Slashdot Mirror


Sony Buys, Shuts Down OnLive

Jay Maynard writes The OnLive gaming service that rose from the dead and became an inexpensive way to get high-end performance on low-end hardware has now been purchased by Sony Entertainment. Their games, desktop, and SLGo Second Life services will all end on April 30, 2015, and be free to use until then."

21 of 249 comments (clear)

  1. The future of console games by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And this is why I refuse to buy games that require a connection to some corporate server to play.

    1. Re:The future of console games by Foxhoundz · · Score: 3, Informative

      Exactly my thought. This is why I buy loads of games from gog.com and will never buy a thing from Steam.

      steam has already confirmed that they would allow a final local download of user's library should they go under.

    2. Re:The future of console games by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      And you believe them? Talk about naive...

      If they go under they aren't going to give a crap about you and if another company buys Valve and shuts it down they aren't going to care about you either.

    3. Re:The future of console games by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      The only thing that requires Steam to still be around is the multiplayer system Steamworks.

      In order to play *any* game bought from Steam, the Steam client must be running and have an internet connection.

      That being said, they've stated that if they ever shut down, they will remove the Steam DRM before they shut down.

      HAHAHA! That's precious. If they ever shut down, they would have zero incentive to do anything like that and every incentive not to. "Offline mode" (a misnomer if ever there was one) can only work offline for a set period of time. Basically it turns your game into trialware, wherein you must then check-in with Valve to re-up every so often.

      Also, what happens if Valve or the Steam service gets bought out by another company and is then shut down? What happens if individual game rights holders pull their games off of Steam? You're SOL, that's what.

    4. Re:The future of console games by LazyBoot · · Score: 5, Informative

      The only thing that requires Steam to still be around is the multiplayer system Steamworks.

      In order to play *any* game bought from Steam, the Steam client must be running and have an internet connection.

      That's not true! I have several games on Steam that will run just fine on it's own (I can even copy them to my laptop without Steam installed and they work there too).
      Not all the games on steam use Steamworks or any sort of DRM...
      Kerbal Space Program is one example.

    5. Re:The future of console games by rudy_wayne · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And you believe them? Talk about naive...

      If they go under they aren't going to give a crap about you and if another company buys Valve and shuts it down they aren't going to care about you either.

      It isn't just a question of Valve going out of business.

      http://arstechnica.com/gaming/...

      Sony bought OnLive to get their patent portfolio. It's the only thing Sony cared about. That's why they bought them and shut them down.

      No matter what Valve says, the same thing could happen to them. And when it happens, they won't be able to do any of the things they have promised because someone else is calling the shots and they no longer have any say in it.

    6. Re:The future of console games by LT218 · · Score: 4, Informative

      In order to play *any* game bought from Steam, the Steam client must be running and have an internet connection.

      This is incorrect. Please stop spreading disinformation and/or stating things as facts that you have done no research or testing on.

      Yes, there are some games purchased from Steam that require the client to be running in order to load the game, even in "offline" mode. However I have multiple games in my Steam library that do not require the Steam client to be running. I manually start up the Steam client only when it is needed and leave it off the rest of the time and have no problems with certain games.

    7. Re:The future of console games by hairyfeet · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Uhhh...Valve last I checked is a private company so you can't just pull a corporate takeover like that, and as long as Gaben has a fricking pulse he won't let go of HIS domain. I mean for fuck's sake he has followers making religious icons of the man....would YOU give that up?

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    8. Re:The future of console games by Gadget_Guy · · Score: 5, Informative

      Name them.

      I'm not a big fan of Steam, and if I have a choice I will always prefer a completely DRM-free option, the the grandparent poster was correct. Here is the list of games that you can run without the client loaded. It only took me a second to find this list with Google. (Actually, that's a lie. I used Bing, but that sounds like something that I shouldn't admit here!)

      You still need the client to install them, and if you use the Steam backup/restore facility then you also need the client to be logged in.

    9. Re: The future of console games by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Actually, the older I get the more I realise I don't need to constantly update my game library and the more content I am with the good games that I already have.

      It sounds more like your standards are just too low and/or your attention span is too short.

    10. Re: The future of console games by gl4ss · · Score: 3, Insightful

      In some cases yes, in others just the patched exe works. And yes it is a great plan. It's precisely how c64, DOS and other classic games are played today.

      except that your original c64 and ms dos games still work just fine(unless media got damaged). so a pretty shitty analogy. you find an unopened boxed star control II, ultima underworld or whatever... and you can play it just fine, it doesn't need a callback to home like many modern games that require steam for installation.

      as to the promise of being able to download the final library if steam goes under.. HAHAHAHAHHHHHHHHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAH HAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAH.

      no bankruptcy trustee would ever let that happen really - and more than that would require new agreements from all the publishers anyways.

      the good thing I suppose is that steam is profitable as itself so it doesn't look like it's going away any time soon. but let's say that sony bought it.. .. no fucking way they would let you download the games with drm stripped.

      your plan is as good as this: just pirate the game in the first place. even then, I would recommend pirating the GoG version, since it comes with no drm.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    11. Re: The future of console games by lgw · · Score: 4, Informative

      But why does any of that matter? The number of games I play today that I'll have the slightest interest in playing more than a couple of years form now is very small indeed. Steam has thus far proven more reliable than my aging media, as well.

