I'd love to have a shot at this. However internet connection speeds in East London is only one step above carrier pigeon.

" @Jimmy6068: When you're watching the video, be sure to actually set it to the 720p resolution, and even open it in its own window if you want the full size. On page 2 of this thread the video is posted in full resolution at 720p. I didn't want to post it at the full resolution on the front page because it's very wide. Anyway, if you track your network usage, you'll see that OnLive uses between 130kb/s to 750kb/s. The graphics look on par with PS3 and Xbox 360, and mid to mid-high range for PC.  However, they have been doing a lot with the servers lately. I have gotten a few stutters here and there, and the visual clarity seems to be a bit blurry since they have been messing with the servers. They are working on a lot though it seems, changing settings, adjusting available titles, etc. Many features have come down and been brought back up again, such as brag clips, arena, marketplace, etc. Not sure what they are doing, but it's only hampered my enjoyment slightly.   Edit: Went back to play Prince of Persia and it's back running at smooth fps and full quality. So guess the servers are set correctly now. "

I know perfectly well how to open YouTube videos in HD, I've made videos for YouTube quite a few times already. If the videos are recorded as such in true HD, it won't make a difference when viewing them full screen, they even now have the option for 1080p if you want to make videos in that resolution. You just stated what the max data transfer rate is from Onlive. I stated before, that to get true HD content, you need to be getting rates around 2mb/s and that is even the standard for viewing YouTube HD content for HD videos. Now if that is all they can muster, that's fine and it may be "good enough" for those who really don't care about needing HD viewing, but most hard core gamers are going to. This may appeal to the casual gamer, but until they offer Wii type games, it won't take on that group either. When you post videos on YouTube, it compresses them, then it is viewed on a smaller scale. When you see 720P, and even expand it to a slightly larger window, that is not the actual size of a game being played in 1280x720p. If you were to translate the YouTube expanded window size into a 720P relative function, it would be more like you're looking at a 800x600 or even less than that. The only way this will look half-way decent is to make the window small, like even maybe just a bit bigger than what you can see on YouTube on expanded mode, or a 15" or smaller PC monitor. Anything bigger or worse yet, loaded full screen is going to look weak, plain and simple.
 
Now, I can take your video from YouTube and do as you say in two ways. I can play it expanded mode, which makes the window just slightly bigger (by clicking the right angle and arrow-ended symbol), or I can go into a separate window mode (clicking the double window symbol) via YouTube which make the screen size 960x600 (which if translated into a 720p variable, it would be 1280x800). When played in the separate window mode (larger than expanded) you'll see blocking and poor resolution because the video transfer is not the resolution you viewed in reality, you have compressed it and would be saying it looks like that, it doesn’t. It is impossible to make the transfer rate you say Onlive gives and have it translate into true HD content at 720p and say it will look like that.. If you would, take that separate window and go full screen, it looks real bad, but in reality it doesn't look that bad if I play Onlive in full screen mode because I am not translating recorded data and trying to make it look like I know it cannot look, doing that doesn't work that way. But, playing with Onlive, even at full screen on my 24” monitor doesn't look as bad as a full screen HD YouTube flavor, it just isn't the resolution they say it is. To make it look that sharp playing, you have to play it in a relatively smaller window.

I can load any one of my games (too bad I don’t have any of their marketplace games to make a comparison) and play them in 1280x720p with all effects turned off, and it would smoke Onlive. If you want, I will make one and you’ll be stunned, or even make one of my games and include it playing with one of theirs. The 360 and PS3 would beat Onlive for video quality, easily. Now, if Onlive goes down, you can’t play anything, if your internet goes down, tough luck, you still pay for it. At least I can still play my console or PC offline. Add on the fact that you don’t own the games, you cannot mod them and if you cancel or lapse your subscription, you lose the games you paid for, even if you only had the service for a month. Xbox Live cost less than Onlive does and I can download games and I own them even if I don’t pay for the Gold account anymore.

Well I do like a free year so I don't have to think as hard if I had to pay for my subscription. Three years for a fully paid game is fine but it's all about thinking ahead and making wise decisions; some games don't have rental or demo options which they really need. True there are those variables of shit going wrong like internet or the service going offline but that's not long term.
 
If I do get Kane & Lynch 2 and with my free year, I don't think I will be playing it three years from now; maybe not even passed the first year. The only disadvantage that seems to matter is that it can't be resold unlike a physical copy. So the thought of owning is not really of an issue. If I do cancel it in a month after purchase and feel like shit afterward, I can only blame myself.

