why not? reads to me like it's a legal precedent saying you can't redeliver copyrighted content through your own technological means even if the customer can already legitimately access it other ways.
-
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.
Question for Devs/Pubs: Why are you pulling games from GeForce Now?
- Thread starter Fahdi
- Start date
why not? reads to me like it's a legal precedent saying you can't redeliver copyrighted content through your own technological means even if the customer can already legitimately access it other ways.
That would apply to Steam link then, no? Or any number of other game streaming sources out there. Kingdoms of Amalur isn't being rendered on my phone, must be a copyright violation.
Again, what is stopping Sony from doing the same thing with Nintendo games? Or any other developer?
If I have a PC farm, and I offer a streaming service, you're saying it's a-ok for users to be charged to play gameswherever? If I have 1000 Nintendo Switches and offer a service for people to play wherever they want? What a simple view of legality you have.
One that would get destroyed in court.
Steamlink is usually a personal use object that you need to be connected to your own network to use.
Oh yes they will have Xbox users use another streaming service. /s
steam link is a function of steam, so all games sold on steam are bound by its conditions. which other commercial streaming services work like geforce now?
Like my phone, or tablet?
There is no difference. I need to own the game either way.
Because that would require them to reverse engineer the Switch and because it would encourage Sony's customers to buy from a rival store lol. Nothing's stopping the PS4 from having Wii BC though outside of Dolphin's licensing conditions.
Reading through that link and its associated articles, I think GFN is far closer to Cablevision (which was ruled legal) than it is to Aereo. Important quote:
The argument against Aereo was that it would be legally in the clear if the content on the service was already purchased.
What would a "locker service" for games look like if not GFN? Technologically speaking, the only major difference is that Google Play Music requires the user to upload the copyrighted material themselves rather than remotely authenticating into whatever store the mp3s were bought from. Regardless, users didn't have to obtain a special streaming license for the music they already bought for the streaming services to be in the legal clear.
At the end of the day though, until there's an actual lawsuit, any legal argument is gonna be conjecture. I think it's more likely that a loss for Nvidia would find that QoL features (namely, the Steam caching layer) of the service are the offending parts rather than the idea of a renting specialized cloud computing instance with a Windows and a GPU.
Last edited:
Me so simple.
PCs and consoles are not the same thing. When it comes to consoles, the platform-owner has a DIRECT STAKE in the hardware, and releasing games to sell that hardware.
Steam doesn't have a direct stake in your PC hardware - it's just an application. Nor do any of the publishers on Steam (unlike Super Mario Odyssey, which is literally published by the console maker as a direct means to sell their hardware). No one in that chain is losing ANYTHING based on how you access Steam - whether it's at home, a computer at the public library, or a PC accessed via a datacenter. Steam still get their cut; the publishers/developers still get their cut.
Renting out console access via the cloud? Of course that has direct, obvious costs to those platform-holders. What is the cost to Steam or game publishers, when Nvidia gives you access to a PC via the cloud?
So again: What is the difference between Nvidia selling you access to a remote PC, versus Dell or HP just selling you a local one? You could argue it makes a difference to companies like Dell or HP, but they understand that PC hardware isn't a game platform, and a lawsuit would be laughed out of court - it's simply a means to access game platforms. And so is Geforce Now.
And what if these devs want to offer their own solution to allowing you to stream their game to any platform?
What if the contracts they signed with Steam don't carry over to streaming their games through a 3rd party(hint, they don't)?
The reality is, if Nvidia had a legal leg to stand on, they would sue all the devs who pulled out of their service and rightfully win.
They don't.
They don't.
In the scenario where Nvidia was willing to go to court over this, they wouldn't have provided a means of opting out in the first place and the publishers would have to sue them, not the other way around.
They also don't want to sue publishers since they constantly rely on co-marketing deals with them to sell their GPUs. Why would they be willing to risk their long-standing business relationships with 2K, Activision, Bethesda, etc, over a side project that just launched last month?
This isn't a "third party" within Steam, so whatever deal they signed with Steam shouldn't even apply. Steam isn't violating anything, nor is the Steam user - the "third party" part of the transaction takes place before Steam has even been launched. Again: Steam is just an application. It doesn't care who owns the PC hardware it is running on., nor should it.
