OnLive’s assets sold to another company

In for one, thanks OP! :lol:

But seriously, that sucks...I was possibly thinking about considering maybe joining OnLive...
 
It's pretty likely they'll be brought by someone.

Either way, i'm pretty sure there are other forums where this would be more appropriate
 
[quote name='CheapLikeAFox']This has been discussed all day, more prominently in the onlive thread.[/QUOTE]

Well, crap. I was thinking about going in there and checking but I assumed that it was going to be about the free game deals. Sorry about the noise!
 
Long ago I called this project getting nowhere and once I found out the guy running the show is a venture capitalist, it all came together. I always assumed that the company was just a front for developing video streaming algorithms to sell, but I guess that was giving them too much credit. But yeah, to say everyone saw this coming would be an understatement.
 
This sucks to see. For a while OnLive had some great deals and giveaways. Got Amnesia and a few other games completely free and then got massive discounts on other stuff ($1 SR3, $1Batman AA) to name a few, but in the past few months a lot of those great promotions fell off and I haven't kept up with the service. Good luck to then though, the more options the better
 
While I appreciate the news, I have faith that most CAGs are smart enough to realize that anything "bought" on Onlive is only being rented. Somewhere buried deep in the EULA I'm sure there's a clause stating that they can cancel the service without prior notice, etc.
 
While I like the idea of OnLive, I can't say I'm surprised this happened. The average user (and the infrastructure in this country) isn't ready for cloud based gaming.
 
[quote name='gamegirl79']While I like the idea of OnLive, I can't say I'm surprised this happened. The average user (and the infrastructure in this country) isn't ready for cloud based gaming.[/QUOTE]

According to a report, they leased out 8,000 servers and only ever had 2,000 users max online at any given time.

http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9230376/OnLive_crushed_by_high_infrastructure_bills

They claimed 2 million total users but obviously it's not hard to get a couple of million people to sign up for something if you are giving games away free or nearly free games like they have.

I agree that they are/were ahead of their time and that mentalities and the internet infrastructure need to change for this to really take off, but I do ultimately see this as the eventual future of gaming. When it will happen though I can't say and it may be quite some time.

I think part of what they were doing quite honestly was to get in first, secure patents, basically run it for a while as a proof of concept that it can be done and then sell it for a huge sum of money, which it sounds like they've done.
 
[quote name='Motoki']According to a report, they leased out 8,000 servers and only ever had 2,000 users max online at any given time.

http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9230376/OnLive_crushed_by_high_infrastructure_bills

They claimed 2 million total users but obviously it's not hard to get a couple of million people to sign up for something if you are giving games away free or nearly free games like they have.

I agree that they are/were ahead of their time and that mentalities and the internet infrastructure need to change for this to really take off, but I do ultimately see this as the eventual future of gaming. When it will happen though I can't say and it may be quite some time.

I think part of what they were doing quite honestly was to get in first, secure patents, basically run it for a while as a proof of concept that it can be done and then sell it for a huge sum of money, which it sounds like they've done.[/QUOTE]

That's an interesting article. I can't help but feel bad for the employees. It's a bad time to lose a job.

And I agree that eventually the future of gaming will be cloud based. We just have to make broadband available to the majority of the country first. It amazes when I go visit my parents (just 45 minutes outside a major metro area) that DSL/cable/uverse internet service is not available. The only options are satellite, a mobile 3G adapter, or (gasp) dial-up. Obviously, none of those are acceptable connections for gaming.
 
The other issue with cloud based gaming will be the Internet providers moving from unlimited to metered broadband access. This will keep cloud gaming from taking off on a large scale.
 
[quote name='kklems']The other issue with cloud based gaming will be the Internet providers moving from unlimited to metered broadband access. This will keep cloud gaming from taking off on a large scale.[/QUOTE]

For the time being, yes.

The "games as a service" concept doesn't sit well with me. First I was worried that the Xbox 720 & PS4 would completely forgo the use of physical media, but what seems even worse is that the generation after that could be completely cloud-based.
 
[quote name='Thrinn']The "games as a service" concept doesn't sit well with me. First I was worried that the Xbox 720 & PS4 would completely forgo the use of physical media, but what seems even worse is that the generation after that could be completely cloud-based.[/QUOTE]

I'm thinking that the next gen will be my last. Getting too old to play video games anyway.
 
[quote name='gamegirl79']That's an interesting article. I can't help but feel bad for the employees. It's a bad time to lose a job.

