OnLive -- the new tech unveiled at GDC that will let you stream games from a server to your cozy house without any bulky console hardware or child-threatening, razor sharp discs -- sounds insanely awesome up front. If what they claim is true -- that there will be minimal lag impacting your gameplay experience -- the technology really could give consoles a run for their money.

Actually, could it? As I read about this thing, with with every point of interest that make me giddy -- the potential to be piracy-proof (or at least as proof as you can get these days); complete abstraction and lowered costs of hardware; parity with in-store release dates (at least for the library on offer) -- there's at least one issue that makes me cast some doubt on OnLive's feasibility at this point in time. I'm not saying that it has no chance -- I just have some reservations, and would like to know more about a few things before we can actually say that consoles as we know them might be in danger.

OnLive sports a minimum requirement of a 1.5 Mbps internet connection for lag-free standard definition gameplay. Now, the only data I could pull up in my hurried Google search was this report that the average broadband speed in the United States sits at 2.3 Mbps as of August of 2008. Then there's this number from 2007 that more than one fifth of the population of both Canada and the United States. So, things aren't too shabby on that end. What I'd like to know, though -- besides what the up-to-date numbers are, of course -- is the breakout of connection speeds among those who play games (casual, hardcore, or otherwise). Do enough gaming folk have (or want and can afford) the necessary 1.5 Mbps connection? How much of that higher end (which brings the average up to 2.3) is for those who run small home businesses and/or have no desire to game? How many of those lacking the necessary connection speeds are those who demand an intense single-player experience? What will the growth of broadband penetration be like by the time the next generation of consoles comes around? Oh -- let's not forget about those Comcast data caps. How will those affect an OnLive subscriber, if at all?

I'm not going to call it on broadband penetration alone. I was one of the doubtful mob members who thought that Microsoft's reliance on broadband (i.e. no POTS modem), and the inability to get Xbox Live running for the first year of the original Xbox's existence, would prove to be that console's undoing. Look where Xbox Live is now. But that's why I also want to know where our culture -- as consumers and gaming aficionados -- stands, and where it will go. I want to know the division in the marketplace between those who still like holding a product in their hands versus those who hate clutter and welcome the 1's and 0's streaming over a network. Gamestop doesn't seem to be doing too shabbily. But then again, Steam doesn't exist on consoles, and the only high-profile, previously retail-only release that's also fully downloadable for consoles -- that I know of -- is Burnout Paradise (whoops, and Warhawk -- thanks confucioussayyo). (I'm sure there are a few others I'm missing.) That GTA IV: The Lost And The Damned DLC is actually available in retail stores as a boxed download code card further makes me wonder just how many people are (and will be) ready to be done with the retail experience for good.

This bit about culture also has to do with how much control we as consumers like to have over our product. A small somewhat-comparable example is the fact that I worry constantly that my Wii will break. Should this happen, I'll lose all access to my downloaded Virtual Console and Wii shop content because of the way they handle online accounts (or lack thereof). I have to go through Nintendo to re-download, whereas Xbox Live lets me re-download games I've wiped off my drive. Now, this isn't to say that OnLive will use the same methodology as Nintendo -- rather, I bring the Wii example up to show how little-to-no user control will hurt. If your internet connection goes kaput, or OnLive's network goes down for maintenance, you can't play anything. At least Steam has Offline Play mode, but even then, you actually have the game code stored on your hard drive. OnLive promises that you won't ever have to be bogged down with that... even if you want to. Y'know, sometimes having a clumsy hard drive is a good thing. So the question here is, how much control is afforded to the user?

All that noted, I'm still excited to see OnLive's working technology in the flesh. I think that the ability to push that amount of processor-intensive data with speeds enough to allow for real-time play can have great implications for eliminating lag in online multiplayer gaming, among other things. Imagine, in the next decade, having a portable gaming device that runs off of evolved OnLive technology -- wirelessly -- without waiting for full downloads or being restricted by hardware. Imagine OnLive becoming gaming platform limited only by the inputs of your currently-available hardware, allowing you to access your subscription from any appropriate device as long as you can log in (remember Microsoft's fabled Live Anywhere? Where'd that go... hmm!).

For now, it's all pie in the sky, and until we can get the answers to some important questions, OnLive's success is anything but guaranteed, or even possible. Maybe "success" to the OnLive team isn't mainstream exposure, but rather enough of a niche market to sustain its supposed low maintenance costs. I just hope it doesn't end up too far ahead of its time. There's too much cool factor in there for OnLive to fail before it's ever given the chance to spread its wings.