i already bought their game, what the fuck other money do they want?
"well i mean they want to make more money" is not some kind of universal checkmate that makes all developer and publisher actions justifiable by default
-
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
"well i mean they want to make more money" is not some kind of universal checkmate that makes all developer and publisher actions justifiable by default
This. Devs and publishers just don't make enough money with the way things currently are. That's why any time I stream a game in my Steam library from my home PC to my phone, I Paypal them the same amount I initially paid for that game, essentially purchasing it again. It's only fair.
Yeah, it is completely idiotic the posture they're adopting, they will all fail without a doubt, hopefully sooner than later.
Arguing that you can't also play a game you bought on PC on a streaming service (which is technically still playing it on a PC), would seem like you're also making an argument against backwards compatibility. How is playing my Playstation 4 game on a PS5 any different? (Yes, it's the same platform, but its different hardware and a different generation.)
Seems similar to GeForce now letting you play the game you own on the same platform (PC), but different hardware (GeForce Now).
This just feels like the dev's are pissed they can't double dip. Not that all of them would want to, but they're losing the option to.
Seems similar to GeForce now letting you play the game you own on the same platform (PC), but different hardware (GeForce Now).
This just feels like the dev's are pissed they can't double dip. Not that all of them would want to, but they're losing the option to.
If I try to look at it from the publisher point of view, I can see some precedent for this kind of thing. Windows does have separate licensing for cloud-based VMs, a change they made last year seemingly in a bid to boost their own Azure cloud at the expense of other cloud providers. And various video game publishers have enforced gaming cafe licenses, even though the hardware cafes run is generally the same as what individual users buy.
Of course, the reasoning with gaming cafes is that you are effectively using one license to allow multiple people to play the same game on a timeshare basis, which is not the case here in theory. But it does illustrate that a) under certain circumstances, companies have considered VMs in cloud environments to be a different platform for licensing purposes, and b) in the video game industry specifically, there are special types of licenses for specific business uses.
Do I think this makes a whole lot of sense? Not really. But given how we've dealt with this kind of thing in the past (hello My.MP3.com) it's not wholly surprising.
Of course, the reasoning with gaming cafes is that you are effectively using one license to allow multiple people to play the same game on a timeshare basis, which is not the case here in theory. But it does illustrate that a) under certain circumstances, companies have considered VMs in cloud environments to be a different platform for licensing purposes, and b) in the video game industry specifically, there are special types of licenses for specific business uses.
Do I think this makes a whole lot of sense? Not really. But given how we've dealt with this kind of thing in the past (hello My.MP3.com) it's not wholly surprising.
We'll have to agree to disagree. Developers should push for the best possible deals than can, especially indies and smaller studios.
I'm fully behind publishers and developers on this one.
I'm a bit perplexed that so many people, especially on this forum, don't understand what's going on. Nvidia is gaining subscriptions from showing big known games titles and their logos in their Geforce Now promo materials.
Visit Geforce Now homepage right now and tell me what you see? It's games games games, your favorite big games! There's hardly a word about how it all works and what you are paying for.
Now visit Shadow website and all their marketing is focused on streaming hardware, , specs, streaming quality, etc.
Do you see the big difference in marketing and why publishers might be a bit upset about how Nvidia is handling this?
I'm a bit perplexed that so many people, especially on this forum, don't understand what's going on. Nvidia is gaining subscriptions from showing big known games titles and their logos in their Geforce Now promo materials.
Visit Geforce Now homepage right now and tell me what you see? It's games games games, your favorite big games! There's hardly a word about how it all works and what you are paying for.
Now visit Shadow website and all their marketing is focused on streaming hardware, , specs, streaming quality, etc.
Do you see the big difference in marketing and why publishers might be a bit upset about how Nvidia is handling this?
There's merit to this - using games to market your service without the consent of the game publishers and developers is shitty, and can actively cost other marketing opportunities. It's also worth noting that there are services that ask for exclusivity - as in, "no other subscription service will feature x game." If you release it for Steam, and then NVIDIA puts it on GeForce Now, EVEN IF it requires you to own the Steam license, that's still a violation of the contract that isn't your fault.
