Yeah I also thought about it. Can't be leagal for companies to band consumers to stream the games?
-
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.
Nvidia’s GeForce Now is losing all Activision Blizzard games, a bad sign for cloud gaming (see threadmark for Nvidia statement)
- Thread starter Deleted member 18944
- Start date
That is exactly their point. New platforms means that they are expecting new revenue from it.
Amazon doesn't need a license. I'm playing a game I own the license for. I pay amazon for the hardware and for their windows license. The software I otherwise use on the machine is my concern. The alternative is that my license is not portable to hardware (e.g. rented hardware) for...arbitrary reasons? Unless the owner of that hardware also has a license? I can't play games I own on a laptop I borrow for example? Or on my company laptop?
Why would they get new revenue? Or be a new platform?
they didn't develop anything for it, it doesn't cost them anything to have games there. They should actually be grateful because most "platforms" take like a 30% royalty. Them pulling the games makes no sense unless they have their own service planned.
looks like it's because it incorrectly flags cloud users as bots/cheaters
Rather than being issue of Nvidia having to own a license, I think this is a EULA issue. Look at the EULA of blizzard games, it explicitly does not allow for cloud streaming. I bet a lot of game EULAs are being redrafted right now to include similar language.
Now you'll inevitably say, they'd never hold up in court. While you would be very likely right, who is going to take the chance to challenge a publisher in a court of law over this type of clause? Stuff like that is expensive.
Yes you can install a game on multiple devices, but the number of devices that can run the game via a single license simultaneously has limits, no?
do the end user agreements allow your friend to charge you to log onto your steam account and play your games? Honest question if no, Obviously it would be impossible to police in-person, but when it's a large company advertising a service, it's less so.
Last edited:
The integrity of this is still being maintained here though. If say I use Steam Family Sharing, and the game kicks anyone else of of using my library because I'm playing something, this would still happen when I play that same game via GeForce Now. You wouldn't be able to play online from both your home computer and GeForce Now simultaneously, because when playing on GeForce Now, you're using the sole available online license to play.
This is you using your license, not NVIDIA spawning you a new temporary one.
Last edited:
This isn't something new for the service.
They also took out Capcom and Rockstar few months ago. You can't even play games like DMC5. RE2 or RDR 2 if you own them.
Shit sucks.
They also took out Capcom and Rockstar few months ago. You can't even play games like DMC5. RE2 or RDR 2 if you own them.
Shit sucks.
Ok. So basically this is your friend, Nvidia, letting you log into your Steam account at his house, for a fee.
Now my question is whether such use of the Software compliant with EULAs signed by all parties.
This is a different argument from "you are using Nvidia's licenses when you log in their computers to play your games". But to your point, not all license agreements are the same. A game publisher is free to add the restrictions they want for their software, this is why some developers allow their games on GeForce Now and some don't. They might also have exclusive deals with other cloud gaming services. They might also find that it is not worth it to enforce a restriction in the license agreement.
IMO eulas like that, to the extent they are worth anything, compromise the open nature of hardware in the sphere of pc gaming. Pubs trying to carve out closed gardens in the pc space because your display is connected via a network connection rather than hdmi. I think there'll probably be a consumer pushback from pc gamers.
Yes it is a different argument, because I now better understand the nature of the relationship between the user and the software license being used - but I still question the "right" for Nvidia to serve users remote access to software for a fee, even if the user holds a valid license. Even the 'logging in at a neighbors' house analogy seems like it could be problematic because I imagine publishers would have a problem with such a business transaction if they could detect it.
I wouldn't be surprised if the "i hold the license so the publisher should have no involvement in how I access it" argument has no basis in the EULA or the 3rd party platform agreements Nvidia has with the various PC platforms.
I'd love to be wrong about that, but I can't even charge groups of people to watch DVD
Even Nvidia don't see themselves as having the right to have any games they want on their service. Every game in Geforce Now is allowed by the publisher. This is not a "one size fits all" situation. Some publishers will allow their games to be on cloud gaming services, some don't. Some publishers will have exclusive deals with specific cloud gaming services. Some publishers will leave alone smaller cloud gaming services like shadow but decide to enforce their license agreement on bigger services like Geforce Now. This is the wild west right now when it comes to cloud gaming services and things will be solved and standardized over time.
Taken Blizzard's actions towards that Hearthstone player I say good riddance. Chinese government can make a good game, but any company that actively scars and harasses their own fan base is not welcome in my book. GeForce now just improved.
