Beamer wrote on Aug 17, 2012, 19:33:

RollinThundr wrote on Aug 17, 2012, 19:25:

Beamer wrote on Aug 17, 2012, 18:39:

nin wrote on Aug 17, 2012, 18:36:

Rhialto wrote on Aug 17, 2012, 18:16:
Latest news and more to come at this Forbes link.

[UPDATE 3: Martyn Williams, a correspondent for IDG News Service, reports via Twitter that he's standing outside OnLive headquarters. "In the last 20mins have seen three people walk out of # OnLive with leaving boxes. Still unclear what's happening inside pic.twitter.com/ZYFBxCyC"]

I love that they keep denying it...

Well, they're denying that they're going out of business, and it seems they aren't. It seems they've been purchased and this is a restructuring.

So, they're technically right, but it's a minor hail mary of a technicality.

In before Beamer plays the role of the Iraq Defense Minister of the game indus.. fuck too late.

Really?

Really?

That was pretty negative, I'd say. The facts of my post:
1) They're denying going out of business. It appears they are not, as they've been purchased
2) They're denying nothing else, which is why they can deny. It's a technicality, as I said, they're technically right. But it's a minor technicality, as it appears they would have gone out of business had they not been purchased, so they're saved by a hail mary.


I don't see how correcting someone saying they're lying by saying they're actually not, but just barely, is "iraqi minister of defense."

Let's get our own facts straight - they are NOT going out of business. Making that claim is absolutely pointless. What they are is desperately selling themselves to stay in business. It's maybe a minor distinction, but a key distinction.
For a bunch of people that code I'm always amazed at the number of people here that think being kind of right but pretty much wrong is good enough. Let's have some precision: they're still in business, but only by dismantling themselves.