@Xeirus said:

@Lurkero said:

@Xeirus said:

@dsi1 said:

Trying to provide a service that only works on high speed connections in an era where "high speed" = ~5 MB/s?

The only people that could ever use this service today are those in Kansas City.

I have been wishing I have lived there ever since I heard :(

Edit: "UPDATE 2:IDG News' Martyn Williams reports that he's outside OnLive's offices right now, and has seen multiple employees exiting the premises with moving boxes."

Dude, how trashy and sad are you that you're camping outside a place as people are being fired. Have some respect... garbage, straight garbage...

How is that trashy? Reporting from the scene is the best way to actually get information about the story. I prefer this to anonymous sources from the inside. If you've ever watched a local news broadcast you would see that they regularly try and report from the scene for the most accurate information.

Maybe there will be employees who are actually willing to talk on their way out. Maybe.

You don't think it's incredibly shitty to try to question someone as they're getting fired? Would you really feel like talking hours after being told you no longer have a job and you're carrying your stuff out to your car?

On those very news reports you mention the vultures swarm people who also might need a little personal time THE DAY they are getting fired. All of it is just pathetic and really tacky, if you don't think there is something wrong with it then you have issues.

I would rather hear directly from employees affected by the firings than the management who will try and sugar-coat mass layoffs with a "business as usual" statement. We don't know how Mr. Williams approached employees as they were leaving the office. It could have been polite or it could have been like a vulture. Not all members of the press act like stereotypical paparazzi. Like I said, some of the employees MIGHT have been willing to talk. I won't blame the press for trying to get a statement.

I think most of us saw this comming. It was a great idea in theory but we just don't have the infrastructure to support a service like this yet.

Nobody should have wanted them to fail as badly as it seems some people did, but yeah, it's a service ahead of its time and one that will possibly never be viable if ISPs retain their current move to the pay for what you use business plan of crazy low bandwidth limits.

looking forward to a story giantbomb actually breaks

From the beginning this was an attempt to sell a failing idea for a fortune, unfortunately for OnLive Microsoft and the likes either learned from experience or are completely out of money.

@Raven10: If I was Onlive, I would focus on the major cities which have great broadband. That way it would make more sense.

@Tsai said:

@Tebbit said:

@LarryDavis

@ChrisTilton said:

@Patman99 said:

@Arrested_Developer said:

Brian Fargo leaked this? There's bound to be some fallout.

Yeah, their office must look like a Wasteland by now.

I bet all their accountants are in exile.

Man, going through all this must be Torment.

It seems There hasn't been much Interplay between OnLive and reporters.

I guess OnLive was a giant bomb in the end.

Goddamn it.

It's microsoft, because sony bought gaikai.

Golly Gee who didn't see this coming the day the service was announced.

"Many European countries and Asian countries are years ahead of the US when it comes to Internet speeds."

Years ahead? What does that even mean? It's not a tech problem. It's an infrastructure problem. It involvesreplacing a lot of equipment nation wide. The US is huge. Japan is about the size of California! And besides that Europe has lots of areas with bad internet. Or at least it did a year ago when I was there. A much faster backbone already exists anyway in the US. It's just not commonly sold by internet providers to consumers. It's expensive. Nobody wants to sell it for $40 a month all you can eat bandwidth.

Just get Microsoft to buy them, problem solved.

@Palaeomerus: Most areas in the UK have slower speeds than most of the US (although that's slowly changing) but we have the advantage of not suffering from bandwidth caps. I can personally live with a slightly slower download speed, if it means they aren't going to cut me off towards the end of the month or start charging me silly amounts of money.

I have a fairly decent connection and use OnLive on and off, for me the problem isnt the internet connection but they selection of games they have. Most of the stuff is THQ or Eidos with the odd game from other developers here and there, if they really are going under that would be very sad as they had a lot of potential.

I just can't stop thinking that if they just shut down and offer nothing to those who bought into it this could push a lot of people away from future systems like this. I'm pretty surprised someone would try to launch something like this in the middle of this high-competition generation - especially with no exclusives or anything else to make people say "I need this platform".

I mean, what good is bragging about "no hardware purchase required" when almost everyone already has one or more piece of hardware in their home? If anything it served as a reminder of how much I've already spent on hardware and how I should focus on getting value out of what I've already purchased.

Ha, literally the day after i give it a try on my phone. Good thing i didn't spend any money on it yet.
Such a service is interesting for demos or maybe as part of a larger service so you can buy and playa you fownload or something, but i just don't see it working as a service like it is now.

@Raven10 said:

@gbrading said:

Well, yep. I still thought OnLive was in beta: I didn't realize it had properly launched.

