Sections

OnLive had $30m in debts

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.

Related stories

OnLive shutting down, Sony snaps up patents

Service will end on April 30, latest subscriptions to be refunded

By Rachel Weber

Latest comments (4)

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.
0Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Sebastian Moss Editor -in- Chief, PlayStation LifeStyle4 years ago
Apparently Perlman turned down a bunch of offers and was holding out for $1bil
0Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Adam Campbell Producer, Hopster4 years ago
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...
0Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Show all comments (4)
Nicholas Pantazis Senior Editor, VGChartz Ltd4 years ago
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.
0Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply

Sign in to contribute

Need an account? Register now.