How is it a shocker to anyone? They want people subbed to Game Pass and eventually Xcloud. This directly threatens those subs.
-
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.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
GeForce Now is now losing Xbox Games Studios, Warner Bros. Games, Codemasters and Klei Entertainment
- Thread starter Lant_War
- Start date
I remember a lot of people saying that Microsoft would not do this in previous threads when I said that they very possibly could, given their plans for xCloud.
Just like almost every other publisher that has pulled their games has also announced some plans for their own cloud service.
Just like almost every other publisher that has pulled their games has also announced some plans for their own cloud service.
He does want you to play them anywhere. As long as you're paying your Game Pass/Xcloud subscription.
The difference in branding between Shadow and GeForce Now is very noticeable, even though they offer practically the same service.
There is no specific front end for GFN. Is just launches Windows in kiosk mode. It's still a full machine.
1) Costs a lot more.
2) Nvidia runs data centers and there is a certain level of trust/privacy. Shadow isn't clear on what you actually get.
Yes that's obvious now, apparently buying their games once is not enough for these pubs.
Well, obviously
But it is more complicated than that for all publishers.. Geforce Now somewhat blurs the lines of whether it is its own platform or not. By design, the entire premise is based on a loophole.. On one hand, you're buying/playing Steam games, but on the other there is a payable subscription to Nvidia for Now, as a streaming platform. So how does that affect licensing and royalties for games? Is it another platform or not? It leaves the door open for disruption. It's a licensing nightmare and it's no surprise publishers have been dropping like flies since given Nvidia has put no effort in to licensing agreements given they didn't think they'd need to - ignorance, denial, stupidity?
That's odd. Everyone swore that you installed games when you played then and Nvidia wasn't altering them at all. Having to remove games suggests that's not the case.
If that was true no xbox game would miss playstation and a bunch more of them would be on switch.
Last edited:
business always wins in the end. people need to stop praising all these talking heads.
And they also had their own store and service when they took the initiative to sell XGS games on other PC storefronts (Steam and EGS for one game atm).
Meaning that their pro consumer policy is only bound to one thing, money.
If you're afraid that your service is not good enough to compete with the one that gives you the freedom to play your owned games, you should rework it instead of removing the option from players to do so on the platform they own the game.
I don't think they're afraid their service can't compete, I think they just figure if money is going to change hands for their games to be streamed that money may as well be going to them
Other than the fact that it's $35 a month and the customer service is terrible? Probably nothing. It's probably great other than those things.
You pay Nvidia for the computer to run the game on.
Just like you pay Amazon to run a game on AWS or Microsoft to do the same on Azure.
There is no licensing complication here. It's pretty straightforward. Nvidia could flip everyone the bird and be fine, but the hardware business is worth a lot more than the cloud business for Nvidia at this point and it's not likely to want to harm those relationships.
It makes sense. With Stadia, PlayStation Now, xCloud and an Amazon streaming platform in the works the rights for streaming games will be valuable.
It's another anti-consumer move. If the GPD Win 2 was a threat to making a deal with Nintendo for a Switch port you would probably see games made unplayable on that too.
It's another anti-consumer move. If the GPD Win 2 was a threat to making a deal with Nintendo for a Switch port you would probably see games made unplayable on that too.
Ok, I get you, but wheres that logic when theyre not putting their games on playstation and the majority of their games on switch?
It was kinda a rhetorical question, it was just something Spencer always would tell his twitter followers whenever they got angry about a previous Xbox exclusive that would be ported to PC. Turned out to of course just being PR smoke.
Isn't this effectively Nvidia purchasing a single license for a video game, and serving each respective license to multiple people over time at a profit?
I wonder what the legal implications would be if Sony or MS put the competitor hardware into their cloud streaming services and let you stream games you owned. For example, MS puts PS5 hardware into Azure and let's you basically log into your PSN account and stream PS via xcloud.
sued for billions, looses lucrative cloud contract for the #1 console Maker.
It wasn't their place to do so if they had not secured the rights to distribute access through their paid service
But you'd be playing games you already own and paid for.
Under what licenses? PS5 games would not ever be sold under a license that would allow for this scenario.
Define the legal concept of ownership in the context of digitally purchased games. Then consider what implications that has for what rights to use games you have bought a license for in this context.
Can't you already play your PS4/Xbox games remotely? This would be a similar concept except you are logging into someone else's device.
I don't know what utility suggesting that billion dollar company Nvidia are beyond criticism has for consumer advocacy.
You can remote access your own games on your own console, under terms offered by the respective platform holders. Not sure what relevance that has to your previous post.
XGS was just a matter of time, with the XCloud beta opening up to the east recently, and so was WB Games to be honest, because, well, they're WB Games.
Klei's and Codies' exit are the most surprising though.
Klei's and Codies' exit are the most surprising though.
Wouldn't happen as there would have to be binding agreements in place before to avoid those stuff ups.
to be clear xcloud is the name for Xbox over azure basically. Sony's azure contract would just provide better stability to PSNow which they already have out in the market
Fair point. I'll be surprised if they enter a partnership here though.
I mean they have a business to run at the end of the day, he/MS doesn't need to bend to every whim. It's nice when they do good things same as anyone but this probably has to do with more then just being good to consumers. Don't forget they have there own service to launch plus with everyone else leaving as well there's something nvidia needs to do not just blame every pub.
Is Nvidia paying a rental license fee for these titles, similar to how Blockbuster or Gamefly had to, or are they just taking a retail copy and serving it up onto a paid service?
So when I rip my CDs and put them on Spotify and listen to them using Spotify's servers I'm in the wrong?
This sucks, just started trying the service a few days ago and have found it to be better in EVERY single way than Stadia. I could barely tell I was playing a stream of a game whereas on Stadia while it was serviceable, lag and compression was super noticeable. Not to mention I don't have to rebuy my own games GN. And even then I'm still buying them from the devs/publishers to play them in the first place.
It's honestly less like a game streaming service and more just like a remote PC streaming thing.
It's honestly less like a game streaming service and more just like a remote PC streaming thing.
Yes. It's like people who ripped CDs and put them up on YouTube. They still get struck down all the time to this day.
We have head that, for example, in the case of Activision/Blizzard, they were seeking to arrange a "commercial partnership". We did not hear the terms of such a partnership.
Looks to me like only Ubisoft accepted their terms (unless they have any other major publishers on board that I missed).
Spotify have most likely negotiated allowing that with record labels.
I find it hilarious that nobody seems to ever put nvidia at fault here and instead blames the devs, pubs, and now Phil Spencer. Clearly if everyone is leaving there's a bigger issue.
For those thinking it's an issue of devs pulling games has to do with their cut do expect MS to resell you your games on Xcloud? Would you be ok with that since Nvidia are allegedly the "greedy" ones here. I thought the goal of streaming was to play your games anywhere at anytime.
I've posted this in a previous thread about many publishers backing out from Gerforce Now.