Does anyone here have or have used OnLive?

I've used it, it's not bad. I play Homefront on it and it's acceptable. It's catching on and other services like it too, but it's not quite there yet. I would say 1-2 more years before they go big time, once better compression algorithms and more data centers are deployed to reduce the lag.

I'm kinda surprised they don't have original games for that platform.

Same. Was really hoping to see some OnLive exclusive games, but it's probably viewed as a risky way to go. OnLive themselves should probably look into starting the trend. They have the power if they want to use custom hardware and do things people have never seen before.

Also same here. Runs just like a regular game. No lag or any problems with it.

Haven't used it myself, but it is interesting. If they can keep the video latency low I think it actually stands to offer a better experience for multiplayer gaming, in-as-much as all the game control can execute on the same machine, or in close proximity, thereby eliminating any need for dead-reckoning. The video might be a couple frames behind, but everyone really is where they appear to be-- plus it'll be far more immune to cheating.

Something *really* interesting, is that the founder of on-live also has this crazy wireless technology in development; He claims they've demonstrated 100-fold increase in usable bandwidth, says they can do 1000x easily, and *thinks* they could even hit a further order of magnitude. And its all very low-latency, and less affected by urban structures than traditional wireless signals. If they combined these things, OnLive might transform into a little box that needs no traditional internet service -- You'd just have a little box that plugs into the wall and the TV, and it streams games, media, and internet right to you. If they can do that, it'll be a game changer for sure.

Something *really* interesting, is that the founder of on-live also has this crazy wireless technology in development; He claims they've demonstrated 100-fold increase in usable bandwidth, says they can do 1000x easily, and *thinks* they could even hit a further order of magnitude.[/quote]
Sounds like marketing snake oil to me, but hey why not.

I certainly like the concept of OnLive partly because it reduces the hardware requirements to play any game to basically zero and is also very resilient wrt cheating. But when it first came out, it was way ahead of its time and the technology simply didn't exist. It sort of exists now, for perhaps a state or a whole country to make the OnLive service useable with low latency and good bandwidth (read: north america only), but it is still impractical to extend this network across the whole world for many different reasons, not the least of which is, simply put, bandwidth. Latency isn't even a problem anymore, considering any point on the globe can theoretically be reached in less than 100ms via optic fibers, but bandwidth certainly is. If the service goes big they will need one hell of a backbone to handle that much bandwidth. Because it's one thing to stream videos at 50kbps for a short duration (youtube) and another to stream relatively high quality videos, possibly 24/7.

That said, definitely doable, for sure. It will be interesting to see how it goes. FWIW when I tried out the service a few months ago, I couldn't log in from New Zealand, as my latency was apparently too high (220ms or so), so I didn't really get a chance to check it out properly by actually playing a game on it, but I've seen some youtube videos of how it would look like.

OnLive might transform into a little box that needs no traditional internet service -- You'd just have a little box that plugs into the wall and the TV, and it streams games, media, and internet right to you.[/quote]
This right here is dangerous. As much as we'd want this kind of plug'n'play service, I don't think you really would want it in this form. Remember what happens when you put too much power in the hands of a single corporation? That's right, no thanks. I would rather OnLive stays as a game service and let some other dude revolutionize internet access. It's still too soon to be forming any kind of opinion other than speculation on this anyway.

I've used it to play a few games on my MacBook Air, which isn't exactly a gaming powerhouse normally.

It works damn well, albeit a little overly sensitive to flaky cable/wifi connections. Mind you, I'm sitting on 20 meg broadband in a major urban centre (central Boston), so YMMV in less opportune locations.

As for the games, the need for an always-on internet connection is not appealing, and despite the allure of running AAA games on my MacBook Air, I have an XBox 360 and a decent gaming PC for that - they aren't going to draw me in unless they offer a more Steam-like pricing scheme.

Before i got my new rig I bought Deus Ex solely because it had the OnLive coupon. I played it exclusively OnLive and found it to work way better than I expected. The controls are a LITTLE less responsiveness, but not enough to degrade the experience. It would be a problem for online multiplayer but not single player.

The advantage to it is lightning fast save times and the spectator function is pretty cool too. I had some pretty funny moments when people decided to watch me, they can actually talk to you while you play. They can give you thumbs up if they like what you did. I remember one night I did a whole bunch of sweet take downs in a row and got 5 or 6 cheers from some spectators, it was pretty neat.

Yeah, I've been using it for a long time. I really like it. It's best for action games with momentum, like Batman or Assassin's Creed, where the lag is almost imperceivable.

However, I don't use it much now because I don't spend time on games at all.

It's free on PC isn't it? I've been meaning to try it out, but haven't gotten around to it.

It's free on PC isn't it? I've been meaning to try it out, but haven't gotten around to it.

Yes, although without spending money you will be restricted to playing game demos, and a handful of free older/simpler games.

I tried it awhile ago, and I could feel the difference between it and running the game local. Years of playing games with butter smooth input make it kind of jarring for me. It wasn't horrible, but I could feel the difference and preferred running local.

Mind you, I'm on the east coast of Canada, so ping to a lot of things ends up being 70-120ms. If you're down the block as far as network topographies goes then maybe the issue disappears.

Mind you, I'm on the east coast of Canada, so ping to a lot of things ends up being 70-120ms. If you're down the block as far as network topographies goes then maybe the issue disappears.

I'm in Halifax, and this was what I'm most worried about with OnLive for my particular situation :/

I refuse to use it because I like to have games that I can see on my shelf.

I suppose I'll update a bit after trying it from Halifax, Nova Scotia. My ping is generally 100-200ms to any server not in new york. 50-100 to new york. The game was playable, but everything felt very inaccurate. I tried tropico 3 and Just cause 2.

It wasn't so much that I noticed a lag between my input and actions so much as all my actions felt inaccurate. Regardless I found both to result in me generally disliking the game. Unsuitable for my locale I suppose. I'm not sure if it scales resolution based off bandwidth or if the games just don't look that good, but both the games didn't look as good as I expected them to.