I find it weird how publishers even have a say in this. You're playing the game you bought on Nvidia's machines.
So how does GeForce now differ from shadow then? Why can shadow stream anygame but GeForce now can't?
How would this happen to game pass? it's not like they don't have contracts that they sign when they agree to be on game pass. Ms isn't just taking games and putting them on there on a whim without talking to the publisher/ developer.This is exactly what will happen. I won't be surprised if this happens to Gamepass as well.
I know you're not defending Blizzard's decision, but it's Nvidia's hardware. The consumer buys the game. Why's it matter where they play it?Not surprising. Nvidia's making money streaming other people's games.
I find it weird how publishers even have a say in this. You're playing the game you bought on Nvidia's machines.
Exactly. I don't understand any of this.Nvidia is providing a virtual machine to play games on, how is this any different from using a virtual machine you pay for to utilize various other applications that you own licenses for?
Not surprising. Nvidia's making money streaming other people's games.
I appreciated the joke.
But they're not selling them. It would be no different to you hosting a windows instance in the cloud and using Steam Remote Play.Not surprising. Nvidia's making money streaming other people's games.
They still need the ok from publishers. It reminds me of Nintendo pulling their games from YouTube.But they're not selling them. It would be no different to you hosting a windows instance in the cloud and using Steam Remote Play.
Are you sure you're not confusing streaming and subscription? Where have those companies said they're planning a streaming service? Either way, it's too bad. I like GeForce Now.
That's not the same thing. That's dealing with copyright issues. People are capable of watching a playthrough of your game in its entirety without paying you a cent.They still need the ok from publishers. It reminds me of Nintendo pulling their games from YouTube.
FuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuckBethesda Softworks Announces Orion
id Software’s Chief Technology Officer, Robert Duffy, and the Director of Publishing at Bethesda Softworks, James Altman, got on stage during the BE3 2019 Showcase to announce Orion. Orion is a patented collection of software technologies that optimize game engines for superior performance in a...bethesda.netSquare Enix Committed To Making Its Complete Library Available Digitally
While there have been some unexpected bumps in the road, president Yosuke Matsuda confirmed it's a primary goal for the company.www.gameinformer.com
It looks to me like Activision doesn't like them making money, why else would they pull them?That's not the same thing. That's dealing with copyright issues. People are capable of watching a playthrough of your game in its entirety without paying you a cent.
This is literally going out and deciding which hardware can and cannot play your product despite the consumer having already bought it.
Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck
I just find it surprising that they even have a say in this.It looks to me like Activision doesn't like them making money, why else would they pull them?
It's a bad sign for cloud gaming as a whole that publishers even have a say in the matter. All this means is that cloud gaming will be like movie/tv streaming currently is, where you have to subscribe to every single publisher's streaming service.
Bethesda Softworks Announces Orion
id Software’s Chief Technology Officer, Robert Duffy, and the Director of Publishing at Bethesda Softworks, James Altman, got on stage during the BE3 2019 Showcase to announce Orion. Orion is a patented collection of software technologies that optimize game engines for superior performance in a...bethesda.netSquare Enix Committed To Making Its Complete Library Available Digitally
While there have been some unexpected bumps in the road, president Yosuke Matsuda confirmed it's a primary goal for the company.www.gameinformer.com
It looks to me like Activision doesn't like them making money, why else would they pull them?
I see it as a bad sign for both. It could lead to fragmentation of the market akin to that of the entertainment industry. There is however one big difference, with geforce now we are not paying for access to games but rather an instanced VM powerful enough to run them. We are renting hardware, not the games themselves. Those we own already. That's why even if a game is not supported, you can still run it as long as it's on Steam or one of the other supported clients.
I just find it surprising that they even have a say in this.
That's be like if they arbitrarily decided that you can't play any of their games unless you own one of their motherboards. When you try and launch the game with a Gigabyte motherboard or something, it'll just immediately close the game despite the fact that you've already paid for the game.
It doesn't make any sense to me. And it makes even less sense when you take into consideration the fact that this restriction doesn't seem to apply to AWS, Google Cloud Computing, or Azure.
Nvidia doesn't get a cut for the sale of the game. Nvidia doesn't get a cut for the microtransactions sold in the game. All Nvidia does is provide consumers with the hardware to play these games, and I don't understand why Activision has a say in the matter.