Yes but it's not nvidia using the license they have no access to your steam account can do nothing with your steam account it can't be argued that Nvidia is using your license but it can be argued that you are using their computers. They're also not renting out your account which is impossible since they can't use your account in any way.
Also universities with game developer course have been running games through their servers for over a decade now and they're a commercial entity Activision knows about. If anyone knows of any example where activision has gone after universities for this stuff I love to see it.
I don't have any activision games so this doesn't effect me, but it still strikes me as curious to what this heralds. Google buying exclusives? Publishers launching their own services?
I hope Nvidia can convince Capcom to agree to being on the service. I have a lot of their stuff on Steam.
I hope Nvidia can convince Capcom to agree to being on the service. I have a lot of their stuff on Steam.
Nahh, it is pretty obvious. And I don't think that the decision was on Nvidia, but Activision.
I'm in agreement with you at this point it seems. What I'm in disagreement with is the notion that Acti-blizzard or any other biz is out of bounds for pulling their games, even though I think it's a bad move that hinders a mutually beneficial relationship.
I feel the benefit of being able to stream anything goes down the moment you have 5 separate apps to access different content. Shame this is happening but I feel like when streaming does take off significantly we'll see some of the industry giants scooping up the smaller ones to expand their streaming portfolio
There are a lot of things publishers would love to do if they were able to, but in this case I don't think they would have much of a leg to stand on. I view this situation with NVIDIA to be much like emulation of consoles. Emulation is proven to be legal, but that didn't prevent Microsoft from pulling emulators down from the Microsoft Store. This isn't because Nintendo would be able to win a case against emulation, but because it's not in Microsoft's benefit to potentially piss of a bunch of their key partners for something they stand to gain so little from.
This is what separates a service like GeForce Now from Parsec, Shadow, etc. Those services are doing the same thing NVIDIA is, just without any limitations on what they allow you to run. The key difference is that the publishers aren't Parsec's friends, and Parsec would gain nothing from attempting to appease them. If the actual practice of using software you're licensed to use from rented hardware wasn't considered legitimate, then Azure, AWS and the like would be utterly fucked, because Adobe would be able to prevent MS from allowing their software to run on a cloud-hosted instance.
You're right NVIDIA isn't using a game license, but they do have license agreements as a third party tie-in to their various PC platforms, with whom each publisher also has licenses agreements with. So it very well may be that the NVIDIAs streaming business is running afoul if something along that chain.
Activision, I would imagine, is free to pick and choose who they act against, and may very well have agreements with university or a scholastic clause in their general agreement.
Well, that sucks. It's already limited as is. Especially compared to native solutions from your own PC where you can stream literally anything with Moonlight.
Cloud gaming is not for me. But streaming from my own PC is something I'm very interested in for portability around the house mostly. Hoping wifi 6 brings further improvements...will just need to sort out the range of the signal....5GHz is already more limited than 2.4GHz, 6GHz will probably be even worse.
Cloud gaming is not for me. But streaming from my own PC is something I'm very interested in for portability around the house mostly. Hoping wifi 6 brings further improvements...will just need to sort out the range of the signal....5GHz is already more limited than 2.4GHz, 6GHz will probably be even worse.
I don't think it's a question of legitimacy. It's a question of what's allowed in the licenses. I don't use Adobe at work so I'm not sure how that works, but I use various software in the cloud. Almost all of software is specifically licensed to be used in this manner and for those items that are just a standard software license, the software is installed on a instance that only one user can remote access at a time.
Because they are the publishers and decide where to publish? 🤦♂️
That's the exact use case here as well though. It's not like Nvidia is just putting a game online and allows everyone to access it, the user has to have a license to use this particular game already. The license agreement here is not between Nvidia and the game's publisher, it's between the publisher, Steam, and the end user. All Nvidia does is installing Steam on a VM.
They're not publishing anything on GeForce Now though, they publish on Steam, EPG etc.
Do people here seriously think that NV would allow streaming of 3rd party software through their service without actual consent from the owner of said software?
I think that the "free 1 hour session" tier is the main reason why ATVI decided to pull out. Their revenue is more than likely based off user spendings on streaming their titles through the platform - and these are zero in case of the free tier. ATVI being ATVI can't have anything available for free. See WC3R EULA for details.
I think that the "free 1 hour session" tier is the main reason why ATVI decided to pull out. Their revenue is more than likely based off user spendings on streaming their titles through the platform - and these are zero in case of the free tier. ATVI being ATVI can't have anything available for free. See WC3R EULA for details.
