Onlive Demonstration (48 mins)

:|

Oh my god that's so cool.

i'm glad we got a better explanation. I saw several videos talking about it and it sounded impossible. good to know it's not =o

lol

... was he just playing that on an iphone? That's amazing. O_o

This is less real than Stencyl.

I guess we'll see in a few months lol

I guess we'll see in a few months lol

They said that about Stencyl, like, two years ago.

Except this is actually public, more so than stencyl ever was/is.

Stencyl is in closed beta. The chance of Stencyl being released is ten times greater than this.

Um, this has a huge chance of being released. This is done by a corporate entity, so announcing the release of something they're not going to finish is highly un-professional, if that were the case. The men working on this are professionals, as opposed to hobbyists who are making a single program. Also note that what they're doing is setting up a highly-effective and highly-accessible network... essentially.

And it works. They showed it working. On a laptop AND an iphone. Not to mention that they've already purchased "cloud" so to speak, all over the nation. No company would do that unless they knew their product worked. To say this won't come out is ridiculous.

All they need to do now is finish some picky stuff, and then publicize, which they're already doing.

's not gonna work.

I'd say it works pretty good via the demo in the video.  I just don't know how well it'll work once it's released. I don't know if there servers could really handle it. It works well with the few hundred beta testers they have right now but when it's release and caught on, I don't know if hundreds of thousands of players or maybe even millions of players would work that well. We'll see.

no way in hell will they be able to stream new releases in under 80 miliseconds, you're gonna have to have a HUGE upload and download to get anything from this, that demo doesn't mean shit, he's probably in the same room with the box running the game, it's a moot point because he's on lan

He said that with wireless it'd be slower. He is using lan because it's faster (duh). And although he didn't say what all was happening, he said that there's software you need to download to use it that downloads and uploads the algorithm they designed. Obviously no compression algorithm you know can do what he's talking about. So no, it's not no way in hell. Stop acting like your a god damn cave man.

The box running the game was in Virginia, while he was at a college ~75 miles away. He didnt run the game on iPhone either, he just watched a stream of someone playing.

There's an app for that

The box running the game was in Virginia, while he was at a college ~75 miles away. He didnt run the game on iPhone either, he just watched a stream of someone playing.

No, there was a part when he used the laptop to look at his friends list, it showed an account with iphone or something in the name. It was the account that the iphone he passed around was using.  He was streaming the iphone player on the laptop.

I've always been skeptical about how well this will work. Will have to see it myself in order to make any sort of assumption.

I'm taking a pretty big guess to see that cloud gaming will eventually become the new standard.

Edit: One thing I'm not sure if they have is a variety of available screen resolutions. That wouldn't be good for those who don't use a 16:9 monitor.

The box running the game was in Virginia, while he was at a college ~75 miles away. He didnt run the game on iPhone either, he just watched a stream of someone playing.

He played it on the iPhone. What were you watching?

Stencyl is in closed beta. The chance of Stencyl being released is ten times greater than this.

;]

He was playing on the iPhone but the response was much slower than LAN. He was also running on WiFi (if I remember correctly) and not 3G so at some point, if he were on just the 3G network and not even WiFi, I would imagine that it's even balls slower. I suppose the point is that you could play with the iPhone or other mobile devices but the plan would just to spectate or to show off some video clips or something.

He was playing on the iPhone but the response was much slower than LAN. He was also running on WiFi (if I remember correctly) and not 3G so at some point, if he were on just the 3G network and not even WiFi, I would imagine that it's even balls slower. I suppose the point is that you could play with the iPhone or other mobile devices but the plan would just to spectate or to show off some video clips or something.

He said it would be extremely slow over a cellular network, you dingshit.

Nooooo I don't have a perfect memory anymore

I couldn't watch all of it, it had a weird bug where the audio would start and continue to play even if paused, and there was a slight delay from the actual video's audio. o.O

Anyhow, my $0.02 is that it's going to look bad to at least 1/3 of the people using it, it's going to have a noticeable delay and it's going to be more expensive in the end than just buying a good video card. And I'd like to reiterate that I haven't seen the video in full since the dual audio/delay kind of makes it hard to know what's going on...
Also, it seems like it'd be hard to judge the delay in the demonstration since the computer is facing him, so can you really see what he's doing and when it registers? The delay between the pc and the projector would also have to be taken into account, but it can't be that noticeable, if there is one at all.

