As Sony busies itself rolling out exciting games to its acquired Gakai cloud-gaming system - it can be revealed how the chaos of competitor OnLive has turned out.
OnLive has managed to lose its early promise along with its co-founder and much good will in recent months. It has also managed to reduce some $40million to $4million.
Mercury News has discovered that:
"Venture capitalist Gary Lauder paid just $4.8 million for the remnants of OnLive ..."
But underlying this is the astonishing fact that OnLive's directors at the time had, "raised more than $40 million from AT&T, HTC and other major investors..."
Adding more cash to the fire is the fact that, "the Palo Alto company had at least $18.7 million in outstanding debts, not including money it owed in the future for leases and other contractual obligations."
Bear in mind that Sony paid $380 million for Gakai, which it is now ramping up as a major gaming platform.
For its part, OnLive released a statement that, according to the Mercury said, "its predecessor's basic problem was not its business model but that it simply hadn't raised enough cash for its business to take off."
OnLive has managed to lose its early promise along with its co-founder and much good will in recent months. It has also managed to reduce some $40million to $4million.
Mercury News has discovered that:
"Venture capitalist Gary Lauder paid just $4.8 million for the remnants of OnLive ..."
But underlying this is the astonishing fact that OnLive's directors at the time had, "raised more than $40 million from AT&T, HTC and other major investors..."
Adding more cash to the fire is the fact that, "the Palo Alto company had at least $18.7 million in outstanding debts, not including money it owed in the future for leases and other contractual obligations."
Bear in mind that Sony paid $380 million for Gakai, which it is now ramping up as a major gaming platform.
For its part, OnLive released a statement that, according to the Mercury said, "its predecessor's basic problem was not its business model but that it simply hadn't raised enough cash for its business to take off."
Companies:
OnLive
Read More Like This
Comments
Gamewank Jim 11 Oct 2012 09:09
1/1
"its predecessor's basic problem was not its business model but that it simply hadn't raised enough cash for its business to take off."
I think that quote sums up their "basic problem", being blind to the fact that throwing investor cash at a s**t business model is not going to make anything a success. They still think the problem was a lack of investment? Extraordinary.
One problem was that their price of entry to play their catalogue was generally higher than retail. Console retail. £45 to play a game that you could get on steam for £20 less, in a non-laggy, less gimped format. No comparison. The over valued the convenience of the service vs the quality it delivered.
I think that quote sums up their "basic problem", being blind to the fact that throwing investor cash at a s**t business model is not going to make anything a success. They still think the problem was a lack of investment? Extraordinary.
One problem was that their price of entry to play their catalogue was generally higher than retail. Console retail. £45 to play a game that you could get on steam for £20 less, in a non-laggy, less gimped format. No comparison. The over valued the convenience of the service vs the quality it delivered.