Looks like 2K are the latest publisher to request the removal of their library of games from GeForce NOW.
-
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.
2K Games titles removed from GeForce NOW
- Thread starter ghostcrew
- Start date
Considering they wrote the EULAs it violates, I'm guessing they do.
So is everyone gonna be mad at 2K the same way they were when Blizzard pulled out or was that a special case?
They know exactly what it is.
I suspect that many of them would be happy to work with Nvidia to get their games on there if it were a proper partnership, not just Nvidia unilaterally attempting to set the terms. There should be a conversation first.
Maybe its the non-devs who don't understand why all of these game titles are being removed at the request of the IP holders.
I'm not an expert on this stuff, but it's very clear there is something that people who do not work with licenses, IP, agreements, etc, just do not see that justifies the holders ability to say "no we don't want it on GeForce Now"
nvidia should maybe open up a dialogue with these companies maybe.
it's clear that the value of exclusive streaming rights vary from dev to dev and pub to pub. nvidia completely ignored this.
Nvidia went for the "ask for forgiveness rather than permission" approach and its blowing up in their faces (as it should).
And with that, I am out on Geforce Now.
There's only so far that this can go while blaming the publishers for Nvidea's mistakes. They've put out a service without consulting the necessary people, and it's impacted the quality of the service.
There's only so far that this can go while blaming the publishers for Nvidea's mistakes. They've put out a service without consulting the necessary people, and it's impacted the quality of the service.
lol nvidia wtf.
google goof up.
nvidia never asked the publishers
sonys service sucks
microsoft?
google goof up.
nvidia never asked the publishers
sonys service sucks
microsoft?
They know exactly what it is.
But sweet-sweet money from exclusivity deals with streaming services and people buying games again on said services are hard to resist.
Everyone's pulling out, and nVidia is going to lose the one reason that makes its service far superior than its competition.
They should probably hire the hundreds of experts that post here.
I find it hilarious that NVIDIA realized they needed agreements for the beta, but not for the release...
By stepping down in the face of a threat of an EULA lawsuit, it's arguably too late.
They've shown admission of guilt. So it's already over.
Thank you for the first statement here that resonates with what I'm thinking. NVIDIA should have entered proper discussion with developers before releasing a service that undercuts every other streaming service, that also doesn't provide developers any incentive to keep their games accessible on their platform.
Yep.
Why would these publishers prioritise supporting an Nvidia service over their own interests? Why would anyone expect them to?
A large part of me thinks that this not simply a case of the iconic "devs are greedy" take that plenty people like to parade around as the one and only answer to why this is happening.
They're complying because they (correctly) value the benefits of not pissing off "insert publisher here" (i.e. bundling their games with their GPUs, Game Ready drivers, Nvidia splash screens in games, etc.) over keeping those games on GeForce Now. If your only business is streaming (i.e. Shadow), you can tell publishers to fuck off because it's not impacting other parts of your business (because there are no other parts of your business).
Morally? No. Legally? Why would a big company like Nvidea comply with any form of cease and desist if they weren't?
then why did they remove the games? Is what I think that person is getting at.
We are talking about publishers. Their money is their bottom line and whats most important to these companies.
You dont think that has anything to do with this? What?
Because Nvidia wont pay them for having the games available?
The "they" in my statement refers to Nvidia, not 2K.
And I am curious how long it will take for litigation or the threat of litigation to occur in this scenario. Notoriously litigious Bethesda have said they will be launching their own streaming service at some point.
But yeah it's clear that Nvidia are complying with requests to remove support for certain games, so it would likely never get to that stage for them.
What else would it be? They want to be cut into the business. They're greedy fucks.
Yeah it really seems like they were banking on fan backlash to help them keep titles up, because there is no way they thought publishers would just let them stream their titles without cutting them in on their profits when streaming is a major revenue stream (or will soon be). Some smaller devs/pubs might not want to risk the blowback from fans, but the big guys like Acti, Zenimax, and 2K obviously cant be swayed like that
The only company that might have a conflicting EULA is Activision and even that is highly unlikely to apply to Nvidia.
