I think we can all agree...
OnLive Just "Devolutionized" Gaming.

I got 1 year free subscription at OnLive. I never intended to buy games, but apparently they're supposed to have demos so it'd be fun to try it and see how it works.
Well, apparently my internet connection isn't fast enough. I always though I had an average speed connection, and if that is indeed that case, that is a huge problem. That'd alienate a HUGE population of people. Hopefully when I'm back at college at the end of summer I will be able to try it.

The trouble I see with OnLive, is that they haven't built-in much of a way for developers to make money off of their games. As a developer, I would not want to dunk millions of dollars into making a game in hoping to turn a profit by selling copies, and then just have some service stream my product instead.
OnLive should do some sort of rent-to-own program where they serve as both the OnLive service and a Digital Distributor. If you pay for a game on the service, that money could go towards a download purchase if you want to keep the game on your own harddrive, and if you are happy just streaming it through OnLive, then you can just pay the monthly rate and whatever the little per game licensing fee is. That seems like it would work best.

All games on OnLive have to be rented; this isn't like GameTap and Metaboli, where paying a subscription gets you access to games at no extra cost. OnLive games are rented for your choice of three days, five days, or three years. The three-year rental option has pricing equivalent to purchasing a permanent copy elsewhere (anywhere from $20-50, depending on how old the game is).
The publisher and developer will be getting a share of the rental profits comparable to other services, plus the ability to rent games for short durations (previously impossible on the PC) means they can make money off players who might have otherwise not played that game at all.

Not to be rude, but even claiming that you spend $2500 every few years to maintain a gaming machine is idiotic. I bought a brand new mid level machine about 8 years ago for about $1000 (good sale at Best Buy). At the time, it could play everything that was current, as well as all my older games that still worked with Windows XP. Since then, I have upgraded the video card three times, never opting for "this year's model", but still getting a decent "last year's model" (about $100 each); upgraded the RAM three times, taking it from 512MB to 3GB (again, about $100 each); upgraded/added hard drives twice (about $50 each); upgraded the processor once (about $100); replaced the motherboard once (about $100); upgraded the PSU twice ($50 - $100). I maintained a gaming rig that was fully capable of playing all current games until about the last year and a half and it is still capable of playing some current games (Alpha Protocol, for example) and I have spent a grand total of around $2100 to keep the system functional. I am at a point now where I will need to replace the machine with a whole new one in order to continue playing modern games (no further upgrade path for the video card and processor on the old system) and at the most, I will probably spend around $1500 for a machine fully capable of playing anything out today. $3600 over 8 years to keep playing modern games will work out to around $900 every couple of years and that figure will actually drop if I treat the new machine to regular upgrades in the same manner I did with the old machine and make it last 8 years as well.

Oh, I heartily agree, in this one respect, OnLive is a revolutionary idea... for "average" PC users. However, some of the claims made in this thread about why it is a revolutionary idea, in particular the costs involved in maintaining a gaming rig that OnLive might eliminate, are patently false. No one ever needs to spend $2500-$3000 every couple of years to maintain acceptable gaming performance. They might have to spend less than half of that every couple of years, and that's only assuming that they didn't buy a top-of-the-line machine in the first place. If they did start with a top-of-the-line machine, they would easily get at least 5 years out of the machine before needing their first upgrade (most likely the video card) and even then, they could do what I have done and opt for "last year's model" instead of the latest and greatest. That alone would cost less than one year's worth of OnLive service, not including the cost of games.

Okay, I tried the Arena feature, and it is really creepy. People can watch you while you play and tell you that you suck! What the hell? I don't like getting a thumbs down because I died in FEAR 2! That game is hard! Stop spying on me!

haha. My response to that would be "Who sucks more, the person who isn't very good at a videogame or the person that spends their time watching him play?"

Once I am back in the States gonna try this out. Got in as a early demo subscriber.

Good question! :)

What are their usernames? Maybe I can find them on Left 4 Dead II multiplayer (Steam) and heckle them for you when a charger completely murders them? Just an idea. They probably suck worse, so they are watching you to feel good about their lack of skills.

I didn't really jot their usernames down. I'm not that vindictive, and besides, I was more shocked than angry.

When I was playing the beta the only thing I thought was cool was the ability to watch other people play / have others watch you play.
I wasn't impressed by the service though.

Or people who think every PC is a Dell.
OnLive is for people with more money than common sense,