What The Hell Happened With OnLive?

I remember the first time I saw OnLive demoed for me. Three years ago, I was ushered into a conference room in Manhattan and saw Crysis running of the cloud gaming service's network. It looked impressive, sure, but there could have been all sorts of tomfoolery going on to make the streaming look that good. But when I demoed it at my own desk some months later, I had to admit that the experience was better than expected. Damn if the thing didn't work pretty well. Damn if they didn't invent something that really didn't exist before.*

Then it all went pear-shaped.

The saga of OnLive took surprising turns over the weekend as the company went from suddenly not existing anymore to a hollowed-out version announcing that it was still operating. While you can't have a funeral for OnLive since the service is continuing, it's still arguably the end of an era Some small part of me always rooted for OnLive, despite experiencing firsthand the challenges that the cloud gaming service faced. The key component of OnLive -- streaming games hosted on servers elsewhere -- worked but it was met by obstacles on nearly side.

When I reviewed the company's micro-console more than a year ago, I was locked out because my cable bandwidth was so terrible. This was despite the fact that it exceeded the minimum standards set by OnLive. Those hiccups got ironed out but the microconsole was still limited to a hardwired Ethernet connection. The lack of WiFi in a gaming device felt annoyingly backward. A year later, that hasn't changed.

Nevertheless, once you got onto OnLive, the catalogue of games was dwarfed by what you could access in a game store or, worse, Steam. The offerings did get better with time and it was more common to see big releases like NBA 2K12, Deus Ex: Human Revolution and Darksiders II launch on OnLive on their dates of release. But it still seemed like a perpetual game of catch-up.

Another problem with OnLive was the way that they tried to position themselves. No exec or PR person I ever spoke to at the old OnLive ever fooled themselves that they'd replace the Xbox 360, PS3 or Wii. They say themselves as additive, a place where you could sample games before you bought them or rent titles without having to wait on the mail.

OnLive always seemed like an alternative and not like a main destination, which was sort of refreshingly blunt, but it also made them easy to ignore or forget. The smart-TV partnerships that OnLive struck up with Vizio, LG and other manufacturers gave OnLive another entry point into the living room, but those deals would also be vulnerable to the quality of broadband. And in each of those deals, OnLive was just another bullet point in a long list of similar features. Hard to muster a reaction stronger than, "Oh yeah, OnLive…" when it's presented like that.

There was slightly more wow associated with the company's moves on tablet platforms, though. When OnLive's controller-and-app combo launched last year, it looked like a great way to get the kinds of deep, rich AAA game experiences that were sorely lacking on bigger-screened handhelds. I tried it on iPad and really liked it.

But while an Android launch spread out amongst that operating system's various devices, an iOS offering never materialised. OnLive never commented on the delay and what might be behind it but I think it's reasonable to speculate that they ran afoul of Apple's restrictions on in-app purchases. Apple wants all in-app purchases to run through their App Store infrastructure and the ultimate stumbling point may have been a failure to get OnLive's in-client economy to fall along those strict Apple guidelines. Whatever the reason, OnLive found themselves with no way into the ecosystem of Apple's incredibly popular iDevices. Not a great place to be.

A well-received foray in cloud-based productivity called OnLive Desktop followed, using OnLive's streaming tech to host access to Microsoft Word, PowerPoint and other programs. But games were the company's main focus. And the recent announcement that OnLive would be appearing on the Ouya console seemed like another chance for them to grab the precious eyeballs they needed to stay viable.

But then the crumbling and rebirth happened.

OnLive's latest mutation isn't the end of the affair by any means. What Lauder Partners has invested in is a company that reportedly still owns the servers, patents and partnerships that the old OnLive did, with a fraction of the operating costs. That makes them even more attractive to potential buyers than they were before. Picking up OnLive would be a no-brainer for Microsoft, especially if they want to be on equal footing after Sony's purchase of rival cloud-gaming outfit Gaikai.

But, a juicier fantasy would be an acquisition by Google. The search giant's server infrastructure would probably help mitigate OnLive's network problems and Google would get a distribution pipeline for Google Play content that's already optimised for gaming. The two companies already have a pact in place and OnLive might even thrive as part of the Google fibre initiative. Valve's already working on its Big Picture offering, so it seems unlikely that they'd want to acquire OnLive to integrate it into something that's already well underway.

Still, someone somewhere might wind up buying OnLive in its newer, leaner form. But if the service is ever going to reach its full potential, it's going to have to be a buyer that can address the problems -- building a catalogue, optimising bandwidth, establishing a real foothold in living rooms and mobile platforms -- that plagued OnLive's previous incarnation. OnLive still probably points the way to video games' future, but it's going to an extremely bumpy ride for the company to get there at all.


    Sad, had so much potential.

    *note* Some of the editing on this post is terrible. Proof reading anyone?

    While OnLive is theoretically a good idea, we don't have the broadband infrastructure to support and and we still feel like we want to "own" our games. What happens when we stop subscribing or the service goes down? We lose everything. That's a shock to the system for a community where people will still fondly hook up their original NES for a game of Super Mario Bros. Maybe gaming today is more disposable and temporary than that, and the game experiences are geared towards being bigger and flashier and moving as many units in as quickly as possible before people are distracted by the new thing. However, as much as big publishers are trying to push us in this direction there are still holdouts, and there are still developers making memorable games we want to care about for some time to come.

    In ten years, maybe less, services like OnLive will be the norm and we'll all feel like idiots for not adopting it sooner because we'll forget that it was like trying to sell a Lamborghini to cavemen who have just figured out the wheel.

    Now I agree, if a big economic power like Google was willing to really build this model and drive it, and take the financial hit of early failure for long term success and being the first on the ground, it might come to fruition. But for now? It's a failed experiment.

      I'm one of those who still has all my 80s/90s consoles and games set up. All Digital is great for convenience, but if I really love a game I don't want to have to rely on an internet connection and trust that a company will still be around in 2 decades time.

    While OnLive seems like a good concept. I don't see the point of it.
    Who's it aimed at? Who's going to use it?

    If I'm at home, I['ll play on my PC. If I'm traveling a lot, I don't see myself having enough time to play games. Otherwise I'd get a laptop or mobile device. If I can't afford a good PC etc and I do buy games on OnLine, when I get older and can afford a PC etc, I won't be able to play any of the games I bought on OnLive. Then again if I can't afford a PC I probably shouldn't be spending a lot of money on games anyway.

    If its not on steam i dont buy it. I prefer having my games centralized just like when i used to have a shelf of games. Many others are like me. So if you want to sell games there is one place to sell them or you will disapear very quickly. I dont buy EA games anymore as they will not deliver them via steam.

    the fact they failed to launch outside of the USA shat me to no ends.

    I don't even care if the games are old. I'd paid a subscription just to avoid the hardware up grade rat race (that i'm utterly over).

    the most part it looks like it. I downloaded the free app to check it out. I wachted a guy play Deus Ex and it looked beautiful from what I could tell. They looked more or less like console graphics, but they were by no means noticeably bad . If you want to know for your self just download the app on the site. Email, Name, password, and Boom, you're in. Barely takes 30 seconds.

Join the discussion!

Trending Stories Right Now