They can still do that? This is ultimately what it comes down to, as I already said earlier. Publishers abusing the expansive rights they claim when you "buy" a game, to reserve the ability to charge more money if you access their games in any way or form they don't like - even if it's still using the storefront you legally bought it on.
And as I said before - claiming these "rights" could well be technically legal, but if it is, it shouldn't be. It wouldn't be the first time legislation prioritized corporate power over actual people.
Ignore the streaming aspect of this. What's stopping Sony from doing this right now?
"It shouldn't be"
Yeah alot of things in life 'Shouldnt' be.'. And here we are.
You can argue 'Publishers/developers are being greedy!' But...Nvidia is another billionaire corporation. Are they exempt from being greedy?
I never said anything about greed. It's certainly about money, and doing whatever they can to assert any rights they think they can to ensure more money. I'd call it rent-seeking behaviour, not "greed".
I also don't care how much Nvidia is worth. I'd go further and say that in other corporate areas, Nvidia themselves are probably bad actors too. I just care about who is ethically right, and who is ethically wrong on this specific issue we are talking about.
If GeForce Now offered access to an open PC, rather than limiting the service's use to user owned games, would we be having this conversation at all right now, or would we be discussing whether NVIDIA needs to negotiate with Microsoft for the right to stream a pc using their their operating system?
Why shouldn't it be expanded to all programs on any streamable device, whether it's a paid third party service or a personal computer? With GeForce Now, the content is legally purchased, and it's the pc they're charging for; why should there be a distinction between NVIDIA and a business's shared pc?
Why shouldn't it be expanded to all programs on any streamable device, whether it's a paid third party service or a personal computer? With GeForce Now, the content is legally purchased, and it's the pc they're charging for; why should there be a distinction between NVIDIA and a business's shared pc?
So who is ethically right, who is ethically wrong
Do artists not deserve a right on how their art is used? (IE the devs of the Long Night pulling their game from GeForce)
Does a corporation deserve a right to whatever they see fit? (IE Nvidia using every game willy nilly for their own p2p service)
So tell me
Who do you think is in the right here?
or are game developers no longer artists of their craft, who have a say in how their art is used?
Such an objective framing of the conversation at play, lol.
Within reasonable parameters, absolutely. I think people accessing their Steam games from a remote PC terminal falls squarely within the definition of "reasonable personal use" - whether they set it up themselves, or a company like Nvidia rented it to them. Making copies and selling them yourself? Not so much.
I kinda feel like we just went back to square one here. It's not a "p2p service". Nvidia aren't "using games". They are renting access to PC sessions that include access to launcher applications like Steam, so you can access your Steam library remotely. From there, you can install your games and play them in this remote PC session, just like if you remoted into a PC at your house and did the same. Nvidia charges a fee for this, because it's their hardware, not yours. The games themselves have nothing to do with the business transaction.
Ethically? I think Nvidia should be allowed to offer this service unfettered. And I don't think it's even close. Of course, they will probably end up cutting deals with these publishers, both to avoid expensive litigation of the core issues, and to protect their business relationships. But I don't think they should HAVE to, in the slightest.
OP
OP
Wow, insightful thread. I hope that the corporate scum sucking publishers are reading this because our future rights of even holding "licenses" are getting smaller everyday. You won't own shit with digital. I'm being blocked to not play my "licensed" game the way I want because someone decided that my choice of renting a remote PC somewhere to access my "purchased licenses" on a storefront does not benefit them.
I don't care about any of these greedy fuckers, neither do I feel that I'm being entitled. Nvidia is just helping the consumer with access, not selling anything... otherwise they can also shove their 1K GPU's up their ass. If I decide I want my friend to screen share my PC with Team Viewer while using a mod with Geralt looking like Winnie the Pooh, that's my choice. So it ultimately boils down to Greed which nVidia is also known well for with their Premiums.
Congratulations, we deserve this. We let every one of these fuckers act like they care about this industry but they milk us because we are ultimately the sheep and give in to their capitalistic dogma. And when one good thing starts happening for us consumers, someone has to shove their ass in your face and say "no".
