This is on a pretty killer connection too. 150ms is borderline acceptable for me, as a Pc gamer used to 60 frames a second in nearly every game- thats a mere 67 milliseconds usually at worst. More than doubling the lag? I would notice it. Especially pushing towards 200ms, thats getting seriously slow when it comes to shooters.

The worst thing has to be the 720p only resolution and compression reducing the image quality severely from a locally rendered game. Literally any dual core and anything better than an geforce 8600 series should be able to better this performance @ 720p. The service isnt all that sensible for anyone with an average gaming machine upwards

i tried it out with the free year subscription. for the most part it works, but i had noticeable lag here and there. the ability to Demo games for 30 minutes is really cool.

still i have lots of problems with Onlive.
1. you can't use wireless connection. i think laptop users coulod be Onlives biggest market, but no wireless kind of ruins it.
2.pricing for Onlive. i have the first year free so thats cool. the problem is after the year is up. dont want to pay a subscription that doesn't give me anything.
3.pricing for games. you have to pay full price to keep a game for three years at most. sure the renting is a cool idead, but the cost to do so isn't standardized. also, it cost too much to rent the game. either give me a subscription that allows me to rent x amount of games a month, or just make it a standard $3 a game for a week.
4.still need a decent computer to run it. i tried using a 4-5 year old HP computer, and the CPU couldn't handle Onlive. i thought the point was to allow any one to be able to play it. as long as you can stream HD video, i dont see why you shouldn't be able to use Onlive.
5.i was promised better visuals. my gaming PC is a couple years old now, and when i built it, it wasn't top of the line. that said, it still looks much better using my gaming PC than using Onlive.
6.i did experience plenty of lag. playing a SP game i didn't find it annoying, but if i was playing MP or a racing game i may have more trouble with it. still need to try UT3 and Dirt 2 to make sure though.

@pogibaldy

Sure no need to be a hater , but no reason to just like that drink the koolaid .

The lag sounds rather bad actually , given the high end connection of the test . Besides onlive definitively isnt yet , a good and cheap solution and alternative .

Why do some of you keep saying that without ever factoring the actual and futures cost involved with it ?

A low end pc is probably cheaper , any hd console might be cheaper . At the very least the 360 is very cheap . With the actual prospect of actually owning the games you paid for , in digital or physical form , and in ma,ny places you can actually likewise rent games for fixated and cheaper rates .

Onlive's games arent numerous , and runs with a bitlow and average graphics , even compared to devices with the same 720p output ability .

Again in short :
-not pretty
- still lags
-Potentially cost more to a yet undertermined level , given the disparity between the cost of titles and subs .

Where is the advantage again ?

is (as I've been saying for ages) the only chance of this thing providing a viable gaming service.

They also need to find a way to provide subscription gaming so that people can pay a fixed monthly amount for games with different rates for unhindered access to standard and premium.

If they can do both of the above they can do very well.

If not, they're going to end up as little more than a footnote in gaming tech history.