Not sure how this will do, seeing that the box alone is $200. Also, ONLive is going to launch soon which offers gaming onDemand similar to cable service.

I guess the advantage over OnLive is that you get to play the games you own for "free" (that is, after you purchase the game). If you have a huge game library, spend a lot of time on the road, and don't mind running your console 24/7 (unless this allows for remote powerup), then you might find this useful.

I like this idea. However, even though I like innovation and competition, I think this might be a blood bath for these companies coming out with all these different devices. Gaikai, Onlive and Spawnbox? And aren't there two others? Each competing for our dollars and shelf or tote bag space. It is not likely that many people are going to buy into all of them at the same time. What is the perfect set up with these things for the PC and console gamer. Would it be better for these companies to get aligned with one of the big three or more? Spawnbox seems like a nice complimentary device to an console with a large hard drive. Multiple games would need to be installed to make it worth while. So the PC gamer would like Gaikai adn the console gamer would like Spawnbox. I guess the console gamer without a decent high end machine would want Onlive!

Can anyone imagine a gamer who invests in a PS3, Onlive, and Spawnbox too? Or a high end PC and Gaikai? Or would it be the 360 plus Gaikai? What are the scenarios that these companies invisioning. Sure it is big market, but it is going to get scaled down real fast when you consider the competing interests here. Sorry my post isn't more coherent, I am a bit tired, as my son was in the hospital for a few days, he's fine though and playing the Uncharted 2 MP demo while recovering at home instead of school--he thinks this is fantastic timing. But imagine if we had a spawnbox, he could have played in the hospital on our laptops easily.

One thing to note, I don't see anywhere on OnLive website where they talk about running console (360, PS3, or Wii) games. Maybe I'm wrong, but it would make sense (from a server and maybe even legal standpoint) for them to only run PC titles.

Also, Spawnbox runs games you already own. So it isn't going head-to-head with OnLive or Gaikai.

As far as OnLive vs. Gaikai, one company is based in the US the other in the UK. Until one of them has enough money to set up server farms around the world, they will not be competing with each other either.

I haven't particularly been following the development of these devices (hell I hadn't even *heard* of Gaikai x3), but I'm aware of atleast OnLive and (now) Spawnbox to know what they're attempting. Neverminding the fact that these devices (particularly OnLive) are hinting at a future road for the gaming industry as a whole (one that will hopefully-if anything-lower the ridiculous costs of production and inspire for some genuine innnovation in genres/new genres again), like Steve above me said, these guys don't seem poised to take up residence in the vast majority of gamer's homes going the route they are.

The answer's too obvious: at the end of the day, aren't these peripherals?!? And as peripherals, don't they know their fate in the market xD? Yes, they sound very good (I'll get to that just a bit later), but these guys need to align themselves w/ the console manufacturers (or, in Gaikai's case, a few PC manufactureres) and get their backing on the whole in order to really penetrate the market. That's just my take.

In Spawnbox's case-and also like Steve said-the developers should allow for a way to support the installation of *multiple* discs, not just one, otherwise what's the point? We as people tend to be pretty fickle at times; between leaving for a destination and arriving to it (or even on the way to it), our tastes are likely to change. You want to play a different game, but guess what?!? Not possible; you should've been much more sure of your choice before you left your home, miles and miles away.

Don't get me wrong, the rest of the idea sounds cool, but that one-game-only aspect,...surely someone on it's development team has noticed the limitations of it by now, so what's being said here shouldn't be a revelation by any means.

As for OnLive, again, I don't really keep up w/ these devices in terms of their developments, but from what I remember, OnLive's going for a whole streaming, cable-service-model sort of angle. I feel like this is a first step to where the future of consoles as a whole could go in, but it's the streaming aspect most intriguing to me. Think of it this way; if console manufacturers can start streaming those big-budget (and small-budget) games in a sufficient manner (online technology might be a *few* years off from reaching that level of stability, but if so than not that much. Also, chances are that technology's already out there, but just used exclusively in certain business fields, like the military and governmental telecommunications, etc.), the prices we'd have to pay for those games wouldn't be so damn needlessly expensive anymore. This streaming aspect could even work it's way into the development process, lowering the cost for making these games; it's a win for everybody.

I'd go further into this, but as someone pointed out to me a while back, it's probably best to write a blog in that case xD. Later.

I played with this at Austin GDC.

It's pretty cool. You can map any controller to anything else (I used a 360 controller play the PS3 version of the game), play on a simple laptop, pop in and play whenever you like (like when you have a little break here and there), and do remote single screen multi player with friends etc.

The down sides?

- Significant input lag.
- Ugly compression artifacts in the video feed.

But if you don't care about picture quality (IE not for you "HD rules!" types) and don't need quick congtroller response, I think it looks VERY promising.