Update: OnLive Transitions Into New Company

[Treblaine]

Well one of the things that helped sell Steam back in the day was the promise that even if Valve completely went under you'd still have the games installed on your hard-drive and either an official or unofficial crack of Steam client would give you access to all the games. The deal with steam is you don't really want to cut off contact and loose further stuff like timely updates, hats, etc

But if Onlive goes, you games are TOTALLY GONE!

Doesn't matter if this rumour turns out not to be true, but it raises the spectre of possibility.

Actually part of the purchase agreement with OnLive is they have to keep the game active for 3 years after purchase date. They can't disappear.

That is absolutely no guarantee at all, that is an empty promise that they cannot hold if they go into debt and the bailiff comes in to seize all of Onlive servers.

If the game is on your hard drive then THAT is a guarantee. THAT cannot disappear. Not after even 3 years but as long as you keep the files on your hard drive or backed up

 

[Baldr]

Well one of the things that helped sell Steam back in the day was the promise that even if Valve completely went under you'd still have the games installed on your hard-drive and either an official or unofficial crack of Steam client would give you access to all the games. The deal with steam is you don't really want to cut off contact and loose further stuff like timely updates, hats, etc

But if Onlive goes, you games are TOTALLY GONE!

Doesn't matter if this rumour turns out not to be true, but it raises the spectre of possibility.

Actually part of the purchase agreement with OnLive is they have to keep the game active for 3 years after purchase date. They can't disappear.

That is absolutely no guarantee at all, that is an empty promise that they cannot hold if they go into debt and the bailiff comes in to seize all of Onlive servers.

If the game is on your hard drive then THAT is a guarantee. THAT cannot disappear. Not after even 3 years but as long as you keep the files on your hard drive or backed up

It is a written contract, they have a financial obligation to keep the game running, else they will end up in court because they would owe the money back on the contract.

 

[Treblaine]

Well one of the things that helped sell Steam back in the day was the promise that even if Valve completely went under you'd still have the games installed on your hard-drive and either an official or unofficial crack of Steam client would give you access to all the games. The deal with steam is you don't really want to cut off contact and loose further stuff like timely updates, hats, etc

But if Onlive goes, you games are TOTALLY GONE!

Doesn't matter if this rumour turns out not to be true, but it raises the spectre of possibility.

Actually part of the purchase agreement with OnLive is they have to keep the game active for 3 years after purchase date. They can't disappear.

That is absolutely no guarantee at all, that is an empty promise that they cannot hold if they go into debt and the bailiff comes in to seize all of Onlive servers.

If the game is on your hard drive then THAT is a guarantee. THAT cannot disappear. Not after even 3 years but as long as you keep the files on your hard drive or backed up

It is a written contract, they have a financial obligation to keep the game running, else they will end up in court because they would owe the money back on the contract.

Protip: they have a financial obligation to their debtors and the taxman WAY BEFORE their customers.

How can you take a bankrupt and liquidated company to court? Breach of contract? Going bankrupt means they have broken FAR BIGGER contracts of failing to pay their debts!

No. You aren't guaranteed anything. You are only guaranteed to keep what you physically have in your possession. Don't talk any more nonsense, taking them to court for breach of contract is WORTHLESS!!

 

[NLS]

Seeing a lot of angry people in this thread. OnLive will always be an alternative to classic PC gaming, those who enjoy the service will enjoy it, those who prefer PC gaming on their own computers will continue doing so without any disturbance from OnLive/Gaikai/etc. Why so much rage?

You can still buy DVDs, even though some people prefer renting them.

 

[Scars Unseen]

Seeing a lot of angry people in this thread. OnLive will always be an alternative to classic PC gaming, those who enjoy the service will enjoy it, those who prefer PC gaming on their own computers will continue doing so without any disturbance from OnLive/Gaikai/etc. Why so much rage?

You can still buy DVDs, even though some people prefer renting them.