I feel like GeForce Now needs to be a VM that can play every game, and stop using specific games to market it with, or only games they get permission to use.
Let me preface this by saying I'm not arguing in favor of devs here. Just trying to explain what I think is going on.
I think the difference is size and scope. Nobody gives a shit if you do this on a personal or maybe even a small-business level, but if you are starting a well-known money-making business where that is its raison d'etre, devs aren't going to idly stand by while a large company makes money off their cooperation without compensating them. Regardless of whether you "own" the game or not, in the dev's mind Nvidia wouldn't have a viable product without their cooperation so why shouldn't they get some kind of cut of that fee Nvidia is charging? Due to the sticky wicket that is software licensing, they probably have the legal ability to step in and block participation so Nvidia complies and it appears that many are choosing to not participate. The ethical question of right/wrong doesn't have much bearing here. Only legality and business.
Is there a legal precedent on this that states whether Nvidia explicitly needs permission or not in this scenario? Of course, Nvidia probably doesn't want to make enemies of the game companies, so it probably doesn't matter, but I'm sure if permission is NOT needed some other companies will spring up who don't give a shit how devs feel about it.
Exactly. Nvidia seems like a big, rich company. They should have had their ducks in a row before they launched this, or maybe they are hoping it turns into a big stink so devs relent. It will be interesting to see.
None of what you brought up has been the main topic of contention here.
Most of this discussion has been surrounding a small indie dev pulling their game off the service. How is that small indie dev a big, known game that nVidia is using to gain subs?
Who says the games that they are using to market their service aren't separate agreements?
Next up, developers getting snippy when Alienware does the same?
If Nvidia is plastering the logos of certain games without permission, that is one thing. What is happening here is something else.
They sure seem to list every game they support in their site that's marketing to get you to subscribe.
I don't think this actually counts as marketing directly.
It's for informing the user what is available and probably is needed since you need to know what you actually get when signing up for this service.
That's probably also the reason why they put in only a search function and not a list.
I mean, compatibility lists are a thing. And the header text specifically says that it's the users' library.
Fundamentally I don't see this as much different to what Nvidia does when it highlights game specific optimisations in their graphics drivers.
Totally agreed here. I don't think there's much publishers or devs could actually legally do to prevent their games being used on GeForce Now, but Nvidia obviously want to stay in their good graces. They also obviously decided it would be easier to just remove games when issues came up than take the time seeking permission from everyone beforehand.
Main topic of discussion is The Verge's article that is about all Geforce Now developments that happened recently. How did you figure that this thread is only about a small indie dev?
Yeah... Hopped back into that thread, and that particular dev just keeps posting about how devs have a right to choose because it's their game.
Doesn't once mention why a developer would not want the people who purchased their game to be able to play it more easily.
Completely ignores all posts telling him this is blatantly anti-consumer, and there's nothing more to it.
Completely fucked up that they're allowed to do this as well.
Like... Does this developer who has made literally a single game expect Nvidia to contact every single developer who has ever made a video game and ask them for permission to allow people who already bought their game to play it? That seems like an absolutely insane request.
That seems more like a way to inform potential subscribers about whether or not the game they want to play is available through the service before they pay for it.
Doesn't once mention why a developer would not want the people who purchased their game to be able to play it more easily.
Completely ignores all posts telling him this is blatantly anti-consumer, and there's nothing more to it.
Completely fucked up that they're allowed to do this as well.
Like... Does this developer who has made literally a single game expect Nvidia to contact every single developer who has ever made a video game and ask them for permission to allow people who already bought their game to play it? That seems like an absolutely insane request.
I'm literally looking at a search bar that tells you whether or not a game is available to stream with their service, with a link to a store (Steam, Uplay, EGS, etc...) to buy the game.
