It's not pro consumer to advocate for unregulated delivery of IP on client devices that IP holders never gave explicit permission to distribute that said IP. This is a similar but inverse situation to Napster vs IP ownership.
-
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.
GeForce Now is now losing Xbox Games Studios, Warner Bros. Games, Codemasters and Klei Entertainment
- Thread starter Lant_War
- Start date
Not a lawyer, but from a consumer perspective it just seems like when you "buy" a digital game you get a licence to play it on a specific platform and this platform only, with some exceptions which are all contractually arranged (Steam+Ubi). GeForce Now, being a platform, seems to circumvent this and thus we have the exodus we are seeing right now. It's just my primitive understanding of it. But it still sucks for the end-user.
Another issue seems to stem from the fact that you are literally using your log-in credentials on a remote machine that you personally do not own, which, something tells me, is against all sorts of user agreements, as you are usually never supposed to share any of that with anyone.
Another issue seems to stem from the fact that you are literally using your log-in credentials on a remote machine that you personally do not own, which, something tells me, is against all sorts of user agreements, as you are usually never supposed to share any of that with anyone.
Yeah yeah, but I do own the right to play it on Steam wherever that steam instance is running on, even when the game gets delisted, Download is still available to me.
Publishers are just preventing me from doing so because they want me to pay for another service (and possibly repay the game I already have on a platform).
When confronted to the talk of Phil Spencer about consumer's choice, that is very not a move towards the policy he seemed to be proud of. That's all.
The fact that they released the service first and asked questions later is pretty terrible.
I can understand the thought process behind consumers expecting to be able to play something they purchase on any platform they choose, but from a Publisher's standpoint - I can understand being upset by a corporation taking a single retail copy of your game and profiting off of it by serving it to thousands of consumers.
HAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA
oh boy, nice way to start the week, thanks for the laugh.
You don't think they have contacts with the record labels that have their music on Spotify?
Freaking exactly lol and what's crazy is it's nvidia they're defending of all companies the one company who can't seem to get along with any other in the industry and is price gouging the hell out of consumers in the hardware space.
You aren't allowed to buy a Blu-ray movie and upload it to YouTube let alone have YouTube charge you to watch it too.
User Banned (1 week): platform warring, accumulated infractions
Cause our lil Philly is full of shit.
Play anywhere. Play your xbox games anywhere - in your basement or in your neighbor's basement, as long as it's on your shiny xbox.
What? All music on Spotify is delivered either by a record label or a distributor, e.g. everything has 'consent.'
That would create just another shitty cloud gaming service that no one needs, aka a Stadia.
It is legit.
Every song on Spotify is on there due to an explicit agreement between the rights-holder and Spotify.
Seriously. At this point, they should've stayed in beta forever.
Oh well, Steam Link works for me; I'll just continue running everything through Steam if I feel the need to stream, and I'll just stream my own hardware.
I mean it would have been Phil's decision. It is on him that they have been removed.
It's anti-consumer to embrace restrictions on how a purchaser can access their purchased content. Circumventing DRM could constitute "unregulated delivery of IP on client devices", as could mods.
This is of that ilk.
Far more blame should be directed at Nvidia.
Consumers opted into those restrictions when they continued to buy games despite the license agreements getting more and more restrictive.
If you don't like it, my advice would be to stop buying games with these kinds of restrictions on them.
Well it's good to see that the completely misinformed takes are still abundant any time GFN is mentioned.
Absolutely not.
It's hard to put the blame on Nvidia here. Letting a person access their Steam library should not logically involve getting permission from the owners of the individual games. Like if I ran an internet cafe, all I'd need to do is install Steam and let people download and play whatever they own. The hardware manufacturer is the one disadvantaged by people choosing to play through a stream rather than buy their hardware, and yet it's the software makers that are screwing everyone over.
Hard to be surprised, really. Nothing that is progressive and customer-facing has good chances of surviving in the capitalistic environment.
Bad precedent. NVIDIA is the victim here. Can they kick some cash to the publishers? Sure. Should they? Well, should you give an extra fee to the publisher for the privilege of launching the game you already bought on PC?
Not shedding any tears over a $175 billion corporation but copyright law doesn't need to get any tighter than the stranglehold on creativity it already is.
Not shedding any tears over a $175 billion corporation but copyright law doesn't need to get any tighter than the stranglehold on creativity it already is.
You don't download your local files from Spotify's servers. You sync them from your computer via WiFi. They're not uploaded to Spotify then sent back down to you.
You're just putting mp3s onto your phone but playing them back through the Spotify app rather than through the default media player on your device.
You shame the one billionaire while still defending the other billionaire.. nice
Did Bandai Namco ever officially announce support, or have they just remained silent on the matter?
I get that the issue seems as simple as playing a game you own but on another pc you rented but it isn't. You're using a different platform entirely.
YouTube doesn't allow you to buy a dvd then upload it and watch it anywhere, you technically can but if they find out you're account will be terminated. Now imagine you bought a dvd of of some movie lets say avengers then uploaded it to YouTube but this time YouTube charges you to do it without paying Marvel or Disney. You're essentially stealing a digital copy. You paid for the dvd. Not the digital license and YouTube makes money without doing anything.
That's this service.