The primary objection to this sort of service and the reason many of us want to see it fail is because - if it were to become a huge financial success - it is easy to see the piracy fearing AAA game industry eventually moving to this distribution model exclusively. Sure, the smaller publishers and indie devs would still put out actual products, but the major publishers? Yeah, I could see them moving to a streamed service model and never looking back if it proved to be profitable.

Of course the other major complaint involves the significant(and possibly insurmountable) technical barriers to accomplishing this on a large scale.

All I know is that I will never support a paid streaming media service of any sort, be it video, music or games. I stopped renting and paying for cable years ago in favor of buying content that I'm interested in(seriously, think of how much quality, commercial free television content you can buy for the price of a month of premium cable/satellite these days), and I'm not about to start paying to use games when I can own a copy. And before you get into that "you don't really own it" bullshit, try to tell me they can come into my home and take my disc easier than they can take a game off on Onlive.

 

[Something Amyss]

So it's real, but the service itself is not closing.

It's real, of course, only in the loosest sense of the reports.

It is a written contract, they have a financial obligation to keep the game running, else they will end up in court because they would owe the money back on the contract.

And if they really went bankrupt, that written contract would be as useful in court as toilet paper.

Seeing a lot of angry people in this thread. OnLive will always be an alternative to classic PC gaming, those who enjoy the service will enjoy it, those who prefer PC gaming on their own computers will continue doing so without any disturbance from OnLive/Gaikai/etc. Why so much rage?

You can still buy DVDs, even though some people prefer renting them.

But as this is Cloud gaming, it's more analogous to the infancy cloud services companies are using. The fact is, DRM is quite attractive and this is the ultimate in DRM. As there's nothing on the user end, they can't play it illegitimately (in theory). Even before cloud gaming, there has been a decreased physical presence of computer gaming, so the real world analogues to DVDs don't hold. But still, my point is that other media is actually lagging behind games in terms of this sort of cloud application. Not to mention, there's a greater carrot: Ostensibly, you can play high end games on crap computers. A DVD is a DVD. Even a Blu Ray is a Blu Ray. You don't have to worry about having the best RAM or a new graphics card for the newest video. Worst case is, with BD you do have to worry about firmware, but that's hardly the same sort of worry.

Other media are just starting to push the cloud thing as a viable alternative to physical media. And even then, most of them still have the benefit of being able to physically download the stuff to a computer or player. Well, most of them I've looked into.

OnLive is a cool concept, but it further removes ownership from the player and additionally further hampers our ability to play our games.

And while I won't go into the "fuck them" detail a lot of people seem to be going into, I have trouble feeling bad for people making bad technology losing their jobs. People lose their jobs all the time for worse reasons than this (Yes, I know that the layoffs are mostly inaccurate now). I mean, we're always told to vote with our wallets; should we start paying for stuff we don't like to keep ppeople in jobs? I doubt anyone's going to defend that.

I don't hate OnLive. I am, however, worried about what it means for gaming and wary of any service that further shifts the balance of power away from the user.

 

[Therumancer]

I think this should be taken as a cautionary tale for those who buy digital products and services, even the immovable rocks can go out of business, fall, or change, and to be honest when they do so, they take your money/IP with them. A company shutting it's doors hs spent it's revenues and profits and can;t refund you the cash you spent even if they wanted to, and of course you wind up with nothing physical for your efforts. It's one of th reasons why I have become increasingly critical of digital distribution, and services like what Online represented.

Having read the initial statement and both of the updates, what it seems to be is that OnLive sold out and ceased to exist as the company it was, having basically sold it's technolgy and service infrastructure, the new management may or may not choose to continue using the same name, continue the service, or anything else, and of course any employees are no longer employed by a company that no longer exists, but the guys buying the infrastructure probably want a lot of the people who made it work there to keep it working, while of course bringing in their own people.

They probably are correct that there will be minimal interruptions with the products purchused, at least not immediatly. After all that's why the new oweers "aquired" Onlive, they didn't go bankrupt and just close doors (though as they sold themselves they probably had money issues). I would however expect to get hit by new service contracts, see the prices of things change, and so on, probably in the near future.

