OnLive debt estimated between $30 – $40 million, CEO to stay on with firm

Thursday, 23rd August 2012 14:40 GMT By Stephany Nunneley

OnLive’s debt was sitting around the $30 million and $40 million mark before it closed down, and transferred its assets to Insolvency Services Group.

The firm’s assets were subsequently sold to Lauder Partners, LLC.

The groups’s CEO Joel Weinberg told San Jose Mercury News OnLive had to do something “mmediately or there would have been a hard shutdown, which would have been a disaster.”

Yesterday, it was reported investors in the company would likely have to write off write investments, which Weinberg said would possibly only provide 5 to 10 cents per dollar.

Today, it was revealed that CEO and founder Steve Perlman would remain at the firm where he will be “concentrating on the transition.”

“Once this is complete, he’ll be very focused on our next product releases and the vision,” reads a statement posted via OnLive Fans.

“There will be changes to the organization both with old and new OnLive staff that will be bringing new features and games to the service. There will be more announcements — both large and small, such as the arrival of the Vizio CoStar and the Ouya Kickstarter project, and stay tuned for major announcements coming soon.”

Thanks, Joystiq.



  1. Stephany Nunneley

    It’s been announced that CEO Steve Perlman will remain at the firm, and he will retain his CEO status – post has been updated to reflect this.

    #1 2 years ago
  2. DSB

    So I guess we found a CEO that’s actually worse than Brian Farrell.

    Although actually, that headline is a bit misleading, because he won’t really be the CEO. He’s just gonna untangle a bit of his mess and then he’s out on his ass I presume?

    #2 2 years ago
  3. Joe_Gamer

    Onlive is the very definition of an investor scam, selling geriatric investors a pipe dream product that you know isn’t even close to being viable, set up a nice golden parachute and hope some gullible console manufacturer buys you out(silly Sony). Streaming games is just another form of DRM and even if it were technically/financially viable(surprise! it isn’t) I’d have nothing to do with it. All the pro’s are on the publishers side and all the cons are on our side. They keep saying that Streaming will make games cheaper for the consumer but I don’t believe that for a second.

    When you buy a game all these different corporate entities have to get paid a piece.

    Console games: Developers/Publishers/Retailers/Manufacturers
    PC games: Developers/Publishers/Retailers
    On-Live: Developers/Publishers/Retailers/Manufacturers AND ISP’s

    How is adding another shark to the tank that has to live off my wallet gonna make games any cheaper?

    The fidelity is terrible as well, almost comparable to the 7 year old consoles but next to PC graphics it looks so ugly, I ran some tests with On-live on one screen and the installed game on the other(Metro 2033, Comcast 14 Mbps, DC server about 100 miles away) and it was terrible. The new consoles are almost here anyway and On-live will look even worse.

    Input lag is goddamn frustrating, FPS multiplayer is an exercise in futility. Hell, I know I’m rambling but with even the most basic understanding of network architecture it is obvious that this model is not ready for the market and it annoys me to no end that this scam of a product even exists, how do people not see what a terrible ripoff it is? The “experts” that work there HAVE to know that they are slinging snake oil yet they lie and lie…fucking scumbags…

    #3 2 years ago
  4. Stardog

    @3 But it “could” be the future.

    Maybe not for games, but maybe everything will be streamed in the future, who knows. It would render CPU/GPU/RAM meaningless. No need to install any updates/patches on your end or worry about anything working.

    Google Fibre is coming to Kansas soon. 1GB download and 1GB upload speed.

    #4 2 years ago
  5. Gadzooks!

    It’s simply not viable for ANY realtime game, now or in the future.

    Internet download speeds are less important than latency, which is huge compared to controller-to-device latency.

    And what happens when your connection is dropped? Does the game pause? What about games that can’t be paused like Dark Souls or multiplayer games?

    OnLive/Gaikai are quite simply unfulfillable promises. They might be able to service casual games or turn-based games with some success, but can that justify the huge server and infrastructure expense? OnLive is proof that no, it can’t.

    I give the reformed OnLive weeks, months at a stretch, before final closure.

    It sure was a short-lived fad!

    #5 2 years ago
  6. Christopher Jack

    @5, Remember YouTube? Netflix? Remember when streaming videos seemed taboo? It still kinda is for me, streaming anything above 480p requires some buffering. I can’t get much higher than 750KBps on a good day.

