Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

OnLive sold for $4.8 million

QuizzicalQuizzical Posts: 17,347Member Epic

http://www.shacknews.com/article/76154/onlive-sold-for-only-48-million

After being once valued at $1.8 billion.  With a "b", as opposed to the "m" in the title.

The laws of physics are stacked against the service they provide.  The sale of the company and new investment won't change that.

Comments

  • grimgryphongrimgryphon Pacific Northwest, WAPosts: 682Member Common
    Originally posted by Quizzical
    http://www.shacknews.com/article/76154/onlive-sold-for-only-48-million After being once valued at $1.8 billion.  With a "b", as opposed to the "m" in the title. The laws of physics are stacked against the service they provide.  The sale of the company and new investment won't change that.

    It's still 4.8 million too much.

    Optional PvP = No PvP
  • OG_ZorvanOG_Zorvan Posts: 718Member Uncommon
    I can't believe they found a sucker to buy it.


  • PurutzilPurutzil Posts: 3,048Member Uncommon
    I do think streaming games (or a variation giving the option to 'rent' it) is in some ways a good thing, but OnLive just seemed to do it the wrong way. All they give you is PC ports with a controller which isn't really that good of an option. In order for 'streaming games' to work, they have to be able to work through the console itself much like netflix does. Its all about figuring a way to make something demanding like games work in that fashion that needs to be figured out, and then sold to game companies as being worth using.
  • DOGMA1138DOGMA1138 none of your buidnessPosts: 476Member Uncommon

    ROFL 4.8M is somthing that normal people could gather...

    Also the laws of physics are not against the general idea, just against OnLive's implementation, Playcast and simmilar companies are doing it over dedicated networks(CableTV) which enables them to have low enough latency, and more bandwidht than what they could actually use since they never actually go trough the internet.

    It's available in Israel, Korea, and some other countries and works well, better than what most cable providers used to offer you couple of years ago. Still might never work for competetive Counter Srike or Quake3 games but they are also not aiming at that.

  • tixylixtixylix gfff, TNPosts: 1,262Member Uncommon
    I had a great experience with Onlive, much better than I thought it would be, sadly though I own a good PC so have no need for it.
  • QuizzicalQuizzical Posts: 17,347Member Epic
    Originally posted by DOGMA1138 Also the laws of physics are not against the general idea, just against OnLive's implementation, Playcast and simmilar companies are doing it over dedicated networks(CableTV) which enables them to have low enough latency, and more bandwidht than what they could actually use since they never actually go trough the internet.

    Streaming games over a dedicated network rather than over the Internet from hundreds of miles away is a different concept entirely from what OnLive is trying to do.  If you've got a dedicated network for it and aren't having to send signals very far, then it's plausible that it could be good.

  • ZzadZzad SPAINPosts: 1,380Member Uncommon

    I do believe the future of gaming will be very alike to what Onlive offers....

    Right now is just too crappy....but give it some years.... TVs will be equiped with that tech in HD

  • DragonantisDragonantis DublinPosts: 974Member Uncommon
    Dont know much about this sort of stuff, but since the company was in debt when it was purchased, the new owners also took on that debt so this deal really cost them over 20 Million. 
  • SynthetickSynthetick Portland, ORPosts: 977Member
    Aside from the quality of the actual titles, I always got really good performance, at least with my internet. And being able to play half the titles I could on my tablet was a definite bonus, regardless of how difficult it was.

    image

Sign In or Register to comment.