Hmm. This could work, but I must say that the subscription price needs some extra thought.
When offering a subscription plan of this nature, comparisons will inevitably be drawn to Netflix and similar streaming services. With that in mind, $15 a month seems rather expensive, especially when you take into account the need to buy the games themselves on top of that.
As I recall, when the first OnLive was making its debut it had a business model along the same lines. At first it was announced that there would be a subscription fee (I think even the same amount they're asking now) on top of having to purchase the games individually. This created such an uproar and turned off so many potential customers that they later axed it.
This begs the question: who exactly is this service for? Just about anyone who buys from Steam will more than likely have a computer capable of running these games, and those who do not probably aren't PC gamers to begin with and are more likely to play these games on a console rather than a PC.
Therefore, this service seems to target those who are PC gamers yet do not have the hardware to play current PC games. A very narrow group, such that appealing to them alone is a surefire way to go bankrupt a second time.
Another group OnLive appeals to are those who like the convenience. This group enjoys the ability to play games on any hardware, without having to worry about system crashes, driver conflicts, and other such PC gaming nuisances. One must ask, though: is this convenience worth $15 a month?
Before the subscription, this group could essentially use OnLive as a gaming platform like they would any other, but a subscription charge changes that. It would be like having to pay a monthly fee just to be able to turn your PS3 on. This type of gamer would have to seriously consider whether the convenience of OnLive is worth the price they're asking. To the type of gamer who waits for Steam sales or buys used or waits for console price drops before purchasing, the answer is clearly no.
That leaves the only group OnLive fully appeals to: people who are already fans of OnLive.
Normal consumers will be put off by the $15 pay wall, PC gamers won't see the point of paying $15 a month to play the games they're already playing on their computers, and those who wish to use OnLive as their gaming platform out of convenience must now consider how much that convenience is worth to them. Just about the only group OnLive fully appeals to are those who are already OnLive fans, or otherwise have a vested interest in cloud technology.
If OnLive must have a subscription fee it should be $7.99, and no more than $9.99. They can get away with charging that because the mass consumer has been conditioned to accept that amount as acceptable for digital subscription services. That would make the subscription fee par for the course, rather than a barrier to entry.
In its current state, I don't see how CloudLift can end any way except badly unless either the fee is lowered or OnLive provides more incentives to justify the current asking price.