" Well I do like a free year so I don't have to think as hard if I had to pay for my subscription. Three years for a fully paid game is fine but it's all about thinking ahead and making wise decisions; some games don't have rental or demo options which they really need. True there are those variables of shit going wrong like internet or the service going offline but that's not long term.  If I do get Kane & Lynch 2 and with my free year, I don't think I will be playing it three years from now; maybe not even passed the first year. The only disadvantage that seems to matter is that it can't be resold unlike a physical copy. So the thought of owning is not really of an issue. If I do cancel it in a month after purchase and feel like shit afterward, I can only blame myself. "

It is impossible to make the transfer rate you say Onlive gives and have it translate into true HD content at 720p and say it will look like that.. If you would, take that separate window and go full screen, it looks real bad, but in reality it doesn't look that bad if I play Onlive in full screen mode because I am not translating recorded data and trying to make it look like I know it cannot look, doing that doesn't work that way. But, playing with Onlive, even at full screen on my 24” monitor doesn't look as bad as a full screen HD YouTube flavor, it just isn't the resolution they say it is. To make it look that sharp playing, you have to play it in a relatively smaller window.

I can load any one of my games (too bad I don’t have any of their marketplace games to make a comparison) and play them in 1280x720p with all effects turned off, and it would smoke Onlive. If you want, I will make one and you’ll be stunned, or even make one of my games and include it playing with one of theirs. The 360 and PS3 would beat Onlive for video quality, easily. Now, if Onlive goes down, you can’t play anything, if your internet goes down, tough luck, you still pay for it. At least I can still play my console or PC offline. Add on the fact that you don’t own the games, you cannot mod them and if you cancel or lapse your subscription, you lose the games you paid for, even if you only had the service for a month. Xbox Live cost less than Onlive does and I can download games and I own them even if I don’t pay for the Gold account anymore.

"

"  If your internet goes down, you can't play Steam games, if Steam servers go down, same situation, and you still bought and downloaded the game. They are similar services with similar limitations, except OnLive can be played on any device without hardware or downloads.  "

" @Saieno said:

"  If your internet goes down, you can't play Steam games, if Steam servers go down, same situation, and you still bought and downloaded the game. They are similar services with similar limitations, except OnLive can be played on any device without hardware or downloads.  "

Not true at all. Steam has an offline mode, and within the recent year has worked for me without fail. It used to be a bit finicky, but seems to be much more improved. Not to mention Steam is not the only digital distribution platform around. Impulse, D2D and GamersGate are there and don't require clients or a constant internet connection to play games.  So, the only "pro" for OnLive is the no hardware thing. I can see how useful it would be for playing something you usually wouldn't be able to on a netbook or some other gaming-incapable device, but I just don't see a service like this replacing real hardware. "

" My mistake about Steam then, however is all my experiences I've never been able to play games offline with Steam; must be game specific."

Steam with it having no fee, me owning the game even when Steam shuts down and getting better Frames per second with my own computer >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This.

I want to be able to play games on my laptop when I travel so I would hate the future to be only streaming games. And what happen if their server crash, you can't play your game? And I rather not pay a monthly fee and pay full price to rent a game for 3 years.

They don't just have one server, they have many servers and 5 data centers. If you don't want to use the service you don't have to, but there's nothing wrong with it, it works as advertised, and there is a market for it. PC gamers are NOT the market, it's the gamers without great PCs, notebook users, and soon with the micro-console it'll be for gamers without anything except a TV and internet connection. 
 
Also, the whole 'I only get it for three years" thing is an assumption. It could mean many things, such as if the company goes under it will still be playable until June 2013. If people are actively playing a game, I cannot see them taking it down. If no one has played the game in a year, then I can fully understand them taking it down. It's taking up server space that another game could be using.

" @Jimmy6068 said:

It is impossible to make the transfer rate you say Onlive gives and have it translate into true HD content at 720p and say it will look like that.. If you would, take that separate window and go full screen, it looks real bad, but in reality it doesn't look that bad if I play Onlive in full screen mode because I am not translating recorded data and trying to make it look like I know it cannot look, doing that doesn't work that way. But, playing with Onlive, even at full screen on my 24” monitor doesn't look as bad as a full screen HD YouTube flavor, it just isn't the resolution they say it is. To make it look that sharp playing, you have to play it in a relatively smaller window.

I can load any one of my games (too bad I don’t have any of their marketplace games to make a comparison) and play them in 1280x720p with all effects turned off, and it would smoke Onlive. If you want, I will make one and you’ll be stunned, or even make one of my games and include it playing with one of theirs. The 360 and PS3 would beat Onlive for video quality, easily. Now, if Onlive goes down, you can’t play anything, if your internet goes down, tough luck, you still pay for it. At least I can still play my console or PC offline. Add on the fact that you don’t own the games, you cannot mod them and if you cancel or lapse your subscription, you lose the games you paid for, even if you only had the service for a month. Xbox Live cost less than Onlive does and I can download games and I own them even if I don’t pay for the Gold account anymore.

