OnLive lands 'major' funding

AT&T, Warner Bros, more contribute to "by far...largest" investment in on-demand game-streaming service in anticipation of winter launch.

OnLive appears to be on track for its launch this winter. Earlier this month, the on-demand game-streaming service entered a beta-testing phase, opening up its servers to select gamers of various different system specifications to work the kinks out of OnLive's underlying technology and content-delivery mechanisms. Today, OnLive said it had landed its most significant round of funding yet to help finance the service's launch within the next several months.

OnLive's hardware will be minimal, at least.

The Series C, or third round, of funding included participation from AT&T Media Holdings, Lauder Partners, Warner Bros., Autodesk, and Maverick Capital. The company notes that Warner Bros., Autodesk, and Maverick Capital had all contributed to previous rounds of investment, and that the Series C funding was "by far OnLive's largest closing." Specific details of the investment were not disclosed.

Cofounder and CEO Steve Perlman offered a brief note on the funding and what it means for the company, writing on the company's blog that the investment was "much larger than our previous rounds and gives us a serious jolt of rocket fuel as our beta progresses."

"We are both pleased and inspired that our investors share this vision with OnLive," he continued. "Not only do they see the value in OnLive in particular, but they also understand the significance of what OnLive is doing to lead a massive sea change in interactive media distribution. We are grateful that they have not only provided OnLive with their support, but they have also provided OnLive with such a strong endorsement."

OnLive has previously announced significant support from a range of publishers and developers, including Electronic Arts, Ubisoft, Take-Two, THQ, and Warner Bros. Interactive Entertainment. The company has yet to nail down how much it will cost.

168 Comments

  • kakotan

    Posted Oct 24, 2009 11:08 pm PT

    what i dont like is they havent said anything on prices, ill just stick to gamefly lol

  • ztron370

    Posted Oct 15, 2009 1:32 pm PT

    I haven't heard or seen any new vid's about ONLIVE since march.Is it even coming out or has it been canceled?

  • djrobst

    Posted Oct 6, 2009 3:19 am PT

    brendanhunt1 Posted Oct 1, 2009 8:06 pm GMT "on the box it probably says
    minimum of 50gb broadband required for smooth play
    unfortunatly not many people in the UK have that"

    "no one in the uk has 50gb broadband, highest is 20gb"

    wrong no one has any GB speed broadband in the uk. 50gb would be pointless seeing as you would only get 1gb through a gigabit router.

    you guys mean MB, and there is 50MB broadband in the uk its from virgin media .

  • Inconnux

    Posted Oct 5, 2009 10:31 pm PT

    @treydawg1 which only makes it worse... if some processing is done at the client machine it has less to process on the server and information to send. Look at crappy youtube videos, they just 'stream' it and even at very low video quality and no interactivity it still has problems loading and with lag.

  • Zallomallo

    Posted Oct 5, 2009 2:49 pm PT

    #1. I'm getting tired of every company using "OMG ITS GREEN U MUST HAVE" has a bullet point on the back of the box.
    #2. This doesn't even talk about the massive amounts of energy the server center would require.

  • shawn_mitchel

    Posted Oct 5, 2009 1:43 pm PT

    This is like a digital satalite tv,.....but instead of shows,news,movies,documentary and musics,......you'll get GAMES.

    But i don't think you'll get any exclusives from microsoft,sony and nintendo on this Onlive.

    And again i prefare having my games in a disc format,games saved on my hard drive or memory card,i like seeing a sony or microsoft console in front of me,......and most of all,i don't want slow internet issues.

  • method115

    Posted Oct 5, 2009 12:32 pm PT

    This just seems stupid to me. The fact that so many large companies are investing in this seems ridiculous. Do they really think this will sell? Does this even provide HD quality? I mean the fact that they even think this will work is just insane to me. I don't know maybe they'll prove me wrong.

  • thisisreallybor

    Posted Oct 5, 2009 12:15 pm PT

    AWESOME. I hope it works as well as they think it will

  • grungeman91

    Posted Oct 5, 2009 5:47 am PT

    Just another way of "The Man" jacking the price of Video Gaming up and killing console sales in process.