I don't care about any of these greedy fuckers, neither do I feel that I'm being entitled. Nvidia is just helping the consumer with access, not selling anything... otherwise they can also shove their 1K GPU's up their ass. If I decide I want my friend to screen share my PC with Team Viewer while using a mod with Geralt looking like Winnie the Pooh, that's my choice. So it ultimately boils down to Greed which nVidia is also known well for with their Premiums.
Congratulations, we deserve this. We let every one of these fuckers act like they care about this industry but they milk us because we are ultimately the sheep and give in to their capitalistic dogma. And when one good thing starts happening for us consumers, someone has to shove their ass in your face and say "no".
There isn't, you're still constrained by Steam's account systems. So, if you play on your home PC and your brother uses Now to stream, it's gonna kick one of you off.
Reading this thread...
Every now and then I get this feeling that copyright laws, licensing and whatnot really does more to hamper this industry than help it...
Every now and then I get this feeling that copyright laws, licensing and whatnot really does more to hamper this industry than help it...
Nvidia is not distributing anything.
Hobbes doesn't address the bits that the video ignores. See the 2k thread for more details.
Nvidia is not distributing anything.
1) Technically Nvidia is selling you access to a private cloud instance.
2) The EULAs in question don't generally limit you to a PC in your home.
3) The EULAs in question are between the end user and the publisher. Nvidia is not a party.
4) GFN is no different than spinning up a specific type of box on AWS or Azure.
GFN does not have a storefront.
1) Bleem
2) Services like this for mobile devices exist
As I've pointed out in the past two threads on this topic the Aereo decision doesn't control. If anything is going to apply Cablevision would.
Nvidia wouldn't be likely to lose in a US court unless they are only loading one copy of each game and sharing it (they're not).
Sony can't even be bothered to create a PS1 emulator. You think Sony is going to invest in either a cleanroom Switch emulator that works with Nintendo's online service (good luck not getting banned) or buy a shitload of Switch units and engineer interfaces for lag free remote play?
Cablevision says you can do just that.
It is the decision that formally said cloud DVRs are legal and the decision that the legality of online storage lockers is based on.
Finally. Someone who reads cases rather than just guessing. These threads really need more of this.
Legally has nothing to do with it. Nvidia also has a hardware business that is much more important.
GFN is s service sold below cost, most likely as a side project to offset idle time in their server farms.
A company like Shadow, where renting cloud PCs is the main business? They'll tell publishers to go away.
The fact that it is not easy to do.
GFN is running Windows. Each instance requires its own license since each is an individual PC.
Haha people are gonna be shocked when xCloud does not support every Xbox game currently playable on Xbox One, huh?
Games, especially those from publishers working on their own streaming service are not gonna be in xCloud unless Microsoft go out of their way to seriously incentivise them being so. Especially for back catalogue games.
Given their previous statements on the matter, being on xCloud will likely be part of game pass negotiations going forward, where there is compensation in exchange for being on game pass + xCloud, but things like existing purchases dating back to 360 will not be automatically supported without the publisher or developer giving consent.
"They already got paid for the game" is an extremely simplistic analysis.
But ultimately the reason games are getting pulled is because Nvidia policy allows games being pulled, and many devs or publishers want to make decisions about where their games can be played for themselves, not have Nvidia use those games on a commercial service where they unilaterally set the terms without even discussing it. Who wants to partner with a business with that little regard for developers or publishers rights?
Games, especially those from publishers working on their own streaming service are not gonna be in xCloud unless Microsoft go out of their way to seriously incentivise them being so. Especially for back catalogue games.
Given their previous statements on the matter, being on xCloud will likely be part of game pass negotiations going forward, where there is compensation in exchange for being on game pass + xCloud, but things like existing purchases dating back to 360 will not be automatically supported without the publisher or developer giving consent.
"They already got paid for the game" is an extremely simplistic analysis.
But ultimately the reason games are getting pulled is because Nvidia policy allows games being pulled, and many devs or publishers want to make decisions about where their games can be played for themselves, not have Nvidia use those games on a commercial service where they unilaterally set the terms without even discussing it. Who wants to partner with a business with that little regard for developers or publishers rights?
