Top
150°

What Went Wrong with OnLive?

Two years after launch, OnLive is bankrupt and under new ownership: employees have been fired, their shares in the fledgling cloud outfit are worthless, and the original start-up has ceased to exist. What remains in terms of infrastructure, technology and IP is has been bought out by venture capitalist Gary Lauder, with OnLive 2.0 carrying on where its predecessor left off, re-hiring less than half of the original staff in the process.

Read Full Story >>
eurogamer.net
Oculus Quest Giveaway! Click Here to Enter
The story is too old to be commented.
ProjectVulcan2781d ago (Edited 2781d ago )

Personally I felt the venture was going to be difficult, the technology and market penetration of fast internet connections just isn't quite ready yet.

It feels like a service before its time, much like Dreamcast's online console gaming. The idea was grand, but too early. Less than a decade later and online console gaming exploded.

I truly can see something like this working, but not for at least another 5 years. It has its drawbacks but eventually it will start to look more and more attractive, the faster the average connection get and the better quality they can put out there reliably. Ten years ago you were lucky if you had 512k 'broadband'. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/...

Another 10 years and most developed countries will surely be living on 4G and have at least 20mb/s averages.

Its just a matter of time, like many things.

SJPFTW2781d ago

what they both have in common was good concept but poor execution.

Army_of_Darkness2781d ago

Consoles will always be my choice for gaming.

shutUpAndTakeMyMoney2781d ago

google fiber! I can't wait for it!

2781d ago Replies(2)
GribbleGrunger2781d ago (Edited 2781d ago )

A friend of mine PMed me this and I think he's on to something:

The Windows 7 hosted desktop - Doing it right successfully requires licensing expertise and a commitment to the customer.
Published by:
Mitch G.
Mar 9, 2012

Most of us in the know have been wondering how ONLive was delivering a Windows 7 hosted desktop for $4.99/mo. Now (finally), Microsoft is wondering too. We knew it was non-compliant—price-point and instant provisioning were the giveaway.

Due to Windows 7 complex licensing restrictions, a coordinated customer engagement is required for licensing and cloud infrastructure compliance. Yes, you read that right - the Windows 7 license determines the cloud provider’s architecture. Complex to say the least. And not all cloud providers have the expertise in licensing to address these complexities, which could help explain how some cloud providers are offering Windows 7 hosted desktop for free (or next to free) and near instant provisioning. You know what they say: “If it’s too good to be true, it probably is.” Don’t be fooled; in this case, free (or next to free) definitely has a cost.

As you look deeper into your company’s cloud strategy, one topic is increasingly dominating your discussion. A topic that is probably the main reason that your cloud strategy has a time frame as long as it does. Dreaded licensing! Ask ten people the same question, and you’re bound to receive ten answers. We’ve all gone through that, right? Your head explodes, you suffer a meltdown, you try to read up on it yourself, and you come to the conclusion: this is ANNOYING!

And that’s just understanding the labyrinth that is Microsoft licensing. Now you’re told that Windows 7 isn’t even available on the Microsoft Service License Provider Agreement price list.

The price point for ONLive’s virtual hosted Windows 7 desktop offerings wouldn’t even cover the necessary Microsoft licensing requirements, much less the cloud infrastructure needed to support a Windows 7 hosted virtual desktop, unless you’re not following licensing and infrastructure requirements to be compliant. If you avoid licensing compliancy and infrastructure requirements, you’ve got yourself a cheap solution. There’s just one problem: it’s illegal.

The question you need to ask yourself is if you were responsible for your company’s datacenter, would you take these risks? My guess is the answer is no.

turnerdc2781d ago (Edited 2781d ago )

They switched the OnLive Desktop from Windows 7 to Windows Server 2008 about 4 months back.

http://www.tomshardware.com...

From the article: "We're pleased to have been told that the OnLive desktop application is now accessing our software by hosting it on Windows Server," Microsoft said on Wednesday.

tachy0n2781d ago

they needed more games to convince....

Omega Zues2781d ago

They had two major problems.

1. Lack of studio support. EA, Valve, Blizzard,Epic games and Bethesda hardly gave support, if any. Flag ship titles like Crysis, Mass Effect, Skyrim for example would of been huge for Onlive. But alas those titles never came. That was the whole pitch for Onlive in the first place. Imagine playing all the biggest titles, at ultra max graphics. A wet dream for gamers. But alas a dream only.

2. Graphics. As I said previously, the whole story behind Onlive was max pc graphics streamed through your tv. Never upgrading a pc part or buying a new console. Onlive is all you ever needing as it provided the highest possible settings. however that was far from it. I have a Onlive system and the streaming quality was terrible. Im even using FIOS from version and I swear if i didnt know any better it was 480p.

Its actually sad to see what happened for Onlive. I was a big fan and would of love to seen what it could of been.

Nexgensensation2781d ago

this is why I still believe a console like onlive is imminent.

Nitrox2781d ago

There is/was a console like onlive. They called it onlive.

Show all comments (24)
The story is too old to be commented.