Even from a dev point of view someone profiting off your game - advertising your service with they games and these devs don't see a cent ? That's the shady bit here not devs pulling games off. It's hilariously bad business insight from a multi billion dollar company to not think this would be an issue
I think trying to make this seem against what Xbox has been about is an extreme stretch. I do agree that it's a slippery slope what nvidia tried to do but in the end they don't have the right to allow a devs content to be streamed.
Eh, the blame should be solely on Nvidia. If they were providing this streaming for free then yeah, you have a point. But they're profiting off of streaming you games that they did not negotiate for streaming rights. Sure, the customer owns the game but it's kinda shady to make money off of streaming games that aren't yours without the publishers getting some kind of cut.
This many years into Era being a thing, I still think people seeing GeForce as the good guy here is one of the most baffling things I've seen. It's bonkers to not see why devs are justified in pulling out of this if they want
We're not talking about the same thing, I was mentioning you could import music that was not on Spotify and listen to it. However it turned out you are not using their servers to listen to it (see below).
Ah, it's been a while since I used that feature so I guess I forgot you had to download the files in order to listen to them.
Last edited:
Are you all even talking about the same thing?
Spotify allows you to upload your music files that aren't on Spotify.
For example, the Jay-Z album in this article.
How to upload music to Spotify and sync it to your phone
You can upload local music to Spotify by going through the desktop app, but you'll need to sync it with your phone to listen while on-the-go.
www.businessinsider.com
Edit: Nevermind, not uploaded to Spotify servers apparently.
How is this any different from me logging on to an internet cafe with my steam account call my buddy over and have him play my games with me for hours while I fit the bill at the cafe?
What's next? Corporations choosing who and where I can play my games wi... I mean licenses with?
What's next? Corporations choosing who and where I can play my games wi... I mean licenses with?
In all the countless obvious ways it's different.
Is the internet café or your buddy a multi billion dollar corporation with massive ties into other companies in the games industry?
Are you all even talking about the same thing?
Spotify allows you to upload your music files that aren't on Spotify.
For example, the Jay-Z album in this article.
How to upload music to Spotify and sync it to your phone
You can upload local music to Spotify by going through the desktop app, but you'll need to sync it with your phone to listen while on-the-go.
Edit: Nevermind, not uploaded to Spotify servers apparently.
Yeah that writer using the word 'upload' so many times is just plain wrong. You're not uploading anything to Spotify. Just sending mp3s to your phone/tablet from your computer.
I mean, isn't GeForce Now a platform? Putting a game on a platform without the publisher's permission is a pretty dumb move. I get that you need to acutally own the game to play it but Nvidia is making money off of streaming you other companies' games. Sure, you can use your analogy but an equally analogous scenario is Steam selling a game from Xbox game studios without their permission. As cool as the concept is a publisher should ultimately have control over where their IP are playable.
Youtube would DMCA strike any public video that contains copyrighted content.
It would not, outside of limiting my ability to upload long videos as a beginning user, object to me uploading a DVD-rip for personal use.
What you're describing would be Nvidia letting everyone play any Steam game anyone subscribed to the service owns. That would be a Youtube equivalent, and it wouldn't fly.
I can call up a friend two towns over who has a spare beefy PC, negotiate some rent pay, and stream games from his PC via Steam Remote Play, without breaching any laws. My agreement is with the provider of the hardware, and all the pay goes to him.
They do provide the base service for free. And there's nothing shady about renting access to another platform. If Nvidia hosted the games separately, available to everyone, then there'd be a case. Requiring a log-in to Steam means that Nvidia is using their platform, to let you access Valve's platform. Thus they should have an agreement with Valve, not everyone else down the line - because by being on Steam they implicitly agree to their games being streamed by their owners, free of charge, from any hardware and onto any hardware said owners have access to.
No, that's a separate thing. Devs and pubs can pull out whenever they want, and out of wherever they want. That's not the thing. The thing is they lose nothing by staying, except possibly some trickle of cash from the dying services like Stadia, and possibly gain some measure of stream-only sales, from people like me who don't have the hardware to play anything new.
Um, yes. The whole point of XBOX Play Anywhere is to play your XBOX branded titles. This has nothing to do with that.
Just because something is on the user's/license agreement doesn't mean it's not anti-consumer holy shit.
it's nothing like that. nvidia broke steams distribution terms with video game publishers by allowing a delivery method that was not specifically written into the distribution methods.
steam was simply meant to allow you to purchase your games and install them on the end user device (your own pc).
a graphics card company coming in and booting up a million virtual PCs to host steam games on instead of the express end users pc is a no-no as it circumvents the distribution agreement. Especially when the end game seems the graphics card company is using OTHER PUBLISHER IP to further their market relevance without providing any tangible benefits to devs / pubs or other stakeholders.
this is the inverse of DRM. It's almost piracy
lol what. End users are paying for the games. It's nothing like piracy.
The hot takes in here are hilarious.
Phil Spencer doesn't care where you play Xbox games... as long as you're in their ecosystem. If you're going to play Xbox games of course they want you to play on PC, console, or their own streaming service.
Why would they put Xbox games on a rivals streaming service? Sounds like a good way to lose money.
Phil Spencer doesn't care where you play Xbox games... as long as you're in their ecosystem. If you're going to play Xbox games of course they want you to play on PC, console, or their own streaming service.
Why would they put Xbox games on a rivals streaming service? Sounds like a good way to lose money.