  • Beastcake

    Posted Oct 4, 2009 4:21 pm PT

    Really looking forward to this.

  • GSTom11

    Posted Oct 4, 2009 1:35 pm PT

    so if OnLive goes offline, and you spent $500 bucks on onLive games, then you're left with $500 of nothing... Great.

  • killzoik

    Posted Oct 4, 2009 12:23 pm PT

    wow , everyone a few year ago would have only dreamed of this and now its finally coming everyone now seems to hate the idea.

  • shawn_mitchel

    Posted Oct 4, 2009 9:59 am PT

    Invention isn't Bad.
    But i prefare buying game titles for my Xbox 360 and Ps3 than paying for a service with an imaginary console.......
    Am not sold on this.

  • Somebody89

    Posted Oct 4, 2009 9:15 am PT

    Seeing on how I already have a 360 and PS3. I really don't see the point in getting this. This will probably just benefit those who haven't bought a lot of consoles are any.

  • Prime05

    Posted Oct 3, 2009 11:34 pm PT

    This would be cool if I were a casual gamer and the USA had or should I say allow broadband like a country like Korea. Then there's the fact that there is no Hard Copy. This is something I think would have did a lot better before the dot com bust. Anyways good luck but no thanks OnLive. Don't be surprise to see this thing go the way of the dinosaurs, Saturn Cars, Turbo Graphics 16, or Neo Geo. I say Dreamcast but I still play mine for Soul Calibur and Marvel vs. Capcom2.

  • mjnoir1

    Posted Oct 3, 2009 6:11 pm PT

    an interesting idea but it's doomed to fail. anyone who plays video games would rather have a console. all the negatives have been touched upon bandwith, availablility etc. Companies are soo desperate to get every single penny they can from the consumer they hope and pray this will work. The service does no one a service but the game companies we would pay them real money to have a virtual console and if we stop paying them. boom we can't play anymore. is that what we want?

  • cjasko94

    Posted Oct 3, 2009 3:53 pm PT

    So add another monthly fee, lack of exclusives, I already own a PS3, and 360.....yeah I'm for sure not getting this. Yet, a very cool idea and thing they got going on with all the companies and producers.

  • BigBacon87

    Posted Oct 3, 2009 3:26 pm PT

    Unless if it comes out with some top notch exclusives, which it won't. Im not interested, at all. I have too many games to play on my PS3 right now as it is with a wackload more coming my way very shortly.

  • mjk_1

    Posted Oct 3, 2009 3:00 pm PT

    I can definitely see why 3rd party developers like the idea of OnLive but personally I like consoles more.

  • RadicalToenail

    Posted Oct 3, 2009 11:48 am PT

    It seems like it will be pretty cool, but I wonder how they are going to allow user-made content, or even be able to make anything. If I'd be streaming Half-Life 2, would I get access to Hammer? Or Crysis, would I get the Sandbox Editor? I mean, it seems great for the console crowd since it's pretty much just a console run through your computer. And the fact that it is dependent on an internet is worrying. Looking at a winter launch, but where I'm from the winter storms make internet access a little difficult sometimes.

  • chris4355

    Posted Oct 3, 2009 9:33 am PT

    The problem is I really wouldn't want my games to lag because my room mates decided to start browsing the web on another computer in the network....

  • XenoNative

    Posted Oct 3, 2009 9:22 am PT

    as cool as this sounds it still feels evil

  • chupamelpo

    Posted Oct 3, 2009 8:02 am PT

    NO NO NO NO NO!!!. I'm not dropping my HD Quality consoles\pc for that.

  • Normaral85

    Posted Oct 3, 2009 6:13 am PT

    Give me pretty much the whole Xbox Library via the Windows versions and finish off with some extras like Netflix support and I'll pick it up before an 360

  • treydawg1

    Posted Oct 2, 2009 11:51 pm PT

    @Inconnux

    mmos are different since most if not all mmos require you still have the game files on your system. onlive is either streaming the game or a video of the game to your system.

