The Verge: Nvidia's GeForce Now is controversial among developers

[Earvin Infinity]

Nvidia’s GeForce Now is becoming an important test for the future of cloud gaming

Game developers are pulling titles left and right from the cloud gaming service

www.theverge.com

The publishers have given vague statements, leading many to surmise that it may be due to the lack of a revenue split or the fact that big game publishers would rather charge customers a second time for a separate license to play a game on a cloud gaming service, regardless of how it's structured. Stadia, for instance, charges customers for games even if you own them on Steam already, and a lot of big publishers have signed up under those terms. But again, these are assumptions. The developers haven't spoken at length about the disputes, and Nvidia has politely obliged when it comes to removing games because its service appears to depend on the goodwill of participating developers.

Click to shrink...

Later on, van Lierop wrote, "Today's world is getting complex for devs, with lots of platform changes and shifts to streaming, so devs have to be able to plan a strategy for how their games will appear and where, as a means of running a business. All the platforms acknowledge this." He said Hinterland would reconsider putting The Long Dark on GeForce Now in the future, but right now, he doesn't like the current situation.

This argument confused many onlookers, especially those who currently use or are considering using GeForce Now. Why would a game developer get to dictate the hardware its games are played on, and why would Nvidia need permission to make games a customer has already purchased on Steam available on a virtual machine? These are not dumb questions. In fact, the answers are critical to understanding the ongoing controversy with GeForce Now and how important it will be the future of the cloud gaming sector. The thread Lierop inadvertently kicked off by stating his plain thoughts on the matter is actually quite insightful, and I recommend everyone read it to get an even better understanding of what's going on here.

Click to shrink...

Effectively, there are two sides to the controversy — one in favor of the game maker and one in favor of the customer — and both have merits. For game developers and publishers, a digital game is not the same as a physical good you can do what you want with, including resell it. A digital game is a license to use a virtual good in a way stipulated by licensing agreements, both from the maker of the game and from the marketplace that sells it, in this case Steam. (This, of course, is ignoring the fact that physical games also have these license agreements so you can't, say, burn one to a Blu-ray and sell it on eBay. You can, however, sell a physical game back to GameStop and that is legal.)

A license to play a game does not mean another company can redistribute it, even if you personally bought the license. That's what happening with GeForce Now, and it's important to understand that. Nvidia isn't just renting you a virtual machine. It's renting you a virtual machine and then redistributing a video game sold by Steam under agreements that do not include Nvidia, at least not yet. It is not just a hardware rental service, and pretending it is one is disingenuous.

Click to shrink...

More at the link, but hopefully this clears some of the gray area surrounding GeForce Now and game streaming services in general.

My take: Nvidia should temporarily take down GeForce Now and restructure the program to have an on-boarding process for developers and publishers. Simply hit a checkbox for your game to be GeForce Now-enabled or not.

 

[Transistor]

This is just really frustrating to me. You still have to buy the game so the developers and publishers are getting their money still. Hell, they're probably getting more than they usually would as it enables people to make a purchase who didn't have the necessary hardware to run it in the first place.

But I guess they just want a bigger piece of the pie.

 

[PlayBee]

So if they have to choose between someone buying the game to play it on GeForce Now or not buying it at all they'll pick the latter. Alright then

 

[Earvin Infinity]

This is just really frustrating to me. You still have to buy the game so the developers and publishers are getting their money still. Hell, they're probably getting more than they usually would as it enables people to make a purchase who didn't have the necessary hardware to run it in the first place.

But I guess they just want a bigger piece of the pie.

Click to shrink...

That's really what it comes down to.

 

[crienne]

It's renting you a virtual machine and then redistributing a video game sold by Steam under agreements that do not include Nvidia, at least not yet. It is not just a hardware rental service, and pretending it is one is disingenuous.

Click to shrink...

This confuses me. How are they redistributing the game when I'm using my Steam account to log in on their virtual machine and download the game. Steam is distributing the software that Steam licensed me. I just don't see the difference between this and downloading that game on a second home machine—ignoring that money is changing hands if I use the paid GeForce Now service, of course.

