Why is it a big deal when OnLive already existed? Because it's being done by a major console company that has been in the market for about two decades now. That means a potentially massive library of titles some people might have never had their hands on and that you could never get unless you had the Sony platform it was released on. It certainly sounds great for people who didn't have a PS3 and want to play the games without going out and buying an older piece of hardware for a couple hundred dollars. Also being able to do so on typically non-gaming hardware could turn out to be awesome. 

As far as the questions for why people are making a big deal about something talked about almost a year ago the answer is simple. Back then it was just an idea. Even up until now people would talk about it from time to time but you always got the feeling that it was something so far off that it may never actually happen. That it was just talk. Now it's being shown off. People can actually talk about how it works right now. We have a more specific timeframe to look forward to. In other words....

Sony has already said your physical and digital purchases will not roll over to PSNow. PSNow is a completely different animal than buying a game on the PSStore or a physical disc. It is going to be like Netflix where you have access as long as you are a subscriber or pay to rent a certain title

Remote Play works very well over the internet on my Vita. It stutters from time to time but most of the time it is spot on and doesnt lag. (Requires a fast upload speed) but a decent download speed is all you need for the Vita

Whats the difference todays internet vs the internet that onlive was on? Internet are now faster and more household have adopted broad band interent makign streaming movies and games more a reality. Yes there will be lag and most house holds may not be running 50mbs - 200mbs but the average house hold toda are using at 5mbs -10mbs broadband. 5 years ago, a lot of people were still on DSL. 

Yup, lol.

It's not just this issue, but millions of them for the past 10+years.

One recent case that really drove it home was when I saw a youtube video from Sony a few months ago about eyetoy. All the comments were about how cool it was, how awesome it is, etc. The video had almost all likes, few if any dislikes.

This despite any video about Kinect on youtube basically gets flooded with hate comments and over 50% dislikes...

Or you can just go back to how Kinect and to a far lesser extent Wii, was reviled, but Move was heavily praised on forums (and it basically was abandoned by Sony and an utter failure).

There is no consistency. Basically if it's from Sony, people support it. I dont mind if gamers want to be consistent abnd say for example "we dont like motion controls" but the evidence shows what they really say is "we like it if it's from Sony and hate the same thing if it's from Microsoft".

It's a step in the right direction. I fully expect Microsoft to follow. What with 300,000 servers and what not for Xbox Live.

But what I want is the removal of specific hardware completely along with the ability to buy new releases of games. Or a subscription model that offers new releases, too. I know we're a few years off from this, but if I could play games in HD without input lag on any device (similar to Amazon's video service) I'd be all in.

I just looked at the games available for Onlive. It kind of sucks. If Sony's service will offer the same then it'll suck too.

1. The Games

2. Because OnLive failed. Do you think Sony would come out this confidently if they didn't solve the problems that OnLive encountered?

3. Technology advances very quickly. You don't actually think Sony is using the same 3 year old technology that OnLive was using right?

4, The key to the solution is not to overhaul the network infrastructure in the US, because that's not happening anytime soon nor would a company like Sony have anything to do with that. Rather, it is to develop new ways of compressing data such that it can be delivered under low bandwidth. This is exactly what YouTube is doing when they announced that they would start streaming 4K videos in the coming months. Our bandwidth isn't improving the next few months. So how is that possible when 4K videos are 4 times the size of a 1080P video? Answer: better compression and faster/more efficient video decoding.

Ah nvm

To those saying it's not getting criticized are obviously not on IGN and Neogaf. Playstation Now is getting blasted.