There are no terms to set. The agreement should be between end user and Nvidia. Game developers have to reason to insert themselves in there.
The only reason these are happening is because Nvidia also has a large hardware business and wants to willingly stay on the good side of devs.
There has not been a single lawsuit filed. If there were, Nvidia would had a very strong case.
Nvidia isn't pulling for legal reasons. These pills are for business reasons (aka keeping the devs happy).
Another vendor could do the same and simply ignore such requests if it wanted.
It isn't like there is much competition in the graphics market. It is Nvidia or AMD. And Nvidia is the market leader at 70%.
The real question is do publishers want to get in a fight with Nvidia? Have reviews tank and players complain because there is no Game Ready Driver available.
I'm going to make sure to have a conversation with them when I'm using MY FUCKING GAMES in my brothers PC, cause it is the exact same thing.
it doesnt make sense, I'm renting a computer, where I use the games I BOUGHT is none of their fucking business.
I never said legal action was filed. Typically in business dealings, lawyers provide forewarning of legal action being filed.
And that's what's happened here.
Do you think Nvidea would have removed all those games with just a pretty please?
As I am saying on the main thread for geforce now, I do not think Nvidia has to comply with their requests. I think they comply with their requests because they do not want to injure partnerships/relationships with companies they have ties with.
I do not believe the publishers/devs have any actual legal authority to limit the use of players licensing in this manner. At the same time, it is unlikely the players can do anything about this legally because they are bound to the user agreement with nvidia. So in short, because Nvidia has no backbone and does not want to take the risk of a legal battle costing them money and potentially, even if they think it is unlikely to happen, losing, players are left with very little legal recourse.
I think at the end of the day it comes down to this argument. When I buy a game on steam I am buying the ability to install the game on a machine of my choice and stream it to another. And if you doubt that, please show me in the steam user agreement where that right is limited in any way when it comes to my own personal use. The fact that I am renting the machine? Irrelevant. My rights are laid bare. There is no restriction. They did not have the foresight to put it there. I am not sure they even have the legal right to, but they certainly did not do it. By buying the game, you have rights. I think there may be an argument somewhere, where they may even have standing to challenge in court but that is more complex than I am willing to think about this issue.
I do not believe the publishers/devs have any actual legal authority to limit the use of players licensing in this manner. At the same time, it is unlikely the players can do anything about this legally because they are bound to the user agreement with nvidia. So in short, because Nvidia has no backbone and does not want to take the risk of a legal battle costing them money and potentially, even if they think it is unlikely to happen, losing, players are left with very little legal recourse.
I think at the end of the day it comes down to this argument. When I buy a game on steam I am buying the ability to install the game on a machine of my choice and stream it to another. And if you doubt that, please show me in the steam user agreement where that right is limited in any way when it comes to my own personal use. The fact that I am renting the machine? Irrelevant. My rights are laid bare. There is no restriction. They did not have the foresight to put it there. I am not sure they even have the legal right to, but they certainly did not do it. By buying the game, you have rights. I think there may be an argument somewhere, where they may even have standing to challenge in court but that is more complex than I am willing to think about this issue.
So given their interests, it was foolish for Nvidia to get into this business to start with? Or at least without doing agreements beforehand, but I still figure some big devs would say no.
Of course there are, Nvidia have even been sending contracts detailing the terms to developers and just asking them to sign. After the fact.
I don't really know what you mean by "should".
I think people should educate themselves on some of the legalities of this matter with this expert analysis.
Quoting because people seem to keep missing this in every GFN thread.
There is no cause of action under US law here.
If Nvidia didn't have any other lines if business, it could safely tell complaining devs to go away.
SLAPP suits are a thing. Companies threaten legal actions without any legal ground to stand on because they know the other party doesn't want to be dragged into costly endeavor. These companies are just throwing their weight around because they want a piece of the pie.