UPDATED: Entire OnLive staff laid off

Could the days of cloud gaming service OnLive be numbered? It’s too early to know for sure, but according to a report by Mashable posted earlier today, OnLive has laid off its entire work force.

According to a source close to the situation, the company called an all hands meeting at 10am PDT, at which the entire staff was fired. Some staffers may be rehired as the company transitions to its next unknown iteration.

That doesn’t exactly bode well.

In a related story, however, TechCrunch chimes in, “We reached out to OnLive’s head of Corporate Communications who promptly replied: The OnLive service is not shutting down.”

Nothing appears out of the ordinary on the OnLive website right now. If there really is no one left to maintain the service, though, that may not last long.

OnLive premiered as a free service a couple of years back before going on to charge users a $9.99 monthly fee for access. The subscription gets you unlimited access to a library of over 200 games, including many triple-A titles, which are playable on PCs, Macs, tablets, and TVs. OnLive sells a $99.99 breakout box for TV connectivity. Since the service is cloud-based, users can play instantly without having to download anything. The fact that games are streamed does add some extra latency, though.

OnLive isn’t without competitors. In early July, Sony moved to acquire rival cloud gaming service Gaikai for $380 million. Sony said the acquisition will allow it to “deliver a world-class cloud-streaming service that allows users to instantly enjoy a broad array of content . . . anytime, anywhere on a variety of internet-connected devices.”

Update 3:15 PM: OnLive spokesman Brian Jaquet has told Forbes, “We are not going out of business.”

Update 3:38 PM: Kotaku now reports that OnLive has filed for “an alternative to bankruptcy called an Assignment for the Benefit of Creditors, or ABC, in the state of California.” Reportedly, a new company will replace the existing one, and a “subset of employees” will be brought back.

Comments closed
    • shaurz
    • 7 years ago

    OnLive should use their admittedly impressive technology for something like Citrix or live video streaming. Cloud gaming is just a bad idea.

    • FireGryphon
    • 7 years ago

    Let me get this straight…

    1. The company wasn’t profitable and is filing for ‘an alternative to bankruptcy’
    2. and is going to be replaced by a new company that consists of a subset of the original company’s employees
    3. with the same services offered by the original company.

    So, same employees and same services, yet the company is going to be successful now because of what change?

    • timbits
    • 7 years ago

    I really like Tech Report, and I read it every day, but I hate the comment threads being dominated by the same 8 people with the same dumb arguments that are tangentially related (at best) to the article.

      • lilbuddhaman
      • 7 years ago

      Like your own?

      Be a part of the community and encourage actual discussion.

      The general consensus is that OnLive blows but people losing their jobs also sucks. The various conspiracy theories (which I believe as well) are the next logical step in the discussion…plus it’s the weekend and no one cares about commenting about cheap underpowered GPU’s.

      • sweatshopking
      • 7 years ago

      like that darn ssk!! damn, he’s so annoying, and he posts non-stop!!

      i hear he’s handsome though….

        • EtherealN
        • 7 years ago

        Gief pics!

    • kamikaziechameleon
    • 7 years ago

    While it might not be a service that I would use I do appreciate that it brings hard core gaming to within reatch of non hardcore gamers for very little money.

    • kamikaziechameleon
    • 7 years ago

    Watch and see what happens to the patents this company has.

    • weta
    • 7 years ago

    OnLive, the popular streaming gaming company, has been sold to a “newly-formed” enterprise amid controversy and accusations of mismanagement. Although there is clear evidence of layoffs, company spokespeople have said that a “large percentage” of employees will be re-hired by the mysterious new venture — a venture allegedly owned by a single person. Although the meaning behind the changes is unclear, OnLive says that service will continue.

    Source: The Verge

    We can now confirm that the assets of OnLive, Inc. have been acquired into a newly-formed company and is backed by substantial funding, and which will continue to operate the OnLive Game and Desktop services, as well as support all of OnLive’s apps and devices, as well as game, productivity and enterprise partnerships. The new company is hiring a large percentage of OnLive, Inc.’s staff across all departments and plans to continue to hire substantially more people, including additional OnLive employees. All previously announced products and services, including those in the works, will continue and there is no expected interruption of any OnLive services.

    We apologize that we were unable to comment on this transaction until it completed, and were limited to reporting on news related to OnLive’s businesses. Now that the transaction is complete, we are able to make this statement.

    Company statement (Source: The Verge)

    • d34thly
    • 7 years ago

    It’s not just the lag and low resolution that would make cloud gaming horrible.
    All my games are locally stored and I have modified/personalized both .ini and .cfg files of almost every game to suit my taste or feel preferences. Whether it has been to make player nametags more primary in color or to disable annoying mouse acceleration, it would drive me nuts to not be able to tweak these things in games where they have no menu options to do so.When I first bought and installed Borderlands I was really cheesed off to have just laid $60 on it; It was completely unplayable (for my taste) out of the box without opening various files in notepad to modify. After a 2second looksee on google I was able to get rid of the games most glaring issues right away like seam tearing, mouse acceleration and framerate drops along with minor issues like skipping the intro so I could get right into the game when I loaded it up each time. I can’t imagine even a great company like steam can pull off cloud gaming because I wouldn’t ever play a game without the files kept locally. Imagine playing Skyrim and having no access to change graphic options or mod it in any way, would you even play it then?

    • Chrispy_
    • 7 years ago

    I have advocated that OnLive would flop since it was first released because the basic concept was deeply flawed from the start.

    I will not deny that OnLive’s steps to minimise perceived lag were impressive. They made it work much better than I had ever seen it before, but it’s still like tyring to play whilst drunk and tired.

    The rental model doesn’t feel right either. People are stubborn, used to paying their money and having the game for as long as they want, but that’s already been covered by other commenters here.

    • Anomymous Gerbil
    • 7 years ago

    Why do Americans say “reached out to” when they mean “contacted”?

      • burntham77
      • 7 years ago

      Because we’re big on “soft language.” I’m not sure why. Maybe we want to sound more compassionate than we really are?

        • Bensam123
        • 7 years ago

        Because we have english to work with instead of french. English isn’t colorful by default unless you use expletives.

      • BobbinThreadbare
      • 7 years ago

      Why do idioms exist?

      • superjawes
      • 7 years ago

      I always thought “contacted” applied to two-way communication. “Reached out to” is an attempt at communication.

