I have no idea about PC side but on PS Now the titles are hand picked, which means they probably have a deal beforehand. Remote Play is just mirroring the screen from your PS4, not the exact game itself.
-
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.
The Verge: Nvidia's GeForce Now is controversial among developers
- Thread starter Earvin Infinity
- Start date
User Banned (1 day): Hostility over multiple posts
Ah so then you're saying there's no difference between a new pc and GFN. Thanks bootlicker.
Good luck with people that will continue to argue with this guy. But take note how he hasn't said anything new in like several post.
Just stating "He just feels like it's a new way" and variations of that. To me that just seems pretty clearly troll. *shrug*
Just stating "He just feels like it's a new way" and variations of that. To me that just seems pretty clearly troll. *shrug*
Are the devs/pubs going to be hosting the servers that are running all these virtual machines?
They haven't put forth the capital to build up an infrastructure to do what nVidia is doing so why do you think they are entitled to the money nVidia is?
You should be able to stream your own purchases. Developers aren't entitled to a second payday because you want to stream the game you already paid for, to your phone.
Did Nvidia show a screenshot of Long Dark on any GFN marketing material? Please link it.
OP
OP
Ha! And no money for those greedy devs. Shame.
This is the potential revenue I'm talking about with GeForce Now.
yeah. he's just wrong. it's not a new license, it's the same license. you can only access it once at a time. if it's from a local computer or a computer over the internet makes no difference.
I can't believe a Dev lost some money because of you ;)
I understand that they want their part, that's because this services mean nothing without games.
But it's just because it's a services. when i buy PC part they don't get anything either.
That's greed.
What's next, dev's demanding a cut when I buy a new videocard so I can run their games at higher settings, resulting in me getting a "new experience"?
And Geforce Now is mirroring a screen from rented Nvidia hardware running your owned Steam games from your own Steam account.
And Geforce Now is mirroring a screen from rented Nvidia hardware running your owned Steam games from your own Steam account.
Why should it go to the devs? It's not their work. They already got your money. I'm going to assume you are just being ignorant at this point.
The main perk of pc gaming is your library is basically eternal, you buy a new pc your library moves with you. This service is you "buying' a new pc and playing the games you own and onlythe games you own
you still have to buy the game to play on geforce now, its no different then loading up steam on your laptop/pc/phone, buying the game and installing it locally only difference is your installing it on a remote computer.
Even if they did, I'd consider that a big plus. Imagine complaining because your game was featured on Apple's front page without your permission, the horror. How could you ever deal with all the extra income from additional visibility and sales, better pull off their platform ASAP.
Oh no nVidia or ATI might make money by someone buying new GPU to better play a game they already own. They didn't ask permission for the game to run on it, I demand they don't let it unless they pay me.
Really it's not any different than that. I'm just renting the GPU rather than buying it.
Really it's not any different than that. I'm just renting the GPU rather than buying it.
Right? As a small, indie dev you'd probably think you'd have to pay for something like that. To have it happen for free would just be wonderful.
GeForce now is just mirroring the screen from a PC I rented, not the exact game itself.
This paragraph is a great, simple explanation of something that is quite a complex situation.
That's like saying a person streaming their PS4 to Vita via remote play gained a second license, and should pay for another copy.
Sure just basically means eat shit for buying digital. The upset is basically we're already aware of not having a lot of the same rights over what we purchased at the same price like trading in. This is just a push from certain devs towards removing another.
And to the consumer it's not complex at all it's clear cut shitty ass greediness. Which should make it fair game to push against and not give those devs any business.
And to the consumer it's not complex at all it's clear cut shitty ass greediness. Which should make it fair game to push against and not give those devs any business.
"it's a renting you a virtual machine" then 2 seconds later, "it's not a hardware rental serivce" and then fails to expand on this.
There is no difference.
I personally don't find nVidia to be distributing the game, to me Steam still is the platform.
Sorry I couldn't put my feelings this elegantly, I'm trying to work and my notifications are insane lol
[QUOTE
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.
