Onlives problems don't stem from the implementation of their technology. It stems from incumbants like Nintendo, Microsoft and Sony who already have extensive content delivery networks, more so Microsoft or even certain cable companies in the U.S. In addition they already have the hardware out there, so all they would need is a firmware update and they can split the computing resources between the local hardware and servers.
In terms of the actual practicalities of whether the service would be any good or not I would like to point to Killzone 2 as the reason why it would work. I was told, adamantly infact that the 70-100ms difference in latency between Killzone 2 and Halo 3/Call of Duty 4/6 is unimportant and undetectable by certain people. Well gosh thats exactly the difference in latency between Onlive and local computing even after you factor in the wireless controller latency. If people here reckon its worth didly squat and they are gaming enthusiasts who claim to be skilled etc it would mean even less to people who are even less demanding of their games.
Btw 70-100ms of latency is extra 2-3 frames of delay between controler input and the games response displayed on screen.
Tease.
