^ edit: oh you posted again. Well done for posting something of utter bare relevance to this topic. Your joke posts aside the 360 has a massive community that people are willing to pay for and other systems are trying to emulate.
First of all please don't write 3 individual replies when you can do so in one post, thanks.
If all people want in games is a high resolution picture, they should go to a museum and look at paintings. Are you joking? Or are you just trying to pick topics to vent and argue about. Gimme a break. LOL
I never said that. You don't seem to understand much about games - its more than resolutions. Take an old game like Duke Nukem or Doom, they have about the same number of enemies on screen as similar genre titles such as Doom 3 and Crysis. But their AI is much improved. Games have progressed a lot and need more powerful systems to render them. Take something like Left 4 Dead; it's not the most visually demanding of modern games when compared to Project Offset or the Crytek Engine 2, but on my 2ghz C2D it can render 300 zombies all with their own (albeit basic) AI and physics.
Photographs aren't interactive either. What kind of argument is that?
Besides which, if you honestly don't think people don't care about graphics then why are these big graphic games such big business? Seen the sales figures for GTA IV or any recent major release? Why people buy new consoles?
Just google it if you're really interested. Here's one that explains a little on why it can't readily happen.
http://www.massively.com/2008/06/25/don-t-expect-world-of-warcraft-on-the-ps3-or-xbox-360-ever/
If you know anything about these types of games and how they work, you can just see the obvious reasons why it can't work.
Of course I know how games work I'm a developer myself. But that link doesn't prove
any of your claims, you said it was specs but both the 360 and PS3's HDD are upgradeable. They also say it's down to patch verification and their services wanting a cut of the subscription fees. My 1.5ghz G4 PowerBook can run WoW. A monstrous (compared) 360 or PS3 would technically run it.
Actually, those may have high graphics clients and all perhaps, but they are considered "simple" games compared to say...MMO's. You might think highly of them, but they are by no means complex or even remotely sophisticated compared to others out there. So if that's your point, I'm afraid you might be a victim of marketing hype.
What I'm talking about is stuff like this...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nydW9XUA5VQ
But either way...it depends on what you want out of gaming. If you don't think cloud computing offers anything past client server whatever...you'll be banging heads against industry movers like Ray Ozzie, etc. who have been working toward cloud services (and the service vs. product model) for the past couple of years. And his team and others arround the globe have spent billions to make this happen.
What that video has is something called post-processing effects, everything else looks very basic, infact the textures look terrible and the human models look very poor.
It's basic logic that big, powerful engines need big powerful systems to run (not counting bad ports). I don't know why you'd think otherwise. That's why my old computers are relegated to running weaker software
it's not some global conspiracy.
And cloud computer will have its place. It's just not going to be christened with some laggy online gaming service on connections that only an absolute minority of internet users will be able to use. Especially a subscription service!
Still waiting for an answer to what you think this "community" thing OnLive will have over any other established services?
TV native version of the decompression software (a Mac version exists anyway) and make the game purchases part of an App Store for the 
