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.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
2K Games titles removed from GeForce NOW
- Thread starter ghostcrew
- Start date
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.
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.
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."
Better play Darksiders Genesis more before THQ Nordic pulls out as well...I wont run on my PC...
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.
Don't think this question is going to get the answers you think....
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.
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.
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.
I mean from whatever it would've gone up to after the introductory period ended.
Almost like they are for profit companies beholden to shareholders...
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?
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.
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.
Publishers are allowed to not want their games on Geforce Now platform for one reason or another, it's not always about end user.
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.
And the EULA is between the publisher and the end user, not between the publisher and Nvidia. They're not pulling the game from Steam either because I could install the game on a remote server of my own even though it's against their EULA. They may ban me from the game for doing that, that's absolutely in their right.
Yes, but there hasn't been any real consequences to it until now.
It's always felt like one of those things that were "technically" true about downloads, but not a real issue before.
That's why this is surprising to people - because something that has been a non-issue for ~15 years suddenly is.
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.
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.
you example does not apply at all.
if you want to apply it to consoles it would be like buying a game for your PS4 and when you want to play it on another PS4 you have to ask the publisher.
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.
If I actually saw streaming alternatives for these games, that too, would make sense -- but Stadia is coming up crickets.
Paraphrasing here:
Hoeg Law said:
dude even says that the Hinterlands thing is much different than Acti-Blizz, and that it probably is about artistic control.
You would hope that these streaming services pay for their licenses.
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/13925200/Screen_Shot_2012-01-10_at_3.11.21_AM.1419965881.png)
Is OnLive Desktop running Windows illegally?
OnLive's virtual Windows 7 client may not be properly licensed, according to Microsoft — and it's an issue the company says needs to be resolved.
www.theverge.com
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.
And how does this acquit them?
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.
and notably Play Anywhere is opt in for publishers, and they reach an agreement with Microsoft in order to support it.
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.
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.
I think most everyone agrees that money is at the root of this issue, yes. Businesses exist to make money and they always want to make more given the tools at their disposal (i.e. "greed"). I view this as a fact of reality, and not a scathing indictment that should end any debate. But that's not where the discussion stops for some of us. We want to talk about all the potential developer motivations (just a cut?, their own service?, exclusivity deals?), the way Nvidia completely failed in predicting this outcome, and possible legal issues and how it relates to EULAs. There are a lot of issues at play here, and discussing these things while taking the devs point of view into account is not "spinning" the narrative or making us defenders of the developers. Knowing your enemy and understanding their motivations can be very beneficial in not only overcoming them, but in predicting their future behavior.
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.
Streaming subscriptions are completely fine and it makes a lot of sense for people who don't care about "owning" the content permanently, but it doesn't make any sense to try to cash in twice.
It can't be artistic control because they are opposed to an unrelated refund policy on a platform not related to this conversation???
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?
That being on GFN somehow hurts the artistic integrity of the game to the point that they feel the need to prevent paying customers from playing it there?
Don't these developers realize that GeForce Now can increase sales to people that don't own a gaming PC?
I don't see a scenario where developers deserve a cut. I know that's all they care about, but I don't see it. The customer is using the games they already paid for.
There's the argument that the license may pertain to your particular PC, but then that doesn't explain how Family Sharing is okay.
I don't see a scenario where developers deserve a cut. I know that's all they care about, but I don't see it. The customer is using the games they already paid for.
There's the argument that the license may pertain to your particular PC, but then that doesn't explain how Family Sharing is okay.
Yep seems pretty obvious at this point.
If they had a legal right I would imagine by now Nvidia would have refused to remove them to stop the bleeding. It's either that or the damage to the relationships for exercising that option would be too damaging long term to consider so they are instead taking the games off the service. Either way the result is the same.
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.
I don't even care about gaming by streaming and I'll still mark an asterisk near any publisher or slimy indie developer asking for their games to be "removed from this service", because it's greedy bullshit.
I guess I should blame Google (and to a lesser extent few others) who managed to sell everyone the idea that streaming is a "platform" rather than a functionality.
I already bought your fucking game, i need a valid license to make use of it on this, and you are still asking me to pay for it again just to "rent" it on a virtual PC?
Fuck off, thieves.
I guess I should blame Google (and to a lesser extent few others) who managed to sell everyone the idea that streaming is a "platform" rather than a functionality.
I already bought your fucking game, i need a valid license to make use of it on this, and you are still asking me to pay for it again just to "rent" it on a virtual PC?
Fuck off, thieves.
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.
What they're pulling here is as bad as restricting the amount of installations I am allowed to do or any other draconian DRM practises.
As I said before, I get that Nvidia fucked up badly here, but I don't think that makes it in any way right what the publishers/devs are doing.
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.
MS is already being paid for the license to use Windows.
In what way does GFN limit the devs' ability to license their content to actual streaming solutions?
GOG games are DRM-free. That means there's zero protection against piracy.
If someone was going to buy a game, play it to completion, and claim a refund, they could just download it for free elsewhere without the extra steps.
Even if you don't think their opinion on this is relevant to the topic at hand, can we at least not pretend that they're pulling the game from GFN for any reason other than money?
They might come up with some other excuse, but the real reason is money. They see GFN as devaluing their potential to license the game to other companies running subscription services, or sell you the game again via ports to other platforms.
It's already on GFN so they can't make exclusivity deals.
Can't see that market being anywhere as big as the upsell market and/or storefront licensing deals.
Not true. This is not a public performance because I, as the end user, am using the license I purchased.
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 you ignore the TV related aspects of the case, it's clear that what Nvidia is doing is also a public performance. You as a user might have the right to the copyrighted work, but you don't have the right to license Nvidia to perform it for you.
I love not being allowed to play my privately purchased games on a remote PC, just keep shovelling that shit into my mouth please mr publisher.