-
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
Honestly, if this went to court, I think a similar argument could be made by Nvidia, and there's a smidgeon of a chance it could hold up, given it was argued before the right judge.
Because if this isn't allowed, then what about Steam's remote streaming feature?
EDIT: Ignore this post, I'm wrong.
Last edited:
How would this happen to game pass? it's not like they don't have contracts that they sign when they agree to be on game pass. Ms isn't just taking games and putting them on there on a whim without talking to the publisher/ developer.
It's weird as hell, because simultaneously you've got services like AWS and Google's cloud computing which I don't believe have restrictions like this? Or at least I don't see them being capable of enforcing them. If I wanted to, I could pay money to play whatever the hell I wanted through that. Albeit it'd be a worse experience than something like this.
Nvidia already makes money off of hardware sales. I bought hardware from Asus, Nvidia, Gigabyte, etc... in order to play these games. Do the devs / pubs want a cut of that too?
I know you're not defending Blizzard's decision, but it's Nvidia's hardware. The consumer buys the game. Why's it matter where they play it?
Nvidia already makes money off of hardware sales. I bought hardware from Asus, Nvidia, Gigabyte, etc... in order to play these games. Do the devs / pubs want a cut of that too?
Exactly. I don't understand any of this.
Last edited:
OP
OP
Nvidia is providing a virtual machine to play games on, how is this any different from using a virtual machine you pay for to utilize various other applications that you own licenses for?
But they're not selling them. It would be no different to you hosting a windows instance in the cloud and using Steam Remote Play.
They still need the ok from publishers. It reminds me of Nintendo pulling their games from YouTube.
Bethesda Softworks Announces Orion
id Software’s Chief Technology Officer, Robert Duffy, and the Director of Publishing at Bethesda Softworks, James Altman, got on stage during the BE3 2019 Showcase to announce Orion. Orion is a patented collection of software technologies that optimize game engines for superior performance in a...
bethesda.net
Square Enix Committed To Making Its Complete Library Available Digitally
While there have been some unexpected bumps in the road, president Yosuke Matsuda confirmed it's a primary goal for the company.
www.gameinformer.com
That's not the same thing. That's dealing with copyright issues. People are capable of watching a playthrough of your game in its entirety without paying you a cent.
This is literally going out and deciding which hardware can and cannot play your product despite the consumer having already bought it.
FuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuckBethesda Softworks Announces Orion
id Software’s Chief Technology Officer, Robert Duffy, and the Director of Publishing at Bethesda Softworks, James Altman, got on stage during the BE3 2019 Showcase to announce Orion. Orion is a patented collection of software technologies that optimize game engines for superior performance in a...Square Enix Committed To Making Its Complete Library Available Digitally
While there have been some unexpected bumps in the road, president Yosuke Matsuda confirmed it's a primary goal for the company.
It looks to me like Activision doesn't like them making money, why else would they pull them?
I just find it surprising that they even have a say in this.
That's be like if they arbitrarily decided that you can't play any of their games unless you own one of their motherboards. When you try and launch the game with a Gigabyte motherboard or something, it'll just immediately close the game despite the fact that you've already paid for the game.
It doesn't make any sense to me. And it makes even less sense when you take into consideration the fact that this restriction doesn't seem to apply to AWS, Google Cloud Computing, or Azure.
Nvidia doesn't get a cut for the sale of the game. Nvidia doesn't get a cut for the microtransactions sold in the game. All Nvidia does is provide consumers with the hardware to play these games, and I don't understand why Activision has a say in the matter.
It's a bad sign for cloud gaming as a whole that publishers even have a say in the matter. All this means is that cloud gaming will be like movie/tv streaming currently is, where you have to subscribe to every single publisher's streaming service.
OP
OP
Bethesda Softworks Announces Orion
id Software’s Chief Technology Officer, Robert Duffy, and the Director of Publishing at Bethesda Softworks, James Altman, got on stage during the BE3 2019 Showcase to announce Orion. Orion is a patented collection of software technologies that optimize game engines for superior performance in a...Square Enix Committed To Making Its Complete Library Available Digitally
While there have been some unexpected bumps in the road, president Yosuke Matsuda confirmed it's a primary goal for the company.
Just want to point out SE is exploring multiple options, not soley cloud gaming.
The Ubisoft article is about their game subscription service, and how its available for Stadia. That's not the same thing as announcing a streaming service.
There could be a plethora of reasons as to why. It is never simply "corporation is greedy"
I see it as a bad sign for both. It could lead to fragmentation of the market akin to that of the entertainment industry. There is however one big difference, with geforce now we are not paying for access to games but rather an instanced VM powerful enough to run them. We are renting hardware, not the games themselves. Those we own already. That's why even if a game is not supported, you can still run it as long as it's on Steam or one of the other supported clients.
A license for the game to be used has already been purchased by the end user, all nvidia is doing is providing the hardware and launcher necessary to run it. If you don't own the game, you still can't play it. If publishers manage to lock down their catalogues to their own services, where you don't need to own the game but just sub to the service itself, then game streaming services are going to go the way of TV/Movie streaming ones. Piracy will once again become the norm, which is what is happening now (again I should say) when it comes to movies and TV.
As has been said many times before, piracy is a service problem. Should the landscape become dominated by a myriad of services for each publisher with no way to rent hardware to stream PC games you already own for a minimal fee, I see the whole thing crumbling under its own weight.
But I could very well be wrong. Terribly so.
Exactly - there's a reason Google & Microsoft are doing this with their own infrastructure and in a more controlled way instead of just spinning up VMs transparently.
