Sections

OnLive sold, will continue operating as “newly-formed company”

Saturday, 18th August 2012 14:08 GMT By Stephany Nunneley

OnLive has announced it has been acquired, and will remain operating as a “newly-formed company,” with online services remaining unaffected, which is good news for subscribers.

A statement on the sale was released to Polygon by the firm last night, and reads as follows:

“We can now confirm that the assets of OnLive, Inc. have been acquired into a newly-formed company and is backed by substantial funding, and which will continue to operate the OnLive Game and Desktop services, as well as support all of OnLive’s apps and devices, as well as game, productivity and enterprise partnerships.

“The new company is hiring a large percentage of OnLive, Inc.’s staff across all departments and plans to continue to hire substantially more people, including additional OnLive employees. All previously announced products and services, including those in the works, will continue and there is no expected interruption of any OnLive services.

“We apologize that we were unable to comment on this transaction until it completed, and were limited to reporting on news related to OnLive’s businesses. Now that the transaction is complete, we are able to make this statement.”

The firm did not state whether a company or individual had acquired the cloud gaming service, but a Joystiq report suggests it may be the later.

According to a source speaking with the site – which also happens to have an audio recording of yesterday’s fateful meeting with employees – the individual investor purchased the firm due to being “impressed” with OnLive’s service and performance. These words were reportedly said by OnLive founder and CEO Steve Perlman during the internal all-hands meeting.

OnLive has also filed for ABC bankruptcy, which in California is similar to Chapter 7. This allows a party or “assignee” to take over the company’s assets such as “software, hardware, network architecture, logo,” etc., according to Perlman. This would allow the firm to pay off creditors and protects the company from being declared insolvent over unpaid debts.

The Joystiq source also added some color to the acquisition, stating that the firm had received multiple offers the past few months, including one from computer and printer firm Hewlett-Packard. However, Perlman reportedly wanted $1 billion for the company, and firm on the amount.

“Steve got all excited when Gaikai got acquired [but Sony], because it kind of validated everything we did,” the source said, noting that OnLive’s patent for streaming gameplay happened to go through with the USPTO at the time.

“So all of a sudden, Steve was like ‘When the time is right, we’re going to hit them with our patent because we’re not going to let some two-bit company [like Gaikai] ride our coattails,’” the source claims Perlman said. “I guarantee that some time in the future, Steve is going to go to court and sue the shit out of them for stealing our ideas.”

As far as the employee redundancies and re-hires are concerned, many were given “offer letters to join the newly-formed company”, cites the Joystiq report. In formal company statement above, it claims OnLive has re-hired “a large percent” of its former employees, and plans are to hire more.

It was reported yesterday that over 50% of the staff had been cut, with only key upper management and executive positions retained.

Reportedly, Perlman has also exited the company, but we cannot find confirmation of this at press time.

OnLive is an incubated part of Rearden Companies, which was formed by Perlman in 2000. It is not a publicly traded company, which means there are no SEC filings for us to acquire which would possibly shed light on OnLive’s buyer. Until details on the acquisition are announced formally or leaked, we’ll remain in the dark on the matter.

We’ll update this post accordingly as more news develops on the matter.

Breaking news

19 Comments

Sign in to post a comment.

  1. Ireland Michael

    Cloud gaming! It’s the future!

    #1 2 years ago
  2. a7md1990

    Who bought it?, Microsoft?, you bet!.

    #2 2 years ago
  3. Sini

    the fuck it is, not with bandwidth limits, and more isps are imposing those every year.

    #3 2 years ago
  4. Stephany Nunneley

    @2 You know, it’s funny, there were like 10 SEC filings in my inbox this morning from Microsoft. My “hrmmmm” radar popped up, but the filings were just Form 4s, which denote stock sold internally. So my inquisitive balloon deflated rather quickly :D

    #4 2 years ago
  5. Phoenixblight

    @2

    No its not Microsoft as Microsoft,Apple, Sony were hiring the employees that were fired.

    http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/176180/OnLive_lays_off_all_employees_assets_sold_to_new_company.php

    “VentureBeat reports that, according to an official statement, OnLive’s assets have been sold to an unknown, newly-formed company, which will continue to operate its services, support its products, and manage its partnerships. It reportedly plans to re-hire a “large percentage” of former OnLive employees.”

    #5 2 years ago
  6. Ireland Michael

    @3 I was being intentionally facetious.

    #6 2 years ago
  7. Kabby

    What colour is the inquisitive balloon?

    #7 2 years ago
  8. Stephany Nunneley

    @7 yellow :p

    #8 2 years ago
  9. The_Red

    Wait a sec.
    “The firm did not state whether a company or individual had acquired the cloud gaming service”

    How can such a huge transaction take place without revealing the identity of buyer(s). Am I missing something or is this thing beyond shady?

    #9 2 years ago
  10. Phoenixblight

    @9

    It explains at the bottom of the article. Onlive is not a publicly traded company so they don’t have to reveal anything until they choose to.

    #10 2 years ago
  11. DSB

    OnLive being a private company doesn’t mean the buyer is. Pretty clever to make the buy while the markets are still closed, if that’s the case :P

    It could be Google, too. They still have those 40 billion in capital just collecting dust.

    #11 2 years ago
  12. Phoenixblight

    @11
    No its a newly formed company that bought up the assets of Onlive. Read the article I had linked @5

    Its not a big corp otherwise it would be listed because those are publicly traded companies.

    #12 2 years ago
  13. xxJPRACERxx

    “When the time is right, we’re going to hit them with our patent because we’re not going to let some two-bit company [like Gaikai] ride our coattails”

    I’m wondering what Sony is thinking right now.

    #13 2 years ago
  14. Phoenixblight

    @13

    They don’t have a leg to stand on if they would have really felt threatened they would have done so earlier before it was bought up by Sony. THey are just mad because EA,Dell had invested into Galkai which then was bought by Sony.

    #14 2 years ago
  15. DSB

    @12 Good link. Huh, that’s puzzling.

    I guess the ABC thing sounds a lot like a debt consolidation, but then it begs the question how they couldn’t pay their bills, when they apparently have lots of money in the bank for the new company.

    #15 2 years ago
  16. Phoenixblight

    @15

    Its supposedly a way of cheating the system to not pay extra or negotiate a new deal if you fire them before selling your company. It sweetens the deal for the the buyer to pick them up. I really don’t expect Onlive to stay afloat after doing that tactic.

    #16 2 years ago
  17. Stephany Nunneley

    @15 and 16 – Companies do that a lot – that way they can reopen as a “new business” with a clean slate. It is kind of cheating the system like you said.

    #17 2 years ago
  18. roadkill

    “When the time is right, we’re going to hit them with our patent because we’re not going to let some two-bit company [like Gaikai] ride our coattails” F**king a**holes! Gaikai is not a two-bit company. And at least they had the decency to launch in Europe as well. How would it be like if there would be only 1 MMO, only 1 FPS, only 1 racing game and so on..!?

    #18 2 years ago
  19. manamana

    Bunch of missmanaging assholes. They should’ve fired the management instead.

    #19 2 years ago