will go with N'Vidia, the rest with ATI. The common man though won't be able to afford the new "Corporate Server Edition" graphics cards.
What about Piracy? Well, with nothing to copy, Piracy will die out. People won't have files to install from their favorite games, they won't have DvD's to install, all these things are kept on Corporate Servers and streamed to paying, subscribing, customers only.
The only way a "Pirate" will actually get his hands on a game is if he hacks a server somewhere and steals it. There won't be anything to copy and burn and put online. Companies don't care about Pirates, as I guess they shouldn't, but they should care about being able to sell the games they make and the hardware being made to run them on. If this takes off everyone will be forced to adapt or get the hell out of dodge. A lot of smaller companies won't make it through this and that's a fact. I don't think Stardock has much to worry about, Impulse or no Impulse, you make your money with Windows Applications and in the coming years that might be all that keeps you afloat if things go down like this. We have very interesting times ahead, my friends. Very interesting indeed.
Thoughts on the Future of the Industry if Cloud Gaming works?
Exactly, You're probably right about the time frame too. I think though that companies like Nintendo will have their own Cloud Gaming services. Nintendo won't license characters like Link and Mario and I highly doubt they'll want their games being played on the same system that's running a Playstation release. Nintendo will have their own setup. If nothing else the Japanese will do it just to have their own and be different, their good like that and I applaud them for it.
I don't know if OnLive has any Microsoft funding tied up in it or not, but if not, then I'd say Microsoft will come out with their own service as well. To stay competitive Sony will jump on the band wagon and the third party developers will make games that will release on Multiple services at one time.
Basically we'll see these "Cloud Services" take the place of hardware in the homes. People simply won't buy new consoles and PC's. They'll buy the service from which ever company makes the games they want to play and the consumer will get a little receiver box and a controller. The smart companies will charge a medium flat rate, say $50 a month, but allow access to All the games for free without having to spend $40 to $50 on every game that comes out. Granted at first they'll be greedy and they'll charge everyone $40 or $50 per game and give away some games for "free" with the actual service that will cost $20 a month.
If it works properly I can't see a reason why it wouldn't evolve like this. For the basic consumer they'll just see this as a way to cut out hefty expenses while still getting the game play they want. To Hardware Enthusiast's this will mark the beginning of the end of Real gaming. Hardware companies aren't going to fare too well either.
I'm not sure how Nintendo, Microsoft or Sony will re-act in the long term, however I agree in that they'll want their own services, and we'll see the development of multi-service releases much like the consoles of the current generation. However, I disagree with a flat-monthly fee being the most logical standard adopted - from a cost/profit point of view, it doesn't make sense. What will makes the most sense is a Pay by Usage service, where you're billed for the month's usage plus a basic service fee. This of course assume they move away from the charge per game per month, which will happen once the service becomes adopted as widespread as, say, Internet Access. This is purely speculation and simply looking at will make the companies the most money with respect to maintaining a proft margain. I could be wrong, however being as Video Game Distribution is basically an unregulated market, where each company makes up licences as they see fit without a standard, I can't see anything being favourable to the customers; video games make too much money for them to be fair.
Edit:After some additional thought, I believe a more practicle solution would be offered by the age and/or popularity of a game. For example once a game reaches a certain age, it's moved off of the Subscription List and earns its own fee. This way, the services would charge for the processing power for the games people want to play from yester-year ensuring that they can be provided despite their age and lack of popularity. The problem arises with 'buying' a game - even in OnLives business model - the one-shot purchase price doesn't cover extensive use of a game. If I buy a hundred dollar game, and play it for four hours every day for two years, OnLive will lose money. A limited licence release will most likely be needed - buy it for five years then it's moved off the Subscription List and you need to pay a fee to continue using it. Either that or a shite load of on-service adds. Either way you dice it, it's not good.
I have no problem with not having tangible video game material. Not having to worry about upgrading computer components would even be better. Nothing is lost in the transmission. Movies take a dive in quality and so does music, so that's a no go. The kindle is great for public domain books, but I'll spring the extra $2 for the hard copy of copyrighted material. Video games are the sole acception.