    • ronch
    • 7 years ago

    OnLive! was doomed from the very start because they didn’t completely understand the psyche of the hardcore gamer. The hardcore gamer doesn’t like latency, buys his own capable hardware, doesn’t play Crysis like it’s Farmville, wants vivid hi-res visuals, buys his own copy of the game, and doesn’t play it on his iPod or Netbook.

    • Ardrid
    • 7 years ago

    Damn, talk about an implosion. I guess that Ouya deal might bear fruit…

    • albundy
    • 7 years ago

    hope none of those poor misguided basturds started up a new mortgage or thought they might just have a decent life. wonder if the company is shady enough not to even give them severance. the laid off peeps could always team up for a class action and sue them for being stupid.

    • Bensam123
    • 7 years ago

    Latency, poor steam quality, bandwidth caps, as well as a dated library about sums it up.

    • Laykun
    • 7 years ago

    Oh thank god. Go away OnLive! I still want to own the hardware I play games on. I want to use high resolution settings, I want anti-aliasing, I want no input lag, I don’t want a casual experience and I particularly don’t want OnLive services to become mainstream putting my hardware into an uber-minority so it can be ignored by driver developers.

    Owning your own hardware is great, it gives you freedom and services like OnLive will undermine that. Intel integrated graphics are under pressure from the gaming community and are finally becoming usable, if a service like OnLive become mainstream hardware vendors are under no pressure to upgrade their lines are provide better quality products as they will all just run OnLive.

    OnLive is just another crappy service to tie you into another crappy monthly subscription.

    Also, living in New Zealand this service would more than likely be late, bad and laggy as hell since we live on the other side of the planet to just about everything.

      • XA Hydra
      • 7 years ago

      I hate that a bunch of people lost their jobs, but I don’t want to see concepts like this get pushed to the point that they swallow availability of locally ran games either.

      • sweatshopking
      • 7 years ago

      yeah! get out of here reasonable solution for lowend computers that people want to play games on! heck yeah! have an atom system and want just cause 2? GTFO BECAUSE I WANT EVERYONE TO HAVE THE SAME STUFF AS I DO.

        • Laykun
        • 7 years ago

        You want to play games then buy a gaming machine, simple. To run the games on OnLive there needs to be hardware on the other end and the bandwidth to back it up. That hardware needs to be paid for somehow, it doesn’t materialise out of thin air, so one way or another you’ll be paying the money for the hardware, the electricity to run it, the room for it to be housed in, the cooling systems, and the bandwidth to transmit it. You could have spent that money on a gaming machine.

        The service also neglects countries that aren’t America or Europe.

        I suppose it’s in the numbers though, the fact that they don’t have any money any more shows that it’s a crappy business model.

          • sweatshopking
          • 7 years ago

          I’m not saying it will be successful. I’m saying that to be happy an option failed is retarded. Maybe I like the 10 hours of battery I get with my netbook, and don’t want to carry a bigger machine? Itd not the cost, its the weight. Now what choices do I have?

            • Laykun
            • 7 years ago

            Fair enough. Being happy that something failed is not retarded either. I’m clearly happy about and not being put under special care because of it. If people who worked at death camps lost their jobs because there was not enough demand for it and you were happy I wouldn’t call you retarded (a bit extreme I know). I see OnLive as a threat to the quality and accessibility to PC Gaming.

            If such a service became what the majority of gamers used then it would become a problem. Sure, you now have the choice to use your netbook as a gaming device, (although you’d most definitely not get 10 hours battery life, decoding HD video is tough work for those little machines). However great this feat is it takes away from my choices and freedoms. Say for example you lived in say … oh New Zealand where the internet isn’t so great, we have bandwidth caps and public access to wifi is stingy at best. There’s no way that a service like OnLive would make it to New Zealand or be within an acceptable distance for the latency to be low enough as we simply don’t have the population numbers to support a service financially. The speed and quality of New Zealand internet is no where near the level that we could get an acceptable experience. So basically I’d be left out in the cold since OnLive would cannabalise the PC gaming hardware market and the need for developers to produce games that work well on consumer PCs and not just the OnLive service. Alternatively your freedoms aren’t being effected, you just need to carry the appropriate hardware, where as I get no choice at all and PC gaming is simply not an option for me anymore.

            That’s a pretty dire prediction but I wouldn’t want to see it happen.

      • tviceman
      • 7 years ago

      I would actually like Steam to create a hybrid service, offering both local play on machines powerful enough and streaming to devices that have the bandwidth but lack the computing ability.

      • burntham77
      • 7 years ago

      Well said. Streaming movies is one thing, but streaming games is just a crap idea. Maybe if everyone had ridiculously fast internet, but we’re just not there yet.

      • Namarrgon
      • 7 years ago

      I don’t get why you think the [i<]option[/i<] of cloud gaming is so threatening to you? Like it's some sort of disease that you have to destroy before it gets a foothold or it will KILL TEH GAMING INDUSTREEZE!!1 I happen to agree with you about playing games on my own hardware (it's a clearly superior experience, plus I'm in Australia; OnLive & friends are useless here), but that obviously isn't true for all people or all cases (hence the rise of consoles, mobile gaming etc). Demanding that people spend hundreds on a high-powered gaming rig to play [i<]any[/i<] games just comes off as selfish and elitist. Fact is, there's a very wide spectrum of gamers and gaming situations, demand is very broad, and I don't see why casual/mobile gamers or those without the time or interest in maintaining complicated fat-client rigs should have to do without games just so you could keep the full attention of the (considerably smaller) games industry for your own demographic. There's room in the gaming world for OnLive [i<]and[/i<] gaming PCs, and we'd all be the poorer without either option.

    • l33t-g4m3r
    • 7 years ago

    In a true free market Cloud gaming is not possible or profitable. You have to cover ALL the costs that the customer currently has, plus the cost of storage, maintenance, and employees, not to mention creating the service itself and bandwith. The only problem is that we now live under corporate fascism and corporations will glady go bankrupt spending themselves into insolvency if the endgame means total control of the market. That’s what really is going on. OnLive is not viable, and neither is the scam Sony bought, but that’s not the point. They merely want the ability to fully control you like the slave you are, because you won’t stick up for your rights, and argue moronic semantics every time this issue pops up.

    Don’t give me any “license” bull. You legally own your license, and can legally do whatever you want with it regardless of the EULA. The only way companies get around your legal rights is by suckering you with DRM. Even though cloud gaming isn’t viable, you potentially are already under most of the control mechanisms via steam. Steam words it’s EULA to call your purchases unlicensced rental “services” which can be shut off anytime they want without reinbursment, and that’s a flat out lie. They don’t have the legal right to do that, and your software is not a “service”, while steam is. Technically steam is a distributor, which shouldn’t be any more restricted than buying a physical copy. Other download services like Amazon license your software directly to you and don’t call it a “service”, so anyone who sticks up for steam’s policy is a repulsive sellout not even worth arguing with.

