I don't really see the point/advantages in keeping the game on the server versus on the computer itself. Why would anyone waste their money on something so unreliable when you can just use Steam?
The first thing that springs to mind is weaker PCs being able to play pretty much any game at higher settings (and obviously Mac users being able to play PC games). Other than that... save HDD space, no waiting for downloads, rental possibility etc...
The one really handy use I could be seeing for this would be renting single-player game that I would normally only play once and never again on my 360. Might pick-up a gamepad later on. Didn't expect prices to be so steep for permanently owning a game, though.
That's basically it. You can also play in any PC anywhere instantly and pick up exactly where you left off. @dumaz: I have it and I say it works. Are you calling me a liar?
For PCs? I think not. You want to rent a console game from GameFly? Takes about 3 days to arrive, if it's in stock. Blockbuster? Limited rental times and late fees, along with wondering if the 11-year old who played it last didn't scratch-up the disc. The amount of resources that a PC game demands? Makes playing on netbooks and lower-end laptops impossible.
That's the thing: it's not instant delivery; it's instant action. A typical Steam download of a major game takes hours over a decent broadband connection; with OnLive you are literally playing in seconds. To give you an example: on the day I signed up for the service I was able to play 30 minute demos of AC2, Just Cause 2, Splinter Cell: Conviction, Borderlands, and Arkham Asylum. All for free, all in the space of three hours. It would have taken that long to download only one if those games from Steam and I would have had to pay for it first. Nevermind the fact that none of those games are even available for the Mac right now. As I've said before, people who regularly buy console games may not find OnLive very attractive. For other folks, it's pretty much a miracle.
I don't have to try it to know 1ms is BS. It's physics. Games don't even have that low of a latentcy when you play them locally. Not commenting on whether it is 'playable' or not.
I tried this the other day and it gave me motion sickness. To much of a delay in movement and I'm probably not even in the right coverage area. They let me sign up for some reason though so I assumed it was going to work fairly well. I'm from Boston and it looks like they have no upper east coast server wth!?
I don't have a Phd in engineering, so I won't speak to the latency issue (I'm assuming you don't have one either). So far, however, I have not noticed any lag whatsoever -- the games have felt exactly like others I've played right on my machine. I find it funny how the skeptics pretty much ignore the experience of people who have actually used the service. It's almost like they have something at stake in the notion that OnLive simply is not possible. Well, sorry to break it to y'all, but it is.
I'm from Salem and I had the opposite experience: no delay whatsoever. It could very well be your broadband connection.
I'm on Comcast tethered to my pc which isn't anything amazing (31.27 megabits per second d/l speed, 23ms ping time from speedtest.net) , but not really slow either.
Don't need a Phd in engineering, and I hope your second paragraph is not referring to me because if so you did not understand my post at all. Maybe you don't realize that 1 millisecond is 1/1000th of a second?