The best thing about this, however, is that if you're traveling with like a laptop or something, you could easily play all sorts of games.
Oh, and iphone/ipod touch. That shit is just whack. If you can actually pull that off, and enjoy playing it at whatever the delay is, it would make it worth it. Provided that the controls are good, though.

There's no noticeable delay. 80 milliseconds+ appears to your perspective to be a delay. His company developed a compression algorithm that compresses each frame of action so fast and so small of filesize that in the amount of time it takes for the user to send data, compress it, retrieve new information, and uncompress it is less than 80 milliseconds. You should really watch the whole video.

He did play it on an iPhone but through WiFi, the connection is slower and so there is a slight delay in action. It'd be worse if it were on a 3G network. (He assumes that the direction the cell phones are going, their networks will be fast enough soon.)

Use a different browser, there is no such error in the video, so it must be on your end - but it happens from time to time.

80ms at best. Approaching and in almost every single real world case surpassing, 100ms, probably 150ms.

150ms is "feelable" in an online game, particularly a shooter. But there's another downside.

In a normal situation, where you are running the game on your own computer and have 150ms lag, it's ONLY the results of your actions that are lagged. You shoot a bullet, it's 150ms+ before that bullet actually hits its target. However, your screen, what you hear, the response to your control input, all of these are (perceptibly) instant. It's possible to notice just the 10ms~ display lag of an LCD when put next to a CRT, and that's less than 10 times as much.

You're all just pissed because this could be the end of pirating games.

I'm not mad, I just think people shouldn't be fooled by this type of snake oil salesman anymore.

They're going to allow you to demo the service before you pay for it, so it's not like you're buying a car without a test drive.

I don't think this will ever kill [Retail/Pirate] PC Gaming.
For starters, nVidia and ATI and the Video Card manufacturers won't let big competitors, such as this, be viable competition for long.
People who are willing to shell out the $99+ for a good video card won't be interested in OnLive. Anyone who knows what it's like to play a game on high with AA and all of the icing will never want to go back, that is assuming that it is going to have a noticeable difference when it reaches your monitor (it probably will).
People who aren't interested in PC Gaming play consoles, so they're trying to steal from territory that has already stolen a huge portion of the PC Gaming install base. What now, casual pc gamers? Those games play just fine on low-end and integrated cards, and already it's much cheaper to buy a mid-range GPU than to spend, let's say $10/month, on a service which you still have to "buy" the games from. In a year, you could've bought a high-end card.

At today's rates, a high end GPU will probably last 2 years (people still use 8800s for just about everything), and save you $100+ dollars.
You could argue that RAM (which is dirt cheap nowadays), a big enough Hard Drive (again, dirt cheap) and a fast CPU (wait for a deal, dirt cheap) would be quite costly, but since a good deal of RAM, a large HDD and a fast CPU are seldom used for just gaming, it justifies the purchase.
Not-to-mention I have a feeling that PCs are going to be changed as GPGPUs become economical.


@Roph: So, on top of the realistic 100ms+ delay (that's what you meant, right?), there's also the 10ms delay on an LCD plus the delay of your input to the server? That makes 260ms+, unless I totally misunderstood you, which is very likely.  =D
Anyhow, I do concur, 150ms is definitely "feelable"; in both fast paced arena shooters and realistic shooters. If I recall correctly, it's been a while since I've actually played an FPS online, anything above 200 really starts to feel like you're dragging dead-weight  on every action.


However, I still think that it would be a good service to for laptop owners, despite the inevitable

For starters, nVidia and ATI and the Video Card manufacturers won't let big competitors, such as this, be viable competition for long.

OnLive buys all of the top end graphics cards for everything server they have as they come out ~ granted, some people may still want their own, but then they don't get to play with (probably) the SHIT TON of people that will jump onto OnLive when it comes out.

~Also, the biggest attraction, for me, to this is that its a giant connection to all people and not just those who play PS3 or those who just play Xbox. You can't play any games with people who own the same game you do but for the PS3 while you own an Xbox360 or vice-versa. Same with PC. You can play this off your computer or with your TV via that box that does the work you get. So people obsessed with their dumb computers can play on their PC's (or Mac ) or play on the television with a comfy Xbox360 controller (or one that looks like it is).

Whether it comes out or not, it's still an awesome idea.

~Also, the lag you all seem to have issues with doesn't matter unless you can visually detect it. Other than that, there's no problem with it at all since all OnLive users are going to have the same amount of lag so it becomes a constant and no longer is a variable in playing a game or whether or not you'll win a shootout in a game or something.

