The Verge: Nvidia's GeForce Now is controversial among developers

MrPoppins · Mar 2, 2020

This thinking by devs/publishers doesn't make much sense to me. They are basically just causing themselves to miss out on potential customers. I understand I am in a minority situation, but I travel full-time for work and want to have more options on games to play in the evening while at a Hotel or Air BnB (only so many Switch games scratch my itch). I subscribed to GeForce Now last month and have been enjoying playing some of my previously purchased Steam and Uplay games. I even bought Assassins Creed Origins two week on Uplay so I could play it via GeForce Now. Like I don't even own a gaming PC anymore so literally bought the game just to play via GeForce Now.

The Long Dark dev's statement makes no sense. He is absolutely correct, he does have the right to control where is game exists (e.g. it's for sale on Steam). But if I decide to buy a copy on Steam it shouldn't matter whether or not I play that copy I bought locally on my PC (If I still had one) or on a VM in the cloud. In what way does GeForce Now compatibility negatively effect his bottom line?

ty_hot · Mar 2, 2020

gtfo, I can buy the game and run it on my Steam at home, my steam at work, my stram anywhere... and they want to tell me I can run it on a VM?

Zeroneo · Mar 2, 2020

Why don't these devs add limited activations to their games? The end result would be the same: People would need to buy the games again to play in different machines.

Horned Reaper · Mar 2, 2020

The dev from The Long Dark is really doubling down now telling people how Nvidia apologized and that is somehow clear evidence of him being in the right...

It's such a dumb hill to die on. Especially now that a few people are already starting to review bomb an otherwise well received game. It's obvious he sees an opportunity to make some extra money and wants to cash in in every way that he can. I'm willing to bet he would do a full u-turn the moment that figures show games will sell more when they are available on Geforce Now.

furfoot · Mar 2, 2020

Whether I rent the hardware from the cloud or outright buy the hardware should be of no interest to dev/pubs!

Kill3r7 · Mar 2, 2020

MagicWithEarvin said:
Then they need to start cracking down on gaming cafes right now.

Home - Java Gaming Cafe

And this is just in Dallas. These types of cafes are super popular throughout Asia.

I'm sure if they could they would. Nvidia just makes it easier for them by complying with their demands.

Gestault · Mar 2, 2020

I didn't wake up today expecting to have a newfound resentment of the Long Dark director, but here I am.

Joseph Merrick · Mar 2, 2020

developers have really been very shortsighted up until now in the way they let us access their games if you think about it. if you take 1080p 30fps, a standard console game as the baseline 60 dollar game, they should really be charging 4 times that to let you access they game at 120fps. you're getting so much more game when you experience it like that. 4 times more game per second! dont even get me started on 4k resolutions. introduce a pixel and framerate tax please developers, you are losing money hand over fist.

Earvin Infinity · Mar 2, 2020

Horned Reaper said:
It's obvious he sees an opportunity to make some extra money and wants to cash in in every way that he can. I'm willing to bet he would do a full u-turn the moment that figures show games will sell more when they are available on Geforce Now.

GeForce Now Enabled:

[ ] Yes
[ ] No
[X] Only if I get a piece of the pie

Nvidia: middlefinger emoji

Developer: Fine! Take my games off your virtual machines. We didn't give you permission any way.

* developers see that sales are spiking for GeForce Now Enabled Games *

Developer: thinking emoji

Deleted member 6730 · Mar 2, 2020

Eh, developers are allowed to do whatever and I'd be pissed if something was done to my game without permission. I wouldn't resent anyone because of it.

ghostcrew · Mar 2, 2020

MagicWithEarvin said:
Then they need to start cracking down on gaming cafes right now.

Home - Java Gaming Cafe

And this is just in Dallas. These types of cafes are super popular throughout Asia.

The article specifically mentions gaming cafes and how they already (should be) paying a license.

This is precisely why Steam runs its PC Café Program, a bulk licensing service so gaming cafes can acquire the rights to host software that its customers may have already paid for.

No_Style · Mar 2, 2020

I wonder how many devs/publishers would have issue with GeForce Now if NVIDIA literally presented users with a virtual desktop and had people sign into actual store clients. Because it sounds like NVIDIA simply streamlined that process for users.

AndyMc1888 · Mar 2, 2020

I kind of get both sides - what's different from nvidias set up and Microsoft or Google's? As a developer if someone else is making pure profit off my product I can see the issue as that's not what the original sales license is for , a bit of a stretch but a bit like buying a dvd then making money playing private screenings in a cinema for your mates

RROCKMAN · Mar 2, 2020

Spyder_Monkey said:
Eh, developers are allowed to do whatever and I'd be pissed if something was done to my game without permission. I wouldn't resent anyone because of it.