"

Never meant to offend you in anyway if I did, just wanted to get that out there. I have a 1920x1080 monitor, and when recording this video I didn't set OnLive to full screen to show the native performance and look if you were to watch the video in full screen yourself. The resolution is indeed 1280x720, however because we're dealing with new technologies and not just video streaming, transfer rate might have a different result with the OnLive service thanks for the algorithm that they use. I've watched my own video a couple times, on my iPad and computer, and it looks exactly like how I see it in the game personally. I didn't see any artifacts or blockiness while watching the video, so I'm just a bit confused by your comment on it.  However, I will agree that OnLive versus PC, PC is the winner easily. OnLive versus Console though, and it's debatable. OnLive isn't any different from Steam as far as the payment and license system goes. If your internet goes down, you can't play Steam games, if Steam servers go down, same situation, and you still bought and downloaded the game. They are similar services with similar limitations, except OnLive can be played on any device without hardware or downloads.  "

I think you're misunderstanding my argument, or perhaps I'm wording it badly.  
 
While playing a game on a console compared to OnLive, the experience differences are debatable. I have owned a 360, and I own two PS3s, as well as a 24" 1080p monitor, so I'm well aware of what HD is and how it works. My display is half the size of yours though, so perhaps I can't see all the blocky details you describe. However, we're debating a very opinionated topic, which is graphics, and if you could afford a TV that big I don't think you'd need OnLive anyway. But back on topic, while I'm playing a game on the OnLive service, after a few mins I don't exactly care what it looks like. I'm way too focused on the actual experience I'm having to worry about if the edge of the screen got blurred. Once my handling is affected then it becomes an issue, but of the week I've been using the service (quite heavily infact) it's only happened during one play session.
 
Now your point on the required bandwidth to stream HD is correct in how we understand streaming compressed video, however OnLive is not merely compressed video. If you take a look at the "Coming Soon" you'll see a Harry Potter trailer, which certainly looks like it's in HD. I can see the fine details in the faces and other such things, though I dunno what you see.  For example, while I was playing UT3, I took a screenshot. 
 

" I think you're misunderstanding my argument, or perhaps I'm wording it badly.  
 
While playing a game on a console compared to OnLive, the experience differences are debatable. I have owned a 360, and I own two PS3s, as well as a 24" 1080p monitor, so I'm well aware of what HD is and how it works. My display is half the size of yours though, so perhaps I can't see all the blocky details you describe. However, we're debating a very opinionated topic, which is graphics, and if you could afford a TV that big I don't think you'd need OnLive anyway. But back on topic, while I'm playing a game on the OnLive service, after a few mins I don't exactly care what it looks like. I'm way too focused on the actual experience I'm having to worry about if the edge of the screen got blurred. Once my handling is affected then it becomes an issue, but of the week I've been using the service (quite heavily infact) it's only happened during one play session.
 
 
Now your point on the required bandwidth to stream HD is correct in how we understand streaming compressed video, however OnLive is not merely compressed video. If you take a look at the "Coming Soon" you'll see a Harry Potter trailer, which certainly looks like it's in HD. I can see the fine details in the faces and other such things, though I dunno what you see.  For example, while I was playing UT3, I took a screenshot. 
 
    Not sure what the black bar at the bottom is, probably from the recording program. But, in my opinion that is HD, though no amount of screenshots will show exactly how OnLive is, especially since OnLive looks nothing like that in fast paced motion. However, if you were wondering I compressed the HD OnLive video with 10MB/s bit-rate to give it the best clarity on playback. The raw file and YouTube file look pretty similar, but the YouTube one is noticeably much more blurry. "

I wish i could use Onlive but i live in Australia :(

You never stated a misunderstanding, you were clear when you said 'debatable'. I take it, you didn't look at the ME2 video I gave as a link? There's no way anything now on Onlive looks close to that resolution and that video smokes the one you placed at YouTube, that you have displayed in 720, and is that ME2 video is in 720 as well.    

 Now, the above two images, as also is your image example, were taken during no movement or action on the screen, which is misleading.  Here is an Arena shot, using the smaller format image just like yours above and my first one, watching someone playing the game, and you'll see the difference. Just look at the gun barrels! You would not experience that drastic of a change playing a console and most certainly a PC game. Can you imagine what this would look like just on a 36" HDTV? Do this if you will, and I know you know how to do it. Go online to IGN, or any good gaming site, and play,  just in "HI" mode, a game play video of UTIII, or any comparable game from just the 360 or PS3, don't even do a PC video, just the console versions. Then open Onlive, go a to a window where someone is playing the same game, then ALT+SHIFT to a smaller window and re-size down to the smallest it can go, which will be about the same size as the online video (it will be just a bit larger in Onlive), and you'll see the review video looks better even on the console version.. If Onlive is meant to be played on PC, then it looks bad because most are going to want to play it full screen, or at least at 1280x720, not the smallest window. The only way it looks decent is by shrinking the window size and even then, the resolution is mediocre at best. You'll see in the review or gameplay video at IGN (or elsewhere) of the same game has detail because the game used high resolution graphics. Even in the smallest window for Onlive, you'll not see the detail and everything is lo-res imaging. "  

I love the service but I am holding onto my free game coupon until either Dragon Age or Mass Effect 2 are put back up and/or a better game then currently available ... and on the last day my coupon is valid (if something better is not put up) I will probably use it on Just Cause 2

Yeah, I'm really enjoying Borderlands, Just Cause 2, and Prince of Persia at the moment khai. Great games! But I do hope that Mass Effect 2 comes back onto the service, as well as Dragon Age. 
 