      I always look on GOG first, but if there's something good on Steam, I have no hesitation in buying it. If it goes tits-up, GOG will get it eventually. (OTOH, EA's system can die in a fire with EA.)

      This worry about some 1% per year chance of Steam breaking, if sincere, is a sign you need to take your OCD meds. Most people just use that line as a rationalization to pirate the game, of course.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    12. Re:The future of console games by Gadget_Guy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Most of those titles can be bought on gog.com anyhow.

      I just checked the first batch of games up to the letter B. Only 7 out of 42 games are available on GOG. That is nowhere near the definition of the word most.

      Be that as it may, that wasn't what the original discussion was about. The question was whether you can play any games without launching the Steam client, not whether you can buy DRM-free versions of games on other sites. Changing the argument after being proven wrong is called shifting the goalposts.

    13. Re:The future of console games by Luckyo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Nope. Bankruptcy specifically voids most of the promissory obligations like these, and if steam were to go under, company that purchased it would likely push it through bankruptcy to get rid of most of the said obligations.

    14. Re: The future of console games by 0111+1110 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well if you mean games like Zork and Wizard and the Princess and Space Invaders and Crush, Crumble, and Chomp, and Archon and Adventure and Super Star Trek, and Castle Wolfenstein then I agree. I don't play those games anymore. But if you mean, say, Baldur's Gate II, Icewind Dale, Arx Fatalis, and Temple of Elemental Evil then I replay these games all the time. At least a full playthrough once per year. It is not pointless at all since truly great games are rare.

      --
      Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
  2. Good by rsilvergun · · Score: 5, Interesting

    and I hope the CEO lost money, but I bet he made out fine. The guy cheated his engineers out of millions. He paid them in stock options while they built the company from nothing and then folded the paper corporation right before the investment money came in.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Good by kamapuaa · · Score: 5, Informative

      The original CEO/investor, Steve Perlman, was forced out. The company is surely being sold for a pittance and at great loss for the investors. Even if the idea didn't work out, if the investors/CEOs hadn't made the company, the engineers wouldn't have had jobs in the first place. They can make big money, and in this case they lost a large amount. The engineers just shrugged it off and got another job.

      --
      Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
  3. No, Sony didn't shut it down. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    On Live filed for an alternate bankruptcy protection status and as part of the process sold assets to Sony. Sony didn't come in heavy handed and Buy On Live then shut it down. The headline it inflammatory.

  4. So they are being true to themselves by ruir · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Sony and pretty much Microsoft alike have a predatory, disruptive model of work. Also it is not their best interest to provide a continuity of services, and change things every so often, to create artificial needs for new products. They also do not work for the best interests of the industry or for their customers, but only for their goals. They often also do shadow or questionable moves via proxy firms in order to not tarnish more their reputation. They are not deceiving anyone. Any time they do something like this, they are only being true to their core models. You are just naive and dumb if you do business with them.

  5. Re:Nice try by lgw · · Score: 4, Insightful

    When you have tens of thousands of dollars taken from you you don't "Just shake it off".

    I did, when I did the startup thing. Well, there was some drinking involved. But that's the normal, expected outcome. for a startup. Anyone with half a brain knows this. You hope for that payoff, but it's long odds. This is why most startups these days pay pretty close to what the big guys pay, assuming they really are hiring equivalent talent.

    This was not like Skype, where it was actually successful and the engineers got screwed anyway - that's quite rare. When the startup fails, you get a handshake. That's the game. And shipping a fine product is no guarantee at all it won't fail.

    --
    Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  6. Re:Nice try by greg1104 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This was not like Skype, where it was actually successful and the engineers got screwed anyway - that's quite rare.

    That a startup succeeds is quite rare. Just considering those cases though, I don't think ones where the employees also get screwed are rare at all. The groundwork for that is usually in place from day 1, with how shares in the company are split into classes.

    For me it's been 100%: all three of the successful startups I've been involved with, all purchased by another company, did that transaction in a way that valued the common stock in employee options I owned at nothing. All the books were cooked until the company founders and, more importantly, the funding investors were paid all of the proceeds. And just to rub some extra salt in the wound there, the second also removed my name from the patent they were granted near the end of the process, to grease concerns that I'd expect more from the sale than nothing and could cause trouble with its licensing. (I signed those rights away in my employee contract, and all I really wanted was the little patent plaque)

    The third laid me off, forced me to exercise my options to keep them, then valued the common stock at zero during the sale. That one's bonus fuck used some going out of business loopholes to cancel my COBRA policy with zero advance notice the week after the sale, as if they'd gone bankrupt and couldn't afford to administer the policy anymore. The company was sold for millions to Cisco; the engineers who built its technology lost their health insurance.

    I've come to see these anecdotes as a pattern by design. Startups are not structured to make the employees happy if the company succeeds. They're setup so the majority share holder(s) get what they want. And there's a lot of rich assholes who will screw over anyone they can in that chain.