Close
Are you sure? Are you sure you want to report this comment? I understand, report it. Cancel

OnLive had $30m in debts

OnLive had $30m in debts

Thu 23 Aug 2012 8:22am GMT / 4:22am EDT / 1:22am PDT
Online

Insolvency firm reveals scale of OnLive money troubles

Before its closure and subsequent rebirth this week cloud gaming service OnLive was facing debts of between $30 and $40 million.

That's according to the Mercury News and Joel Weinberg, CEO of Insolvency Services Group, who is closely involved in the company's insolvency process.

"It was a company that was in dire straits. It only had days to live in terms of cash flow and the like," he said.

"Something had to be done immediately or there would have been a hard shutdown, which would have been a disaster."

He adds that creditors can expect to receive 5 to 10 cents on each dollar OnLive owed.

OnLive was acquired by its one time investor Lauder Partners, which has hired around 50 per cent of the employees who lost their jobs when the original company closed.

4 Comments

If gaikai was sold for 300m I presume for its technology and patents why didn't someone else like Microsoft come in for onLive who I thought had even more rather than selling them back for around 3m to some of the original owners.

Did the administrators do their job properly I wonder.

Posted:2 years ago

#1

Sebastian Moss
Editor -in- Chief

57 19 0.3
Apparently Perlman turned down a bunch of offers and was holding out for $1bil

Posted:2 years ago

#2

Adam Campbell
Associate Producer

1,166 949 0.8
They had a warped sense of the company's value. Its also said Microsoft have soem amazing cloud computing technology, so perhaps given that fact plus the power of their Xbox brand they probably felt they didn't need it. I don't know how useful their patents are...

Posted:2 years ago

#3

Nicholas Pantazis
Senior Editor

1,020 1,467 1.4
Supposedly Perlman himself owns the patent on streamed gaming. I.e. if any other cloud service launches he can sue them out of existence, which seems to be what he was banking on from the start. I'm not a patent lawyer, but that may not hold up in court, if only because it's a patent on an entire distribution method, and you don't see those (ever, really). That said, he's clearly planning to try, at least from the reported comments he made.

Posted:2 years ago

#4

Login or register to post

Take part in the GamesIndustry community

Register now