Geforce Now is operated by Nvidia. They most likely complied with publisher requests to remove their games. I think you're quite confused...
"You still have to buy the game" is an oversimplification to the point of not really being an accurate assessment of the situation at all.
Is there anything in the TOS when purchasing the licenses to these games that stipulate that you are only allowed to play them on your own local/owned hardware? It is the only loophole I can imagine in this. I know I'm probably not the only one who just clicks NEXT when faced with the wall of legal text.
Wtf man? You asked how Activision would make the decision unilaterally. We are talking about Activision deciding where their games are available.
Nvidia is not charging you for playing a game, they're charging you for using their hardware. You can rent a DVD player to your friend, the movie industry doesn't have any say in that.
They are in a literal sense but, ehhhhh, it's kinda semantics. You're paying Nvidia to play these games. The product that they're selling it 'you can play all of these games with this sub!'. With no games on the service, the service doesn't exist. When you load iup the app they're not showing you thumbnails of server racks, they're selling you on The Witcher 3 and Battletech and Civ etc. Publishers are gonna want a cut of that sub I'd imagine considering it's their games that are selling the sub to people.
It might be grey area, but I'm not at all surprised that big pubs would say, ummm, please don't charge people to stream our games without doing a license deal with us.
At the bargain basement pricing model they launched with, I don't see how much room they have to negotiate with.
There's a thread about it here
Nvidia’s GeForce Now is losing all Activision Blizzard games, a bad sign for cloud gaming (see threadmark for Nvidia statement)
https://www.theverge.com/2020/2/11/21133793/nvidia-geforce-now-no-more-activision-blizzard-games-carriage
www.resetera.com
We are talking about Nvidia removing support for Activision games from Geforce Now. Very likely happened because Activision requested Nvidia remove support, a request that Nvidia complied with.
Yep there is language very much to that effect in many EULAs. To be legally enforceable they'd probably have to be tested in court, but it would appear that Nvidia would rather just play ball with these publishers then go through a legal process required to overcome these license agreements. Which doesn't surprise me at all.
There's a thread about it here
Nvidia’s GeForce Now is losing all Activision Blizzard games, a bad sign for cloud gaming (see threadmark for Nvidia statement)
https://www.theverge.com/2020/2/11/21133793/nvidia-geforce-now-no-more-activision-blizzard-games-carriage
We are talking about Nvidia removing support for Activision games from Geforce Now. Very likely happened because Activision requested Nvidia remove support, a request that Nvidia complied with.
I know that's what we are talking about, you were writing as if this was Nvidia's choice or something.
That would be extremely stupid and short sighted.
But hey, wouldn't surprise me
GeForce Now is the service you should be in favor of then, since it's only renting out servers to stream your own Steam purchases from.
The problem here is that it's the first (?) time a publisher has stepped in and explicitly said "No, you don't own the games that you bought; you own a license and we're not permitting you to play those games here. We decide where you can play them."
I don't think a lot of people here are getting that.
All of these are against the EULA for Activision Blizzard games, as I posted earlier.
They're more difficult to enforce (except Steam Remote Play) and the main difference here is probably that NVIDIA are making money off it.
Valve has been rumored to be working on their own cloud gaming service, which would likely be an extension of Steam Remote Play, running off their servers rather than your home PC - so the implications of this are bad. It could lead to Remote Play being disabled for certain games.
I wish that NVIDIA would challenge the EULA in court rather than conceding and removing access to the games.
No: I'm playing the game that I already bought, via my own Steam account, logged in on a computer that I'm renting.
They are not granting access to games by linking accounts.
You are using your own Steam account on their servers. You actually log into Steam and install the games yourself.
You already bought the game if you're playing it on GeForce Now.
You can't play any game you want for free.
A GeForce Now subscription doesn't come with any games. You have to buy them from Steam, Battle.net, Uplay, Origin etc.
The companies have already been paid, but now they want more money.
NVIDIA's Full Statement - NVIDIA also claims that over 1500 games have been asked to be onboarded by developers
OP
OP
As their request? Sounds like they don't like NVidia generating income off of their games. I'm not sure how xCloud shares its revenue.
It's almost like people don't understand that GeForce Now doesn't give you free games... just hardware rental.
Has no one heard of Shadow? It's the same exact concept.
Has no one heard of Shadow? It's the same exact concept.
Sure. They could have chose to fight it out in the courts if they felt they had grounds to do so, but instead they complied with these publisher's requests.
Exactly as I suggested, and now we have a statement from Nvidia confirming it.