OnLive's biggest problem is that it's designed for a broadband network which simply doesn't exist outside of selected cities in the US. In Britain, only central London can really offer the proper speed for it. The wilds of the Oxfordshire countryside certainly can't get that speed yet, and BT say it'll take until 2018 to install fibre-optic cabling around the country.

The US is far from the world's broadband leader. In fact in much of the country speeds are far below what is needed to run OnLive. Many European countries and Asian countries are years ahead of the US when it comes to Internet speeds. The fastest speed commonly available in even wealthy US areas is 50 mbps. In many parts of the world speeds are double or even triple that. Not saying Britain is in better shape than the US, but you should talk to some of your closer neighbors than holding the US up as doing it right.

That's true. I live in Romania and I have 100 mbps. And the average person has 40 mbps even in rural areas. Many countries in eastern europe have better broadband because it came out a lot later and the tehnology is newer. The spread of the internet is way smaller tho...

And nothing of value was lost.....

The more I saw new devices supporting OnLine I thought they were successful. I was going to jump on the OnLive bandwagon when I move and have better internet service. My comcast service sucks.

I like OnLive. Maybe I'm the only one. I did tend to only buy games when they were doing their version of a Steam sale.

Their troubles are unsurprising but regrettable.

What does this mean for people who bought games on their service?

That's a shame though. I thought the idea of OnLive was pretty cool. I have a fairly powerful gaming pc and until recently my internet was crap so I never really tried it.

What does this mean for people who bought games on their service?

@AlwaysBeClothing said:

Whenever a company denies massive layoffs is it to save face, stockprices? Or just to not seem like heartless corporations? I guess no company wants to admit shit is getting real.

Perceived brand value going forward, perpetuating an image of a healthy company when negotiating with prospective new buyers, and yes, attempting to keep the company stock from bottoming out (which is although in this case irrelevant, as Onlive is not a publicly traded company).

@atomic_dumpling: @atomic_dumpling said:

@Slaegar said:

What does this mean for people who bought games on their service?

Those two will be pissed.

This is exactly why I decided to not buy games there. With GOG.com or steam I am pretty sure I will still be able to access my games in 2 years. Also if you did not keep paying for your online membership, you lost access to the games...and the cost the same or more than steam.

@ChrisTilton said:

@Patman99 said:

@Arrested_Developer said:

Brian Fargo leaked this? There's bound to be some fallout.

Yeah, their office must look like a Wasteland by now.

I bet all their accountants are in exile.

Man, going through all this must be Torment.

From the beginning it seemed to me that they weren't prepared for dealing with network lag issues. There was quite a bit of hand-waving at obvious bandwidth problems. So I'm not surprised. I hoped they'd come up with some sort of solution because the idea isn't necessarily a bad one, but it was always going to be a long shot. Most of the guys I know who work high-level networks said that there was no way OnLive could pull this off in any sort of high volume on current internet infrastructure. But none of us needed experts to know that. Just everyday experience of internet non-reliability was enough.

I just actually gave their service a look just last week. It was the first time since basically they went live that I even really thought about them.

Given that my 50 Mbps connection was deemed too slow by OnLive makes me wonder who exactly is using the service. I like the idea, but the infrastructure just doesn't seem to be there. I hope those laid off can find new work soon though. It always sucks to be laid off.

The promise which Onlive brings is undeniably... well, the future. However and unfortunately, it's always been the sort of utopian future that may never come. Sure, I could play Amnesia (the only game I own on the service, which I got for free), but the mouse input lag makes it a terrible experience, and I have to constantly worry about how much of it I play because the big bad ISP (spoilers: it's Charter) has a bandwidth cap of upload/download per month. Admittedly this cap is the *only* reasonable amount available in my area, but it does exist.

The short of it: the technology isn't there yet, and the business practices may never be there. This is another of those situations where it's conflicting to feel bad for a failed business when that business ignored the realities of our world.

I wonder if anyone purchased their "streaming consoles"; if so I wonder what they will do with them now? Hack them? Use them as a door stop? Repurpose them as tissue holders?

The technology just wasn't quite there for it to work. Kind of expected this. Still, it was a brave experiment. Hopefully they can get jobs in cloud storage companies.

it would be smart for Google to buy them and offer it as a service on its fiber network its rolling out.

kinda pointless to report on some thing if there are no facts

I feel for all the people that lost their jobs but there is no way to compete with the established community of Steam or the financial backing of Origin, much less those two together.

While this is tragic news all around, I must admit my first thoughts when reading this, or the Amalur stories or anything relatively huge is: "This'll make for a good segment on the Bombcast."

thank you for clearing that up

i hate it when some people create such a mess and talk about something they don't know.

Cheri

They should have launched in Sweden where everyone can get a 100MB/s connection really cheap.

The free market has spoken!

IA! IA! PH'NGLUI MGLW'NAFH RON PAULTEXAS WGAH'NAGL FHTAGN!

online's not the future?