In the end, it's all buisness, if it doesn't sell it wont continue. If it does, even if it's as stupid as 3-D movies/tv, there's no stopping it.
Very true. I'm just guessing at the actual costs and the only price structures I know for sure are what they've mentioned in interviews. So far it's pay a monthly service, plus pay for the games. No matter which business model they go with they're going to bring in obscene amounts of money and when things get too old to make money on a regular basis they'll most likely use a model like you suggest, that makes the most sense. Either way though, the customers are still getting screwed when you look at it by today's standards.
Sadly that's true too. If something makes money, no matter how stupid or asinine some people might think something is, Human Greed will insure it's success. All the companies will have to do is throw in enough features that they can compensate people in their minds for them not really "owning" a game. Eventually even the Die Hards like me who want hard copies of games will have to come around if we want to keep gaming.
Man, that pic's sooo not funny...lol
Oddly enough, every game box shown there (ok, most of them anyway) is from a game that was a Huge Success.
And I own 80% of them.
I love how it has Duke Forever in the bottom corner with a question mark on it
Not to be contrary, but you should do some research yourself. The batch, or hive processing is not yet there. I am not saying it's one machine per, but it's not too far from that number right now. OnLive is struggling and here is the report that says so:
http://www.wired.com/magazine/2010/02/pl_games_cloud/
edit: actually, it's worse than that. OnLive currently needs a machine for every player: "We just tried out OnLive, and of course it worked perfectly, being a demonstration on the order of 8-10 machines set up by the company itself. The people we talked to were naturally very optimistic, and my concerns over the availability and reliability of multi-megabit connections were waved away. That isn’t the only problem, though. OnLive will need a top-tier computer for every player at all times, and when a new game is introduced, the volume and subsequent will be unsupportable. Add this to the fact that video quality (which looked okay to me) is questionable at the framerates they’ve set forth, and things start looking a bit pie-in-the-sky."
Just to be clear, that is a quote from people who have seen it in action, and say they need A MACHINE FOR EVERY PLAYER AT ALL TIMES!!!!!!
I think you missed the sarcasm.
Even if its not one machine per person it will still cost almost the same because that one machine for many will cost alot more than the machine at your house.
I dont think games that require your own hardware wont die anyway... I'm sure alot of people are like me love to stare at their glowing super pc next to them....Everyone could buy a compact car but suv's are still the most poplular...How else can we prove who's king of the geeks.
I'm glad you're here SwerdyAss, that was the point I was trying to make.
I think you actually need to do some further research into cloud computing. The ability for one computer to act as more than one computer is virtualization. Cloud computing is the ability for one or more computers to act as one or more computers. Unfortunately, not included in this are things like video cards and sound cards.
NVIDIA has a line of graphics cards designed for cloud computing, but it doesn't work for gaming. http://www.nvidia.com/object/io_1256065754359.html
Until this ability is developed, OnLive will literally have to be running one graphics card per session. And that means, logistically, it would be one computer per session. The only true "cloud" part would be the servers that would handle encoding of the video.
And even when it IS developed, the fact of the matter is that OnLive will be limiting your graphics options. If Crysis 3 comes out and takes the power of 5 modern day CPUs and 6 modern day GPUs, why would OnLive ever support it? Would they really let a user take that much power?
I work in IT, and thin clients were all the rage a few years ago. But in real world scenarios, having one failure point is a really, really bad idea. In addition, things are still super slow (graphics and input wise), even within the network. But I guess OnLive has magically solved this with their video encoding algorithm and magical elimination of input lag, even over DSL. We'll see.
DeCypher gets it too. Okay, I'm happy.
The company that provided support for modders and mods would likely be more popular than the one that didn't, meaning there would be an incentive for them to make sure modding was still possible in some way.
I disagree, especially with the subscription model Raven outlined - you're paying for the ability to play games via the service, regardless of the game (and any games you want to have access to play you'll pay to access). Thus it shouldn't matter whether you're playing a 10 year old game or a newly released game in terms of the cost of providing it - if anything it'd be cheaper depending on how it works (since the older game wouldn't need as powerful hardware), so depending on how it's implimented I could see games being supported indefinitely (this is if the OnLive company is providing everything. If it is simply linking to the game company's servers then it's another matter).