D'oh! 
That didn't even occur to me.

I doubt that, even though this acts as a community as well, devs would remove the ability to play with people who have the OnLive version and those who have the regular Computer version. The shit storm you talk about is probably the out lash to the devs if this does happen, because doing something like that -which is what we've used for a loooong time- would be as simple as having a Master server and having the Dedicated and Listen servers announce themselves to it, which you would then select from the list and join the server of your choosing. And anyhow, you'd be streaming the PC version in the end, wouldn't you?

~Also, the biggest attraction, for me, to this is that its a giant connection to all people and not just those who play PS3 or those who just play Xbox. You can't play any games with people who own the same game you do but for the PS3 while you own an Xbox360 or vice-versa. Same with PC. You can play this off your computer or with your TV via that box that does the work you get. So people obsessed with their dumb computers can play on their PC's (or Mac ) or play on the television with a comfy Xbox360 controller (or one that looks like it is).

Wait...what? I'm kind of tired, so what I see here is this:
You can play the same game between platforms? Or does this mean that you all can play the same games through the box...?
That's the same thing that it would be normally, if it's the latter.  Steam and XFire work that way, I can sign into my steam account and see what my buddies are playing and then use the option to join them if I feel like it.
I can hook my PC up to my TV, most TVs have VGA, DVI, S Video and definitely HDMI if it's HD.
Granted, hauling my computer out to my living room to play TF2 or UT3 on my TV would be rather inconvenient, but is it really more so than saving money and having a more powerful PC? Heck no.
I'm perfectly content with using my PC in my room, and I'm very obsessed with my PC.

~Also, the lag you all seem to have issues with doesn't matter unless you can visually detect it. Other than that, there's no problem with it at all since all OnLive users are going to have the same amount of lag so it becomes a constant and no longer is a variable in playing a game or whether or not you'll win a shootout in a game or something.

No matter how you put it, 1/4+ of a second is a pretty big delay. You easily notice the dead weight I mentioned, when you move the mouse, the character doesn't move with it. Not only is it a visual delay, it's just not fun to play with.
And I'm pretty sure that the farther away you are from the server, the more latency you'd have.

It is a neat idea, but it's nothing that's going to swoop in and change the way we PC game forever.
Honestly, I just can't justify purchasing a subscription to something that I know won't run a game (on my end) as well as a regular rig, then having to purchase every game in addition to the subscription.
And like I said, GPGPUs, if they actually take off, what's the need of this other than the community portion? Considering that there are great Marketplace/Community services out already, even that?

Have they mentioned anything about mods?

And anyhow, you'd be streaming the PC version in the end, wouldn't you?

I remember the guy talking about streaming, and how they don't do that. You can't stream games. They send (basically) screenshots of the game your playing a few hundred miles away. The screenshots are compressed so small and tight (with their miracle algorithm) that apparently there's no time or enough information to lose packets of data in the download/upload of information to their servers. The PC is the same as the TV, but instead of getting a little box that you attach to the computer, you just download a little software that does what the box does.

-That brings me to the other thing. We wouldn't really be able to play with everyone everywhere with Onlive. We can only play with those on our server and you can only be like a few hundred miles away from any server (if I remember) to get a good connection. So we'd only be playing with people who are a few hundred miles in any direction of our server. Which isn't like everyone that uses a PS3 or Xbox, because I've played with people from California and I live in PA. With OnLive, that wouldn't be possible.

You can play the same game between platforms? Or does this mean that you all can play the same games through the box...?

lol no, I was just making comparisons. (I was also very tired when I wrote all that.) I was kind of spotting the obvious. How only PS3 players can play with other PS3 players that own the same game, but cannot play with any X360 players that own the same game because PS and Xbox use different servers. (So if you want to play with a PS3 player and you have an X360, you'd have to buy a PS3 and the game -again-. lol).

Also, no you don't play OnLive through any console other than that box. That little black box thinger is, I suppose, a mini console. All it does is decode the information you receive and encode the information you send so that it can be sent -mega fucking fast- lol. You attach it to your TV and you can play. You don't attach an X360 or PS3 to it or anything, just your TV. Then you also get your own 'OnLive' controller which looks a lot like the X360 controller - which is nice because it was proven to be the most comfortable controller. Also, your TV would need an internet connection (obviously).