That seems more like a way to inform potential subscribers about whether or not the game they want to play is available through the service before they pay for it.
Last edited:
I've never used GF Now but from past threads on the topic it's just renting VMs to play games you own? Doesn't make any sense for developers or publishers to expect a cut or consent in that case. If anything, it seems like Nvidia made a mistake acquiescing to the larger publishers to avoid a fight and now have set a precedent being used against them. Or I just completely misunderstand the service
the subscription price of GeForce now is covering the hardware and software costs of streaming - the platform. It has nothing to do with games. I honestly don't get publishers and developers opposition to this, it's effectively another platform for people to play their purchased games. Smart devs and pubs would want their shit on there.
I suppose this may be the core of it, there needs to be more clarity to the consumer (and apparently publishers/developers) about what GeForce Now is and isn't. It's not Stadia/PS Now/Gamepass.
I suppose this may be the core of it, there needs to be more clarity to the consumer (and apparently publishers/developers) about what GeForce Now is and isn't. It's not Stadia/PS Now/Gamepass.
If Google Stadia wasn't a thing I doubt this would be an issue. But because Google Stadia requires the user to pay for a subscription and then BUY a game directly through their service developers and publishers are going to start wanting the same thing with other similar services. Pure greed.
Weird. I can stream my owned Steam and PS4 games for free. The only thing Nvidia is doing is providing the server, which they should be paid for. Devs want a cut but are not the ones providing support if the streaming does not work.
Do you know how GeForce Now works?
You have to own the games to be able to play them via GFN. Therefore, they've already been paid.
What completely pisses me off with all of this are the developers and journalists completely ignoring the existence of services that have been doing this shit for years now (Shadow etc.). It just shows the hypocrisy of developers, because I haven't seen a single one complain about the competing services, just Geforce Now because "it's Nvidia and they're a huge company". Either pull your game from all similar services or stop preaching "this is for the good of game developers!". Yeah right.
I can understand it for Stadia since, as far as I know, the developers actually have to create a dedicated Stadia client to make it work with the platform.
In GFN's case, it's just using the Steam (or other shop's) version, so no extra work on the developer's side is needed.
I never really considered Stadia due to the weird pricing scheme (subscription + buying the game). I guess that's the case for most people seeing that Stadia is not really taking off.
Welp, streaming future just got a lot worse all of a sudden.
Prepared for countless platforms because everyone want a big piece of the cake.
And this is exactly why it will be a massive turn off to me. Being able to play the games I already bought via streaming sounded like a fantastic idea.
Prepared for countless platforms because everyone want a big piece of the cake.
And this is exactly why it will be a massive turn off to me. Being able to play the games I already bought via streaming sounded like a fantastic idea.
Staria doesn't require a sub. You can buy a game there and play it as much as you want with no sub. The sub is optional and just gets you free games like PS+ and 4K streaming.
They are charging money in the same way they would charge you for renting a PC. The money is for the hardware, not the (game) software.
There is a free tier.
The payment is for the rented hardware, and for longer time limits for accessing said hardware. That doesn't make it a platform.
OP
OP
Absolutely, because of comments like this and many more outside of Era:
That's misleading. Stadia free doesn't even exist right now according to their website.
Also, still requires people to re-buy games they've already bought.
Because it's not free for them to offer this service???
A developer makes a video game. They release it on the platforms of their choice. Consumers buy the game on one of those platforms. Why does the dev then get to arbitrarily decide which device that consumer gets to play the game on so long as that device supports that platform?
Are we now buying a new copy of every game just because we upgraded our motherboard or because we want to play on another computer?
Doesn't Nvidia already have something like this? In fact, Onlive had something like this in the form of Onlive Desktop.
Well said.
It's baffling to see some people here defend the devs from the perspective that Nvidia indirectly makes money off their games, so they have the right to prohibit users from choosing their way of playing their purchased games on their legal platform of choice. It's such a backwards mentality.
Its not like stadia where the people can play games .. you already paid and OWN the games... its like renting an aws server or shadow and playing your own games on a different machine.