 

[Dest]

It's renting you a virtual machine and then redistributing a video game sold by Steam under agreements that do not include Nvidia, at least not yet.

Click to shrink...

Is that so? I have to own the game in order to play it on that machine. Let's say that I'm using something like Shadow which is basically just a remote desktop, then does there need to be an agreement there? It's my game, I should be able to play it where I want. Steam allows me to install it wherever I want on whatever computer I want, I don't see how this is any different. If this is how they're being then developers should have issue with me remoting into my computer at home to play a game. It's no different.

 

[Zaro]

This confuses me. How are they redistributing the game when I'm using my Steam account to log in on their virtual machine and download the game. Steam is distributing the software that Steam licensed me. I just don't see the difference between this and downloading that game on a second home machine—ignoring that money is changing hands if I use the paid GeForce Now service, of course.

Click to shrink...

I don't understand too. Nvidia do not distribute the game, you install you license on a VM on play it on a remote desktop.

 

[Kopite]

Greedy bastards

 

[7thFloor]

This is just really frustrating to me. You still have to buy the game so the developers and publishers are getting their money still. Hell, they're probably getting more than they usually would as it enables people to make a purchase who didn't have the necessary hardware to run it in the first place.

But I guess they just want a bigger piece of the pie.

Click to shrink...

They probably don't want this to become the norm because it would mean less money for them. Compared to cutting deals with services like Stadia.

 

[SteveWinwood]

devs can kick rocks i bought the damn game already i can do what i please with it

in an ideal world

 

[Sprat]

Gonna guess the point behind it is your licence is to play it on your machine. Technically playing it from another is going against that licence

 

[Kinggroin]

I don't think I get the "redistribute" part. Or at least, I find it to be a terrible way of describing Nvidia's part in this.

 

[bargeparty]

They probably don't want this to become the norm because it would mean less money for them. Compared to cutting deals with services like Stadia.

Click to shrink...

How is it less money you have to own the game.

Gonna guess the point behind it is your licence is to play it on your machine. Technically playing it from another is going against that licence

Click to shrink...

But I can install Steam on any number of computers, login with my account and install the game.

 

[Windu]

Raphael van Lierop claims Nvidia added The Long Dark to GeForce Now without permission.

For those of you not keeping track at home, GeForce Now has had a fairly rocky past few weeks. First with the removal of Activision Blizzard's games, followed by Bethesda also having their games taken down. In both cases, the action was sudden and the explanations were bare. Nvidia has said...

www.resetera.com

 

[TioChuck]

Nvidia should market It as a Rent a VM that can play games, and devs would not have a say in wich games I can play on my VM or not.

 

[Deleted member 18944]

Raphael van Lierop claims Nvidia added The Long Dark to GeForce Now without permission.

For those of you not keeping track at home, GeForce Now has had a fairly rocky past few weeks. First with the removal of Activision Blizzard's games, followed by Bethesda also having their games taken down. In both cases, the action was sudden and the explanations were bare. Nvidia has said...

www.resetera.com

Click to shrink...

And this is the verge expanding on the topic. New info, new thread.

 

[Sprat]

How is it less money you have to own the game.



But I can install Steam on any number of computers, login with my account and install the game.

Click to shrink...

Can you do it on all of them simultaneously though? Just a honest question as I don't use steam unless I absolutely have to do aren't too sure on the nitty gritty.

 

[7thFloor]

How is it less money you have to own the game.

Click to shrink...

They want you to buy their game and they want a cut from Nvidia is what I mean.

 

[inpHilltr8r]

devs want to get paid for their work shocker

 

[MakotoYuki]

From my point of view you're playing a game you already own on different hardware, so don't see the problem. They want consumers to pay twice?

 

[exodus]

They probably don't want this to become the norm because it would mean less money for them. Compared to cutting deals with services like Stadia.

Click to shrink...

Yeah those Stadia deals sure are really paying off.

 

[roguesquirrel]

Im really struggling to see the side of the devs who are against this.

 

[Muffin]

Nvidia should market It as a Rent a VM that can play games, and devs would not have a say in wich games I can play on my VM or not.

Click to shrink...