    PS. As soon as cloud gaming is possible, Steam will transition itself to that platform, delete your physical downloads, and hold your collection hostage with monthly service fees. That’s what the EUlA states they can do, and they will do it. Lock in DRM services historically do not have a good ending once the service ends.

    Gamestop has also been throwing out hints it may allow reselling digital games, so we’ll see where this goes when that happens.

    [b<]HUGE BREAKING NEWS UPDATE[/b<]: I was right! Onlive will not fail because some unknown corporate entitiy has bought them up and fully refunded them. They are rehiring all their staff plus more. Onlive is not viable, but that does not matter to the fascist control freaks who run our society. Cloud gaming will continue to be funded until it works and all your rights are taken from you. You only have yourselves to blame. [url<]http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2012/08/18/twist-onlive-bought-gets-substantial-funding/#more-120688[/url<]

      • sweatshopking
      • 7 years ago

      i was wondering how you’d work fascism into this. OMG PLAYING GAMES ONLINE IS TEH DEVAL.

      [quote<] Legally do whatever you want with it regardless of the EULA [/quote<] Not in your country. only in communist europe is it the case where you have rights. that doesn't matter though. i'm sure you'll Batpoop crazy someway to justify it as obama's fault.

        • designerfx
        • 7 years ago

        wheres is the fascism? I only see it in your post. he has a 100% legitimate point – onlive’s method of cloud gaming is simply not realistic and it never was. Not that anyone couldn’t tell you that before onlive even launched.

          • sweatshopking
          • 7 years ago

          [quote<] corporate fascism [/quote<] reading fail.

        • l33t-g4m3r
        • 7 years ago

        Lies. We have the first sale doctrine and property rights.

          • sweatshopking
          • 7 years ago

          If you happen to get a judge that agrees with you (and me) that software is a good, then you’re laughing, too bad many of them don’t.
          [url<]http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_license_agreement#section_7[/url<]

      • tviceman
      • 7 years ago

      The conspiracy theorist strikes again!

        • l33t-g4m3r
        • 7 years ago

        Nice Ad hominem. I love people who just skip discussion and get right to the meat and potatoes of their real mindset. Being a sycophantic, subservient flatterer of the corrupt system. You obviously don’t have anything to say, even to clarify your accusation, which generally makes it a baseless inane statement. Yes, throw out a vacuous insult and that automatically makes you right. Anyway, this is the problem with today’s society. Too much servile complacency from fawning parasites. Don’t worry though, you will get what’s coming to you, because this stuff affects everyone.

        PS. The stuff I said about steam vs amazon is 100% fact, and we do have rights with our software licenses.

        The only thing that I said that counts as theory is steam transitioning to cloud gaming, but the infrastructure is already there, so it’s more or less reading between the lines from their own playbook. They only thing really missing is a flat out admission, but anyone with basic foresight shouldn’t need it.

        Also, conspiracy to commit theft/murder or defraud investors is a real crime, not a blanket statement for ignoring reality and calling whistleblowers derogatory names.

          • sweatshopking
          • 7 years ago

          The reason nobody tries to reason with you is that you’re unreasonable. If you don’t like what somebody is saying, you just ignore the facts. Take our charity care discussion, I showed it wasn’t enough, WITH Links, and you stop replying, ignoring reality. Me and you agree that there are problems, and that we need to find solutions, but you have a real distaste for actual discussion. You’re very closeminded, and it makes it a waste of time, unless we’re just trying to get a rise out of you. I like you l33t, but you can’t be expect more from others than you’re willing to give.

            • l33t-g4m3r
            • 7 years ago

            Look dude, you’re an admitted communist. There’s no way I’m going to agree with anything you say ever, and your quip about my unreasonability applies right back at you. All you want is for free people to sacrifice their sovereignty to an all-powerful fascist state that forces people to comply with socialist polices, and that’s not going to happen.

            The only time you’re going to get me to agree with you on anything, is when you talk about something that benefits people without involving the state. All government is illigitimate without the consent of the governed, and I don’t consent to your foundation funded zombie mindset that we are all slaves to the system. There’s a reason big banks and big corps like socialism, and that’s because they all sit outside of the system and get to play with other people’s socialized money. It’s way too easy for corrupt people in a centralized bureaucracy to steal the wealth of non-thinking slaves that give up their rights for welfare benefits. So, no. You’re not going to get me to be reasonable with your socialist mindet, as I am staunchly free market, and that means no crony capitalism too.

            PS. My free market mindset doesn’t rule out voluntary social programs, only government mandates, so you can have all the corrupt money sucking programs you want as long as I don’t have to put up with your scams, and at least when you get screwed you can come back to a honest judge and get justice, unlike systems like North Korea.

            • sweatshopking
            • 7 years ago

            big banks and corps like socialism? that must be why romney, (not our beloved ron paul, sadly, but not a communist by any stretch) has so far been given

            Goldman Sachs $636,080
            JPMorgan Chase & Co $502,874
            Morgan Stanley $476,300
            Bank of America $465,850
            Credit Suisse Group $421,310

            ISN’T THAT FUNNY??? ALL BANKS!!!!! HIS LARGEST CONTRIBUTORS!!! IT’S BECAUSE HE’S A SOCIALIST, THAT’S WHY!!!
            how about obama?

