Sure, you do, but most don't.

Even if you don't understand networking, isn't this just common sense? I mean, it takes forever to go on certain websites since the Internet connection sucks.

I can. It's a capitalist country after all.

I don't think they have actually announced that yet, but we'll know in a day or so.

Yes, yes it is. Though I find common sense to be... lacking... in many brains where it should logically be very prevalent.

Never mind the DRM, this is just a consumer-unfriendly business plan. Now, if this were some sort of Netflix equivalent to videogames, wherein I could pay monthly fees to rent games, that'd be one thing. But if I have to pay full price for a new game ON TOP OF a subscription fee, without which I lose the games I have already bought, then that's just lame. The only thing OnLive would have going for it then is the fact that users could substitute their speedy internet connection for other gaming hardware requirements... and that's not good enough to compensate. Online stores like Steam or GOG seem much more attractive by comparison. For that matter, physical game stores look pretty good by comparison.

Being hit in the bollocks by a hammer looks pretty good by comparison

Well, that depends... Are you only getting hit once, or regularly over long period of time?

Common sense isn't. ;-)

I personally like the idea itself, but the latency, low resolution (720p), 30fps and the fact that you lose all your games as soon as you stop paying for the subscription ensures that I will never touch Onlive with a ten foot pole. And I was VERY excited when they announced it, for the record.

I'm sure it would work fine at a range of 100 metres. Does this mean there will be a server on every street? Might get a touch expensive...

True but its only switch level speed that could make it truly viable and since the cable run of cat5e/cat6 is 100m they'd have to have servers everywhere. In theory they could do it with fibre and have a server every few streets but that'd be more expensive to set up

BT, the national phone company here, are rolling out "Fibre-to-the-cabinet" over the next few years (Yes, the UK national average *IS* ~2MB).
It's not gonna help a lot of people though - for example, myself, being less than a mile from a major city centre where you'd think speeds would be fastest, am around 350 metres *in a straight line* from the nearest cabinet, giving me ~850kb/s upload and a really shitty ~45kb/s upload on my ADSL line, which until my previous routers died was ~140KB/s. (6-7MB line)
Maybe I'll look into their ADSL2+ upgrade in a month or so and get those speeds "doubled".
Cable companies offer much faster speeds, but aren't available in all areas - Virgin, for example, is not available in my area....which I find puzzling to say the least.
Satellite is another option, but you do require a landline for that.

Where my flat is in Newcastle has recently been upgraded, so I get very quick speeds (most of the time anyway, at peak times it can get a touch slow).
However, I'm due to move out of the city soon, and the speeds there are much lower (probably less than half of what I'm getting now), so I'm thinking of switching to Virgin which I'll be able to get (there are some bonuses to the suburbs!).

Yeah, BT have definitely introduced traffic shaping from 1800-000, and more hours at weekend this last year and a bit.
Still, I can't complain too much. nice service, fast turn-around on repairs, and it's stable enough for almost anything I can throw at it. Not like these start-ups like TalkTalk that have "rented" the last half mile or so of cable from cabinets to homes and still use BT's infrastructure to deliver a shoddy service. BT may not be the cheapest option, but what the hell, they developed the infrastructure, they're developing the next stage, so why not be a part of that?.
I get the unlimited download package, and rarely come close to using the "fair usage" limit of 100gb a month (at which point they reduce your speeds during peak hours only)

Seems like we think alike Lone3wolf!
It's not too expensive if you get the package deal (phone, internet and BT Vision).
With that, it's comparable to similar packs from Sky or Virgin (which are essentially your three choices).
Anyway, to be a bit more on topic for a sec, it's really the disparity of infrastructure between locations that will hit OnLive and similar attempts hard.
One of the reasons Sky TV is dominant over other pay TV services is because you can get a satellite dish almost anywhere in the country. BT Vision and Virgin require either high speed internet access or cable at your location, both of which are very varied across the country.
OnLive has reduced it's potential user base by requiring people to live near it's servers, of which there will be few. Given the costs as well, I can't see anyone switching from a console or PC to using this system, even if it did work.
They seem to be aiming at a far too specific group: People who live near their servers, are interested in gaming, don't own a current console or gaming PC and can afford the service.