Blizzard has it in their EULA that you cant play your games via virtualization, so it prevents exactly that.

Someone would have to take them to court to see if that has any ground to stand on though, I imagine.

 

[SteveWinwood]

devs want to get paid for their work shocker

Click to shrink...

yes

that's why you buy the game

 

[Earvin Infinity]

devs want to get paid for their work shocker

Click to shrink...

They already got paid. They want to get paid even more if someone wants to stream their Steam-purchased title on a virtual machine.

 

[PlayBee]

devs want to get paid for their work shocker

Click to shrink...

They got paid when users bought the game on Steam. You think they should get paid for Nvidia's work.

 

[Zaro]

devs want to get paid for their work shocker

Click to shrink...

You install the game from your Steam library. they get their money.

 

[Kinggroin]

Can you do it on all of them simultaneously though? Just a honest question as I don't use steam unless I absolutely have to do aren't too sure on the nitty gritty.

Click to shrink...

You can only have one instance of the game playing online at any given time.

Maaaaybe two instances of you use offline mode as a circumvention (though I believe Valve stomped that out already)

 

[Deleted member 18944]

devs want to get paid for their work shocker

Click to shrink...

Care to expand on this? In what way are they being denied revenue?

 

[7thFloor]

Yeah those Stadia deals sure are really paying off.

Click to shrink...

To be clear I think they've made the wrong decision, this doesn't make much sense to me.

 

[inpHilltr8r]

and yet they retain the power to remove their games from the service

 

[RocketDarkness]

devs want to get paid for their work shocker

Click to shrink...

As a dev: Fuck these devs. People paid for the product already; let them play it on better hardware if they want.

 

[Sprat]

You can only have one instance of the game playing online at any given time.

Maaaaybe two instances of you use offline mode as a circumvention (though I believe Valve stomped that out already)

Click to shrink...

Thanks.

 

[Snake__]

This is just really frustrating to me. You still have to buy the game so the developers and publishers are getting their money still. Hell, they're probably getting more than they usually would as it enables people to make a purchase who didn't have the necessary hardware to run it in the first place.

But I guess they just want a bigger piece of the pie.

Click to shrink...

yeah I'm really having a hard time following the developers' logic on this one

they just want more money for "reasons" I guess

do they really think people should buy their game more than once

Nvidia is basically putting their game in front of more people at no cost to them and that somehow isn't a good thing

 

[collige]

This is precisely why Steam runs its PC Café Program, a bulk licensing service so gaming cafes can acquire the rights to host software that its customers may have already paid for.

Click to shrink...

This either factually incorrect or misleading at best if you actually read through the document that's linked. The point of the PC Café program is to enable cafe owners to buy bulk licenses of games that are explicitly not owned by customers, which makes comparing it to Geforce Now pretty inaccurate. People can go to a Steam Enabled PC Cafe, sign into their own account, and play whatever they want.

One good example of a downside of GeForce Now is mobile ports. What developer would put resources toward developing a competent mobile port of their game, with hopes to resell it to a new audience to recoup investment on the port and make some profit, if GeForce Now is available on mobile (it's already on Android) and completely obviates the need to pay for the mobile version?

Click to shrink...

in this scenario, a developer would have to put resources toward having its desktop PC game play well on mobile from a UI perspective in the first place. Something like Civ is gonna transfer over terribly.

Also, in this situation, there's less work for everyone involved, so I'm not sure why it's a problem? You could just swap out "GeForce Now" and "mobile port" with "Steam Proton" and "Linux Port" and get a similarly nonsensical argument.

 

[elenarie]

As a dev: Fuck these devs. People paid for the product already; let them play it on better hardware if they want.

Click to shrink...

As a dev: the use of one's intellectual property on a third party service is grounded on the agreement signed by the intellectual property's owner and the third party.