            Microsoft Corp $418,845
            University of California $411,386
            Dla Piper $314,977
            Google Inc $303,225
            Harvard University $276,824

            WTF?!?!?! WHERE ARE THE BIG BANKS?!?! TWO IVY LEAGUE SCHOOLS!?!?! PSSSH WHAT DO THEY KNOW!!! EVERYONE KNOWS UNIVERSITY AND EDUCATION ARE ONLY FOR THE STUPIDS.
            You know where i got that link? from romneyryan.com. a site owned by a RON PAUL SUPPORTER. NOOOOOOOOOOO!! IT FLIES IN THE FACE OF THE BANKS LOVE SOCIALISM MANTRA!!! that’s ok, again, we won’t let something like “the facts” interfere with that. we’ll say it again, next time LOUDER so we can be RIGHTER.
            [url<]http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/contriball.php?cycle=2012[/url<] seriously though. you know i'm not a communist. I'm not a libertarian (or as i like to call them "adult children), or a usa constitutionalist. both of those groups are based on an over simplification of reality. there are SOOO many ridiculous things said in your middle paragraph, i'm not even going to bother. It might surprise you, it shouldn't i've said it MANY TIMES, but i believe in the right to trade. i believe in the market, but a regulated market. i don't favor advertising cigarettes to children. I don't want all my toys with lead, cause i might be 27, but DAMNIT, I WANNA LICK THE PURPLE (edit: after reading this, i realized it sounds kind of homoerotic. not my intention, but i won't edit it out). i think that we have responsibilities to protect biodiversity, and take care of the planet. The best way to handle those issues is through legislation. You ever lived in a place without such laws, white boy american? i have. crap sucks, yo. you can't trust anything, it's all poison. corps make money, same corps as here, but they do it even MOAR EVILLY. you can go on all day about how whatever I say is BS, cause i'm a "communist", but you still fail to win at what is called "reality". where facts mean stuff. You still didn't show how we take care of the poor, since charity care is FAILING. as i proved last time. you won't because you CAN'T. you deny facts, and continue down this path of spouting crazy. You say some stuff that i agree with "All government is illigitimate without the consent of the governed", but then you throw in the crazy. IF your position is right, and accurate, then BACK IT UP. FACTS. START SHOWING THEM. SAYING RON PAUL OR A FOUNDING FATHER SAID SOMETHING ISN'T A FACT. I realize the current situation sucks. I would never advocate for it. it's broken. clearly. i just don't think the solution is for us to pretend it's 1750, move with our shotguns to log cabins, have our teeth fall out and start sleeping with our cousins. I don't have any attractive cousins, maybe if i did, it'd be a different story. look man, you don't want me to win this, i'm a moron, so please, start showing some facts, and take back the power from that darn SSK! As always, hopefully you enjoy this, you know how i feel about unity! ♥

            • l33t-g4m3r
            • 7 years ago

            You have no point. Romney IS a socialist, so you can’t sit there with a straight face and tell me all this crap about his donors, which is nothing I don’t already know. I don’t support Neocon RINOs. Paul Ryan can talk the talk, but walking the walk is another story. Anyway, that logic doesn’t fly here, because two wrongs don’t make a right. Also, we’ve been a pseudo communist country since 1913. A central bank is one of the main planks of communism, being you need the power to create a crony capitalist system by printing money to your buddies. You can’t have communism with a gold-backed currency.

            [quote<]seriously though. you know i'm not a communist.[/quote<] Seriously though, you are a chump communist. Perhaps more of a crony ideological communist than a real hardcore one, since you "believe" in the market, but you also believe the government has the right to run our lives in every other aspect, including the often scapegoated "poor", which if you read milton friedman you'd know that to be a crock. All of your arguments are derived from Karl Marx, and all of those have been proven lies by better men. It's not my problem that you don't read their books, and instead parrot off what the government indoctrination camp schools told you to believe. This is why I don't care to argue with you, because you are a indocrinated government slave who can't do anything for himself. Every single one of your points have already been disproven, and all it takes to find that out is a simple google search, but you are too lazy to do it. Charity care cannot possibly ever "fail" being as everyone is entitled to it and it doesn't cost anything, being CHARITY. If there is any money involved, then you're doing it wrong. I don't care to argue further about your communist ideas, because you are quite capable of disproving them yourself, but choose not to, so it is basically a waste of my effort dealing with a dead set communist ideologue. Know this, when the economy collapses, which it will shortly, it is your fault, and none of us will help you. Gun control welfare cities like NY and chicago will burn to the ground or become total police states, which NY already is. The entire market is rigged to fail, and I've heard several analysts predict collapse by next year, which of course I take with a grain of salt. However, I still plan for the worst, while hoping for the best.

            • sweatshopking
            • 7 years ago

            lol. did you ACTUALLY just mention friedman??? oh man, you make this too easy. [url<]http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2006/nov/16/post650[/url<] he's not important in the long run. unless your counting the amount of people killed and screwed over for money. link to analysts? oh right, you don't provide links, except to quotes from random dudes. you call me a commie again, and again, and you don't ever actually debate. it's easy to tell if charity care fails or not. Are people who need treatment getting it? Yes, or No. the answer is No, that means it's not sufficient. quit being silly. you can pretend i'm sooooo stupid, but you again and again fail to prove me wrong. if you don't do it, how many tr regulars are going to join the legions of stalin? too many conservative talking points, and not enough facts. it's like watching fox news, only it's SLIGHTLY more crazy. FACTS. l33t. FACTS. you also failed to rebut my questions about God. if you could answer them in point form, so i understand clearly what you're saying, i'd appreciate it.

            • l33t-g4m3r
            • 7 years ago

            I’m surprised you even know who Friedman is, but then again not really. This is why I don’t care to argue with you, since you don’t take other viewpoints even remotely serious. It’s communism or nothing for you. I mostly mentioned friedman because of his name status and his stance on the poor, and if you want to knock his bad points we even have a mordern equivalent in Paul Ryan.

            First off, the founders trump everybody else. Read Common Sense, Rights of Man by Thomas Paine, the essential federalist and anti-federalist papers, and Jefferson. You have absolutely no right to comment on our system of government until you do. If you don’t do this, your comments are completely worthless. Once you understand the basics, then you need to read stuff explaining where we are today, including the New Deal and the Federal Reserve. You then summarize this up by reading Ron Paul as he is one of the most credible and understandable guys to break down the current economic collapse and slide into national socialism/fascism, as well as Judge Napolitano for his legal expertise.

            Older books like the Hayek’s Road to Serfdom are wothwile, and you could also read some of Beck’s material if you wanted. I fully understand there are people capitalizing on america’s problems who are two-faced hypocrites, but that doesn’t discount what they do right either.

            Both Moore and Limbaugh are corporate fascist sellouts at the end of the day, but that doesn’t stop either of them from driving discourse. I mostly ignore their hypocrisy and cherry pick agree with what they do right, but just because I do doesn’t mean I’m basing my entire viewpont on them. Talking heads didn’t found this country so their pitfalls are not qualifaction for blanket statements supporting communism, quite the opposite because we are all living under communism whether or not you realize it.

            Alan Greenspan was a fan of both Rand and Friedman, but that didn’t make him a supporter of the free market. A private unaccountable centralized bank with the power to print money is anything but a free market. He read their material much like the Devil reads the Bible, only to gain a competitive advantage.

