Reports: OnLive fires all staff, service’s future unclear

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2012/08/reports-onlive-fires-all-staff-services-future-unclear/

by shawndumas • 14 years ago

83 36 14 years ago

sp332• 14 years ago

They're filing for ABC protection in California. Source: http://kotaku.com/5935767/onlive-filing-for-bankruptcy-new-c... Here's an explanation of what ABC is http://allmandlaw.com/bankruptcy/abc-vs-bankruptcy Looks like they're re-arranging OnLive into a new company http://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonevangelho/2012/08/17/onlive...

chaostheory• 14 years ago

> Some of those employees may reportedly be hired back as the company transitions into a new iteration, which might be more focused on exercising its portfolio of streaming patents.

This doesn't sound good.

newhouseb• 14 years ago

OnLive spent a ridiculous amount of time getting their technology to where it is today (9 years!), at which point it looks like they failed to license titles that anyone wanted to play. If there was a legitimate reason for the patent system it would be to protect all of their hard work. I'm hoping that "exercising" means licensing to other companies like Apple or Microsoft instead of just turning into a patent troll. It was pretty impressive how OnLive could stream real time graphics better from a datacenter to my TV than my laptop could over airplay, i.e. something that a lot of technologies could benefit from.

YokoZar_• 14 years ago

Software copyrights would cover whatever they may have invented just fine, there's no need for an overbroad patent system to shut down the entire idea of application streaming for the next 20 years.

jhuckestein• 14 years ago

I think it would be great if they licensed their technology to a company that can leverage it. Fingers crossed that Apple does something with this.

This doesn't mean that they're becoming an evil patent troll.

watty• 14 years ago

Apple is the company you'd choose to take over this technology? I'd vote Valve.

vardump• 14 years ago

I think and really hope it's Google. Onlive is a threat to Apple's walled garden model. Apple might just want to shut it down.

stevencorona• 14 years ago

Ah man- I played with OnLive a little bit and it seemed like a product that had so much potential to revolutionize the industry. Maybe it was ahead of its time?

bicknergseng• 14 years ago

Need.... Google... Fiber...

Steko4• 14 years ago

We really just need more mature LTE networks. I've seen LTE pings around 40. If they can get that down under 25 consistently that's pretty much all you need to move the gaming world to thin clients.

mirsadm• 14 years ago

I liked the idea of OnLive. In fact since I've been travelling a lot over the past year I wanted to play some games that I couldn't (because my laptop sucks). The problem I found is that it is just too expensive to play the games I wanted. They cost the same amount as purchasing a physical copy. I couldn't justify that as it provides a degraded experience and I know when I come home I have a great computer I can play them on.

It's too bad they couldn't make it work since I the concept was pretty cool.

flyt• 14 years ago

Also their selection of games was really poor.

metachris• 14 years ago

Except for "Orcs Must Die", which is the title that got me to sign up to OnLive! I really enjoy the service.

iandanforth• 14 years ago

This was exactly my reaction. I thought I was signing up for a Netflix style service, but instead I was getting a membership to a game store that I had to pay for.

mvzink• 14 years ago

Well there goes the one draw I had to the Ouya.

rdl• 14 years ago

They have (had?) a lot of great employees, so hiring feeding frenzy commence in 3, 2, 1...

mjfern• 14 years ago

One of the major reasons why OnLive struggled (and now failed) is because they launched their platform (20010) well after the launch of the XBox 360 (2005) and PS3 (2006).

Serious gamers, the early adopter market for OnLive, already had purchased an XBox 360 and/or PS3. Since OnLive, as far as I can tell, didn't have any compelling, exclusive titles, and provided a gaming experience that was inferior to alternatives, there was no reason for a serious gamer with a console to try (or switch to) this new platform.

OnLive needed to launch around the same time as the other consoles and deliver a superior experience, or an equivalent experience but at a lower price point (upfront and over time).

superbeefy• 14 years ago

The fallacy here is that only serious gamers play on consoles. PC gaming is back on the upswing, and one could argue that PC gamers are just as serious or even more so than console gamers.

The thing that OnLive offered was a way to play high quality AAA game titles on basically any device that has a internet connection and can play video. Where they failed I think was the pricing model, prices were too close to retail products, and it was an ala carte service. If the moved to a subscription based model similar to gamefly I think they could have had more success.

malkia2• 14 years ago

OnLive is the ideal service for cpu/gpu games, and works great against cheaters in multiplayer games (No more transparent or wireframe walls, boxes around enemy players, and other tricks)

but then most social/casual games are not cpu/gpu hungry....

I really want technology like OnLive to succeed... There is Gaikai too

tibbon• 14 years ago

I think one thing that was always unclear was if they were targeting PC or console gamers. Clearly they were 'PC games' but they didn't act like PC games (sandboxed network environment, no mods, no settings) and the console controller really didn't work right for many games.

The real target market seemed to be people who aspired to be PC gamers, but enjoyed the idea of a console and didn't have the ability/money to buy a decent PC (but had a great internet connection). Realistically, this market just never felt fully there yet.

It also was a company with a huge number of ambitious goals. This isn't a terrible thing, but it definitely pushed them to having a very high (reported around 5M/month) burn rate. Many of these goals, as of today, were unfulfilled. Focus overall seemed all over the place for the company.

delinka2• 14 years ago

This is why tech people should really begin negotiating severance into their compensation. Yeah, yeah - how do you get rid of people who aren't a good fit? I dunno. Maybe, make the formula for calculating severance account for employment duration. What happens when you got hired a week ago and the whole company is now being fired? I dunno. Perhaps a mass firing clause.

I don't have the answers, but severance pay sounds like a great way to protect against these kinds of assholes.

hujjio3• 14 years ago

The only way to protect against this kind of abuse is to unionize.

Steko4• 14 years ago

It's certainly not the only way, people can demand these things when they sign up. They usually don't. More and more will start to though.

I hope these employees take everything they know about Onlive to a new competitor. Or Anonymous.

krakensden• 14 years ago

Unionization is a big step. You get protection, but it's also expensive, makes HR sclerotic, and you run the risk of having union management wander off into lala land.

If you're a competent programmer, unionization is probably a net loss for you.

_lex• 14 years ago

I wonder how this is going to affect Ouya, who just raised over 8M on kickstarter, and who was relying on Onlive to provide access to AAA titles from day 1.

ars• 14 years ago

> A new company will be formed and the management of the company will be in contact with you about the current initiatives in place, including the titles that will remain on the service

I hate that companies are allowed to do that. Sunrocket did that to me and basically stole around $150 worth of unused service. The new company apparently had no legal obligation to me.

It should be illegal to sell assets without also selling the debts/obligations together with them.

Reports: OnLive fires all staff, service’s future unclear

Related Stories