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.

More stories

GameDiscoverCo founder: "It's not selling out" to use metrics in development

Simon Carless says his new research and consultancy company wants to add data so devs don't go solely on gut feel

By Brendan Sinclair

Mike Morhaime's new games company dreams of being an industry beacon

Dreamhaven, Moonshot, and Secret Door leads share their hopes for a venture built on creative freedom, experimentation, and cooperation

By Rebekah Valentine

Latest comments (3)

Sebastian Moss Editor -in- Chief, PlayStation LifeStyle8 years ago
Apparently Perlman turned down a bunch of offers and was holding out for $1bil
0Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Adam Campbell Product Manager, Azoomee8 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
Nicholas Pantazis Senior Editor, VGChartz Ltd8 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.