In the end, this is a bad thing because it means that Onlive as it was conceived and priced was not working. Those who got on board with it, might want to consider jumping ship ASAP, rather than staying on board and hoping it doesn't sink further. One way or another your probably looking at being made to pay more for the same services since what you were paying at the very least made the company vulnerable.

 

[Therumancer]

Sounds like I'm the only person who actually LIKES OnLive. For lunch-breaks it's pretty much our company's primary distraction - OnLive runs on practically any of our terminals, so there's no hardware issues there.

We even have one of the little OnLive consoles in the break room attached to the TV. Yes, it pales compared to my real rig, but I don't have my real rig at work, shockingly.

Would be very disappointed to see such a promising service go under, let alone the sudden unemployment of so many people (which has nothing to do with how anyone perceives the service).

I really like the concept, but not the service since it's not come to Europe yet. I have tested the service and it works as it's supposed to, but I don't have any strong feelings on it since I haven't actually been able to do more than brief tests. OnLive is a great way to make game accessible for anyone who doesn't have a great gaming PC, the risk that the service can be shut down and people will be left with nothing is there, but with retail there's the risk of defective discs and discs getting scratched so nothing is perfect.

Well, yes and no, the odds of getting defective discs are pretty low, and if there is actually that kind of damage getting a replacement can be easy, if time consuming.

As I said in my last post, while nothing has destroyed this service yet, it's shown the possibility and what kind of damage it will do for subscribers if it did happen to go down entirely. That is why I have tried to stay away from digital as much as possible, even if it's becoming nearly impossible to do.

I suppose I can see the appeal to those who low-end PCs, but given that Onlive more or less got pwned competitively, it's shown that whatever they were charging it's too little to be viable. I imagine to work this is going to wind up being just as expensive as current methods, but with less power in your hands.

 

[Nurb]

No matter how much the big companies try to force it, people still want to OWN the games they pay for.

Gamers want a library they can access any time no matter how many years pass. I still get my copies of X-Wing and TIE-Fighter out from time to time and that might not be possible with games out this generation if people keep letting the publishers and "game service" companies get away with taking away ownership.

 

[Farther than stars]

"We don't respond to rumors..."

Kinda doesn't have the same ring to it as "we don't negotiate with terrorists".

While we're not commenting on additional details, the reports have been way overstated, perhaps because we were unable to respond to initial enquiries until the transaction completed.

"Way"... that's some nice professional writing right there. What's more, the company did respond, i.e. via Mr. Jaquet. In other words, OnLive's PR department needs to get their shit together.

 

[BartyMae]

I guess you never lost your job you entitled prick.

Someone in the RPS Comments put this rather good, thank you for insulting me though: http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2012/08/18/twist-onlive-bought-gets-substantial-funding/

I agree that the service is a horrible idea, as well as not very well implemented, (having actually tried it), and would be, overall, happy if the service failed. ...But, it would not be amiss to have a little sympathy for those who just lost their jobs. Personally, I just don't find it in me to say, "Yay, people who work at a company whose service I dislike lost their jobs! YAY!". If they were doing something horribly, morally wrong, then I might...but it's just a service I happen to dislike on many different technical levels.

But whatever, I guess. Truthfully speaking, it doesn't really matter whether any of us gives them sympathy or not.

 

[Yopaz]

Sounds like I'm the only person who actually LIKES OnLive. For lunch-breaks it's pretty much our company's primary distraction - OnLive runs on practically any of our terminals, so there's no hardware issues there.

We even have one of the little OnLive consoles in the break room attached to the TV. Yes, it pales compared to my real rig, but I don't have my real rig at work, shockingly.

Would be very disappointed to see such a promising service go under, let alone the sudden unemployment of so many people (which has nothing to do with how anyone perceives the service).

I really like the concept, but not the service since it's not come to Europe yet. I have tested the service and it works as it's supposed to, but I don't have any strong feelings on it since I haven't actually been able to do more than brief tests. OnLive is a great way to make game accessible for anyone who doesn't have a great gaming PC, the risk that the service can be shut down and people will be left with nothing is there, but with retail there's the risk of defective discs and discs getting scratched so nothing is perfect.