No matter how you put it, 1/4+ of a second is a pretty big delay. You easily notice the.......

That would be a large delay, but everyone is just in disbelief. If they say they can take a frame of information (a screenshot of 1 frame of a video of gameplay) and send it to you in 80ms with a new algorithm that's been developed, I have no reason to not believe them and anyone else in the audience of this video that tested it. I don't know why people are complaining about how it's impossible to do that. Technology only gets better and faster over time, not the same or worse in general, so why can't anyone just suck it up and stay open about it until they get to test it themselves. The people in the video (not the guys pitching) that played the games said they didn't notice the lag at all so it was obviously moving at max at 80ms there. What does affect this is your distance from the server. He said like 250 Miles is the max distance for it to work perfect up to like (guessing) 500 miles I would assume is workable, but a bit annoying. Also, the guy pitching showed that OnLive finds the closest and most direct possible route to a server for where you live, and unless you live in Central USA and up north like in North Dakota, Minnesota or Wisconsin, then you'll have a server no problem. Also, if you internet connection in general is shotty. If you're running wirelessly, you'll have more lag - so LAN up and you won't.

I'll probably be playing on my Mac since it's easier for me to move to a LAN than having to move my router around or getting some long ass ethernet cords for my TV.

Also, it's nice since you don't have to constantly buy new shit for your computer anymore for gaming since they always A: Have the newest games right when they come out, and B: Have the most efficient hardware in each server for the games when it's available. So you would save money on buying all of those hardware pieces and games.

No mods - Unless they feel like doing it I suppose. You have to remember that you don't actually ever download any of these games or do anything with the games, you're seriously just getting screenshots sent to your computer very fast. Not a TON OF INFORMATION like everyone is thinking. They're not sending game information through the internet. They're just sending a retarded amount of frames (screenshots) of what you're playing. Like your watching a video, except controlling it.




---Someone with a really big HD monitor take a full screenshot of their desktop as a PNG and tell me what the filesize of that image is?

I've only got a 15inch screen on my laptop, so a full desktop screenshot is only 392kb - I would guess that a full screenshot of something much larger wouldn't really go over 1mb.

My point, is that the algorithm only has to compress that file and make its round trip in 80ms. I can believe that you can compress something that begins at less than 1mb to something mega small and isn't lossy. We'll just have to wait and see

a fast CPU are seldom used for just gaming

I hope you're joking.

I understand how the streaming works, but you're still playing the PC version in the end.
What I mean is, if it's the vanilla game you're "playing" then why wouldn't you be able to play with other people, that don't have OnLive, online? You'd just go into the game's server list and join one...?
So why is it better than conventional PC Gaming if you can't even play with people in your own country? I play on UK servers with little to no lag all of the time.

No, that's a misconception. GeForce 8800s still run most games on high today, those are almost two years old and will probably last a couple more years running games on medium. 9800s, the newest iteration (until this year's), will probably last the same as well. $100 gets you a card that will probably last 2+ years.
Again, having more RAM, a bigger HDD and a faster CPU can never hurt. It'll extend your PC's life in general, and make it a better machine.

a fast CPU are seldom used for just gaming

I hope you're joking.

Uhh, lots of stuff benefit from faster CPUs. Ever try encoding a movie with a slow CPU?

a fast CPU are seldom used for just gaming

I hope you're joking.

Uhh, lots of stuff benefit from faster CPUs. Ever try encoding a movie with a slow CPU?

You said that fast CPUs are seldom used for gaming, which is a lie. Now you're arguing that things benefit from faster CPUs in retaliation to my argument that games benefit from fast CPUs.

I understand how the streaming works, but you're still playing the PC version in the end.
What I mean is, if it's the vanilla game you're "playing" then why wouldn't you be able to play with other people, that don't have OnLive, online? You'd just go into the game's server list and join one...?
So why is it better than conventional PC Gaming if you can't even play with people in your own country? I play on UK servers with little to no lag all of the time.

You have access to all the best and newest PC games that you don't have to buy. You also never have to upgrade your computer with any new hardware to support new games that come out because OnLive does that to all their servers by themselves with the best equipment for the job. Also all the things you can do in OnLive like the preview players, profiles, the saving the last 15 seconds of your game footage, etc. All those you don't get with just conventional PC games. You have to install every game you want to play which takes up space on your computer. With OnLive you download a few megabyte software program and you're set.

