No, no, no. Streaming and cloud computing is the past. Dumb and Intelligent terminals that communicated with a host system to run the programs and display them to the user are late 70s and early 80s. You can't say that host/terminal computing is the future, if it's older than most games sold here.

I know, gee, I was trying to make a radical statement. Perhaps you could say it's ... Back to the future! Back from ... Back to ... Still in the future and past.. Remaining with... It's a thing! Streaming and cloud computing is a thing!

So, the meaning of the quotes around my answers were quite unclear, I understand - I care about my stuff, but it seems the average person doesn't care much and will get the "newer and better" version of the same thing in a new format rather than bother keeping the old one safe.
No, it's a concept, an idea, a usage implementation, or possibly a system, not a thing.

Thing is also defined as an event, occurrence or situation and rise of streaming and cloud computing is a thing, see? I got this shit covered.

Let me guess: It's covered with a thing?

I remember onlive that came out a few years back and they failed due to no one that wanted to stream games even if it was cheap and they gave free games, the big issue was internet speeds are shit everywhere to do that type of streaming. and people just love owning something they know they have not just another netflix clone for games.

You kids with your newfangled meanings, expanding the definitions of words to such a degree that any given word can mean just about anything, soon no one will be able to understand anyone else while dictionaries and encyclopaedias will become completely useless.

.

.

.

.

.

.

All right, you got me.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Hmpf! "Thing"... Bah! Humbug!

So far the most functional step in this direction is always online DRM that streams some of the game's files while you play, ensuring it's completely impossible to play offline. That's already way overstepping the mark and it's unfortunate that even this hasn't failed a lot harder than it has.

Game streaming is still a long way away as Onlive found out the hard way. We need much better internet before this can even be considered. So we're safe for a few years yet.

You should have probably mention these being Average Joe responses in the original post. I have to wonder if people would throw away things deceased family members left them to remember them by. Likewise, we should be trying to preserve our culture for the future. Future generations may enjoy a number of the things we do, but they won't if there is no effort to preserve them.

For me, that is a sacrifice never worth taking. Its literally taking away everything but what the developer wants you to see and use. I see it as sacrificing privacy and the rights we still have over our property, which we bought and paid for. You can say all you want about how it allows file viewing or how privacy friendly it is, but all of them will have a clause in the license saying they can revoke everything without question, like it is now with DRM, except there is no offline mode.

And which is still better in the long term? A powerful rig can help with other things, and if you know how to tinker, you can OC and extend its lifespan. For me inconvenience isn't an excuse to give up control.

I think game streaming as DRM will take off sooner or latter, the technology isn't quite there. In the future they'll probably do things like having the game AI stream from a central server, so even if the game is "cracked" it will be unplayable because no AI.

By the time we get there we humans will be long gone. By that time the computer machines will be playing with themselves.

That sounded dirtier than I intended.

Quantum Break will not be playable offline on PC.
All cutscenes are streamed to your computer.
Xbone users will be able to download the cutscenes.

Edit:
http://www.videogamer.com/xboxone/quantum_break/news/quantum_breaks_live_action_elements_will_be_streamed.html

I think the main hurdles for game streaming becoming more commonplace are pricing, and how internet operators in general are reacting to increasing data transfers (not only related to gaming, but also movies etc.).

I think OnLive partly failed because at least in the current situation they were unable to find a sweet spot to lure in gamers with right prices, and staying profitable (also considering the server farms needed for running the games, you need more of that that when streaming TV series (Netflix) or music (Spotify)...). The Sony system article mentioned that one of the main complaints from potential customers has also been the pricing, so Sony is struggling to find that sweet spot as well. Maybe it will become easier if and when the userbase gets bigger, if it does.

You can try to convince the customers "you don't need a $2000 PC to play your games when you subscribe to our service", but such cheapass people have probably opted for a $200-300 console already now where the HW savings are not as high, plus if people see that playing/buying those streamed games is much more expensive per item, than buying locally run versions.

So how low can the streamed gaming services go with their pricing? As low as Netflix, like $10 per month, even though the server farms will need to be more powerful due to running actual games? Try to bundle it with Netflix-like services so that you get a gaming service for a "small" extra monthly fee? Maybe... Streamed gaming might be more lucrative to casual gamers.

Then to the operators who provide the actual internet connection. How do they get their cut from the increased data usage? If they don't, monthly data caps might become even more commonplace, instead of getting less of them, which would make streaming gaming even less lucrative. Especially if people expect to play those streamed games on their mobile devices with mobile connections, where data caps are even more commonplace than on fixed internet connections at homes.

One solution for this might be that the internet operators become such "streamed gaming service providers" themselves, instead of just being a bystander that provides the bandwidth. At least here the internet operators have already come up with their own streaming movie services (or providing existing ones, taking a cut from them) where you pay them for watching streamed movies. I don't know then where that leaves Sony etc. with their streamed gaming systems, will the operators all over the world demand a cut from Sony for playing their streamed games, or put restrictions on them (the old "internet neutrality" problem, can internet operators give data transfer priority to their own services that bring them money, over third-parties which don't).