Why is Sony hiding what it paid for Onlive?

Sony Pictures just had a recent brush with transparency, but given the amount of data claimed to have been spilled it seems the transparency may have extended to the wider firm. Could some of this disclosed data have helped drive the purchase of Onlive? Did Sony pay more than a couple billion at the height of the asking price? OL had about 1000 cloud gaming patents, Sony is said to have bought 140 of them.

Toward the end the OL experience had become flawless from what I could tell. As far as I know it was the only pixel streamer tech out there and PS was the most aggressive approach. On launch night OL had EAs library on its servers. That fell through at the very last moment and I’v always suspected this was due to manipulation by Sony. So a Sony purchase is vindicating. It may be that Sony couldn’t get its PS Now service to work well enough to face Nvidia’s upcoming service, presuming Nvidia is also a licensee- where its not obvious Sony was. If there was bad blood OL may have had different terms for Sony. That Sony only puts old stuff on the PS Now service up to now is telling. I’ve thought Gaikai from inception to purchase was a bluff and stock propping marketing BS. OL comes from the same guy that’s behind PCell, Mova, Quicktime (not sole author,) web tv.

This is where we need Slur to see how much was paid. This stuff on PCell could drive AR which I think has been the OL founder’s goal. This battle over OL involed quite a bit if smearing and lying by Sony’s sponsor rags in particular. OL was a great company that suffered a collusive content strike by multinationals and deserves redress. I also suspect the death of Jobs nixed OL on the Apple store. I do suspect that the current gen of consoles had a cycle aborted because of OL and the uncertainty its tech presented. It really did mean one could realistically do an ad free service that could offer bundled access to all content and services. It was a conceptual wake up call. OL stayed pretty much ad free. OL could run on almost any client, it was way beyond rea-ltime remote desktop.

Here is an example of the kind of BS OnLive faced and the it seams the smear campaign continues:

Here is Endgadget being bought and paid for:

“OnLive’s debt was $30-40 million, insolvency group reveals
Engadget-Mar 21, 2015
It’s now been revealed that OnLive’s debt was somewhere between $30 million and $40 million before last week’s collapse and subsequent”…

When you click the link you see that the it links to an article from 2012 even though its listed as a 2015 article and then in chat rooms where you find people upset about the way Sony is treating customers of the service you have paid shills citing the firm as bankrupt and Sony acting as a good Samaritan claiming the firm was recently bankrupt.