If you want to play on a UK server then go ahead... Obviously this way you can play with all your friends and with any game - not just what ones you happen to own or have installed.

No, that's a misconception. GeForce 8800s still run most games on high today, those are almost two years old and will probably last a couple more years running games on medium. 9800s, the newest iteration (until this year's), will probably last the same as well. $100 gets you a card that will probably last 2+ years.
Again, having more RAM, a bigger HDD and a faster CPU can never hurt. It'll extend your PC's life in general, and make it a better machine.

Are you talking to Irock here? cause I don't remember talking about this stuff. All I ever said was that you save money by not having to buy these parts unless you really want to for whatever reason or if you need to. OnLive does this to all their servers.

You said that fast CPUs are seldom used for gaming, which is a lie. Now you're arguing that things benefit from faster CPUs in retaliation to my argument that games benefit from fast CPUs.

Whaaat? I said that they're seldom used for just gaming. I was saying that things would benefit from a faster CPU to begin with, that's why I said it'd justify the purchase.
But of course games benefit from faster CPUs, but you don't need an i7 to play a game maxed with 80fps+.
Arlen said he wants a Quad core iMac for composing. I would love a Quad Core in general, even though I'm perfectly content with my CPU.

You said that fast CPUs are seldom used for gaming, which is a lie. Now you're arguing that things benefit from faster CPUs in retaliation to my argument that games benefit from fast CPUs.

Whaaat? I said that they're seldom used for just gaming. I was saying that things would benefit from a faster CPU to begin with, that's why I said it'd justify the purchase.
But of course games benefit from faster CPUs, but you don't need an i7 to play a game maxed with 80fps+.
Arlen said he wants a Quad core iMac for composing. I would love a Quad Core in general, even though I'm perfectly content with my CPU.

That 'just' wasn't there before.

I first must say that I'm assuming that in addition to the subscription fees, you have to buy the game from their store. Is that correct?
Okay, I can see how it's a great thing for more casual PC gamers, and you make a strong point...but aside from using it on laptops and non-Windows OSes and the very cool 15 second capture, I don't see how it's any better than building your own and just buying the games yourself. Just to name a few reasons: no subscription fees; no extra lag; you can use mods to add more replay value.
If your internet is down, you're out of luck. The same could be said for Steam (even though I love Steam), and yeah it's true, but not about physical copies.

I just don't see how it's this mind blowing thing that you seem to think it is, I don't think it's going to revolutionize PC gaming like they say it is, and finally, I don't think it's anything better than a good, cheap, budget gaming rig and Steam.
Honestly, I don't oppose OnLive, I just think it's stupid to crack it up to be this service of Godly proportions all based off of the CEO's words and a couple of college students.
OnLive, in and of itself, is a very neat and good idea, but maybe not for PC gaming.

The only thing I said is that cloud gaming may eventually become the new standard.

I first must say that I'm assuming that in addition to the subscription fees, you have to buy the game from their store. Is that correct?

Buy, Rent, or buy in parts - Like if a game has chapters, you'll be able to buy chapters of a game instead of that. Also free demos and stuff.

Okay, I can see how it's a great thing for more casual PC gamers, and you make a strong point...but aside from using it on laptops and non-Windows OSes and the very cool 15 second capture, I don't see how it's any better than building your own and just buying the games yourself. Just to name a few reasons: no subscription fees; no extra lag; you can use mods to add more replay value.

Cheaper.

And more options to other games, saving space on your computer, not ONLY using Windows OS - AND WHY ARE YOU OBSESSED WITH ARGUING THAT THIS IS FOR COMPUTER ONLY - jeez. What you're trying to agrue is hardly if at all better than this at all. If you're that head over heals about being able to mod your own game, then go any buy it yourself and there's no need for you to complain.

I could care less about all those except for that it's cheaper. Being cheaper than buying all these parts for a computer (and in my case - buying a whole new computer) is much better. I wouldn't have to worry about upgrading my computer anyways. Hell, if all I need on my computer is that small software program that does all the work and is the client for OnLive, that saves a shit ton of space on my computer and it's life will be better not being run so damn hard with games all the time or casually.  But to be honest, I won't be playing this on my computer anyways. I'd probably play on my television - it's bigger lol.

I just don't see how it's this mind blowing thing that you seem to think it is, I don't think it's going to revolutionize PC gaming like they say it is, and finally, I don't think it's anything better than a good, cheap, budget gaming rig and Steam.
Honestly, I don't oppose OnLive, I just think it's stupid to crack it up to be this service of Godly proportions all based off of the CEO's words and a couple of college students.
OnLive, in and of itself, is a very neat and good idea, but maybe not for PC gaming.