            Bottom line is this, I’ve read enough to know what’s really going on and I’m done playing these pointless games with semantics. I don’t care and I’m not going to play ball. Take your communism and more to North Korea thank you very much.

            • sweatshopking
            • 7 years ago

            why do the founders trump everybody else. they lived 300 years ago. you think nobody has had a good idea since? if they’re so smart, and had the best ideas, how did the country they founded, drafted the constitution for get so far in the wrong direction? if they had THE BESTEST ideas, wouldn’t they have lasted? also, why is it only american white men that have good ideas?

            I can appreciate the concerns about the Fed. we might be able to have an actual discussion on that. that’s one of many crazy positions you take.

            fail again with the facts. you listed some books from some dead white dudes.. you didn’t provide any facts. seriously, is it that confusing? you can say “read this book”, and i can say “read this book”, but they’re all opinions. even the books of the founders, ron paul, it’s all opinion. you act like you think i’m not educated, because i don’t agree with you, but i’m well read. I just don’t arrive at the same conclusion. that’s the thing about life, it’s not as black and white as you believe.

            FACTS. Show some FACTS.

            We really should tone down the R&P, move it to the right forum, or stop altogether, as it’s becoming more regular than my boys would like.

            • l33t-g4m3r
            • 7 years ago

            There are no facts with you dude. The only thing you accept as fact are the writings of Marx and Lenin, and I don’t care to debate you on their lies. As for your hurr durr complete nonsense about HOW the country got to this point, simple. The founders are obviously dead because people get old and die, and braindead morons took their place.

            Here’s something to ponder, Franklin said we had a Republic if we could keep it. Have we kept it? No. That’s the problem.

            [quote<]stop[/quote<] Feel free. I'm not debating you, I"m insulting you. Stop saying communism is the answer to everything and we'll get along a lot better. You know what else? I see you now bringing COLOR into your arguments, like race has to do with anything. This is what Democrats do all day long and none of us buy it anymore except the stupidest of the stupid welfare recepients stuck on the government plantation. Drum up some class warfare and woo we get a black communist in the white house. Don't like communism? You're a racist. Bunch of crap dude. Hey guess what? Abraham Lincoln was a Republican, stick that in your pipe and smoke it. Fighting class warfare gets you shot. Lincoln, Luther, and Malcom were shot because they brought people together instead of pitting them off against each other like a good communisst.

            • sweatshopking
            • 7 years ago

            [quote<] Nice Ad hominem. I love people who just skip discussion and get right to the meat and potatoes of their real mindset. [/quote<] [quote<] I'm not debating you, I"m insulting you. [/quote<] And the winner is me! debate has failed you, so by your own opinion, I AM THE WINNER! you can keep claiming i say communism is the solution, when i clearly have said the opposite, it's fine with me, it just makes you look crazier. i've said many times that your position is one mostly attractive to white males. that's not new. i'm sure there are some other groups that might adhere, but they're not a majority. as for name calling: "Don't like guns? you're a socialist", or "don't think the constitution is the bestest thing ever, FOREVER (i think canada probably has a better constitution and i'm not alone! [url<]http://www.globalpost.com/dispatches/globalpost-blogs/commentary/canadas-charter-better-the-us-constitution),[/url<] ? socialist", "think government might have a role to play in governing? MAXIMUM SOCIALIST!!!!!" i never said you were a racist, stop creating straw men. i said you were likely a white male, out of touch with reality, and probably little travel outside your country for any extended time. feel free to tell me where i'm wrong. I'm aware Lincoln was a republican. HE ALSO KILLED AN ASS TON OF VAMPIRES. WHAT'S YOUR POINT? i'm not partisan. not only am i not an american, and therefor have no reason at all to care about democrats vs republicans, I'M ANTI PARTISAN POLITICS. I THINK THEY'RE DEVISIVE, AND CORRUPTING. put that in your pipe and smoke it. from now on, since you've repeatedly failed to post anything of relevance, i will not bother attempting debate with you, in a place it's banned anyway. communist has one S, btw. edit: this has been driving me crazy: [url<]http://www.buzzle.com/articles/communism-vs-fascism.html[/url<] you should figure out what those mean, and start using them correctly.

            • NeelyCam
            • 7 years ago

            This was fun. Too bad it ended already, but I always enjoy a good massacre.

            SSK, you were the clear winner. My favorite part was the one where he asked you to disprove yourself because he couldn’t do it

            • sweatshopking
            • 7 years ago

            • EtherealN
            • 7 years ago

            Gods that guy is amazing. Totally “l33t”, but unfortunately not in the good sense of the term… 😛

            I mean, sure, people think I am extreme too (objectivist), but holy crapola with clowns on the side that was an epic exchange. It’s sort of sad when I end up having to agree with the “chump communist”… 😀

            It’s sort of weird that so many free-market libertarians completely refuse “regulation”. There is more to that word than just “limit free trade”. Making sure companies are not fraudulent in their dealings is a legitimate part of government in a “free” market too – and this applies not only to scammers and mafiosos! A market where scams are allowed is quite simply not free, since actors are then practically unable to make a rational decision in their business dealings. (I’ve even seen people similar to our friend l33t suggest that people who were injured in that shipping accident off of Italy earlier only have themselves to blame since they didn’t check whether the captain of the ship they were going to board was properly qualified – which sort of ends up making it so that only specialists in the seafaring trade are able to make a good call on whether to buy a cruise for their vacation… LOLS!)

            Dammit SSK, you need to stop saying good things and start saying things I disagree with! ♥

            Oh, however, regarding “socialist” – I believe what he does mean is “social democrat”. Not strictly true in the case of Romney, but close enough. And Ryan does support medicare (though under a different funding scheme), so he’s not libertarian. But _SOCIALISM_ is something completely different, which is unfortunately most often completely lost on american libertarians. They should all go live in a socialist country for a while, then a liberal democracy in europe for a bit, and then they just might understand the differences. I say might, because some are just completely alien towards altering any views or opinions. For them it’s all RAWN PAWL KONSTITUUUTION! 🙂

            • mcnasty72@gmail.com
            • 7 years ago

            You’re right on man, but you have to realize this is America. People believe what they are told and never questioned the men with more money than themselves. A few examples, we all know that cops beat minorities at an alarming rate, but it took a video and Newsweek before Americans believed it. President Bush told us about weapons of mass destruction, was the reason for going to war, still waiting for those. In a country that allows millionaires to pay 13% tax rate on 1.2 million dollars, then bail out their companies when they gamble with the nations economy, and on top of all that they still never see a day in a courtroom never mind a jail.

