The people in this thread crack me up. GFN should have worked with the people who make the content their platform needs to survive before launching.
Attempting to look at a situation from all sides and discuss the dev's viewpoint is not automatically "defending" them. I see this a lot here. Maybe some people ARE defending but it appears to me that most are simply trying to look at it from all sides to figure out what's going on with more nuance than just "greedy devs". But in these kinds of threads if you don't immediately pick up the torch and pitchfork and say "Fuck <whatever>!" you're lumped in with the enemy.
Attempting to look at a situation from all sides and discuss the dev's viewpoint is not automatically "defending" them. I see this a lot here. Maybe some people ARE defending but it appears to me that most are simply trying to look at it from all sides to figure out what's going on with more nuance than just "greedy devs". But in these kinds of threads if you don't immediately pick up the torch and pitchfork and say "Fuck <whatever>!" you're lumped in with the enemy.
Yeah nah, this is dumb. Or I guess every piece of hardware made needs to get the okay from thousands of publishers from here on out.The people in this thread crack me up. GFN should have worked with the people who make the content their platform needs to survive before launching.
For the past… 16 years or so, buying digital games mostly felt like you owned them - except for some (generally) minor issues with DRM, which had seen a lot of pushback from users.I mean, why is this surprising
these are businesses. Some are publicly traded. If you were running these publishers would you not fight this? I don't understand why gamers are so stunned about the realities of capitalism, not that I don't wish my games were on GFN
Yeah nah, this is dumb. Or I guess every piece of hardware made needs to get the okay from thousands of publishers from here on out.
Because local indie dev Raphael van Lierop, the game director and writer of indie hit The Long Dark, pulled his game too. You gonna call him greedy to?
No one is disputing that money isn't involved here, what I am saying is that the lazy "greedy devs" rhetoric is probably not accurate and missing crucial context, as noted above in a quote that Raphael made. I'm saying it's not that simple.
Greed in what sense?But the devs viewpoint in this is pretty much greed here, no matter how you spin it.
The subscription fee is already going up. The current $4.99 is an introductory offer.
Almost like they are for profit companies beholden to shareholders...But the devs viewpoint in this is pretty much greed here, no matter how you spin it. It's not like Nvidia tries to cheat them out of sold copies.
It would be okay if any of the devs or pubs said they're trying to work things out but the silence is pretty telling.
this has always been the reality of digital storefronts thoughFor the past… 16 years or so, buying digital games mostly felt like you owned them - except for some (generally) minor issues with DRM, which had seen a lot of pushback from users.
Most people didn't think they were buying a restricted license that prevented you from playing the game wherever/however you want.
Of course people are surprised by this. It's the first time publishers/developers have stepped in and said "no, you don't own this copy of the game that you bought, we own it, and get to dictate how/where you play it."
It's remote hardware rental that runs on standard PC hardware with a Windows OS. What is there for devs/pubs to get pissy about other than it being an affordable solution for high end hardware? You would probably want to contact Apple first for that tablet example because Apple wants to sell you tablets. What market is being taken away from the games here when they get no cut of PC hardware regardless, and you buy the games you would use on it through normal channels?This argument makes no sense. GFN isn't hardware, it's a streaming solution for games.
If I'm building a tablet that works with iOS apps, I probably should contact Apple first. I certainly shouldn't get pissy when they ask me to stop.
I think the answer to that is to stop buying games from publishers that disagree with you, if it is an important enough issue for you.As I said before, Nvidia definitely fucked up in not clarifying this with the publishers/dev before launching the service. I'm fine with them being sure that they didn't need their approval, but then they shouldn't comply with the requests to take the games down either. You can't have it both ways. Ultimately it is Nvidia's fault that this service is going down as hard as it does now.
But I also don't think that the publishers/devs should see a single dime from me or Nvidia to stream the games I already bought. I still don't see a single reason why they should deserve anything more than me paying for the game.
Yeah but no one is taking away anything, now are they? You can still stream all these games you own from your home computer to any device on the planet. Nothing has changed.For the past… 16 years or so, buying digital games mostly felt like you owned them - except for some (generally) minor issues with DRM, which had seen a lot of pushback from users.
Most people didn't think they were buying a restricted license that prevented you from playing the game wherever/however you want.
Of course people are surprised by this. It's the first time publishers/developers have stepped in and said "no, you don't own this copy of the game that you bought, we own it, and get to dictate how/where you play it."
We're not talking about two different versions here though, so the comparison doesn't make any sense. You might as well be okay with paying twice for playing your PS4 game via Remote Play.Greed in what sense?
Let's say I buy a copy of a game on PS4. I do not automatically get a license to a free copy of that game for Xbox One even though I bought the game. Maybe I should, but I don't, and I don't really hear anyone complain about the fact that they don't.
