If the games get bad online, I'd probably be playing live. The way that I look at: online play has been a good vehicle for learning and building a roll as well as the experience as a whole.

If the games get horrible everywhere, I have no problems giving up the game. There's other hobbies I've made profitable in the past. And I doubt that live play won't be profitable since people that want tend to want gamble-it-up more in a live environment and have fun. That's what most people do at casinos. Internet play is a different beast. People scared of playing online for whatever reasons may be the same gamble-it-up types (e.g. computer illiterate, don't trust playing online, etc.).

I think a lot of people have this sunk cost mentality when it comes to this impending "doom switch" concept. It seems like many poker players tend to instantly refuse to give the game up because they spent all the money and time in books, etc., learning the game, they feel obligated to play it. These same winning gamblers talk about EV but refuse to apply to the poker economy as a whole. I suppose it's not that bad if a once +EV player busts out; he'll either get better or stop playing unless he's a glutton for pain.

I think that for reasonable players, perhaps not so much for the weak-tighties, that online play will be profitable for sometime. If playing online is not that profitable, it will at least be a good training tool for live play.