How is it not? Just because you can't mod shit? Are you serious? Is it not mind blowing because now you don't have to buy shit for your computer every couple years to keep up with the new games? I don't know what you're talking about anymore, and I'm even still more confused as to why you think this is for computer only.

Only a complete fool would think that Nintendo would allow Mario, Zelda, or any of its other 1st-tier franchises to be used by this.

Wait, I'm not obsessed with arguing it's for computers only, I get that there's the little tv box, but I'm saying it's cheaper to upgrade an existing desktop than to pay a monthly fee to play PC games. And if what you said about multiplayer was true, playing on UK servers was just an example that this is quite restrictive.

I'll take another standpoint now, however I should note that I still like the idea of something like this on a laptop.
I get that their biggest competition is gotta be consoles, I can't see how they're going to attract the hardcore PC crowd while being direct competition to Valve's Steam (ie content delivery, and since Valve's games require Steam...). There's no Activision in this deal, which leaves out the biggest game this year, and like all time or whatever.
No Counter Strike, no Modern Warfare 2, no Left 4 Dead, no Half Life, No Team Fortress, no id games, no Blizzard games. There's not even The Sims 3 up there, which is weird since it's an EA game  and it sold 1.4 million in its first week.
You'd think they'd at least get the best of the best games as well, not just the ones that Console gamers have access to as well (ignore MW2, just pointing out that it's a top seller and it's not there).

I'd also like to note that Mods are one of the biggest draws of PC gaming, and they can make a 10 year old game worth owning. Hell, people still mod Doom because it's a lot of fun and the mods are a lot of fun to play. Not only is this a bad business move, but in general, a dick move.
Even console gamers have mods, UT3 allowed mods to be used on PS3.

This entire thing leads me to believe that it's not really being taken too seriously by OnLive's partners.
If you're not going to have Id, Blizzard and Valve, why even try to take on consoles or conventional PC gaming?

With a list that lacks like Sarah Jessica Parker, I don't get why this seems so mind blowing.

Only a complete fool would think that Nintendo would allow Mario, Zelda, or any of its other 1st-tier franchises to be used by this.

I'm not completely sure why it wouldn't be allowed at some point - if this were successful. From what I gathered from the video is that the companies and game developers actually end up making more money this way than they do currently. Also, I don't think that OnLive claims to own any of these games - it's just a way to play a multitude of games. You probably knew that though

I'm saying it's cheaper to upgrade an existing desktop than to pay a monthly fee to play PC games.

I think in the video they said that subscription is something they'll probably do (I'll have to re-watch this part to be sure) but either you pay 1 price to get the box, for the TV, or the program, for a computer, and then you pay to buy the games/rent the games/buy parts of the game/or demo the game - or - you pay a subscription constant for use of the service and then pay for the games. (I'm thinking the latter lol, I think it's the only way they can make money haha). I would imagine the subscription would be fairly cheap - probably less what WoW (which is what? $15 a month or did they change that? I haven't played in like a year).

And if what you said about multiplayer was true, playing on UK servers was just an example that this is quite restrictive.

If you think that you have to play on a UK server when you don't live in the UK (for whatever random reason) then I guess it's a little restrictive. Regardless of if you do fine playing on a UK server from the USA - there's no real reason to play there unless you have online buddies that live there or just have to have people to play with at like 2am in the morning when most people aren't online in your local area or if the game's server is only there (which is dumb). I don't think it's restrictive at all and I think that you care too much about exotic servers for whatever reason.

I'll take another standpoint now, however I should note that I still like the idea of something like this on a laptop.
I get that their biggest competition is gotta be consoles, I can't see how they're going to attract the hardcore PC crowd while being direct competition to Valve's Steam (ie content delivery, and since Valve's games require Steam...). There's no Activision in this deal, which leaves out the biggest game this year, and like all time or whatever.
No Counter Strike, no Modern Warfare 2, no Left 4 Dead, no Half Life, No Team Fortress, no id games, no Blizzard games. There's not even The Sims 3 up there, which is weird since it's an EA game  and it sold 1.4 million in its first week.
You'd think they'd at least get the best of the best games as well, not just the ones that Console gamers have access to as well (ignore MW2, just pointing out that it's a top seller and it's not there).