The last PC game I played with any regularity was the original Half-Life, so I am way out of the loop on this stuff and I haven't read an EULA in recent memory, but I assume that buying these games on PC comes with an EULA that specifies the licensing terms for the game a user purchased. If GFN violates those terms or puts users in a position where they've violated those terms, I don't understand being angry with publishers for pulling their titles. It sucks for the end user, but I assume it aligns with the terms they agreed to when they purchased their game.
Agreed, which is what I'm doing.I think the answer to that is to stop buying games from publishers that disagree with you, if it is an important enough issue for you.
Yes, but there hasn't been any real consequences to it until now.this has always been the reality of digital storefronts though
people have been harping this reality since valve forced steam through half life 2
It's remote hardware rental that runs on standard PC hardware with a Windows OS. What is there for devs/pubs to get pissy about other than it being an affordable solution for high end hardware? You would probably want to contact Apple first for that tablet example because Apple wants to sell you tablets. What market is being taken away from the games here when they get no cut of PC hardware regardless, and you buy the games you would use on it through normal channels?
Greed in what sense?
Let's say I buy a copy of a game on PS4. I do not automatically get a license to a free copy of that game for Xbox One even though I bought the game. Maybe I should, but I don't, and I don't really hear anyone complain about the fact that they don't.
The last PC game I played with any regularity was the original Half-Life, so I am way out of the loop on this stuff and I haven't read an EULA in recent memory, but I assume that buying these games on PC comes with an EULA that specifies the licensing terms for the game a user purchased. If GFN violates those terms or puts users in a position where they've violated those terms, I don't understand being angry with publishers for pulling their titles. It sucks for the end user, but I assume it aligns with the terms they agreed to when they purchased their game.
Perfectly reasonable, as is making your opinion known. But I don't think publishers are out of order for deciding this stuff for themselves.
Sure, I could actually make some sense out of that. Even if one of the PC storefronts decided to universally opt out, that would make a modicum of sense. But in this case? It's just self-destructive behaviour just for the sake of it.So by that rationale, if Microsoft wanted money for that instance of windows you'd be okay with it?
If I actually saw streaming alternatives for these games, that too, would make sense -- but Stadia is coming up crickets.It doesn't matter that you're renting a PC, or that the computer exists. You're streaming a game, which does take money away from the pubs/devs as it limits their ability to license their content to actual streaming solutions like PSNow, Stadia, etc. They're absolutely right to pull their content.
I watched it. I still don't see anything there that wouldn't be considered "greed" by people that have been denied playing games they have paid for.
Hoeg Law said:Hinterland could be developing a mobile version of the game with a different UI and optimizations and don't like how the game performs on environment X Y or Z and that might lose them good will with the consumer because the game doesn't play as good as they hoped and as the developer they feel like you should have to play it in the best manner possible that they present the game.
You see this in movies, where directors want the movies to be played only using film stock or in this specific aspect ratio. Not displayed with certain trailers. There's always this artistic consideration that you are the artist and you get to make the decision of how someone enjoys your art.
So by that rationale, if Microsoft wanted money for that instance of windows you'd be okay with it? Just trying to understand where the line is.
Greed in what sense?
Let's say I buy a copy of a game on PS4. I do not automatically get a license to a free copy of that game for Xbox One even though I bought the game. Maybe I should, but I don't, and I don't really hear anyone complain about the fact that they don't.
Almost like they are for profit companies beholden to shareholders...
Sure, I could actually make some sense out of that. Even if one of the PC storefronts decided to universally opt out, that would make a modicum of sense. But in this case? It's just self-destructive behaviour just for the sake of it.
and notably Play Anywhere is opt in for publishers, and they reach an agreement with Microsoft in order to support it.This is the crux here, it is exactly not like buying a console game and expecting another version. This is a completely new situation and the pubs are trying to force the situation into a favorable outcome for them instead of doing what would be the best for their consumers.
And even then, there are already movements like Play Anywhere that try to end the notion you can buy a game only for one platform at once.
I would be more for this if there was some booming streaming alternative on PC, but I'm not seeing much right now with the games that are being pulled. It also doesn't seem to make much sense to me to alienate people wanting to buy your content to maintain some nebulous streaming value, it's really cutting off the nose to spite the face.It's really not if you think about how content is licensed for streaming. Netflix doesn't pay per movie, they pay a company like Warner Bros for an entire catalogue. That catalogue becomes less valuable when someone allows you to remote into a computer somewhere to watch a dvd of Harry Potter since it's no longer a driver for you to subscribe to Netflix.
