Comments on: OnLive has only 2 potential customers: Microsoft and Sony

By: 10 Games Businesses That Are Doomed | Kotaku Australia

10 Games Businesses That Are Doomed | Kotaku Australia — Thu, 07 Oct 2010 23:23:55 +0000

[...] I argued in April 2009, OnLive needs to gather all of the most-have content into its service in order to be competitive. [...]

By: Cyberqat

Cyberqat — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 17:19:50 +0000

“But to challenge your point, at the start of the lifecycle, we don’t pay Sony or Microsoft for the hardware: they pay us, because they make a loss on each console until economies of scale and new techniques bring costs of production down. They make their money from the royalties they charge publishers to put games out on their platform.”

The key here is “at the start of the lifecycle.” This argument was stronger when consoles were ALWAYS a loss leader. These days they make their money back plus on any console that survives its first year or so of life.

And remember that this is a conscious marketing choice on their part. They don’t *have* to offer that loss leader– Nintendo never has.

By: Nicholas Lovell

Nicholas Lovell — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 16:43:51 +0000

I prefer the “but out” for “buy out” typo myself.

But to challenge your point, at the start of the lifecycle, we don’t pay Sony or Microsoft for the hardware: they pay us, because they make a loss on each console until economies of scale and new techniques bring costs of production down. They make their money from the royalties they charge publishers to put games out on their platform.

If instead we subscribed at, say $20 a month (like cable or satellite) using OnLive, over 5 years, that could be very interesting for MS/Sony.

But I buy your point that cable companies are also logical buyers.

By: Cyberqat

Cyberqat — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 16:39:54 +0000

(The above typo should have read “IF onlive….” )

By: Cyberqat

Cyberqat — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 16:39:01 +0000

Sony or Microsoft are going to ditch the hardware that they make and you pay for and replace it with a service that uses incredible amounts of things they have to pay for? (Bandwidth and servers.)

Not in this lifetime.

IF online can be made to work reliably and cost effectively over the real internet (A big if). The only possible buyers are bandwidth providers as a way to push more sales of *their* product.

So if your looking for a but out strategy I think Comcast or Verizon are your only hope.

By: Nicholas Lovell

Nicholas Lovell — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 18:33:10 +0000

I’m intrigued why you think Google wants this service: it hasn’t shown much sign in the past of wanting to own a subscription-led content delivery platform.

By: OnLive

OnLive — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 21:51:08 +0000

I guess this explains why OnLive is only launching in the continental US according to its FAQ. Makes sense; before it can expand, it will probably need to be bought out by a much larger company.

By: OnliveFans.com

OnliveFans.com — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 13:37:58 +0000

I think you have to include google in there as possible companies they may be interested in purchasing Onlive. Google has the most cash, and better server technology than either Sony or Microsoft.