    Point is, there is still a future for it, I’m certain it won’t take forever to reduce the latency to more than a normal online game. Frankly, online games for me have a latency of 0.18- 0.375 seconds, I’m sure that somone in a different country will be able stream the game AND play online at the same time with less latency.

    #6 2 years ago
  7. Gadzooks!

    Streaming video is not even close to streaming games. When was the last time you were ‘killed’ by a video buffering? ;)

    #7 2 years ago
  8. OlderGamer

    Fellas, listen. Sega Saturn went online. Even the Famcom went online. But next to what we have today for online consoles, they both paled in comparisons. Failed, even, you could say.

    I doubt OnLive will be around years from now. Their biz model wasn’t going to sustain itself. Perhaps they will come back with a new vision. Perhaps not. But Streaming and cloud are still going to define the future, I believe.

    But imagine, looking at the Saturn, shaking your head. Then delcaring that the future of console will be anything but Online. You should not have judged the idea of online consoles by the offering of SegaNet.

    Don’t judge the notion of Cloud by OnLive.

    #8 2 years ago
  9. Christopher Jack

    @8, Exactly! +1
    The way graphics keep on improving, it’ll be expensive to keep up. I mean, what does it take to max every game that’s out today? A Core i7, 8GB of RAM & a GTX 680? How much would this cost? My estimates put that at around $900 with a motherboard before including the HDD, case, PSU, etc. But then how long til a new game comes which requires more to max out?

    #9 2 years ago

    I agree with OG.

    #10 2 years ago
  11. Dragon246

    Completely true. Although as some might point out, nothing beats a client side hardware (pc, consoles ) if you have money. A lot less to worry about.

    #11 2 years ago
  12. ManuOtaku

    I dont know guys, i think cloud and/ or streaming will hold the tech advancements of this industry in some areas, because we will be hold by tv,monitors, etc., and that might not allow any new form of delivering games outside TV sets, like holographics, or other forms of display, but i grant is not wise enough to dismiss it, but like i said i dont know to which point this is good or not, a good analisys of the pros and cons is needed IMHO, prior going/ given full support on this.

    #12 2 years ago
  13. freedoms_stain

    @5, the latency range for modern console games is 50-200ms, latency becomes noticeable to the average player at around 166ms, provided you have enough bandwidth and a decently close server then server-client latency should not exceed 40ms, therefore cloud gaming should work within latency perception for control so long as the actual game is optimised for the lower end of the control latency spectrum.

    #13 2 years ago
  14. DSB

    I don’t know if streaming is the future, but I think it has lots of potential.

    It is going to depend on internet infrastructure to a pretty large extent, but the technology already exists, it’s just too expensive and hasn’t been implemented yet.

    As usual the US market isn’t doing it’s customers any favors:

    When a market manages to eliminate it’s own motivation to provide faster and better internet with more coverage, then obviously progress is stopped in favor of profit.

    That’s really also why I think Joe Gamer has a pretty good point. I don’t think he’s seeing the big picture, but the OnLive story is certainly a puzzling one.

    #14 2 years ago
  15. DrDamn

    Streaming has got advantages and application within constraints. Aside from latency there is the issue of consistency. With a local machine and a game with poor latency at least it tends to remain consistent. You can allow for it. A game run remotely where latency is poor and variable becomes a worse experience.

    As far as Sony and Gaikai goes, recent comments suggest they understand the tech is not ready for general consumption yet. They are looking at how best they can exploit the tech. I don’t think that will be simply providing the OnLive-like experience. The tech looks at lots of interesting problems and tries to find workable solutions for them. Solutions which can be reused in different contexts. This alone – and any associated evil patents – has the potential to make the purchase worthwhile.

    #15 2 years ago
  16. OlderGamer

    I also am looking at Sony to see what they might be able to do with Giakia. They have a great chance to be market leaders in streaming games. Time will tell.

    #16 2 years ago
  17. Gadzooks!


    They are going to be the ONLY people doing streaming games soon.

    Being at the top of a pile of shit is no better than being at the bottom of it. :D

    #17 2 years ago
  18. OlderGamer

    lol Gad, maybe they will suprise us all.

    #18 2 years ago

Comments are now closed on this article.