That's the kind of shenanigan you can only pull off if your market lead is so large that publishers won't be able to stay out of your platform/ecosystem, which I don't think will be the case for MS next gen.
Last one that was able to pull something like this on publishers was Nintendo in the 90s...
Yeah I don't think any of those publishers would consider going streaming exclusive any time, but they still have their plans and those plans are not "allow Nvidia to charge players to stream our games without us getting a slice of the recurring revenue from a subscription".
Yes Ubisoft's (currently announced) streaming plans are a partnership with Google/Stadia, that is what I was referring to. Those plans generate revenue for Ubisoft.
Edit: I very very much doubt Microsoft will or would be able to mandate xCloud support from future games that are on Xbox. I imagine many of the large publishers that are Microsoft's bread and butter would not be happy about that at all. I suspect it will be something that they can opt into either wholesale or on a case by case basis, and it will likely be something that forms part of deals they make for Game Pass going forward, but I very much doubt we'd ever have a scenario where Microsoft would deny games a release on Xbox consoles if they did not also agree to be on xCloud.
I doubt it is the reason, but anyone with online games releasing a dedicated service can potentially circumvent the double lag that streaming online games with GeForce Go would have.
The reality is that corporations ain't gonna let their product be someone else's product without a fight.
The reality is that corporations ain't gonna let their product be someone else's product without a fight.
.
You don't get anything from the GeForceNow service it's basically just gaming computers for consumers to consume games. Any game sold through the service gets the developer revenue. Because you are using your own accounts to play games you own on Epic, Steam, UPlay, etc. on a remote pc.
You can do both though...
You don't get anything from the GeForceNow service it's basically just gaming computers for consumers to consume games. Any game sold through the service gets the developer revenue. Because you are using your own accounts to play games you own on Epic, Steam, UPlay, etc. on a remote pc.
I don't know why you're explaining the very basic description of what Geforce Now is.
While that could be true, often times (if not always) a game streaming data center say in EU West, and a Rainbow Six Siege datacenter (running on Azure if I am not mistaken) in the same region, go through the same internet exchange and both would have multigigabit fiber optic connections to it with very low latency. So I don't see such a big problem there
For any revenue lost through people already owning the games, they make revenue on new purchases from those that don't have rigs that can run it
The outlook for having a PC based cloud streaming service that includes all the major publishers doesn't seem all that bright anymore.
How is people paying a subscription to stream a game and the publisher not getting any revenue from the subscription in any way preferable to them than people paying a subscription to stream a game and the publisher getting revenue from the subscription?
"More money" is preferable to corporations than "less but still some money".
If you want that to be the case then I'd suggest only buying games where the license agreement specifically allows for this scenario.
The license agreement for Activison Blizzard games do no allow for this scenario.
They really don't. You can already play unsupported games by just launching steam. From what I can tell, all supported games offer is the game files being cached on nvidia servers so you don't need to download them from the steam servers, making the installation process much quicker.
If you own an album on iTunes, do you think publishers/labels would be ok with Spotify paying them nothing to stream it to you despite you paying them $9.99 a month?
It doesn't matter that you own the game on Steam. You've bought a license to play that game from Steam on your own hardware. As soon as you start paying a different company to access that game the publisher is gonna want a slice of that. If Nvidia can't come to an arrangement with them then they've got every right to tell them to stop charging people to deliver their games to people.
I'm not saying it's right or wrong but it's fairly basic. Nvidia are making money by selling you access to a publishers games. They don't have any power in this scenario - the games are the product. Publishers have all the power because they can revoke access to those games. And you can bet they're gonna ask for a decent cut of that monthly sub
... But why?
People literally need to have purchased these games already. You can't even buy the games through GeForce Now, it's just streaming your games from your own accounts. It's almost no different than if you install Steam or Uplay or EGS on multiple computers at all of your travel locations. That's not against the "rules," so why is this?
This seems exceptionally dumb.
People literally need to have purchased these games already. You can't even buy the games through GeForce Now, it's just streaming your games from your own accounts. It's almost no different than if you install Steam or Uplay or EGS on multiple computers at all of your travel locations. That's not against the "rules," so why is this?
This seems exceptionally dumb.
Are developers getting revenue every time I upgrade my gaming rig and playing the same game? They sold the game all the same to the individual. The service is just renting a gaming rig for $4.99 a month.
Are they providing a virtual machine, though, or an entire service that obscures what it is running in the background, and thus not fully representing what the actual service is?
It is very important that if they are providing a virtual machine with Windows on it, customers see that as the actual service, not the idea that you could stream "any game you have from any platform you have".
A rather important distinction. :)
I meant that I can see publishers wanting to make their own Gamepass like services.
Yeah I realize this, but it still feels absolutely wrong. And yeah, I also realize you're not advocating this. :)
Man before each and every company starts their own streaming service i fucking hope valve hurries up and starts their own cloud streaming service which they are building so at least on PC i don't have to use different services having their own shitty backends and conditions to stream games if need be. I just want to use one service that is fully convenient to the user and stream my owned games on my PC.
iam sure valve's cloud service will be the least greedy and more servicable to the end user than ANY of the other services other than maybe xCloud and have the better quality also. If valve can get a huge following using their stream service to play their steam games already then iam sure these companies won't be bowing out outta there provided they launch it in the next year or two.
iam sure valve's cloud service will be the least greedy and more servicable to the end user than ANY of the other services other than maybe xCloud and have the better quality also. If valve can get a huge following using their stream service to play their steam games already then iam sure these companies won't be bowing out outta there provided they launch it in the next year or two.
Just when I was getting the idea of trying out the Geforce Now and World of Warcraft classic at work... for research...