            Given the mindset of people that you’re dealing with, do really think that anyone is going to listen to a common man such as yourself? I agree with everything you say, but American’s won’t believe it until it’s to late.
            I used to wonder why other countries referred to us as “dumb Americans”, I wonder no more.

            • sweatshopking
            • 7 years ago

            i don’t think anyone thinks that current tax rates for the wealthy are fair, nor do i think that the war in iraq was justified. people have issues with his insane rants about facism and “let’s buy all the guns cause the government is the crazy.” the socialism crap is ridiculous and foolish.

      • kamikaziechameleon
      • 7 years ago

      There are so many fundamental flaws with your argument. You have clearly never studied business or economics. FYI, companies controlling media access is not a new or revolutionary thing. As consumers we have more options for media than ever.

      • BobbinThreadbare
      • 7 years ago

      [quote<]HUGE BREAKING NEWS UPDATE: I was right! Onlive will not fail because some unknown corporate entitiy has bought them up and fully refunded them. They are rehiring all their staff plus more. Onlive is not viable, but that does not matter to the fascist control freaks who run our society. Cloud gaming will continue to be funded until it works and all your rights are taken from you. You only have yourselves to blame.[/quote<] Company goes out of business because no one wants their service, and "we" are to blame because some rich guy thinks he can turn it around?

        • l33t-g4m3r
        • 7 years ago

        We are to blame for continuously buying games saturated with DRM. If people would stop buying UBI and EA stuff, not only would they stop with the DRM and DLC, so would cloud gaming.

          • BobbinThreadbare
          • 7 years ago

          No one bought cloud gaming, the company ran out of money.

          What you wanted to happen in fact happened.

            • l33t-g4m3r
            • 7 years ago

            Correct, but they were acquired and are still working towards their goal, even if it is technically impossible with today’s internet and server hardware, tomorrow’s internet may be all fiberoptic and have 100 core server cpu’s. At that point what they’ve been building will replace what we have now. They aren’t trying to make a working product for this generation, only the replacement of everything in the next.

    • Squeazle
    • 7 years ago

    This firing practice may not be as common in the tech community. In jobs that run on grant money and the like though, they are often handed a pink slip every year and only told to come back if there’s funding. With all of the kickstarter money being floated and ambitious but futile efforts being made, I expect we’ll see more of this soon. Although probably on a smaller scale.

    • south side sammy
    • 7 years ago

    “The fact that games are streamed does add some extra latency, though.”

    Kinda like EA’s Origin. Ever try to play Battlefield3 ? lag, lag, lag……..input lag………. can’t play the game.

    • sparkman
    • 7 years ago

    OnLive has never made sense. It’s primary feature of letting you play games without first having to spend time downloading said games, sounds nice in theory, however it is only valuable to you if your internet connection makes it slow for you to download games.

    The trouble is, if your internet connection makes it slow for you to download games, then you will likely also find it slow (laggy) when you [b<]play[/b<] OnLive games. Even moving the mouse won't feel normal. If someday the internet gets upgraded to be fast enough so that you can play OnLive games without annoying lag, then at the same time that super-internet will also allow you to download games so fast that you won't care about OnLive's primary feature anymore (see paragraph #1). The only viable feature that OnLive brings to the table is the ability for copyright holders to change and/or take away the games without you having any ability to stop them, because the game is installed on some OnLive server somewhere instead of your own computer. Desirable to them, yes, but probably not a positive selling point for you. I suspect all the investors in OnLive are either companies who don't understand the internet or companies who desperately want to "solve" everything they dislike about copyright law.

      • mno
      • 7 years ago

      No. Its primary feature is letting you play games without the hardware requirements necessary to actually run those games (e.g. from their $99.99 breakout box or something similar).

      The issue with lag is mostly unrelated to connection speed, but is a consequence of the unfortunate reality that it takes time for packets to reach their destination, which is unrelated to bandwidth. Bandwidth is merely how much data you can send or receive at any given time, and so it is unrelated to latency. Distance plays a huge role in latency, so if you’re trying to connect to a server not nearby, you’ll necessarily incur a latency penalty regardless of how fast your connection is. So basically, unless you happen to live near OnLive’s servers, input lag is going to be a major problem.

        • sparkman
        • 7 years ago

        Regarding connection speed, I know the difference between bandwidth and latency, and you are making my point for me.

        Regarding hardware costs, the price difference between OnLive’s cruddy compressed video box and an actual cheap PC is not huge and is shrinking. If you are right about this being their primary feature, they still suck. A tiny, integrated-GPU sub-econobox PC competes with them quite well.

          • mno
          • 7 years ago

          You’re greatly overestimating the resources needed for OnLive. The real target is not PCs, but cellphones, Ouya, and other low-power devices. Something along the lines of a Raspberry Pi with some fixed function decoding hardware to handle the video stream probably has enough power to run OnLive, which no integrated-GPU sub-econobox PC could ever hope to compete with for years. The OnLive micro gaming console (which almost assuredly costs them far less than $99.99 to make, considering how often they give them away) is a perfect example of how PCs are not at all the important targets.

          Connection speed IS bandwidth, and latency won’t change significantly because information can’t go faster than the speed of light, so the existence of low-latency cloud gaming hinges on whether OnLive is able to deploy servers all over the place, enabling low latency connections.

            • rrr
            • 7 years ago

            It’s not just about the speed of light. Think about all those routers, which packets must go through. All these routers need to process the packets, adding more latency.

            For example, traceroute/tracert will tell you, how many hops were made and how many routers had to process those packets.

        • shaurz
        • 7 years ago

        If that’s the case then the technology will be obsolete in a few years, where mobile GPUs will be so fast and cheap that even your phone will be able to play high-end PC games. Given that game graphics have stagnated and continue to stagnate, just like thin clients, smart clients win the day again.

    • lilbuddhaman
    • 7 years ago

    So much for Ouya support, eh ?

    oh and this:

    [url<]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt-iVFxgFWk&feature=player_detailpage#t=3037s[/url<]

    • superjawes
    • 7 years ago

    So with the update…it unfortunately sounds like everyone was [i<]technically[/i<] laid off with this alternative to bankruptcy, and that "subset of employees" will be interviewing for their own jobs... Not that my reading is correct, but that sounds like translation from coorporate to common

      • SonicSilicon
      • 7 years ago

      $99 OnLive micro console with controller.
      $99 OUYA console with controller.
      An announced partnership between the two followed by a full layoff of OnLive three weeks later.