This is the exact same thing. For every person streaming Call of Duty, Activision loses a bit of money on their streaming licenses to companies that would want it since it's no longer a driver to subscribe.
Yeah, I'm sure it's about "artistic control".dude even says that the Hinterlands thing is much different than Acti-Blizz, and that it probably is about artistic control.
But the devs viewpoint in this is pretty much greed here, no matter how you spin it.
They give you a free streaming copy if you buy the Blu-ray which you can access from any device. How is that devaluating their deal with Netflix? If you buy the movie you don't have a need to pay for Netflix to stream it. So they're not losing anything in the process. And the exact same thing is happening here. If I buy a game, I'm not going to pay again just to stream it. I do either one or the other, not both.It's really not if you think about how content is licensed for streaming. Netflix doesn't pay per movie, they pay a company like Warner Bros for an entire catalogue. That catalogue becomes less valuable when someone allows you to remote into a computer somewhere to watch a dvd of Harry Potter since it's no longer a driver for you to subscribe to Netflix.
This is the exact same thing. For every person streaming Call of Duty, Activision loses a bit of money on their streaming licenses to companies that would want it since it's no longer a driver to subscribe.
Yeah, I'm sure it's about "artistic control".
That must be why they're also opposed to GOG's user-centric 30-day refund policy.
And if the issue was that they're developing a mobile version and feel that this competes with it… well that's blocking people from playing a game they bought because they want to sell them a second copy.
Do you really think that a developer who is opposed to giving customers refunds is removing the game from GFN for reasons other than money?It can't be artistic control because they are opposed to an unrelated refund policy on a platform not related to this conversation???
Nvidia went for the "ask for forgiveness rather than permission" approach and its blowing up in their faces (as it should).
Do you really think that a developer who is opposed to giving customers refunds is removing the game from GFN for reasons other than money?
I honestly think they are. They're trying to restrict what the PC is as a platform, because they think they can make extra money from it. I buy games for the PC because I like it that they aren't tied to a specific hardware, that I can still play them years later even though the hardware has evolved, that the community can jump in and fix stuff on their own, that I can install my games on a centralized server in my basement and stream the games to various devices in the house etc. etc.Perfectly reasonable, as is making your opinion known. But I don't think publishers are out of order for deciding this stuff for themselves.
I did this in the other thread, but this take is absolutely wrong.There has not been a single lawsuit filed. If there were, Nvidia would had a very strong case.
Nvidia isn't pulling for legal reasons. These pills are for business reasons (aka keeping the devs happy).
Another vendor could do the same and simply ignore such requests if it wanted.
MS is already being paid for the license to use Windows.So by that rationale, if Microsoft wanted money for that instance of windows you'd be okay with it? Just trying to understand where the line is.
In what way does GFN limit the devs' ability to license their content to actual streaming solutions?It doesn't matter that you're renting a PC, or that the computer exists. You're streaming a game, which does take money away from the pubs/devs as it limits their ability to license their content to actual streaming solutions like PSNow, Stadia, etc. They're absolutely right to pull their content.
GOG games are DRM-free. That means there's zero protection against piracy.They aren't opposed to a refund policy, they are opposed to a month long window that provides refunds on games no matter if the game was played through and completed or played for 15 minutes and thats it.
If that doesn't scream "abuse this policy" I don't know what does. Is it a great policy for consumers? Yep. For devs? No idea, but I know my mind immediately says people will abuse this shit and I won't get my money.
It's already on GFN so they can't make exclusivity deals.In what way does GFN limit the devs' ability to license their content to actual streaming solutions?
Don't these developers realize that GeForce Now can increase sales to people that don't own a gaming PC?
Not true. This is not a public performance because I, as the end user, am using the license I purchased.I did this in the other thread, but this take is absolutely wrong.
What Nvidia is doing constitutes a public performance. They need permission from the rightsholder for what they are doing. They don't have it.
No, the closest comparison I can think of (which was even mention in the Polygon article) was Aereo. Aereo basically 'leased' a DVR setup and would let you record stuff from your own private arial to your own hard drive. So, you were exercising a fair use right you absolutely had with your own hardware. However, the courts found what Aereo were doing constituted a public performance and they weren't able to claim protection under an exemption for cable companies.If my understanding if how GeForce works is correct it seems that the biggest issue is that Nvidia is essentially pirating the games.
Nvidia caches games on their server, you link your Steam account, cached games that you own are activated on a VM for you to stream. That's the issue, Nvidia caching these games without permission.
I assume that if GeForce required you to log into an actual installation of Steam on a VM and actually download each and every game you wanted to play to that VM there wouldn't be an issue here.
Nvidia obviously failed to communicate something with publishers between the beta and the final release.