Possible for Microsoft takeover?

[core9a9]

I would not be surprised if Microsoft has already offered huge sums of cash to onLive and are planning to take the company over few months before onLive goes live. Could the next generation of Xbox be called Xbox onLive or maybe even the Xbox 360 with a firmware update, since the web plug-in is only 1mb. More I think about it, this seems like a great business model for Microsoft, they would be able to offer games on demand and also offer games from physical media, this will help ease gamers into the transition of digital distribution and have options for those who are not ready (no internet, no credit card, fear and so on...). I hear a lot of people complaining about not being able to own physical copies of games, that's what some people said about music CDs, who buys music CDs these days?

Maybe this was the plan for onLive, create innovative technology and make money on selling its intellectual properties and patents. The technology seems to prove its possible, but onLive will have to sustain a monumental infrastructure and fund a huge advertising campaign for few years until it gains momentum, and a company like Microsoft with its huge dedicated user base and unlimited funds, may be better suited to move the service forward and keep it sustainable. The founder of onLive also developed the webTV which had the same business model as onLive (cheap and accessible computing for a specific need) which was also sold to Microsoft.

[B1553r]

Considering Microsofts online service is already called "Live", the name of this company is OBVIOUSLY a message to microsoft saying "Hey come buy our company and put us ON the xbox LIVE service"

Want more hints??? Look at the game controller we know about... IT looks almost exactly like the xbox controller.

So now when you want to hop on the xbox and play some demo of some game, it just fires up. AND, oh yeah, you can already buy it right there. And now you can distribute games that are hypothetically many times largers that what is possible with blu-ray.

We already know microsoft has the HD streaming tech in place, see netflix...

It doesn't work on wireless. Check.

Looks like its check mate for Sony to me.

And that tiny little box you saw at GDC, thats the xbox 720.

[core9a9]

If onLive works as shown and if Microsoft buys out the company, Sony will scramble to try to leverage itself. onLive has been developing in secrecy for 7 years so it will be very difficult for anyone to play catch up in a short time.

[B1553r]

Yeah... I am still of opinion that it is a matter of ~when~ microsoft buys OnLive, not if. This service would mesh so incredibly well with other microsoft assets, it has to be by design.

I mean... I don't think they can even launch with the name OnLive because it would almost certainly violate Microsoft trademarks with the Live brandname.

Then go look at the OnLive website. Look how weak their branding is. As far as their logo goes, they are not trying to be distinctive at all. I don't see how a company like this does everything else so expertly then just utterly fails with their branding. Once again... unless it is by design.

Then... and again I am ignorant on this, but I bet Microsoft has a desgin patent on the xbox controller. Now look at the OnLive Controller!

And this all runs on Microsoft technology... Well the servers do anyway.

I wish someone would try and talk me down, just too many concidences here.

[core9a9]

Steve Perlman, Founder of onLive, explains how he developed the webTV and sold it to Microsoft. Perlman is no stranger to Microsoft.

The seminal set-top box debuted just before the 1996 Christmas season, allowing almost anyone to go online through a television. By the fall of 1997, over 150,000 people were using the product, and Perlman's company, WebTV Networks, was soon acquired by Microsoft for $503 million. And that was a steal. Over the next decade, WebTV—renamed MSN TV—would generate more than half a billion dollars in revenue.

Where's the technology today? Microsoft continues to add features and functionality to MSN TV. The company brought out version 2.0 in 2004, which worked with broadband modems and introduced on-screen messaging. Essentially a media adapter, the device now plays music, displays pictures, and browses the Internet.

[Jimex]

I'd like to think that they wouldn't sell to Microsoft. If you look at the team behind Onlive, they don't exactly need the money at the moment and they know they're onto something big here. You don't spend 7 years work on a project to just sell up and run. They also have everything patented until 2022 so in that time they could make an amount far greater than even microsoft would be able to afford at this moment in time (probably). In the long run, if they do it right, they could turn Onlive into a real world media competitor (much like google has done).

[B1553r]

I will use a valuation that works for SMB, but way up there in the big business realm the rules may be different. I am not MBA but if an MBA wants to set me straight I would welcome it. I want to be talked down off of this point.

Potential market first 5 years of 20 million users, with a revenue of ~$10 a month (software revenue will mostly go to game publishers and servers, monthly fee will go to cost of bandwidth, and profit) for annual revenue of 2.4 billion dollars. Blue sky valuation (2.5 x yearly revenue) of 6 billion dollars.

Microsoft still has that type of cash laying around. They were offering almost40 billion for Yahoo a year ago. This is certainly within the realm of possibility financially for microsoft. But mostly because this would affect their core business.

Never mind that this would be a fatal blow to the Sony brand.

From the investors point of view... Maybe 500 million invested??? For a 6 billion return? Easy sell.

[videogamer]

I think that if any company were to try and buy out Onlive, it might be Google. I know they have had slight interest in getting into the gaming industry in the past. If they can get OnLive, it would be a huge benefit to them. Imagine the advertising opportunities they could provide. Maybe they could even provide free membership in exchange for having to view ads before playing games. Imagine all the possibilities if google were to buy Onlive.

[Brian]

I agree that Google would be a better fit. With Microsoft, they already have Xbox, which might be a mess merging with. Google purchased an in game ad company in the past, and would kill for this opportunity. With their server stock piles and experience with web development, Google could turn this into a cash cow practically overnight.

[core9a9]

I agree that Google would be a better fit. With Microsoft, they already have Xbox, which might be a mess merging with. Google purchased an in game ad company in the past, and would kill for this opportunity. With their server stock piles and experience with web development, Google could turn this into a cash cow practically overnight.

Google hasn't had much luck turning YouTube into a cash cow so far, and it's the most popular video viewing site on the net. Also Google's focus right now is the Gdrive and Android (android phones are no match for the iphone when it comes to games), they are planning to add more flash type of games to iGoogle but thats about it.. and who wants to see advertisements while playing video games, even the few adds pasted on few textures on some games gets on most people's nerves.

[Aph0ticShield]

Then... and again I am ignorant on this, but I bet Microsoft has a desgin patent on the xbox controller. Now look at the OnLive Controller!
Not to mention the ability to use the Xbox Controller with OnLive and the buttons in the menu are definitely Xbox buttons like A, B, RB, LB


Google hasn't had much luck turning YouTube into a cash cow so far, and it's the most popular video viewing site on the net. Also Google's focus right now is the Gdrive and Android (android phones are no match for the iphone when it comes to games), they are planning to add more flash type of games to iGoogle but thats about it.. and who wants to see advertisements while playing video games, even the few adds pasted on few textures on some games gets on most people's nerves.

I would, especially if the ads were seamless in the game, like on billboards. And if the game was free, like almost anything that Google does.

[rasmasyean]

Perhaps this is not so far fetch of a concept.

Maybe part of their system uses the Windows Azure cloud computing platform. Those multiple video menu systems with videos on different surface angles are characteristic of Windows Presentation Foundation. Unless there's another development environment that does this or they made it from scratch, this looks a lot like WPF applications.
Check out this video. It looks a lot like those shown in Microsoft demos.
http://www.gametrailers.com/player/47260.html

And he said Intel Macs work. Maybe this will be Silverlight based since that only works on Intel Macs.
http://www.gametrailers.com/player/47079.html?type=flv

[Aph0ticShield]

I don't think the plug-in is based on anything... but completely custom. That's my guess, I just think other technologies have too much baggage that comes with them.