About the only cost I could see for a game would be the cost of holding the data for that game. Assuming hardware in the future is anything like it is at the moment, where a game uses up a tiny fraction of my hard drive while all of my graphics card, such costs are likely to be negligible, and far outweighted by the cost on sales of removing games and the loss of the marketing tool of having access to the most games. Afterall competing companies are going to use the number of games you can play on them as a key selling point. If one gives you access to 10k games and the other 1k, you can tell which one people are more likely to choose.
I've been reading up about the onlive thing. While they seem to be trying to keep whatever miracle tech they have under wraps, it is said they will be using virtualization to run several games off one PC for less intensive games. Still, it's generally believed anything like Crysis would still be a one per customer setup. Doing the math, just getting 10K people to be able to play highend games at once would be possibly $10Mil worth of hardware. That's assuming they are buying top line $2K machines and getting them for $1K on a mass buy. And you know they are expecting more like hundreds of thousands of subscribers. They sure better hope it's successful. The amount of money they have to be sinking into it must be insane.
Edit: I didn't see You post pfizzy till after I made mine, looks like we have been reading some of the same things. Also read about their live Demo at some convention. Basically very controlled conditions with the server only 50 miles away. Probably T1d to their demo machine.
The day the Clouds Tech guy comes to my House and installs a Direct Fiber Optic Link, via a Fiber Optic NIC, direct from the Backbone of said Cloud Service, will be the day that Cloud based Gaming will become a true reality.
I can't wait.
Well said. As much as I think Dons prediction might be a little more likely (lets not forget most companies are money grubbing P.O.S.'s) , it could just as easily go this way too. Some of these services might keep games longer just to have "More Games" and hence increase their competitiveness.
True. The amount of money they're putting into this MUST be Insane. Then again I'd be willing to bet more then a few system's analysts have come to the same conclusions I have. "When" (not If) this is successful, it's going to change the face of online entertainment and how we view the Hardware side of gaming. They know eventually this will be Huge and there won't be any fighting it once we pass a certain point in it's development.
I don't want to be the "Thread Police" , but, I think some of you are still missing the point. This discussion Is Not about "If" the technology works or even "How" it works. This is about "How the market and industry will change When it works". Believe me the time is coming when it will. Even if OnLive doesn't work as promised up front, it won't take long until it does and a big part of me wants to say that the people behind OnLive wouldn't be risking this much money if the technology wasn't there to support their ideas.
This morning before I went to bed I also took this post and copied it and put it on the "Gamespot" forums HERE. It made it to page 3 before I finally turned the computer off and went to sleep. I put it there simply to get more exposure and feed-back. It seems some of them didn't get the point either and it de-evolved into a discussion about whether or not the technology behind it will work. I should have taken into account that the Gamespot forums are mostly filled with 14 year old fanboys. It's not like I should have expected rocket scientists and system analysts to all step forward and break this down line by line to see the trends in gaming in the coming years. Still, some of them "got it" and came to more or less the same conclusions some of us have. Some of them say this will fail miserably, and a small percentage says nothing will change that the companies that will be killed with this sort of thing won't let this happen.
It does make me wonder if those companies that would be almost destroyed by services like this Do Indeed See the possible fallout from this and whether or not they're doing anything about it to try to ensure they stay afloat through this.
But then what exactly is the point? Until we know exactly what works and what doesn't, how can we predict anything? If everything works, but the price point has to be raised, then that changes everything about that prediction.
But if you grant that it works, it's pretty obvious what will happen: the same things that happen with Netflix and DVDs today. I think you're over analyzing things way too much. Netflix is a great service that streams movies lag free and for a low rate. Still, people buy their own DVDs and equipment. Why would gaming be any different? This is even more apt, because we still have personal computers anyway for non-gaming purposes, making cloud gaming even less likely to be adopted than a Netflix type service.
When it comes to that part of the discussion, the "Point" is trying to determine what will happen in the industry. I happen to own stock in quite a few various companies and maybe about 1/3 of my income comes from investing and knowing when to sell my stock to make money.