And I agree that eventually the future of gaming will be cloud based. We just have to make broadband available to the majority of the country first. It amazes when I go visit my parents (just 45 minutes outside a major metro area) that DSL/cable/uverse internet service is not available. The only options are satellite, a mobile 3G adapter, or (gasp) dial-up. Obviously, none of those are acceptable connections for gaming.[/QUOTE]

I definitely feel bad for the employees as well.

Onlive doesn't work well at all in my experience with any mobile connections, even really speedy 4G ones. It worked well with my cable broadband connection at home but whenever I tried to run it mobile off the 4G on my phone or tablet it did really poorly even though my 4G connection can sometimes get faster download speeds than the home cable one.

It's probably something to do with latency or temporary drops in connection that the mobile internet is prone to. It was unfortunate because I really liked the idea of playing some full on games on my tablet and not just having it used for mobile games.
 
From what I read in a "leaked" presentation that supposedly belonged to Microsoft, they plan on doing a "game streaming service" in 2014/2015 that isn't too different from OnLive. The service wouldnt take the place of physical media, (not just yet at least), but would co-exist with it. I'm wondering if Microsoft bought up a piece or all of OnLive for this purpose?
 
[quote name='confoosious']I'm thinking that the next gen will be my last. Getting too old to play video games anyway.[/QUOTE]

1113_dad_on_heroin_game.jpg

There's no such thing as too old :lol:
 
[quote name='preston181']From what I read in a "leaked" presentation that supposedly belonged to Microsoft, they plan on doing a "game streaming service" in 2014/2015 that isn't too different from OnLive. The service wouldnt take the place of physical media, (not just yet at least), but would co-exist with it. I'm wondering if Microsoft bought up a piece or all of OnLive for this purpose?[/QUOTE]

It doesn't sound like it from the article that NuclearPorkchop linked to on the first page but that info could be wrong so who knows?

http://www.joystiq.com/2012/08/17/source-onlive-ceo-showed-no-remorse-when-announcing-layoffs/
Though the new owner of OnLive has yet to be revealed, the new investor appears to be an individual "impressed" with what OnLive has been able to accomplish and not a major company – this according to Perlman during today's internal announcement meeting.
Click to expand...

This article also talks about how Onlive got a patent for game streaming and that they had plans to go after Gaikai (now acquired by Sony) at some future point for patent infringement. This buyer could be after getting the patents in place now before cloud gaming really takes off.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Motoki']It doesn't sound like it from the article that NuclearPorkchop linked to on the first page but that info could be wrong so who knows?[/QUOTE]

Well, that article could be right. After all, the presentation, which was put up back in May, was from August 2010, and Microsoft has said that even though the info there rings true, it's outdated information. Funny thing is, that despite Microsoft saying that, they had their lawyers make the sites with it posted pull it within hours of being posted. Also, some of the things in the presentation have already come to fruition, like Smart Glass and the TV/Video apps.

I think Microsoft will still proceed with a streaming service for games on their next console. With OnLive out of the way, or at least out of the way in the sense that they are major competition now, Microsoft will only fare better. It's cool from one point of view, because we'll possibly have a streaming service with major titles on it from Microsoft. But, it sucks from another point of view, because Microsoft is known to overcharge for everything, and them possibly being top dog in the future, gives them no or little competition, and no reason to charge less money for a game streaming service.
 
[quote name='confoosious']I'm thinking that the next gen will be my last. Getting too old to play video games anyway.[/QUOTE]

Since when does gaming have an age limit?
 
I think OnLive simply represents an idea ahead of its time.

When you think about it, OnLive's method of providing a gaming service is little different from other on-line digital gaming services such as Steam or BattleNet. With all of those services, you never actually own the game. OnLive was simply taking that concept to the logical next step.

The main issue is that they didn't have the marketing or distribution to promote themselves properly. They also ran into the issue of ISPs starting to cap bandwidth. Eventually, the whole bandwidth cap is going to go the way of the dodo. Once that happens, a service like OnLive will be considerably more viable. Also, services like Steam are pre-conditioning consumers to accept initiatives like OnLive.

It's only a matter of time.
 
[quote name='confoosious']I'm thinking that the next gen will be my last. Getting too old to play video games anyway.[/QUOTE]

How old are you? ( I really hope older than 27)

Do your hands still work?

Then you arent too old to game
 
Onlive was a pretty cool service from what I saw. I remember the free game weeks they had and I played several games using the service. I loved how you could spectate and watch other players play through games. However, the technology just isn't there yet. The latency issue makes most games an annoyance to play unless they're very slow paced. Until that issue gets resolved, a service like this will always fail.
 
i think companies want this to work because the games are in their control but most people want more of a Steam platform.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top