Also,   Jimmy6068, my 'debateable' comment is not targeted at the graphics, merely the gameplay. When playing a game with OnLive the controls and performance feel local, however I still see HD quality while playing OnLive. I'm not suggesting OnLive looks like a PC game with maxed settings, but it does look crisp and clear, and does have high definition display from my experiences.

" @Jimmy6068 said: 

You never stated a misunderstanding, you were clear when you said 'debatable'. I take it, you didn't look at the ME2 video I gave as a link? There's no way anything now on Onlive looks close to that resolution and that video smokes the one you placed at YouTube, that you have displayed in 720, and is that ME2 video is in 720 as well.    

 Now, the above two images, as also is your image example, were taken during no movement or action on the screen, which is misleading.  Here is an Arena shot, using the smaller format image just like yours above and my first one, watching someone playing the game, and you'll see the difference. Just look at the gun barrels! You would not experience that drastic of a change playing a console and most certainly a PC game. Can you imagine what this would look like just on a 36" HDTV? Do this if you will, and I know you know how to do it. Go online to IGN, or any good gaming site, and play,  just in "HI" mode, a game play video of UTIII, or any comparable game from just the 360 or PS3, don't even do a PC video, just the console versions. Then open Onlive, go a to a window where someone is playing the same game, then ALT+SHIFT to a smaller window and re-size down to the smallest it can go, which will be about the same size as the online video (it will be just a bit larger in Onlive), and you'll see the review video looks better even on the console version.. If Onlive is meant to be played on PC, then it looks bad because most are going to want to play it full screen, or at least at 1280x720, not the smallest window. The only way it looks decent is by shrinking the window size and even then, the resolution is mediocre at best. You'll see in the review or gameplay video at IGN (or elsewhere) of the same game has detail because the game used high resolution graphics. Even in the smallest window for Onlive, you'll not see the detail and everything is lo-res imaging. "  

 
There are quite a few problems with your posts and your assumptions with how OnLive compresses and displays the game and videos. First off, you'll notice I stated  " But, in my opinion that is HD, though no amount of screenshots will show exactly how OnLive is, especially since OnLive looks nothing like that in fast paced motion." thus I was not being misleading. Secondly, once OnLive puts Mass Effect 2 back into the Marketplace we can make a better comparison, and I did in fact watch the video. Now, when talking about playing a game and watching someone else play, you need to keep in mind that OnLive has a live stream and a media stream. The live stream is what you play on, and is MUCH high quality than the media stream. The Media stream is what gets funneled through the Arena windows, and is used as the Broadcast and Brag Clips. These are much blurrier and lower quality than the live stream. So, of course the Arena screenshots will look much lower quality, because it's just meant to be looked at and not played. When you're actually playing the game, it is much sharper and clearer, though not enough for it to be 'HD" for you. 
 
Also, OnLive is currently locked at 720p resolution, and my monitor is 1920x1080 (not 1280x1080, as you assumed above), and playing the games fullscreen simply adds a slight blur to it because I'm digitally zoomed in. And again, there are MANY factors that are affecting what you see and what I see. Internet, Datacenter Load, and Display all play a part, and again it looks like HD to meregardless of what you have to say on the matter. You don't think it looks HD which is fine, but bit transfer rates do not automatically make something HD. "

" Yeah, I'm really enjoying Borderlands, Just Cause 2, and Prince of Persia at the moment khai. Great games! But I do hope that Mass Effect 2 comes back onto the service, as well as Dragon Age. 
 
Also,   Jimmy6068, my 'debateable' comment is not targeted at the graphics, merely the gameplay. When playing a game with OnLive the controls and performance feel local, however I still see HD quality while playing OnLive. I'm not suggesting OnLive looks like a PC game with maxed settings, but it does look crisp and clear, and does have high definition display from my experiences. "

I know how OnLive works because I took the time to watch their presentations. Here's one that you can watch yourself which explains how it's able to do what it does.  http://tv.seas.columbia.edu/videos/545/60/79 
  
Now honestly this whole discussion with you about graphics quality is starting to bore me, as we aren't getting anywhere. That screenshot of UT3 is COMPLETELY playable, and that's the only point I'm trying to make. Again, as I stated before, when I get into the game I focus on what is going on instead of the quality of the graphics. However, if I want to look at the graphics I simply stand still and rotate the camera, which everyone does regardless of the system they are playing on, thus it will look crisp and clear as has been stated. The Live Stream just needs to look good in motion, and Steve Pearlman will even state that the live stream when paused looks blurred because it's supposed to be in motion. So I'm not going to show comparison screenshots or anything, but I will do a video comparison with Unreal Tournament 3 and Dirt 2 since I happen to own those two games. I'll post the video soon.