      I’m fairly certain these facts are connected in a strategic way. A possible merger? Perhaps just a restructuring to make the partnership run more smoothly?

        • superjawes
        • 7 years ago

        Looks like they were actually facing bankruptcy, though, and a merger/restructuring is far less volatile than letting “entire staff laid off” hit the press.

    • moresmarterthanspock
    • 7 years ago

    This is a step in the right direction. Cloud computing is a threat to private ownership. I like owning my own software, with packaging, from the store, and I feel it belongs to me, and is not under the jurisdiction or control of some company who owns a cloud service.

      • indeego
      • 7 years ago

      The majority of [gaming] software isn’t “owned” by you but licensed to you.

        • dpaus
        • 7 years ago

        …for my own private use in my own private corner of my Mom’s non-Internet-equiped basement.

        • moresmarterthanspock
        • 7 years ago

        That’s another step in a certain direction we need to hopefully take. Pass a private ownership law when it comes to software to eliminate the licenses and promote ownership. Copyrights would still apply. When you buy a car, you own it, even though it may contain parts with certain copyrights and patents. I am one person who does not want to live in a socialist society where people don’t own anything. I’m getting pretty pissed and sick and tired of the liberal mentality on here. The admins can block me if they want, but this is going too far. I am against a New World Order, because I value my privacy and my worth as a human being. I think we need a good old-fashioned witch-hunt. Anybody here up on the ranks in the Masonic Order? Were coming for you!

          • Deanjo
          • 7 years ago

          [quote<]When you buy a car, you own it, even though it may contain parts with certain copyrights and patents.[/quote<] But you still need a license to use it (legally anyways).

            • BobbinThreadbare
            • 7 years ago

            I don’t think that’s true.

            You need a license that says you’re capable of operating a vehicle, and a you need to register a vehicle to drive it on public roads. However, if you only wanted to operate your vehicle on private property, I don’t think you need either one.

            • MadManOriginal
            • 7 years ago

            The laws vary by state actually, but I think he was just making a play on the word license.

          • MadManOriginal
          • 7 years ago

          First four sentences sounded like a fair enough opinion, then you went tinfoil-hat nutso. I felt like I was reading the script to an M Night Shamalan plot-twister.

            • superjawes
            • 7 years ago

            Aww….I should have responded with my “you’re not l33t-g4m3r!” line from earlier…

          • superjawes
          • 7 years ago

          Cars aren’t copyrighted, nor are the physical parts inside. You might have the brand trademarked, which means you can’t violate that by selling a “Furd” or “Toyoto” knockoff.

          Now I don’t want to get too much R&P (although your post might qualify for that forum), but the idea that you “don’t own anything” is much more capitalist than socialist, as the original publisher or creater continues to own the property, not the public or government. The state of things as they are now is very “private ownership” as the company owns the game and you pay to play it.

          This on it’s own is not evil, either, but rather a protection of properties that have special traits that physical goods do not, which is why there is copyright law to begin with. It is an attempt to protect the profitability of such property.

          I will add that the licensing issue, IMO, is a mess, and we should try to pass a comprehensive reform to protect the rights of the end user (as well as the copyright holder), but it’s not going to be as simple as eliminating licenses. The only way that would work would be if there was a phsycial component to every license sold, from which we are only accelerating away.

            • BIF
            • 7 years ago

            Cars have software now. Surely you don’t “own” that, you license it! Don’t you remember ticking the checkbox saying that you read the EULA and you understand that you’re only allowe to make a single backup copy? I’m sure you had to do that before you first drove it off the lot… lol!

          • deathBOB
          • 7 years ago

          I heard Obama is going to make us turn in our game discs for those newfangled freemium games…

          • DrD
          • 7 years ago

          [quote<]I am one person who does not want to live in a socialist society where people don't own anything[/quote<] It is corporate practice that is driving this. Business wants ongoing streams of revenue hence all the emphasis on subscription services for almost everything. As it happens , the EU recently ruled that any software can be sold second hand on to anyone else and the liscense goes with it. You might want to read about this unfortunate Brit who got done by FACT.Link is from Arstechnica. [url<]http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/08/private-justice-how-hollywood-money-put-a-brit-behind-bars/[/url<] ps. You guys have been amusing/enlightening/provoking me with your posts for years now.

        • l33t-g4m3r
        • 7 years ago

        Courts have ruled you OWN your license, so your semantics are pointless.

          • superjawes
          • 7 years ago

          A license =/= copy, or the software. It is merely permission to use. I don’t believe I have seen such a ruling in a US court, so trying to claim ownership is pointless here. On top of that, even if you “own” a license, you are still bound by an agreement, which limits your capacity for ownership.

          A US court could rule and give great power to the end user, but as I said before, it’s still a mess and needs major work to get things into a “right” condition.

            • l33t-g4m3r
            • 7 years ago

            First Sale doctrine. We have the same rights, as all true rights are universal. License “agreements” only limit you in the sense of not making copies and selling them on the street corner. It doesn’t say they can make you stand on one foot, pat your head, rub your stomach, touch your nose with your tongue, and cross your eyes all at the same time. That logic is bat-guano insane, and so is anyone who goes along with it.

            • superjawes
            • 7 years ago

            “all true rights are universal.” That can be a big problem when not all people agree on what is a “right.” In fact, that is why such matters are handled in court, because two parties argue different sets of rights.

            And like I said before, only the EU determined that licenses can be sold. Since that matter has [i<]not[/i<] been decided in the US (and not at the Supreme Court level), you cannot expect or rely on legal protection for such a stance. I wish the best for you, I really do, but I would never assume that a copyright holder is going to give me all the rights that [b<][i<]I[/i<][/b<] think I deserve. EDIT: again, this is why I think we need to look at legislative reform of copyright law. Since most of these rights and limits are set out in older legislation and legal precedent, I don't think we really have the defined rights and restrictions we need.

            • l33t-g4m3r
            • 7 years ago

            Americans rights come from nature and God, not government, and we forcibly take our rights by rebelling against corrupt systems. Rights are universal truths that come directly from God, not man, and that is the philosophy of our founders. I don’t need a corrupt court system to tell me what my rights are, when I already know what they are, and will take them by force if necessary.