Just want to point out SE is exploring multiple options, not soley cloud gaming.
The Ubisoft article is about their game subscription service, and how its available for Stadia. That's not the same thing as announcing a streaming service.
There could be a plethora of reasons as to why. It is never simply "corporation is greedy"
This is the big advantage that Microsoft will have with xCloud, as their licensing agreements for the next generation of Xbox will likely include a clause for inclusion in the streaming service. Potentially, if Valve stood up a first party solution they could make that part of the Steam agreements as well (in fact, there were rumors of such last year).
Yeah I don't think any of those publishers would consider going streaming exclusive any time, but they still have their plans and those plans are not "allow Nvidia to charge players to stream our games without us getting a slice of the recurring revenue from a subscription".Just want to point out SE is exploring multiple options, not soley cloud gaming.
The Ubisoft article is about their game subscription service, and how its available for Stadia. That's not the same thing as announcing a streaming service.
There could be a plethora of reasons as to why. It is never simply "corporation is greedy"
That's the kind of shenanigan you can only pull off if your market lead is so large that publishers won't be able to stay out of your platform/ecosystem, which I don't think will be the case for MS next gen.
Last one that was able to pull something like this on publishers was Nintendo in the 90s...
You can do both though...Yeah I don't think any of those publishers would consider going streaming exclusive any time, but they still have their plans and those plans are not "allow Nvidia to charge players to stream our games without us getting a slice of the recurring revenue from a subscription".
Yes Ubisoft's (currently announced) streaming plans are a partnership with Google/Stadia, that is what I was referring to. Those plans generate revenue for Ubisoft.
I don't know why you're explaining the very basic description of what Geforce Now is..
You can do both though...
You don't get anything from the GeForceNow service it's basically just gaming computers for consumers to consume games. Any game sold through the service gets the developer revenue. Because you are using your own accounts to Epic, Steam, UPlay, etc.
While that could be true, often times (if not always) a game streaming data center say in EU West, and a Rainbow Six Siege datacenter (running on Azure if I am not mistaken) in the same region, go through the same internet exchange and both would have multigigabit fiber optic connections to it with very low latency. So I don't see such a big problem thereI doubt it is the reason, but anyone with online games releasing a dedicated service can potentially circumvent the double lag that streaming online games with GeForce Go would have.
The reality is that corporations ain't gonna let their product be someone else's product without a fight.
I don't know why you're explaining the very basic description of what Geforce Now is.
The outlook for having a PC based cloud streaming service that includes all the major publishers doesn't seem all that bright anymore.
How is people paying a subscription to stream a game and the publisher not getting any revenue from the subscription in any way preferable to them than people paying a subscription to stream a game and the publisher getting revenue from the subscription?For any revenue lost through people already owning the games, they make revenue on new purchases from those that don't have rigs that can run it
The way I see it we're paying Nvidia to use their hardware to play a game we own. Publishers should have absolutely _zero_ say about this, unless they have to cooperate technically with Nvidia to enable the service, which I doubt they have to.
They really don't. You can already play unsupported games by just launching steam. From what I can tell, all supported games offer is the game files being cached on nvidia servers so you don't need to download them from the steam servers, making the installation process much quicker.The way I see it we're paying Nvidia to use their hardware to play a game we own. Publishers should have absolutely _zero_ say about this, unless they have to cooperate technically with Nvidia to enable the service, which I doubt they have to.
i just don't understand what licensing would even need to go down with other companies. You're playing games that you own, you're only paying to rent good computer graphics essentially.
How is people paying a subscription to stream a game and the publisher not getting any revenue from the subscription in any way preferable to them than people paying a subscription to stream a game and the publisher getting revenue from the subscription?
"More money" is preferable to corporations than "less but still some money".
Nvidia is providing a virtual machine to play games on, how is this any different from using a virtual machine you pay for to utilize various other applications that you own licenses for?
How would this happen to game pass? it's not like they don't have contracts that they sign when they agree to be on game pass. Ms isn't just taking games and putting them on there on a whim without talking to the publisher/ developer.
If you want that to be the case then I'd suggest only buying games where the license agreement specifically allows for this scenario.
The license agreement for Activison Blizzard games do no allow for this scenario.
I find it weird how publishers even have a say in this. You're playing the game you bought on Nvidia's machines.
That's already started. See EA and UbisoftI meant that I can see publishers wanting to make their own Gamepass like services.