This is part of my problem with Saieno's comments on how OnLive works.  It DOES look like the screens Jimmy6068 is posting and NOTHING like the screens Saieno posted above when actually playing the game.
 
@Saieno said:

However, if I want to look at the graphics I simply stand still and rotate the camera, which everyone does regardless of the system they are playing on

The Live Stream just needs to look good in motion, and Steve Pearlman will even state that the live stream when paused looks blurred because it's supposed to be in motion.

" This is part of my problem with Saieno's comments on how OnLive works.  It DOES look like the screens Jimmy6068 is posting and NOTHING like the screens Saieno posted above when actually playing the game.
 
@Saieno said:

The Live Stream just needs to look good in motion, and Steve Pearlman will even state that the live stream when paused looks blurred because it's supposed to be in motion.

That's some bullshit as many games don't have native motion blur effects.  It's video compression, nothing else. "

Of course I'm sure you'll say it's fake, or it doesn't actually look like that, or some other troll comments.

" Comparing compression quality in a compressed Youtube video invalidates the entire point of the comparison in the first place. "

Whoa Jimmy, OnLive is definitely HD. It just doesn't look as good because the video stream is highly compressed before it gets down to you.  
 
Also, this is only an argument that really hardcore fanboys would be having lol. Most of the market will not give a damn. Being able to play Crysis with an Intel GMA is all I really want.

" @Saieno said:

Of course I'm sure you'll say it's fake, or it doesn't actually look like that, or some other troll comments.

So now I'm trolling you for pointing out your lies and exaggerations?  You've really done a good job proving your impartiality.  Due to the fact that you're ripping video of the PC version and uploading it to Youtube, and God only knows what compression quality you're using to capture the real time PC footage, I can't even tell if you're running DiRT2 in DX11 mode or not.  Comparing compression quality in a compressed Youtube video invalidates the entire point of the comparison in the first place.  If people want to be suckered in to your claims that there is no difference in image quality between OnLive and the real thing let them.  God knows marketers will keep lying. "

The video is now updated, and it's slightly clearer. Best I can do. 
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvJCuAvYdf4

" Whoa Jimmy, OnLive is definitely HD. It just doesn't look as good because the video stream is highly compressed before it gets down to you.   Also, this is only an argument that really hardcore fanboys would be having lol. Most of the market will not give a damn. Being able to play Crysis with an Intel GMA is all I really want. "

" @Taler said:

" Whoa Jimmy, OnLive is definitely HD. It just doesn't look as good because the video stream is highly compressed before it gets down to you.   Also, this is only an argument that really hardcore fanboys would be having lol. Most of the market will not give a damn. Being able to play Crysis with an Intel GMA is all I really want. "

You essentially contradicted yourself, in an almost weird form of cognitive dissonance.  You say it is definitely HD, yet you all but say that the end user result is not something seen in HD. Firstly, I am not a fanboy, your interest in ad hominem weakens your argument. Secondly, Onlive won't appeal to the casual gamer as well. Most like Wii type games, and if that class of gamer is on PC, they are more than likely going to play Bejeweled, Yahoo or MSN games or similar games like that, for free. That is actually the biggest gaming market there is by far. Mafia wars is huge and that is considered for the casual PC gamer. I personally didn't care for Crysis, but I do care about the graphical experience and even comparing Onlive to the 360 or the PS3, it is a step backwards.   There isn't any anti-aliasing, no anisotropic filtering . They obviously don't use it and it is very noticeable and the 360 and PS3 are capable of using those effects. Also show me where I said Onlive isn't HD. I stated and proved that the video coming into my PC or what Onlive provides cannot be in HD, because they do not provide the bandwidth to do it. If it were true HD, even in 720p, you'd see much nicer textures than the blocked filled textures and lo res images I see during gameplay. To even get a modicum of HD effect, you have to shrink the screen down a good deal and I still see the blocked effects. I don't even get that from my Xbox 360 at 1080p . MY contention is, Onlive is either using ported lo-res games, or the result is the bandwidth they offer can only give the resolutions after letting it out to the gamer/users . Compression works the same no matter what system you use, since data is data nd it is all binary. If you played these games on your PC, and depending on the graphical setting you use, they are loaded up after uncompressing the files and loading them into RAM. If they are compressing them, the result will not be true HD with the bandwidth they offer, it is a factual certainty with data transfer rates.    I've offered to make my own (I really don't want to because it is time consuming) video showing the difference. You say video examples online are not valid and that is true if you are trying to prove it isn't HD. But, I can make a side by side video of Onlive, in 720p, and one of my games, with all effects turned off, with the screen resolution set to 720p, and it will still look better than Onlive and it can be shown that realisitcally on YouTube or any video viewing site. Now, is there a market for Onlive, I think so. I also think it may evolve into something better looking. But,Onlive isn't appealing to the casual gamer they don't have a prayer while charging for their service, they are going after the typical HD console and PC gamer. IF someone new that doesn't have a clue about HD graphics, or is just getting into gaming and sees this as good enough. That is all well and good. There are even some PC gamer that find this good enough and for the money if it is that way, that is great. My only contention is that Onlive is advertising HD graphics, when they are not, in fact, giving that effect to the end user. "