            [url<]http://www.theblaze.com/stories/our-rights-come-from-nature-and-god-not-government-paul-ryan-channels-philosopher-john-locke-in-announcement-speech/[/url<]

            • superjawes
            • 7 years ago

            “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,”

            • sweatshopking
            • 7 years ago

            WHAT?!?!
            no context whatsoever? God says “YOU CAN SELL CRYSIS”??? wow. God says “TAKE THE RIGHT TO SELL CRYSIS BY FORCE!!!”? you actually think your right to sell crysis is worth violence? that’s f’d up. makes religious people (which i am) look crazy (which i’m not).

            1. were the founding fathers manifestations of god? did they talk? i’ve never seen any of them claim to be divine. if not, then wtf do they have to do with anything. maybe they’re totally wrong and god’s a marxist?
            2. what religion advocates the use of violence for videogames?
            3. isn’t god about peace and love? wtf is this “force” stuff? i don’t remember seeing that in any scripture i’ve read, whether christian, muslim, hindi, buddhist, baha’i, etc. the only cases where it’s even ALLOWED AT ALL is to protect the faith. i don’t think God is in the video game business. if he was, HE SURE AS HELL WOULDN’T BE EA.

            • EtherealN
            • 7 years ago

            “isn’t god about peace and love?”

            Read the old testament. And Paul. (Not Ron Paul, the biblical Paul.)

            • sweatshopking
            • 7 years ago

            i have. but i think religion changes over time. i don’t take that stuff as literal, so i’m cool with it.

            • Namarrgon
            • 7 years ago

            Christ (and I use the term ironically).

            I am so glad I don’t live in America near people like you :-/

            • EtherealN
            • 7 years ago

            So the rights come from god?

            Okey, prove god exists.
            What, you can’t? So then you can’t prove the rights exist?

            Ahem… You seriously need a better foundation for your idea of the origin of individual rights. Talking about rights coming from God is especially troublesome and I’d invite you to read the bible. I want nothing to do with the rights stipulated by God. I do NOT have the right kill my kids because they talk back. I do NOT have the right to murder homosexuals. I do NOT have the right to own people as slaves.

            This whole paleolibertarian bull needs to go. You do NOT base your politics and ethics on God, because if you did, any civilized society would have put you in prison a LONG time ago.

            • BIF
            • 7 years ago

            First Sales Doctrine

            Sounds like something a Ferengi would say!

        • ronch
        • 7 years ago

        So if they say that a particular title [u<]sold[/u<] a certain number of copies, wouldn't it mean those buyers now own their copy of the game? Or should they say the game has rented out a certain number of copies? Because the way I understand it, selling something means you give the item to the customer, period. It's his/hers. If you buy a car, you can do whatever you want with it except exceed the speed limit or hit somebody with it. Same goes for everything else. If I buy a burger, it's mine, and not just lent to me, right? Software purchasing policies are the craziest ever. So the OS I'm using now is just lent to me... Uh huh. I know that's [u<]their[/u<] policy, but it sure is lame as he**.

      • vaultboy101
      • 7 years ago

      I could not agree more with you sir. Steve Wozniak also agrees with us.

      Cloud Computing = total control and oppression by Govts and Big Corporations.

      In fact I always thought that cloud computing would be perfect for China and Iran who are dictatorships and like to know citizens movements and mine their data.

      Local computing = Freedom to choose hardware and/ or software

      • moog
      • 7 years ago

      Careful, Google has impregnated an army of fanboys here.

    • AlexGP
    • 7 years ago

    As much as I hate seeing people loosing their job in this day and economic situation (or any economic situation), OnLive wasn`t made for this decade. Maybe in the future, when Internet would be even more omni-present at decent speeds, with minimal cut-offs.

      • BobbinThreadbare
      • 7 years ago

      Speed isn’t the big problem, latency is. Since the speed of light isn’t going to get any faster, I don’t see any easy solutions to this problem.

        • AlexGP
        • 7 years ago

        Exactly. Mobile networks suffer the most from high latency, killing any mobile, onLive-like gaming.

        • ShadowTiger
        • 7 years ago

        People always blame the speed of light but really the core technology can still have improvements. Its not like they are shining a laser straight at the destination, there are lots of things going on in those cables. If you can find clever ways to get things from point A to point B more directly, then that will also help things as well. I estimate that we are going 1/2 the maximum potential speed on average, thats plenty of room to grow, though in networking the last half is much harder than the first half.

          • ChronoReverse
          • 7 years ago

          People aren’t so much blaming the speed of light but rather just pointing out that in the theoretical case where the delays introduced by the core technologies is completely mitigated to zero, just the speed of light alone means up to 70ms lag time. Which in itself is already a non-trivial delay (4 frames).

          Considering inherent delays in the best equipment (1 frame for the keyboard, 1 frame for double buffering and another frame for the LCD) that’s a 130% increase in lag right there!

          And clearly there will be some penalty for the streaming process. Even if we get encoding and decoding in hardware down to a single stage, that’s still 2 more frames of delay!

          Keep in mind that three frames is actually a usable chunk of discrimination. For instance, the “roll canceling” technique in Capcom vs SNK 2 has only 3 frames in which you can do it.

        • mno
        • 7 years ago

        The solution is servers everywhere, which probably won’t be practical for a long time. What would be nice would be some way to run your own server so you could play games from a little teeny box in the living room while a server in another room does the heavy lifting.

          • A_Pickle
          • 7 years ago

          Or, hey, call me crazy, but… maybe building a PC and playing the games there? I’M JUST CRAZY

        • A_Pickle
        • 7 years ago

        I don’t think this problem is caused by the speed of light, which, for terrestrial-to-terrestrial networks is plenty fast enough. It’s probably caused by U.S. internet infrastructure, which is shitty as shit.

      • Meadows
      • 7 years ago

      And it’s even worse when people [u<]lose[/u<] their jobs.

        • sweatshopking
        • 7 years ago

        we really should get married.

          • MadManOriginal
          • 7 years ago

          Don’t go breaking my heart :*(

            • sweatshopking
            • 7 years ago

            don’t worry. i’d never marry him. he’s british.

            • Meadows
            • 7 years ago

            And just what do you mean by that?

            • MadManOriginal
            • 7 years ago

            Bad teeth turn him off. As do stereotypes.

            • sweatshopking
            • 7 years ago

            mostly i was just trying to confirm his britishness.

            😛

            • Meadows
            • 7 years ago

            No idea what you’re wagging your chin about, I have excellent tee[b<]f[/b<].

          • NeelyCam
          • 7 years ago

          Polygamy’s legal in Canada, or wherever Meadows is hailing from (Belgium?)?

            • sweatshopking
            • 7 years ago

            it is (pretty much) legal in Canada.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This