][/QUOTE]
[QUOTE
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.
][/QUOTE]
So via GFN can I just start using Office/etc. and my PC as it was there locally? I am asking genuine question here.
Honestly I think this situation is weird since you technically bought the game anyway so I am not sure why devs are bothered that you are streaming it instead of playing locally. It's not another copy.
I have no faith that this issue will be resolved in favor of the customers.
The best i can hope for is that more and more people ask if a game is available on GFN before buying, incentivizing the publishers to put it there.
The best i can hope for is that more and more people ask if a game is available on GFN before buying, incentivizing the publishers to put it there.
But is it really the case though? How is Nvidia redistributing the game?
it's not accurate though. nvidia is not redistributing games.
Except I disagree with it. They are not distributing a video game. I am loading my own video game from my own steam account. How are they distributing it? Like what is the actual difference between these situations:
a) I borrowed my friends laptop for a week and logged into my steam account and playing my own games on this laptop
b) I borrowed Nvidia's pc. Logged into my steam account and play my own games on this PC.
Can somebody actually without jokes, dismissive comments, comprehensively explain to me what is the difference between thsoe two situations. Which parts of the arrangement mean that My friend is NOT distributing a video game I'm playing to me, but Nvidia does? I am 100% serious, cuz it feels that difference is purely being petty about particular words Nvidia is using.
Inaccurate statements such as this are still not elegant.
The only difference is greedy devs doing whatever they can to fuck digital owners.
It's funny how people are often arguing in favor of developers getting bigger cuts.
Well here you go. They'll stab you in the back for a buck. Developers aren't your friends.
How is it correct? You still have to log in to an actual Steam client and "install" the game using your account.
Except none of the arguments you have tried to make in this thread have been anything close to the argument that is being made in the quote.
Also, I think the claim that GFN is "redistributing" is tenuous at best. They are in fact just letting you run your steam license on their hardware. It is renting a virtual machine and letting you run your steam key. Not redistributing someone else's license to you, but your own that you bought and paid for.
No steam key, no streaming. Seems pretty cut and dry. Where is the redistributing?
Citation needed? As far as I know the only doubt in the other thread regarding this situation was if the installation files themselves were cached on Nvidia's end, but anything that doesn't use their SDK needs to be downloaded. The only stuff allowed to be redistributed are the games that use the SDK (for skipping installation times), which implies the developer had to do work to support it.
Nvidia is putting the cash for the service to even happen, and gamers have to buy the game on steam anyway for it to be available, so devs are getting their money either way. I don't u sweat and why it's a problem. I feel like devs are being super greedy here.
Capatilsm shocker. Imagine not seeing the bigger picture where people buy more games as they now some don't have to worry about upgrading their PC to play your games.
You were told why you were wrong with sound explanations and then doubled down.
So is there actually no revenue split even though it's a paid service? Or just assumptions? My gut reaction is to say I bought the game already, so let me play it how I want, even if that means via Nvidia's paid streaming service. It's not like I'm paying Nvidia *to* play the game in the first place. That being said, if a dev doesn't want their game available on that service, that's OK too IMO. It's their game.
I don't believe you can via GFN because it is specifically targeting the gaming audience, but theoretically they could open such aspects up. They just know it isn't what their audience is after, so they are streamlining their overhead.
I believe other services (that are also primarily used for gaming) do let you run whatever you want.
I am looking for proper explanations from people that represent the opposite view on this from you and me, not validation. So, I would appreciate a proper explanation. That quote from article explained jack shit. It just stated these things as a fact without any actual evidence suppoting them.
The real question is: what money are the developers owed here? What damages are they incurring as a result of their games being streamed on GeForce Now?
But it really isn't. I can already today play my Steam Library remotely with Steam Link. Essentially streaming it to my TV, or to my smartphone sitting on a 4G network.
I remember when I had to buy a death stranding license to watch someone stream the game on twitch.