" A console game is high definition if it operates at a resolution of at least 720p, or 1280x720. A console able to achieve this resolution is HD-capable. For a variety of reasons, the term does not apply to PC games.  According to the FCC, a digital television signal is considered high definition if it outputs at 720p or higher. The FCC does not specify a minimum standard of quality for the final product, though, so it is still technically high definition television if a station simply rebroadcasts its low resolution analog content. This is in important distinction because a similar problem exists in games. Some developers have chosen to reduce the framebuffer and effective resolution of their games in order to enjoy increased framerate, dipping into territory slightly below the 720p minimum standard. Then the framebuffer output is upscaled to a true HD signal, and as a result their product is still high definition. Going by the FCC standard, this is technically HD, but doesn't change the fact that the games run at sub-HD resolutions and are noticeably softer on high end televisions."

" The video is now updated, and it's slightly clearer. Best I can do. 
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvJCuAvYdf4 "

" @Saieno said:

" The video is now updated, and it's slightly clearer. Best I can do. 
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvJCuAvYdf4 "

I have a comment and I hope you don't take it personally. I have now seen three different video sites, gaming, Yotube, etc, where you posted your video review of Onlive and I am assuming you have posted the review to others.. This seems more like mere interest in Onlive as much as you are advertising/promoting for them. If you are doing that, then that is nothing short of SPAM and nothing less than unethical. Honestly, I have not seen one real thought or actual negative from you regarding Onlive, so my comment would be logical in thinking."

" Anything about Crysis? I remember seeing stuff like Crysis Warhead on there. "

Interesting, yes, but impractical with today's bandwidth caps. I mean, shit, I blew through my caps simply watching endurance run videos (among the occasional Steam download, an HD film or two) every day on "High quality," and yet it's 80GB. You're also both uploading and downloading simultaneously, so the rest of your home network is effed. 
 
But the concept is pretty cool. Really. There used to be this service, of which I have no recollection of the name, where you can have video game demos streamed to your PC. I remember doing it with Aliens vs. Predator 2. It was janky as shit on 56k. XD

Is OnLive Video paying you for this?

" Interesting, yes, but impractical with today's bandwidth caps. I mean, shit, I blew through my caps simply watching endurance run videos (among the occasional Steam download, an HD film or two) every day on "High quality," and yet it's 80GB. You're also both uploading and downloading simultaneously, so the rest of your home network is effed.  But the concept is pretty cool. Really. There used to be this service, of which I have no recollection of the name, where you can have video game demos streamed to your PC. I remember doing it with Aliens vs. Predator 2. It was janky as shit on 56k. XD "

" Is OnLive Video paying you for this? "

" @Saieno: 500kb/s into an hour is 1.8GBish. That means I can play OnLive for a total of 40ish hours tops in a month, assuming I do nothing else with my internet. Otherwise my ISP threatens to shut off my service like they did before. ):  I've also got a 10Mbit package, so I'd probably be leeching about 1MB/s instead, right, I guess? "

" @Jimmy6068 said:

" @Taler said:

" Whoa Jimmy, OnLive is definitely HD. It just doesn't look as good because the video stream is highly compressed before it gets down to you.   Also, this is only an argument that really hardcore fanboys would be having lol. Most of the market will not give a damn. Being able to play Crysis with an Intel GMA is all I really want. "

