It was a horrible idea to begin with. I wonder how much money they will have lost on this failed investment when all is said and done.

Btw, I predict that the future of OnLive will be terminated some time in 2010.

Well I want to play quality games without having to buy a gaming PC. So I'm a little more open minded about OnLive than most people on this thread.

If prices are reasonable. I will definitely check it out.

Buying any cheap PC from ~2006 on (even a business Dell or HP machine) and putting a $100 graphics card in it would give superior quality to OnLive. If you already have a PC of that era you just need the card. If a subscription is $20/mo then you'll save after 5 months...

Does this work like a cinema pass or is it a subscription for the service and extra for games?

If it's $20 to try out a library of games without the need to download anything then I'll try it.

The trouble is that streaming games requires a lot more than streaming movies. You could easily stream a movie from server which is 5000 miles away but game would have noticeable lag even if server is just 500 miles away (or even less). And no technology now or in the future can remove that completely (unless someone knows how to break laws of physics). Lag doesn't matter to neither streaming music nor movies but it is very important for gaming. Not to mention that servers would have to be a lot more powerful than movie servers unless you want PS2 graphics.

To create worldwide network to stream games for millions of people right now would require more money than development budgets of PS3, 360, and Wii combined. It definitely wouldn't be cheap.

There are also several other issues. Old games or less sold games will probably be automatically deleted from servers because those would not create profits but wastes space from server. Even though server space is cheap, it still cost something. Because you don't own game, they have no oblication to keep them forever. One example is MS which has deleted several games from XBLA (owners of the game can still re-download them though but no one else can purchase them anymore).

I'll take 12

Will OnLive have multiplayer and what will the lag be in multiplayer shooters?

I think you guys are missing a key point. Mobiles.

The iPhone demo was especially interesting. Obviously only a fool would drop a nice PC for OnLive, but what about their phones or netbooks? While I'm still not convinced this isn't vaporware, if it works as expected it could make low powered devices into viable gaming platforms. If I could play my PC games on my phone I would never even consider a PSP or DS. Of course there is always the issue of input buttons or resolution.

i'm also against the dematerialisation of games. I simply like to have a physical collection and not only a virtual... the only thing we can do is not to buy games on internet but we are a minority and most people will download games if they have the possibility.

Yes, but not for MANY years. Besides numerous technological orientated design issues and special requirements. It's just badly desiged. A succeful new tech needs to have a reason why consumers want it. OnLive only meets a niche crowd not a masses.

If OnLive wants to succeed. It needs to work with other hardware manufacturers to provide the necessities built into the system itself. Thus making it completly transparent to the user. Essentially have the iPhone play Crysis with a $2-5 download app, plays the real game, but the user never sees anything different.

Finally Onlive will be more succeful in the portable category and won't be able to succefully penetrate until City Wide internet infrastructure costs aren't a joke. I pay $40 for my home internet. If I pay the same for a City WiFi of the same costs then it will be worth it.

So as it is. No OnLive is no good and a non worthwhile tech. It's pretty darn cool though.