Honestly, none of us can really say the technology is or isn't there to do it yet until we actually sit down and try out OnLive when it's released. Even if the tech isn't quite there yet, the bottom line is that it Will Be, more so sooner then later. Also because we have another discussion going on "Cloud Gaming" in these forums, I wanted to keep the speculation about whether or not it works in that thread and instead concentrate this thread on the ramifications of it working because sooner or later, it Will Happen.
Personally, I disagree. Not saying your point here isn't valid, it is. Also though a DvD player you buy to watch a movie doesn't cost $400 or $500 to purchase. Also, movies, rented or otherwise, are only two or three hour "experiences" at best. They don't last for days or weeks like most games do. You also don't have companies with Billions of Dollars wrapped up in making sure you have a Powerful enough DvD player to watch a movie. Your example would be like comparing Netflix with WoW. Netflix makes a profit sure, but it doesn't make the same kind of profit or deliver the same kind of experience that World of Warcraft does. You don't need to spend $1500 or more to make sure you have a good experience watching movies on Netflix, but you Do need to spend that kind of money if you want to have a good gaming experience with the current way things are set up with people owning their own gaming hardware.
You also have to factor in the Extreme Costs of what will be perceived in the future of owning your own hardware (Pc's and Consoles) verses simply paying a fee associated with a competitive service to play games on. Even though many of us adults play games and we're the ones spending massive amounts of money on top of the line hardware, it's the "kids" who will be bugging their parents about whatever the latest game is that will be Truly driving the marketplace for services like this. It's their parents who will have the final word on how money is spent in the long run. When a parent looks at the cost of buying a gaming service (and factors in that they already have a stable Internet connection) and weighs that against the cost of buying a new (and expensive) console or PC, I think the service is going to win out, time and time again.
If I seem to be over-analyzing it, it's because how I make my investments will have a direct impact on how I think the market will evolve. If I can identify the trends before they happen, and invest wisely, I could make a LOT of money just buying and selling stock in the appropriate companies at the right time.
Also, being a High End gamer my-self, I highly value my PC and what it can do both for my gaming and for the other uses I have for it. I don't have a kick ass gaming rig just so I can brag to fanboys about how my system is better then theirs or costs more money. I take pride in my system and the fact that I built it my-self with the parts I ordered. I take pride in the fact that I can do Soooo many different things with my PC. It's a matter of pride and the subconscious desire to be "King of the Nerds", my own ego, that drives my will to be good at what I do and what I do it with.
Many games these days are barely 4-10 hour experiences, too. I'm talking AAA titles like Bioshock 2 and God of War 3. Netflix is exactly like WoW. You can get unlimited hours of entertainment out of it every month, and that is what you pay a fee for. If you want a computer to play WoW, it costs $60 to add the graphics card to your current computer. If you owned no consoles and wanted netflix, the stream only box is $80 (similar to what OnLive is proposing, though they have stated outright they DON'T want to be in hardware and want you to play it on your PC). Not sure how comparing Netflix to WoW changes my point. This is America, the land of ownership, even if you can't afford it.
There is no "EXTREME" cost. Everyone has a computer. You either buy a console ($200 xbox 360, optional +$40 for a year of gold), add a video card ($60 for WoW, $200 for all modern games), or subscribe to OnLive ($15 a month currently). When a parent sees that OnLive costs more than an Xbox after 1.5 years, the Xbox wins. OnLive will require game rentals or purchases, just like a console would.
Even with a hypothetical $50 a month unlimited games, you would compare that to a 360 ($200) and a $15 month gamefly subscription. We haven't even begun to talk about what would happen if console makers started streaming games, either. They could undercut the prices of all these cloud gaming services because they don't have to pay to run the hardware.
You also have to keep in mind that technology is always upgrading. OnLive is offering 720p resolutions. People already have 1080p TVs and 24 inch monitors. Not going to cut it. In the future, iwhen consumer technology is introduced (say 120hz 3d, which already exists), it's either play outdated games on the cloud, or get the latest and greatest with games YOU OWN. If people were always practical and price sensitive as you implied, everyone would be driving a Civic or Corolla. But people like to buy BMWs, and Corvettes, etc. It's the same thing that fuels PS3 fanatics against 360 fanatics - things like Blu Ray and 1080p. Would people suddenly not care once cloud gaming is introduced? It's not their money. If mommy and daddy buy them crappy cloud gaming, they'd want the latest and greatest console on their 120hz TVs instead. I want lucky charms, not Ralph's marshmallow cereal.