You essentially contradicted yourself, in an almost weird form of cognitive dissonance.  You say it is definitely HD, yet you all but say that the end user result is not something seen in HD. Firstly, I am not a fanboy, your interest in ad hominem weakens your argument. Secondly, Onlive won't appeal to the casual gamer as well. Most like Wii type games, and if that class of gamer is on PC, they are more than likely going to play Bejeweled, Yahoo or MSN games or similar games like that, for free. That is actually the biggest gaming market there is by far. Mafia wars is huge and that is considered for the casual PC gamer. I personally didn't care for Crysis, but I do care about the graphical experience and even comparing Onlive to the 360 or the PS3, it is a step backwards.   There isn't any anti-aliasing, no anisotropic filtering . They obviously don't use it and it is very noticeable and the 360 and PS3 are capable of using those effects. Also show me where I said Onlive isn't HD. I stated and proved that the video coming into my PC or what Onlive provides cannot be in HD, because they do not provide the bandwidth to do it. If it were true HD, even in 720p, you'd see much nicer textures than the blocked filled textures and lo res images I see during gameplay. To even get a modicum of HD effect, you have to shrink the screen down a good deal and I still see the blocked effects. I don't even get that from my Xbox 360 at 1080p . MY contention is, Onlive is either using ported lo-res games, or the result is the bandwidth they offer can only give the resolutions after letting it out to the gamer/users . Compression works the same no matter what system you use, since data is data nd it is all binary. If you played these games on your PC, and depending on the graphical setting you use, they are loaded up after uncompressing the files and loading them into RAM. If they are compressing them, the result will not be true HD with the bandwidth they offer, it is a factual certainty with data transfer rates.    I've offered to make my own (I really don't want to because it is time consuming) video showing the difference. You say video examples online are not valid and that is true if you are trying to prove it isn't HD. But, I can make a side by side video of Onlive, in 720p, and one of my games, with all effects turned off, with the screen resolution set to 720p, and it will still look better than Onlive and it can be shown that realisitcally on YouTube or any video viewing site. Now, is there a market for Onlive, I think so. I also think it may evolve into something better looking. But,Onlive isn't appealing to the casual gamer they don't have a prayer while charging for their service, they are going after the typical HD console and PC gamer. IF someone new that doesn't have a clue about HD graphics, or is just getting into gaming and sees this as good enough. That is all well and good. There are even some PC gamer that find this good enough and for the money if it is that way, that is great. My only contention is that Onlive is advertising HD graphics, when they are not, in fact, giving that effect to the end user. "

 Actually that's not what he said. He said OnLive is HD, but a slightly less 'crisp' HD than you'll find with local media because it needs to be compressed. Also you need to try and look past the limited application of the PC/Mac plugin, such as OnLive on mobile devices and the micro-console. They have some casual games on the service already, and it's not something I'm interested in but it works. And again, you keep making this "it cannot be HD because the bandwidth" which just isn't true. This is completely new compression technology that makes all this possible, so despite what you think the limitations of compression are OnLive is not bound by it. You're basically holding true to the Shannon Hartley theorem, and OnLive produces over 100x Shannon. The theorem establishes Shannon's channel capacity for such a communication link, a bound on the maximum amount of error-free digital data (that is, information) that can be transmitted with a specified bandwidth in the presence of the noise interference, under the assumption that the signal power is bounded and the Gaussian noise process is characterized by a known power or power spectral density.  
 
OnLive does indeed have HD graphics, in fact GiantBomb has a page on this exact issue!   http://www.giantbomb.com/high-definition-graphics/92-376/ 
 
Here's an excerpt: 
 
@GiantBomb said:

" A console game is high definition if it operates at a resolution of at least 720p, or 1280x720. A console able to achieve this resolution is HD-capable. For a variety of reasons, the term does not apply to PC games.  According to the FCC, a digital television signal is considered high definition if it outputs at 720p or higher. The FCC does not specify a minimum standard of quality for the final product, though, so it is still technically high definition television if a station simply rebroadcasts its low resolution analog content. This is in important distinction because a similar problem exists in games. Some developers have chosen to reduce the framebuffer and effective resolution of their games in order to enjoy increased framerate, dipping into territory slightly below the 720p minimum standard. Then the framebuffer output is upscaled to a true HD signal, and as a result their product is still high definition. Going by the FCC standard, this is technically HD, but doesn't change the fact that the games run at sub-HD resolutions and are noticeably softer on high end televisions."

Now OnLive doesn't run at a sub-HD resolution, but the compression algorithms do make it softer in some cases, especially when digitally zoomed to 1080p. Hope that helps. "

" @Saieno: 500kb/s into an hour is 1.8GBish. That means I can play OnLive for a total of 40ish hours tops in a month, assuming I do nothing else with my internet. Otherwise my ISP threatens to shut off my service like they did before. ):  I've also got a 10Mbit package, so I'd probably be leeching about 1MB/s instead, right, I guess? "

@AnimZero said:

" @Saieno: 500kb/s into an hour is 1.8GBish. That means I can play OnLive for a total of 40ish hours tops in a month, assuming I do nothing else with my internet. Otherwise my ISP threatens to shut off my service like they did before. ):  I've also got a 10Mbit package, so I'd probably be leeching about 1MB/s instead, right, I guess? "

Keep in mind, most ISPs rate their packages and data limit in bytes, not bits. The transfer rate for Onlive is listed in bits. 500kb/s (not KB/s) translates into .225GBs (or 225MBs)

As someone with consoles, there aren't any games on the service that interest me, and I can't think of any in the future that will, either. 
The software is cool, and I'm alright with the pricing, minus the subscription fee.

