I would wait for actual user tests and pricing details before you get your hopes up.

@khuutra
why do you want it to kill off nintendo all together?

I don't. I'm saying that if Nintendo isn't dead, the console will never die.

I don't want the console to die. I'm saying that if you want cloud computing to really and truly matter for consoles like it could for PCs, you better hope it can kill Nintendo.

I doubt it will work, and I certainly won't be an early adopter. But I am prepared to fully embrace it if it is good. I think Comcast would have me capped at about 12 hours of HD gaming per month, which just isn't going to work for me.

It's an unrealistic paper product. A fantasy. OnLive will be deleted before it even starts production.

Within a month or so we'll hear Gabe Newell or some other gaming authority mock it and after that people will never talk about OnLive again.

That's rather interesting and I hadn't thought much about it. At 5 Mbits/s, this will consume around 2.2 GB per hour of data for "HD" (720p with video compression) gaming. What's the typical traffic cap for USA ISPs?

Gabe Newell tends hate most new technology, so that would not be suprising.

Not high enough. Somebody did the math and it comes out to somehting like an hour a day. Or less.

If nothing else does, this could well kill this service... I've got to wonder though, with all of these cons, why did so many companies get on board?

in my area - 250 Gb cap with an option to by at $15 for each additional 10Gb.

250 Gb per month/2.2 Gb per hour = 113.6 hours per month = ~3.8 hours per day

...but i should note the cap is higher in my area than most.  some areas are as low as 60 Gb caps.

60/2.2 = 27.3 hours per month = <1 hour a day.