Ahh, but see, comparatively there Is a "Extreme Cost". Let me use another example. (Granted I am taking some liberties here with how I think this will play out in the next few years).
Everyone eats bread right? Right. How many people today bake their own bread verses how many go to the store and pick up a loaf for $2? My grandmother bakes some of our bread her-self, but it's more of a special treat, not something she does often. Baking our own bread takes a lot of time and effort and the cost weighed against simply running to the store to buy bread is HUGE in comparison.
Playing games on a service like this based against playing games on your own Hardware will have the same comparative costs. Why pay tons of money to buy your own hardware, pay tons of money to replace that hardware when it breaks, and all the other complications that come with it when you can just pay a small fee and not have to worry about hardware?
You have to look at what the lowest common denominator is. People like you and me and other Hardcore gamers and Tech Fanatics may want our hardware and still want to buy our hardware, but all the casual "common people" will be using the gaming services.
Let's go back to the "Bake Bread" analogy.
People aren't going to bake their own bread for $10 a loaf when they can get the same tasting bread for $2 and not have to bake it themselves.
Also, on a side note, I don't think Netflix makes Anywhere Near the same kind of profit margins that WoW does, which is why I brought up WoW against Netflix.
Except, unlike bread, you don't make consoles or OnLive. You buy both. To make your analogy more valid, OnLive would be like a bread subscription service. OnLive is paying a monthly fee for access to a bread making service. If you want a certain bread, you still have to buy it. However, once you stop paying the fee, any uneaten bread will be taken back.
If making bread didn't take any work (you put two dollars in your machine and out pops bread), I'd actually think breadmakers would be pretty popular, because they'd save you money in the long run vs a store you have to pay membership fees to (assuming you don't want to pirate your bread). This is what consoles are.
You also keep ignoring the fact that people, kids especially, want the latest and the greatest. Why buy a BMW when a Civic gets you from point A to point B? Because you can afford it, and it's a better car.
I'm not "Ignoring it' as much as I'm thinking the way things are now will simply change. The "latest and greatest" will in fact be the services them-selves and not the high end model of "car" or PC or what have you. History is full of examples to follow as well. Look at what happened to the popularity of "Radio" when "TV" was invented.
What I'm getting at is when the market changes because of the introduction of a working Cloud System, even the people who want the Top End hardware won't be able to afford it and no amount of "I want that whining" is going to change the fact that it will be too expensive compared to the lowly cost (in comparison) of simply signing up with a service provider.
Technically it's possible to buy a server stack, get the proper licenses, and start my own ISP so I'm not paying a provider to be able to access the internet on my own terms. People don't do this how-ever because they can't afford to when compared to simply paying a service fee to a existing ISP. If Cloud Gaming takes off it will follow the same principle only with Hardware.
Private citizens, for the most part, aren't corporations and don't have the cash flow to accomplish the same things a corporation can. Eventually owning gaming hardware will be something only corporations do and the status symbol for the "I have to have the Best" type of people will be having the Most Expensive service package available. You won't see people bragging how their graphics card cost them $500. Instead they'll be bragging when they say "I have a Gold Membership with unlimited playtime". The whole system and how things are handled will change, including our perceptions of those systems. What is the most popular, and by extension the most affordable to accomplish, will be the new "in Thing" and the thing to "Brag About". Following the most common denominator will be what is thrust upon us whether we like it or not because it's what the companies that provide our games and our hardware will be doing. As consumers and not providers, most people will have no choice but to go along with whatever system is working if they wish to keep gaming. If that means they have to join a gaming service and stop buying expensive hardware because that's the business model that the corporations are using then that's the way it will be.
The proof of the matter won't come though until these systems work and take off in the marketplace and are driven by the consumers and manufacturers. Either way it's coming and we as gamers (and me as a investor) need to be prepared.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
