Nvidia is not making any money on the game sale. The publisher gets exactly the same amount of money as if a person were to buy the game to play on their local hardware
-
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.
Bethesda follows Activision in pulling games from Nvidia’s GeForce Now
- Thread starter ghostcrew
- Start date
This makes sense. It's an alternate way to play and the publishers are only getting the revenue once. They're going to want money to keep their games on the service.
It sucks, but it makes sense.
Maybe not on the sale, but Nvidia is making money on the medium, and in some cases costing sales on games where double dipping might be possible. CDPr doesn't seem to care, but I promise you that Geforce Now has cost them sales of Witcher on the Switch.
It sucks, but it makes sense.
Maybe not on the sale, but Nvidia is making money on the medium, and in some cases costing sales on games where double dipping might be possible. CDPr doesn't seem to care, but I promise you that Geforce Now has cost them sales of Witcher on the Switch.
I think a lot of that depends on what sort of leverage Valve thinks they may have to make streaming access a prerequisite to appearing on the storefront at all. It's the same potential advantage that Microsoft has with xCloud; are they big enough to force the publisher's hands or else prevent them from listing on Steam to begin with...Nvidia not being the platform holder in this scenario just doesn't have that card to play.
It's just really head scratching. From my understanding, you have to already own the game to do this. Which means it could effectively help you sell copies because another company gave your game an unintended feature.
So should publishers be entitled to get new revenue from me every time I upgrade my local GPU?
Really bad look for Nvidia not looking like they done there homework on this before hand - be interesting Xbox going forward with cloud stuff as I assume it's in a lot of the deals of launching on Xbox but we will see
Please delete this post before you give them any ideas.... 🥴🥴🥴🥴
It's a weird situation.
Devs want money from getting streamed on GeForceNow. But the service isn't much different than going to a local pc gaming area and renting a pc for a time. Signing into your Steam/UPlay/EA account, downloading/playing games, then leaving.
Devs are still getting money through the service from those that buy games on the store of their choice. It's not like they aren't getting any revenue off of it.
Devs want money from getting streamed on GeForceNow. But the service isn't much different than going to a local pc gaming area and renting a pc for a time. Signing into your Steam/UPlay/EA account, downloading/playing games, then leaving.
Devs are still getting money through the service from those that buy games on the store of their choice. It's not like they aren't getting any revenue off of it.
No, but if you're using my product to sell your service you best believe I want my cut. Without the games this service is nothing.
One could say the exact same thing about buying a video card though. Why is this any different?
Yes but the companies are selling you a local license only. If you want a cloud license they want to be paid as well. Look at stadia all you are buying there is a cloud license and not a local license.
if this becomes a bigger issue and more publishers pull out, I wonder if the end result ends up being a price increase for Geforce Now, so Nvidea can actually pay for whatever they need to do regarding publishers.
Except they're not playing on their local hardware. They're streaming it to other devices via a subscription service Nvidia's being paid for.
This shouldn't surprise anyone given how shitty most publishers are.
Or when you play games you have already purchased on a friend's PC?
Publishers get paid by MS to be on gamepass so yes that already happens in some form - will be interesting how this works with "local streaming" for example from developers will be the interesting one but I imagine that's already tied up on the agreement to launch on Xbox
Because this isn't a video card, it's a gaming platform. Same argument that Activision doesn't get a cut when you buy a new toilet even though Warcraft 3 Reforged is shit.
"Local license" vs "Cloud license" makes zero sense here -- the game is being run locally on a machine somewhere and streamed to your screen.
It's just a PC somewhere, not a new platform developers have to exclusively develop for.
Abysmal decision by Activision and Bethesda. One can only imagine they are cooking some nefarious cash-grab of their own for the streaming future.
I am not using a "cloud license", though. The game is installed in Nvidia's PCs and streaming that over to me.
Don't game cafes in places like China and South Korea explicitly get Cafe licenses? Also free to play games are not going to run into this.
Game streaming is going to go the way of TV streaming. Fragmentation among loads of competing platforms with major publishers using their IP to try and lock people paying for their streaming service on top of others.
Gamepass is an entirely different entity from xCloud; Gamepass is what grants you the license to play the game, not xCloud.
OP
OP
GeForce Now is already getting a price increase. The $4.99 at the moment is an introductory offer for the 'Founders period'. The price will be going up later.
Where I am, there are a few pc cafe's that have a dozen or so decently equipped gaming pc's. They let people just use their accounts freely just with time limits.
Probably the same thing as X-Cloud. If you're streaming your games from the store you bought them from, I don't see a problem.
Cafe licenses are explicitly the OPPOSITE of a bring-your-own-license model. Those are what allow an internet cafe to buy one license for the game and have multiple people play it on their public hardware. GeForce now is the opposite.
Yes so it's not installed on your local machine. Cloud licenses are a big thing in commercial software right now. I just had to help setup some tax software because they moved over to a cloud license so they had to make sure to uninstall all of the local software.
Let me preface this by saying that these restrictions are bullshit for games, but here's an example from the WoW EULA
Yes that's what I was asking those places generally have a completely separate license. I've never heard of a place that lets you rent a computer and install whatever you want.
Again, whether the game is streamed or not is of no interest of the publisher. The game is being run on a PC the same way I could run it in mine, I could use Steam's streaming and it'd be the same thing.
To be fair, you cant buy a Blu-Ray of Avengers Endgame and expect to watch it on Netflix
I mean going by these cases it is in the interest of the publishers. Steam streaming uses your personal computer. This is using a third party computer that they are installing the software on.
Sure it does. We're talking about streaming licenses over a cloud medium, not a hardware purchase. Activision has no reason to try to get a piece of video card sales just because you can use it to play their games (IE Warcraft and toilet). In this case it's technically a second version of the game (local versus cloud) which they can lay claim to.
I don't like it, but I understand it. Cloud gaming will cost double dip sales on some games, so publishers needs to make sure they get a cut. This might not be the right way, but it's what they're going with for now. Same as online passes, which were a bad solution to what was admittedly a problem to them. It's up to us to reject it so that the market changes.
EU treats software like Photoshop and games differently for example. That is why you can resell your software licenses but not games in EU. And EULA is not legally binding because it is not contract. T&C are bit different from what I read but they can be legally binding but also can be considered non legally binding depending on implementation.
But I have to sign into my Steam account trough GeForce Now, so what the difference?
GeForce Now dont work like this lol
Nvidia ask me to use my steam/battlenet/origin account so litteraly nothing relatable to your exemple...
So what made publishers join GeForce Now while being in beta? Did they for some reason earn more money during the beta period?
No Nvidia told them it would be for non commercial use and with a limited population.
OK, so they gained a huge population. Isn't that a good thing?