They said they don't have all the companies together yet and that they're working on it (and expect to gain them). Obviously they're only going to show us who they currently have attached to the deal. So that's a dumb standpoint until OnLive is public. If they don't have all these or propose to have those after it's public than we can complain about it.

I'd also like to note that Mods are one of the biggest draws of PC gaming, and they can make a 10 year old game worth owning. Hell, people still mod Doom because it's a lot of fun and the mods are a lot of fun to play. Not only is this a bad business move, but in general, a dick move.
Even console gamers have mods, UT3 allowed mods to be used on PS3

We still don't know whether we'll be able to do anything to them or not. If you want to mod - buy the game and do it yourself - it's not a hard decision. Obviously don't buy it on OnLive and buy it yourself.

This entire thing leads me to believe that it's not really being taken too seriously by OnLive's partners.

Yes, because they started their own company and have been doing all this hard work to give something cutting edge for the time. Yeah, they don't take this seriously at all. I don't even think they care if it goes public.

With a list that lacks like Sarah Jessica Parker, I don't get why this seems so mind blowing.

Well it's not mind-blowing if you stick to being overly obsessed with having to mod your games. Cloud gaming is amazing. It saves time and space. It has many more pros than the cons you've presented. It's not -mind blowing- at all. It's just a very good idea. No one said this was mind blowing, or lack thereof, except for you.

Okay, neither Nintendo nor Sony would ever do that unless they went Sega-way.

Of course they're going to do a subscription, and he said that in the opening minutes of the video. He says something along the lines of "...the cost of manufacturing the Box is so inexpensive, we can literally give it away if you subscribe to OnLive".
Roughly $10/year seems realistic, which isn't that bad for what you're getting. But still, I don't think it's going to be that cheap.
They not only need to pay for the bandwidth, server maintenance, constant computer support/maintenance (regular servers don't need all of the fancy gaming gear a gaming PC needs), upgrading said computers to be able to play these games at the highest settings as well as making actual money off the services. That is of course excluding the percent they'd take off the sales of the game.
Pretty sure WoW charges $15/month too.

I see no real reason why Id wouldn't join in on this, other than maybe Zenimax doesn't want to.
However, I highly doubt Blizzard and Valve will. They don't need new distribution methods to sell their games, they are quite literally the Nintendo Wii of PC games.
In addition, it'd be both a conflict of interests and look bad to investors. Blizzard has B.Net, and here's how they describe it:

Q: What is the new Battle.net?
A: The new Battle.net is a full-featured online game service designed specifically around Blizzard Entertainment titles, and will include a complete set of around-the-game features including a state-of-the-art matchmaking system, achievement system, social networking features, structured competitive play options, a marketplace, and much more.

and Valve has Steam. If it were up to Gabe Newell, everyone would have Steam.
I'm going to assume that Modern Warfare 2 is locked into some sort of contract with Steam/Valve, because it's required to play it. I strongly doubt that they, Valve, are going to give that up. They also probably coughed up a massive amount of cash to get that deal.

That was a bad way of putting it, and I was talking about the Game Companies/Publishers, not OnLive itself.
But for one, it's uncharted waters. You're not going to go skinny dipping in it; that's stupid.
It seriously does surprise me that the Sims 3 isn't on there as a launch title. However, I guess hen a PC game sells 1.4 million in its first week and continues to sell like flies, you don't really need any sort of special distribution methods for it.
It'd be stupid to take them with the utmost priority they give traditional retailers, since there's no proof that this will actually take off like they say it will; now, you see, Valve did it the smart way: take a game that people have been waiting for for almost a decade and make it require your program.

Right-o, except I never said it was mind blowing. 

Come to think of it, I don't think any games that can't be played on console won't be on OnLive. I doubt the controller can handle the buttons. Like most of Blizzard's games. You wouldn't be able to play things like WoW on console.

I still think you're arguing the PC side of this too much anyways.

ANYWAYS lol, I'm tired of having to read so much to make a rebuttal, so I quit the debate haha. 

THANKYOU. 
I have this OCD tick that prevents me from pulling out of these things before someone else does. ~.~
Anyhow, I my self am very tired of this too!

This could be a great service for when you're traveling. If you don't have access to your own PC, you could use this on a friend's or relative's and play all of your games.

Did they mention DLC at all?
I would imagine DLC being in the game to begin with, and then you would basically buy an "unlock" code that's tied to your account.