Only 60 GB? Ouch. And I complained when Comcast limited me to 250GB a month. I'd easily blow through 60GB the way I've been streaming and downloading these days, I almost always use nearly 100GB each month (149GB last month, but I downloaded 43 games via Steam during a system reinstall). It's only the 3rd of this month and I've already used 7GB, but if I don't buy any new games (yeah, right), it should be a light month for me. I'm probably a bit of an exception, though. I get all of my TV via the internet now so i do a hell of a lot of video streaming. Obviously your internet habits are not as heavy as mine, so your remaining 30GB might be enough, but you'll probably want to monitor it closely if you are going to try to make a service like OnLive a regular habit.

Sounds good but there are also nasty downsides like: No Modding, constant connection required, Ban/losing your account means losing all your games.

i'd really prefer if this service would be used differently rather than to replace PC gaming.

You can get all those pros from console gaming and actually own your games.

I can see Onlive's benefits, but to me they're anti-PC gaming benefits. I mean, if I wanted to sacrifice high-end graphics, fast framerates, modding and other such things for more convenience I would just buy an Xbox. I don't mean that as antagonistic, I'm just saying there is already an option there that is much better than Onlive for people who don't view the PC's benefits as worth the extra cost and hassle.

Your absolutely right. But for pc specific gaming it's solid. For example take ubisoft. Since you have to be permanently connected to play, why not just use onlive and skip the whole installation and needing an up to date pc part. I never want to lose console gaming. I love console gaming. My biggest plus is mostly that onlive will no longer make pc gaming all about those with fancy high end machines.

OnLive is fine, as long as you accept that its:

1. Renting games (like renting movies/shows with Netflix)
2. 720p gaming, and there's some compression involved so it's not as good as native 720p
3. got some input latency.

If OnLive were to propose console-only titles aswell, then I would agree. Actually that would be quite an interesting turn of events maybe getting more gamers back to the PC (with heavy resistance from Sony and co. though).
Right now the limitations outweigh the benefits for me at least. (not to mention the fact I'm not in the USA)

The monthly fee games appear to be mostly...less desirable. I wanted to try OnLive but my wimpy 2.6mbps connection can't handle it.

Now I remember why I mostly complained about this. My ISP's cheap bandwidth allotment. I'm on an average plan (6 Mbps) but even their "top of the line" 25Mbps fiber optic plan still only gives a pathetic 100gb bandwidth. Kind of defeats the point of having 25Mbps download speed.

You're insane.

How so? From what I am seeing, the graphics are easily well within what you would see on a current high-end PC. They definitely weren't when the service first launched, but it has improved greatly since then. Gone is the "fuzziness" that seemed to cover everything and mute all the colors and effects, everything is now crisp and shiny and capable of running at (near) HD resolutions.

You're insane.

I will play this shit when the Hell will freeze....

Guess I'm insane, too. I get near-HD quality as well. I heard that if you get the Microconsole, it goes into full HD.

He's right (that your wrong, though insane is a little harsh i've been told). Near 720p vs 1080p and beyond on a high end machine is no contest. It still looks damn nice though from onlive. But this goes beyond just resolution. I could play AVP at 720p on my machine if I installed it but I'd have to put everything else to min. Here I still get 720p but with better graphics settings so the gap between high end and onlive isn't as colossal.