Onlive reportedly only has 1,800 concurrent users

On Friday, the Internet tech word was all abuzz about what was happening at OnLive, the streaming PC game service that launched with a lot of hype in June 2010. While the first reports claimed that the entire company was shutting down, the final word was that the OnLive service would continue, but the majority of its employees, which until Friday numbered in between 180 to 200 people, would be laid off. The company itself would technically cease to exist as its assets would be acquired by a still unknown entity.

Joystiq has a report, via unnamed sources, which revealed some very troubling user numbers for the OnLive service. The report claims that OnLive had an average of just 1,800 concurrent users. By contrast, the PC game download service Steam shows that it has between 2.4 million and 4 million concurrent users.

The report also claims that OnLive received a number of buyout offers, including one from HP. However, the offers did not reach the $1 billion level that the company was looking for. In the end, one unnamed individual bought out the company, but at the moment there's no word on who this person might be or how much he or she acquired OnLive for, although its likely to be at a fire sale-style price.

Finally, it sounds like OnLive might decide to file a patent lawsuit against another streaming PC game company, Gaikai, which was recently acquired by Sony for $380 million.

Source: Joystiq

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

"Go Dark For IE" effort launched for better web browser use

Next Story

Xbox Live Gold free this weekend for charity effort


Onlive had one major flaw, no target audience or it was very small. Why would you get an Onlive over an Xbox or PS3? They could have aimed to be more like Nintendo making their own games and also offer a lot of work on Indie games fighting against Xbox, Steam and Smartphones.

Trying to compete in the AAA title field isn't going to work when you're system is the weakest out there in terms of power and you can't get developers to push titles out along with the other systems. It was always a few months behind or never got a game.

I'm sorry for the employees, I really am, but it's good to see that people seem to still value owning a game over renting and not even knowing how long they'll be able to access it, let alone their gamesaves.


1800 concurrent users and they were trying to hold out for a Billion dollar buyout? Seriously? That is called absolute greed ladies and gentlemen, and they deserve to go out of business for such greed IMHO.

I don't think that comparing Steam concurrent user count to Onlive is very fair. Steam doesn't have to worry about supporting 4 million users playing games directly on their servers.

I'd say 1800 people all streaming a game from a server is a lot more of an engineering feat than is supporting 4 million users doing lighter weight things.

That had that many users? I'm surprised it managed to sucker that many people into one of the worst way of playing games someone has come up with.

I have an 8mb connection. I did the onlive thing last year for a couple of months. I played a bunch of demos and only bought 2 games and they were on sale pretty cheap. My latency was 50ms usually and rarely got over 100ms. It was still a little laggy. Not bad just enought that you noticed it. Like a movie that the sound isn't synced perfectly with the actors lips. It bothered you pretty bad. It didn't look good. It was not anywhere near the quality of games on my pc. Artifacts and fuzzy textures, and it wasn't my connection.

Streaming games aren't ready for primetime. Hardcore gamers probably won't chose it over consoles or pc. Broadband and wireless infrastructure can't really handle what we use it for now. How are we going to move everyone over to streaming gaming if the companies refuse to spend any money adding to their infrastructure.

Commenting is disabled on this article.