If nVidia is renting out virtual machines, they should advertise their service as such and not as a game streaming service. ;)

 

[Dalto11]

If a dev comes out against this, it's pretty much an instant mark of greed in my eyes. I paid for a game. I can play that game on any hardware (so long as I'm not playing it somewhere else). If I set up Moonlight I can stream my game to my phone anywhere from my own PC. If I setup a dedicated machine to stream outside my home I can. None of this has been a problem or a license violation before. If I want to rent a more powerful computer to stream my game from suddenly that's a problem? The game is distributed through Steam still, I just cannot physically touch the computer I am playing on it. That's different than if I was playing it from a PC across the house via steam link even. The advantage of GeForce Now is it's a very powerful PC with absolutely smooth gameplay in terms of input lag in my experience (compared to Moonlight/Steam Link). If the Devs somehow feel they are owed some of my rental money for me playing a game I already bought remotely, they're just wrong.

 

[Joedev]

I could see big publishers objecting, as maybe they want to have there own streaming solution for all their titles, but small developers objecting seems odd to me.

 

[Kinggroin]

As a dev: the use of one's intellectual property on a third party service is grounded on the agreement signed by the intellectual property's owner and the third party.

If nVidia is renting out virtual machines, they should advertise their service as such and not as a game streaming service. ;)

Click to shrink...

I agree.

But to what end does that actually change anything for you?

This entire thing seems petty

 

[elenarie]

I agree.

But to what end does that actually change anything for you?

This entire thing seems petty and pedantic

Click to shrink...

I personally don't care either way. But I can see why some may have something against nVidia's handling of this. :)

 

[Holundrian]

devs want to get paid for their work shocker

Click to shrink...

They are since we still have to buy their games to even stream them. Even in the other threads there have been indie devs questioning this so don't make it seem like they're all on the same page.
For me this just makes it clear what games I won't touch. I'm already losing a bunch of rights going digital like the ability to trade in. Doesn't need to be also the ability to play my license on any machine of my choosing.

 

[Speculator]

Yeah the position many publishers and developers are taking is so regressive and aggravating. The only reason subscription prices are so low/free is that it's a virtual machine streaming your Steam library which means the game has already been paid and purchased by the consumer. Pulling your product/support because they want more money feels like they also want to charge you everytime you purchase a new PC.

 

[Kinggroin]

and yet they retain the power to remove their games from the service

Click to shrink...

You don't know actually know that.

 

[Colargogol]

I have a Mac because of my work. Without Geforce now or equivalent, I just won't game on it and I won't buy a license. With Geforce now, I can buy a license. Sounds like more money for the dev to me...
No way I'm buying into the stadia model where you have to buy a stadia license for an old game at the price of a new game, plus a crazy expensive monthly streaming fee.

I get that some people are greedy asshats but I'm disappointed there's so many of them.

 

[Lukar]

devs want to get paid for their work shocker

Click to shrink...

I'm still buying their game. They are getting paid.

 

[AshenOne]

We're already buying your fucking game what else do you fucking want huh? How we want to play with our games is our own fucking choice not something thats to be restricted by a dev. So fuck off.

Now unless a dev wants money or share from the streaming service then thats another issue and just fucking say it instead of saying.. "ohh sorry this company didn't ask for our permission so we took our games out so yeah fuck you regardless if you were streaming our game that you already paid us money for"..

Greedy shits just say that you want some share instead of just the whole 'permission' excuse.

Can't wait for valve to start their own cloud service where we can play our owned steam games without the pubs/devs having the audacity to pull their games from steam(LMAO).

 

[Zaro]

That's interesting, if Nvidia was renting real PC that you get a new one year after year it's would not be a problem.
Put it in the cloud and it change everything.

 

[HOUSEJoseph]

God this is so stupid. Developers cannot block me from playing their games I paid for on a virtual machine like Parallel, Parallel isn't paying these developers to allow me to play their games on said VM, so how are they blocking me from playing the same game I already paid for on an Nvidia virtual machine? That's basically what this is and it makes no sense.

 

[Bleu]

devs want to get paid for their work shocker

Click to shrink...

They were already paid.
People paid for their game, they have a licence for it, they are free to use that licence on any compatible hardware.
I could rent a VM, remote desktop into it and install steam myself, and play my game, that i already own, why on earth would the dev deserve my money AGAIN ?

 

[Joseph Merrick]

I don't understand how that works. it's like opting out of being supported by nvidias drivers.