That's misleading. Stadia free doesn't even exist right now according to their website.
It exists in the same way that Pro does currently. You can't get into either tier without buying a 'Premier Edition' at the moment. That gives you three months of Pro. But once that runs out (or if you cancel like I did) then you can totally use the free tier. They both exist. But neither of them are open to the general public yet.
Why let your customers enjoy your product when you could be reaching into their pockets again for the privilege of doing that?
you want to stop me from playing games I bought from you using an additional method, that won't really inspire me to buy your next game.
Nvidia (and everyone who is taking their side on this) is being extremely naive here.
If GeForce Now was 'just providing a VM' there wouldn't really be an issue. But they aren't. They are providing a specifically crafted service that delivers pre-installed and pre-configured games to customers. Its not like this is a base Windows 10 VM that you can do whatever you want with (like other cloud services). Its dedicated towards delivering games and nothing else - other peoples games to be more precise, other peoples games they sometimes didn't get permission for in some cases, clearly.
And that's the rub. Without those Other Peoples Games, the service is nothing. The service they are charging money for.
Nvidia thought they could build a business of delivering Other Peoples Games, but thought they could short-cut their way to a large games catalogue by piggybacking other existing services and avoiding all that tedious business with ironing out contracts and, y'know, asking permission.
Of course there will still be people that try to play dumb and say "What, so now Dell need to get permission from every game dev in case someone plays their game on one of their laptops?", and we all get to roll our eyes and sigh and try to explain how its not the same thing, even though its a waste of time.
TL:DR
Nvidia tried to take a shortcut and thought everyone would be cool with it, but they weren't.
When your entire business relies on someones else's work, always at least ask permission.
If GeForce Now was 'just providing a VM' there wouldn't really be an issue. But they aren't. They are providing a specifically crafted service that delivers pre-installed and pre-configured games to customers. Its not like this is a base Windows 10 VM that you can do whatever you want with (like other cloud services). Its dedicated towards delivering games and nothing else - other peoples games to be more precise, other peoples games they sometimes didn't get permission for in some cases, clearly.
And that's the rub. Without those Other Peoples Games, the service is nothing. The service they are charging money for.
Nvidia thought they could build a business of delivering Other Peoples Games, but thought they could short-cut their way to a large games catalogue by piggybacking other existing services and avoiding all that tedious business with ironing out contracts and, y'know, asking permission.
Of course there will still be people that try to play dumb and say "What, so now Dell need to get permission from every game dev in case someone plays their game on one of their laptops?", and we all get to roll our eyes and sigh and try to explain how its not the same thing, even though its a waste of time.
TL:DR
Nvidia tried to take a shortcut and thought everyone would be cool with it, but they weren't.
When your entire business relies on someones else's work, always at least ask permission.
Forgive me if it's been said already, but you can do exactly that. You don't have to launch a game directly.
Not many people are trying to argue that Nvidia would win in court. Most people are either arguing that the devs are scummy or that the current laws surrounding something like this are dumb as fuck.
Would you prefer it if the client allowed you to search for a game, and every time you found a game you wanted to play, the service would show you the game downloading and installing before launching it? And every time a game closes, the client then uninstalls the game?
Man, this GPU I bought purely for playing the games other devs have made sure is scummy. What the fuck are Nvidia and AMD thinking creating and selling hardware in order to play products that they took no part in creating? Fuck them.
I'd love for the writer to explain how they are so certain it would be considered redistributing under current law.
I don't understand this. It's not like people are playing the games for free or even using a subscription based system to play the games. You literally own the game and using a hardware farm with VMs to run your purchased games.
What the fuck are devs and publishers complaining about?
That is almost as stupid as trying to ban me from playing my STEAM games in my upstairs den because I purchased them using the computer in my office.
What the fuck are devs and publishers complaining about?
That is almost as stupid as trying to ban me from playing my STEAM games in my upstairs den because I purchased them using the computer in my office.