" @Jimmy6068 said:

" @Saieno said:

" The video is now updated, and it's slightly clearer. Best I can do. 
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvJCuAvYdf4 "

I have a comment and I hope you don't take it personally. I have now seen three different video sites, gaming, Yotube, etc, where you posted your video review of Onlive and I am assuming you have posted the review to others.. This seems more like mere interest in Onlive as much as you are advertising/promoting for them. If you are doing that, then that is nothing short of SPAM and nothing less than unethical. Honestly, I have not seen one real thought or actual negative from you regarding Onlive, so my comment would be logical in thinking."

I have only posted my review here on Giant Bomb and at Game Trailers. Why? Because it's the two gaming sites I frequent the most.  I have also said a fair amount of negative comments, however you are expecting me to lie about my experience with OnLive and I'm not going to do that. It's fine, completely ignore the other video reviews, written reviews, video tutorials, and discussions on other games and topics I've done. Guess you can completely ignore all the other positive OnLive reviews and HD Comparisons on YouTube as well.  ...are you serious? Really? I post a counter-point to your only argument and now we're back on accusations?  "

How about I just keep my 360 and my blockbuster gamepass (you can substitute gamefly if the returns don't kill you) and pay $20 a month to rent a game as frequently as I want and keep it for as long as I want.  Much better deal imo.

" Oh please, let Taler speak for himself, he did not say what you said he did. If you would just actually say what you mean instead of "trying" to say what you mean in other words or terms, you'd save a ton of time."  

My criticism of you is your claim that we all see true HD streaming from Onlive by your words, when in fact, it doesn't look (remember the word LOOK) anything close to HD visuals.

" @Jimmy6068 said:

" Oh please, let Taler speak for himself, he did not say what you said he did. If you would just actually say what you mean instead of "trying" to say what you mean in other words or terms, you'd save a ton of time."  

My criticism of you is your claim that we all see true HD streaming from Onlive by your words, when in fact, it doesn't look (remember the word LOOK) anything close to HD visuals.

I have already, but I'll try again. 1280x720 is HD 720p, that is a fact. Bitrate does not determine what is high definition, the term "high definition" is strictly based on resolution, which is anything higher than standard definition. This also is a fact. OnLive has a new compression algroithum, which I don't pretend to understand how it works, that allows for streaming of high definition content with very low bitrates. There are still errors involved with the streaming, but it is made to conceal these errors at a 720p resolution when in motion. This again, is also a fact. 
   So lets actually look at a comparison of high definition, enhanced definition, and standard definition resolutions as if it were viewed on a fixed-pixel 1080p display. 
 

   As you can see, 720p looks pretty blurry for being high definition right? Obviously not as blurry as 480i Standard Definition, but the point is you're expecting better clarity from 720p when it isn't that great of clarity to begin with. Now on a console with an HDMI cable the 720p resolution content, even when scaled up to 1080p, will have more clarity because HDMI does not compress content. The same goes for PCs, which can exceed many HD resolution standards with no compressed content. Component cables are more widely used with consoles, and generate 720p HD resolution images, however component cables that are widely used by consumers are analog that inherently have noise. This is why digital signals are favored, as you get the clearest picture possible without any noise or variations in the picture.   You are used to 1080p and HDMI connects, which is fine except you're expecting these same results with a system that doesn't output that. OnLive is equal to an analog component connection at 720p, and I personally think (now this is an opinion) that it does a great job of it.  "

 I just played the demo on Just Cause 2 from Steam. I had the setting in 720p and the deatil was amazing. Great physics effects, even the effects of heat rising from the gorund, that I did not see on Onlive, so maybe many things are turned off. From what I see, the game must be a watered down version, because I see very little of the effects on Onlive that I experienced with the demo version, even if the resolution wasn't there on the demo. "

" @Jimmy6068 said:

 I just played the demo on Just Cause 2 from Steam. I had the setting in 720p and the deatil was amazing. Great physics effects, even the effects of heat rising from the gorund, that I did not see on Onlive, so maybe many things are turned off. From what I see, the game must be a watered down version, because I see very little of the effects on Onlive that I experienced with the demo version, even if the resolution wasn't there on the demo. "

Just Cause 2 is the only game I have issues with. Seems to be off sync or something, as the cut scenes never line up and it feels sluggish. I'm hoping it's just a temporary thing, as it wasn't doing that the first time I played. Still a ton of fun though. Also, my apologies for not specifying kb and KB better, I have really bad insomnia and haven't slept so it completely slipped my mind. "