  • kcpp2b

    Posted Oct 2, 2009 8:39 pm PT

    BTW it is NOT old fashioned to want something like a hard copy when you buy something. I hate hearing that. People have been getting something in hand when they buy things for....well forever lol So no this is not an old concept its common sense lol

    When you buy something you like to see it in hand making it real to you the buyer. Doesn't mean DL content or sales is dumb but it's very normal and understandable to want to have a disc or something when you buy something

  • kcpp2b

    Posted Oct 2, 2009 8:37 pm PT

    My thoughts:

    1) Obviously the whole speed thing is an issue but it'll be dealt with in time (I'm not sure is on their side )
    2) This will hurt ALL gamers for the most part because it create higher and higher prices for games because if this works it'll eventually mean less and less sales for the consoles meaning......
    3) When you have what they plan on having it'll become somewhat like a monopoly which IMO could harm creativity of new projects coming up since I think ALOT of devs will be way more focused no profit then before.

    Also I think this could be good for game devs that want to do out of the box games but then you think... that's nice but who will fund them if the big three go out of business or start dying in sales? On Live will fund them that's who. And who knows how that'll turn out.

    I think in the end, like with ALL things in business in all sectors greed will ruin things and ruin it for gamers and make things worse from a price point in the very least with only one real option for gaming IF this thing really works like they want it

  • mastodonfatguy

    Posted Oct 2, 2009 4:58 pm PT

    I DONT THINK THIS IS A GOOD IDEA , because its better to HAVE the game. i mean how will collectors be able to show off their massive collections if the network they have the games on dies dreamcast style? THEY WONT . better to have reg disc/ cartridge/ umd/ blue ray/ POKEMEGAUBERDISC40000. lol

  • ckat609

    Posted Oct 2, 2009 1:26 pm PT

    Call me old fashioned or whatever but I still love to actually have a copy of a game on disc... and that goes for music and movies.

  • shentonio

    Posted Oct 2, 2009 11:01 am PT

    @XeonForce

    I think you're probably right, this 'cloud' gaming business is taking it a bit too far. All those people having to rely on their broadband connections to get the thing working can only mean trouble. Whereas if you own a PS3, Xbox or Wii you don't need to be online to enjoy gaming (it just enhances the experience). Broadband connections around the world aren't quite up to speed enough to match this king of strain (look how far down the list the UK's internet speeds were for example). I think I will stick to my PS3 for a good while yet. : )

  • TheoleDominion

    Posted Oct 2, 2009 10:16 am PT

    If they can pull it off, i say more power to them. But I'll still buy games on disc..though depending on the circumstances I'll use their services too.

  • XeonForce

    Posted Oct 2, 2009 9:11 am PT

    As one who does not collect many things, I am quite proud of my video game library (take a look at my collection). I cannot see myself paying $40, $50, or $60 for a game that is purely digital, I still hesitate to buy Burnout Paradise purely digital, and I'm the guy who's spent $500 on RB2 songs. lolz

    Add-ons are fine to me, because you can judge how far you want to delve into said game; you will always have the full game you can sell, lend to a friend, or w/e. I do regret buying the 3 map packs for CoD:W@W, because I want to sell my copy of the game now that MW2 is 6 weeks away.

    IDK, I think everyone has thier own Digital DL preferences, maybe OnLive is just crossing the line?

  • sirfrieden

    Posted Oct 2, 2009 6:29 am PT

    The only plausible use I have found in my mind is rentals. This thing would actually be pretty sweet for rentals if the price was right. No driving to the video store, and no dealing with late fees (presumably). Other than that, it's an extremely developer friendly system that, to them, is the greatest invention ever, but to gamers... Well it's just Steam with a controller attached. The developer excitement kind of reminds me of the movie Spinal Tap... It's the greatest movie ever made to a musician, or an 80's hair band, but to the average Joe it's just a decent comedy.

  • mamkem6

    Posted Oct 2, 2009 2:30 am PT

    Will this Onlive come to Europe or it will be available only in America?

  • mikey1611

    Posted Oct 2, 2009 12:01 am PT

    I can't support this, yeah I know XBL and PSN are already selling games without discs but they still sell...discs. Not entirely updated on this "console" but this does not support discs? so it supports live streaming? some people have average internet speeds, below average and high speeds. I guess having a gaming life is now a luxury. yeah we don't need a souped up gaming console/pc but we need a good internet connection. Guess i need to do more reading on this "console"

  • charrr1234

    Posted Oct 1, 2009 8:25 pm PT

    @Assassin_O
    Sega Channel was ahead of its time. It, however, needed cable infrastructure improvement to run right. This upgrade came just in time for the whole cable internet spree.