Speaking as a dev, it does concern me that services like this can potentially complicate the testing and bugs in a game. Geforce Now can introduce any number of strange behaviours to input or timing of a game, so any bad reviews or customer support headaches caused by this service can put a drain on engineering and support staff.
That's not true. Without those games, their service is nothing. If you go to GFN subreddit, most people are saying that if Nvidia doesn't fix the situation with the publishers, they will not renew their subscriptions. If what you are saying were true--that Nvidia isn't using games for profit--those games wouldn't matter, but that is not the case. Access to games is what makes people pay Nvidia, not some hardware in vacuum, so yes, Nvidia are indeed using someone else's property for commercial gain without the owner's consent, which is a very questionable thing to do.
The ability for them to even be able to pull their games out has no legal ground whatsoever. If they'd sue, they'd lose. The only reason NVidia buckles is fear of burned bridges. Was it a smart move to bet on "it's easier to ask for forgiveness" and hope it wouldn't raise a stink? Also no. But this is entirely on publishers.
Apologists should stop licking the boot.
Apologists should stop licking the boot.
OP
OP
Thanks for your input but why doesn't this deter publishers from putting their games on other paid streaming services, shareplay and what not?
"Developers and publishers should just consent to Nvidia's request to support their game without any discussion or negotiation" sure sounds a lot like licking Nvidia's boot to me.
OP
OP
Why does that matter?
- Nvidia gets no cut from the game being sold on any storefront
- Access to your library and gives people who don't have PC's access a paid for library
- Gives games more sales due to exposure and friends playing together without having expensive rigs
- Takes $5 rent to use their most expensive GPUs to play games on a pooled server farm.
How is this not a win win scenario for everyone? Oh wait... scum sucking Publishers. Give a $ to them Nvidia. Give them their share because there are too many apologists who don't know when they're being nickeled and dimed.
If I rent rack space and remotely install Steam and the games I've bought on that and then stream the games I've bought from the hardware I've bought, will $publisher breath down the data centers neck? no? then they have no business breathing NVidias neck.
I don't even like NVidia, but this whole affair is ridiculous.
Did they go after Steam for Steamlink?
All the many obvious reasons that have been discussed over and over again in every thread discussing Geforce Now.
I mean it's far more likely Nvidia would get the blame than any game on the service. Any bugs would minor relative to the input lag and other associated issues with streaming.It'd be like blaming movie studios for the issues people have with netflix.
I'd say that once you're on the PC platform, you no longer have a say in how your art is used or accessed. People are going to cheat, mod anime girls into it, inject graphical features into it, buy it dirt cheap and pirate it. If people want to add a little latency and play it remotely, that's nothing compared to how other uses are violating your art.
I kinda don't care how obvious the reason is, as long as it's legal for me to run the software I've bought the way I want. Which it is.
loool
Ok
Fuck the artist
Cause they're on PC
Let's all follow your example.
It will not be $5 forever. Nvidia isn't in this business for charity. They're a huge, greedy company, more ruthless than most publishers. $5 is just to lock you in their service. In 2017, they briefly mentioned that GFN would cost $25 for twenty hours of play time, and I haven't seen anything since then that indicated that they have changed their minds.
OP
OP
Don't think anyone will use their service then. That would be ridiculous. I am expecting $15 at Max. Look how great Stadia turned out with that philosophy!
indeed, let's. it's legal for people to fuck around with game files.
Do you think Nvidia's policy of letting developers/publishers pull support for their games is illegal?
But what if those people made you pay to fuck with game files
?
You know all m i rite
Which pretty much all come down to these companies want more money at either nvidia or the consumers expense which is the long and short of it. Everything else is rather minor relative to this point. If they thought this was the most profitable way to proceed the vast majority would have no issues with it.
I mean their for profit corporations it's their job but the reason why people don't like companies that are objecting to something that's not in most of their eula's and is widespread consumer behavior. It's displaying dislike at rights consumer already have much like they did against used games and only consumers displaying revulsion at that idea has the chance to change their minds.