But it was clearly also an opportunity to show off their service to a new audience and to remind the naysayers that the technology is progressing as planned (unlike, say, Duke Nukem Forever or the Phantom Lapboard).
As soon as the article mentioned the "MiniConsole" I thought to myself "My gort, it's The Phantom reborn!" And then I laughed like mad.
As for people saying "it's got lag, it's failed completely right now", you have to realize, it's not finished. They still haven't said "This is it, this is exactly what you're getting and we're never going to change it." I still remember when Steam games had terrible lag when it first started out. And I can remember playing on dial-up, with terrible lag. System change, they evolve, they get better. Nothing starts out perfect.
Well, this thing is ambitious and people are extremely skeptical, so they're going to jump on any thing to claw at it.
However, I do agree with most of the other people. 100 people is no where NEAR
enough to even make any noticeable changes or progresses. Something like maybe 10,000 people would be much more helpful, but at 100 people and still lag? And how many of them are actively playing on OnLive? And what is their connection, and where are they accessing it, and are they being given copious amounts of bandwidth, are they just OnLive employees?
Who knows what would happen when millions
of people are playing it at once, no way could the OnLive headquarters have over a million computers or so to play the games for them or however they make it work.
While, I'll admit, it would be very nice to have this work so I'll finally be able to play computer games due to my crappy PC, I highly doubt it will work efficiently simply because developers like pushing the hardware envelope and doing even crazier stuff. If what I read is true, then the game is limited to how top notch the OnLive developer's PC rigs are.