Looking back at Perlman's other ventures, it seems that he hypes a technology in an area and then ultimately makes money elsewhere. WebTV, for example ... that ended up getting picked up by other companies and was in one form turned into Moxi via Charter. Once this fails, it'll probably be picked up for a dime by some other company. No gamer is going to care if they have a patent ... and honestly does anyone? Read the forums and responses throughout the Internet and you'll find that gamers really have no use for OnLive. It is a novelty ... a "gee whiz, I can play Crysis on a crappy laptop" kind of thing. In the United States we already have huge issues with broadband and the recent wins by various companies to throttle traffic is already hurting them. Why "stream" video of a game being played (by you, and elsewhere) when you offload all that onto your own machine? They missed many targets and dropped prices already means that they're not reaching the market. "Cloud Gaming" is complete BS.

This kind of insanity is just plain stupid. Binaural beats have a documented psycho-dynamic effect ... programs like Hemi-Sync are intriguing. I don't think people are going to get "high" off of them though. But what if they do? If binaural beats are made illegal and deemed "narcotic", then the "drug war" is more about denying people access to their own minds.

I've tried to get my head around this, but even if it works uniformly for everyone I'd have a really hard time seeing it be any more than a niche market. Between GameStop for consoles, Steam for the PC (and now Mac), and increasing options for DLC, it's going to be a really hard-sell to gamers who are used to owning something physical that they can trade in (even for horrible rates). I bet broadband will kill them. Net neutrality is going to fail, unfortunately, so people are going to get capped and have overage fees. Better to invest in a nice used XBOX 360 ($150 or less sometimes).

Sounds like the RIAA in the US all over again. People turn off their TVs to become more interactive (e.g. computer use) and all of a sudden the media corporations get all up in arms.

Let's face it, despite how much TV people actually watch, TV in its old form (the "idiot box") is evolving and soon there won't be much distinction between TV or a PC. We're already seeing this with TiVo and media centers.

How this all gets sussed out is yet another matter. I suppose the TV license approach is as valid as any and likely better than commercial TV here in the US. The truth is that ALL media producers are going to have to consider that online distribution is the future. TV shows will be downloaded on demand and "through the air" distribution will be tremendously different, probably more useful for real-time news rather than actual entertainment (although I don't see much difference these days.