With respect, i think you are saying more than you know about the license agreements. I'm sure that you're right about ActiBlizz threatening action. But I don't think it's so open and shut that license agreements don't include streaming from external hardware. Do you believe Actiblizz could C&D me for installing a game I own on a friend's fancy computer and then streaming that game to my computer 5 houses away? Maybe the licenses will be written to prevent that in the future, but I don't think there us strong evidence that that view holds up now.I guess you must be right and removing support for these games must just be a mistake from Nvidia or just a random coincidence or something, rather than the predictable outcome of rudimentary issues related to licensing and corporate decision making...
There's certainly a colorable argument that Geforce Now machines constitute "one or more computers under your legitimate control."You may install applicable components or features of the Platform (including the Games) on one or more computers or mobile devices under your legitimate control.
That's literally the opposite of how Shadow works. Shadow is renting remote hardware, the same as GeForce Now.
Do you honestly think that third party publishers won't publish on the Xbox platform? Just because Sony is in the lead doesn't mean that anybody is going to ignore the Xbox ecosystem.
I think Nvidia do not want to risk litigation with every major publisher (given that some of them are notoriously litigious), and do not want to have to test this stuff in court. They also have an existing commercial relationship with many of these publishers (for example promo codes for games included with GPUs) that they do not want to jeopardize. Doesn't really matter what my or your interpretation of these terms are, it would be about convincing a jury.With respect, i think you are saying more than you know about the license agreements. I'm sure that you're right about ActiBlizz threatening action. But I don't think it's so open and shut that license agreements don't include streaming from external hardware. Do you believe Actiblizz could C&D me for installing a game I own on a friend's fancy computer and then streaming that game to my computer 5 houses away? Maybe the licenses will be written to prevent that in the future, but I don't think there us strong evidence that that view holds up now.
For example: this is from Blizzard's 2018 EULA found here.
There's certainly a colorable argument that Geforce Now machines constitute "one or more computers under your legitimate control."
Ugh. I really hope this subscription based hype dies down. I'm not convinced it's good for the medium.
Yes there is.There is nothing wrong or bad for the medium when it comes to subscription streaming.
I told my nephew about this and told him to download and try it, explaining it's like Stadia. "Why?" He asked, and I thought about it for a bit, and said that I guess it was for people that didn't have gaming PCs or data caps. He has a gaming PC and data cap.I can't wait to sign up to fourteen different cloud services to play the games I want to play. Let's do it, I'm ready.
(probably what will actually happen is what's already starting to happen with video streaming: people subscribe for a month, binge the shit out of the service, then leave)
But they don't have such service?It would benefit them a lot less than people subscribing to a service from which they get ongoing revenue.
Not yet. But they will. So the last thing they want right now is future competition getting a good head start with something more consumer friendly like this.
I think publishers will be open to having their games on a variety of services, if the terms they are offered by the service are compelling. I'm sure xCloud will be more than just first party games. Here, to the best of our knowledge, Nvidia was not offering these publishers anything, so of course they wouldn't play ball.I guess this one did sound too good to be true. Shame =/
So game streaming definitely heading the same direction as TV streaming, where every publisher wants you to pay them ~$10/month for an incredibly fractured service. I'd like to say I'm amazed they consider that a sustainable model for the industry, but I don't think any of them do. They just want to milk some consumers while it lasts.
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 can see some of them doing that on a rotating basis. Same way some shows bounce between different TV streamers. Sell to the highest bidder each year. It was nice to imagine an option as consumer friendly as Nvidia's might exist though, where if you bought any game you can also stream it. No nice things allowed apparently =/I think publishers will be open to having their games on a variety of services, if the terms they are offered by the service are compelling. I'm sure xCloud will be more than just first party games. Here, to the best of our knowledge, Nvidia was not offering these publishers anything, so of course they wouldn't play ball.
You are probably right that it's harder to change peoples habits.Not yet. But they will. So the last thing they want right now is future competition getting a good head start with something more consumer friendly like this.
Look at how reluctant so many gamers are to move from Steam to separate PC launchers for each publisher. And that's all free.
I suspect that will be something that is possible for Xbox games going forward, much like how Play Anywhere is a thing, but it will only happen on a case by case basis where Microsoft are able to convince publishers to agree. Likely will be something that they push for with games they are signing on to Game Pass, and of course first party games will allow it (except perhaps in cases like forza where is contingent on licenses for cars and music etc).Yeah, I can see some of them doing that on a rotating basis. Same way some shows bounce between different TV streamers. Sell to the highest bidder each year. It was nice to imagine an option as consumer friendly as Nvidia's might exist though, where if you bought any game you can also stream it. No nice things allowed apparently =/
I have a feeling that cloud gaming is going to be like movie/TV streaming, where every company is going to want their slice of the pie and try to release their own cloud gaming service. Hopefully Nvidia can work out some deals to get these publishers back.
It's weird as hell, because simultaneously you've got services like AWS and Google's cloud computing which I don't believe have restrictions like this? Or at least I don't see them being capable of enforcing them. If I wanted to, I could pay money to play whatever the hell I wanted through that. Albeit it'd be a worse experience than something like this.
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?
Nvidia already makes money off of hardware sales. I bought hardware from Asus, Nvidia, Gigabyte, etc... in order to play these games. Do the devs / pubs want a cut of that too?
Exactly. I don't understand any of this.
Then they're shooting themselves in the foot when PC gamers realize their games run better on AMD cards.What if Nvidia now asks for a specific agreement involving money from ActivisionBlizzard so that they will make sure to put in effort to make their Nvidia GPUs optimised for the games? Else they would let ActivisionBlizzard sort out and fix those glitches themselves without Nvidia's help.
No.People comparing this to hardware you buy yourself need to realize these publishers would enact that kinda shit tomorrow if they could. Want to play EA games? Better have the right brand of RAM etc...
This has been discussed extensively in this very thread.I don't get it.
How?
GFN streams your Steam account. If you own the game, you should be able to play it.
Right?
Arent most activision/blizz games multiplayer and trying to prevent cheaters? Geforcenow doesnt really give them that control anymore if its streaming from one pc to another.
You don't own your games =/ As outlined in the EULAs you agree to with each game that are so clearly and concisely written so as not to confuse consumers or train them into ignoring the terms of purchase.I don't get it.
How?
GFN streams your Steam account. If you own the game, you should be able to play it.
Right?
You don't own your games =/ As outlined in the EULAs you agree to with each game that are so clearly and concisely written so as not to confuse consumers or train them into ignoring the terms of purchase.
You don't own your games =/ As outlined in the EULAs you agree to with each game that are so clearly and concisely written so as not to confuse consumers or train them into ignoring the terms of purchase.
I can't wait to sign up to fourteen different cloud services to play the games I want to play. Let's do it, I'm ready.
(probably what will actually happen is what's already starting to happen with video streaming: people subscribe for a month, binge the shit out of the service, then leave)
You don't own your games =/ As outlined in the EULAs you agree to with each game that are so clearly and concisely written so as not to confuse consumers or train them into ignoring the terms of purchase.
You won't be able to pirate cloud game exclusives, though.TV and movie piracy is on the rise again. You'd think that publishers would learn some lessons from that.
They do have some advantages in that all that gassy shit makes validation of legitimate copies more feasible, but still.