Well, yes and no, the odds of getting defective discs are pretty low, and if there is actually that kind of damage getting a replacement can be easy, if time consuming.

As I said in my last post, while nothing has destroyed this service yet, it's shown the possibility and what kind of damage it will do for subscribers if it did happen to go down entirely. That is why I have tried to stay away from digital as much as possible, even if it's becoming nearly impossible to do.

I suppose I can see the appeal to those who low-end PCs, but given that Onlive more or less got pwned competitively, it's shown that whatever they were charging it's too little to be viable. I imagine to work this is going to wind up being just as expensive as current methods, but with less power in your hands.

True, the chance of getting a defective disc might not be high, but can we really get odds on a company failing? I have had 4 defective discs and I never got my money back, luckily one of them was a PC games that let me register it online and I could download a digital version. The others were console games which I never got to work, so I can tell you that it does happen. I also did contact GameStop about all those games and they refused to give me a new copy or to replace it. I got what I would get for trading in a used game and it was listed as new since I had never actually used it. So you're right, the process is time consuming and it doesn't always pay off at all.

Now of course the risk of a digital distribution service going bankrupt is present, but really, why do you fear something like that. Take Valve, do honestly believe they will go under any time soon? I'll consider a disc error being more likely than them going bankrupt.

Edit: Cloud gaming isn't only for those with a low end PC, it also makes it possible to play high end games on tablets or phones meaning you can play anywhere you are.

 

[Scars Unseen]

I guess you never lost your job you entitled prick.

Someone in the RPS Comments put this rather good, thank you for insulting me though: http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2012/08/18/twist-onlive-bought-gets-substantial-funding/

I agree that the service is a horrible idea, as well as not very well implemented, (having actually tried it), and would be, overall, happy if the service failed. ...But, it would not be amiss to have a little sympathy for those who just lost their jobs. Personally, I just don't find it in me to say, "Yay, people who work at a company whose service I dislike lost their jobs! YAY!". If they were doing something horribly, morally wrong, then I might...but it's just a service I happen to dislike on many different technical levels.

But whatever, I guess. Truthfully speaking, it doesn't really matter whether any of us gives them sympathy or not.

There is a difference between being happy that people lost their jobs and being okay with people losing jobs as long as it meant that a company whose product and philosophy you intensely dislike folded in the process.

 

[Treblaine]

I guess you never lost your job you entitled prick.

Someone in the RPS Comments put this rather good, thank you for insulting me though: http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2012/08/18/twist-onlive-bought-gets-substantial-funding/

I agree that the service is a horrible idea, as well as not very well implemented, (having actually tried it), and would be, overall, happy if the service failed. ...But, it would not be amiss to have a little sympathy for those who just lost their jobs. Personally, I just don't find it in me to say, "Yay, people who work at a company whose service I dislike lost their jobs! YAY!". If they were doing something horribly, morally wrong, then I might...but it's just a service I happen to dislike on many different technical levels.

But whatever, I guess. Truthfully speaking, it doesn't really matter whether any of us gives them sympathy or not.

You'd want to be careful with the valuing people's jobs idea as it can essentially make any business beyond reproach no matter how bad their practices are. Like opposing an alternative to the current nuclear power stations that avoid the expensive and dangerous fuel reprocessing cycle as jobs will be lost. Even though they shouldn't even have to do such a job that is so dangerous, where any accident could irradiate millions.

The thing is EVERY business has jobs, you can't say any business can never be allowed to fail. But some businesses can cause great harm to the wider industry and screw over the consumers in the long run, and much has been said about how bad it would be if OnLive became mainstream and dominant.

 

[oliver.begg]

i wonder how many of the staff are going to stay on for what amounts to options on options on a theoretical company (there is no pay for the hold over staff).

staying would be a monumental mistake as options are worth shit if you lack money to act on them