  • Psikosis

    Posted Oct 1, 2009 8:22 pm PT

    let me see if I'm clear about OnLive. They are going to offer a box (which presumably, I have to buy) that lets me rent old games. That's be ok, if Gamefly and Gametap didn't already let me rent old games if I want. Then there's GOG.com and, of course, eBay should I feel like ponying up a couple bucks to OWN the games.

    OnLive hasn't explained why a gamer who owns a gaming system would want their service. Gee, I could use my existing hardware and rent games (or buy cheap used ones) or I could pay them to rent some games. Or why a developer would offer anything other than older, back catalog games. A new title sells something like 80% of its total sales in the first couple weeks after release so the developer gets its money rather quickly. With OnLive, they get to wait for the money to trickle in from rentals.

    Then there are DDoS attacks, hackers, lag, lag, lag, and more lag between me and OnLive. Oh yah, and games at a whopping 720p of compressed video as opposed to my mostly 1080p (or higher on my PC) on my consoles...

    OnLive is a technological wonder of compressed video with absolutely no market for its offerings.

  • xxsuperbananaxx

    Posted Oct 1, 2009 5:49 pm PT

    It's be nice if this really was the future of gaming...it's like when cable TV first came out and suddenly you had access to tones of content on your television; but instead of shows you get access to tones of games. The only problem is MS, Sony and Nintendo would never release exclusives to this service so if you do already own a console this would almost be pointless.

  • NuKkU

    Posted Oct 1, 2009 5:35 pm PT

    thats cool i guess i dont think this will be as big as everyone think it will be through

  • painguy1

    Posted Oct 1, 2009 3:54 pm PT

    they will fail just watch. It hasnt even been publicized very well.

  • enoslives7

    Posted Oct 1, 2009 12:07 pm PT

    I don't care for online gaming, but this would be awesome if it works as well as they're saying. This is either going to fail miserably or take off like a rocket....no middle ground.

  • brendanhunt1

    Posted Oct 1, 2009 12:06 pm PT

    "on the box it probably says
    minimum of 50gb broadband required for smooth play
    unfortunatly not many people in the UK have that"

    no one in the uk has 50gb broadband, highest is 20gb

  • Autolycus

    Posted Oct 1, 2009 11:02 am PT

    [quote=mpeg3s]
    I can see them now. 100 M in patents for a 20 year future. This company is Fantom times 100x![/quote] Thats an understatement.

  • Autolycus

    Posted Oct 1, 2009 11:00 am PT

    its going to get sued to the ground once it plays Wii, PS3 and 360 games because its making all of its money off of the money spent (and lost) on those parent companies. It'll never happen.

  • mpeg3s

    Posted Oct 1, 2009 9:48 am PT

    @Excedra

    Yes, you'll see a bunch of patents. Otherwise, a bunch of B.S.

    I won't even look their way until they back up their claims with a "100% Refund Guarentee SLA!"

  • fps_d0minat0r

    Posted Oct 1, 2009 5:54 am PT

    on the box it probably says
    "minimum of 50gb broadband required for smooth play"

    unfortunatly not many people in the UK have that.

    they should have patented it and bought it out in 5 years when people have better internet connections and 50gb connections are dead cheap.

    i just wondered what if they stream OS's and other softwares and save ur files on their servers?
    internet cafes dead?

  • Weddum

    Posted Oct 1, 2009 5:44 am PT

    Of course developers will just love this service. Its the perfect way to make PC gamers get locked down just like console users, and be forced to pay the prices they want us to pay for their games.

    Pity too, as this would actually be a good service if it wasn't for all the inevitable greedy antics of developers.

  • Excedra

    Posted Oct 1, 2009 5:20 am PT

    well see...well see.....

advertisement

Hot Stories

Newsmakers

Featured Stories

Submit News

Got tips? Send them in!