But nothing was actually done to your game

It isn't even being illegally copied because you still need to own the game to play it online

Gestault · Mar 2, 2020

No_Style said:
I wonder how many devs/publishers would have issue with GeForce Now if NVIDIA literally presented users with a virtual desktop and had people sign into actual store clients. Because it sounds like NVIDIA simply streamlined that process for users.

You access the games from the normal store interfaces, including (for example w/ Steam) both desktop and Big Picture modes. The digital storefronts appear each time before the games load up, and you have to virtually "install" the games the first time on the Geforce Now servers.

Belthazar90 · Mar 2, 2020

Nvidia should work out a deal with steam to put "Available on GeForceNow" tag on the games' pages, with a red one "Not available on GFN" on games that asked to be removed. I bet the publishers' instance on the subject would change.

Holundrian · Mar 2, 2020

Really the only thing you can do as a customer is not give people business that just wanna make the ecosystem worse for everyone.

Joseph Merrick · Mar 2, 2020

AndyMc1888 said:
I kind of get both sides - what's different from nvidias set up and Microsoft or Google's? As a developer if someone else is making pure profit off my product I can see the issue as that's not what the original sales license is for , a bit of a stretch but a bit like buying a dvd then making money playing private screenings in a cinema for your mates

just as how a monitor manufacturer is making pure profits off games because that's all I look at on my monitor?

Delusibeta · Mar 2, 2020

ghostcrew said:
The article specifically mentions gaming cafes and how they already (should be) paying a license.

The PC Cafe licence only applies to cases where the user doesn't already own the game. There's nothing stopping someone renting a PC at a PC cafe, signing into their Steam account and downloading a game that they own. This latter scenerio is what GeForce Now is.

Users of Steam within your facility will be able to log in to Steam with their own personal Steam accounts, download and access content that they personally own or is provided by your organization.

How will the pool of commercial licenses be handed out on my network?
When a customer visits your café they will go to the PC you assign them and login using their own personal Steam account. If they do not have a Steam account they will be able to create a Steam account while launching Steam. Once the customer is logged in they will see both the games they own and the games you are making available on their library screen. When they choose to play one of the games you are offering the Site License Server will notify the Steam backend service that a user is requesting a game license. When the user exits the game, the license will be returned to the site's license pool for that game. Customers will be able to use site licenses for any given game until the number of licenses you own for that game are concurrently in use.

For example: Your café has 50 PCs available and you have 35 licenses of Left 4 Dead 2 in your license pool. Up to 35 customers will be able to play Left 4 Dead 2 concurrently on the PCs in your café. If a 36th customer comes into the café and wants to play Left 4 Dead 2 they will be presented with a message that there are no licenses available. If any of the 36 customers own a copy of Left 4 Dead 2 on their personal Steam account they will be able to play and that user will not pull a license from the location's pool.

PennyStonks · Mar 2, 2020

No_Style said:
I wonder how many devs/publishers would have issue with GeForce Now if NVIDIA literally presented users with a virtual desktop and had people sign into actual store clients. Because it sounds like NVIDIA simply streamlined that process for users.

This is how it works. You boot up GeForce Now, and then sign into Steam.

Jiffy Smooth · Mar 2, 2020

This is basically like when the music industry tried to claim it breached copyright to copy your CD collection to your iPod.

Gohlad · Mar 2, 2020

ghostcrew said:
The article specifically mentions gaming cafes and how they already (should be) paying a license.

No this is not true, the author either didn't read his source correctly or arguments in bad faith. It literally says in the link that PC Cafes buy this license to offer the user content that they do not own with their Steam account. That is totally different than what Geforce Now offers where you can only play content you own...

No_Style · Mar 2, 2020

Gestault said:
You access the games from the normal store interfaces, including (for example w/ Steam) both desktop and Big Picture modes. The digital storefronts appear each time before the games load up, and you have to virtually "install" the games the first time on the Geforce Now servers.

But it's still a streamlined experience. What I'm saying is: Would devs/publishers have issues with this if NVIDIA was serving up a virtual PC desktop and users had to navigate and interface with it like it was your PC. And I mean, you had to sign-in to Steam, install the games, and launch it from the actual client.

Edit: I should really try this for myself. Maybe it's already like what I'm saying but based on YouTube videos of the process, it seems more streamlined than me using Steam on a local PC. Just launch from GeForce Now and it it kinda just launches.

Lukar · Mar 2, 2020

No_Style said:
But it's still a streamlined experience. What I'm saying is: Would devs/publishers have issues with this if NVIDIA was serving up a virtual PC desktop and users had to navigate and interface with it like it was your PC. And I mean, you had to sign-in to Steam, install the games, and launch it from the actual client.

But again, that is what it does. When you sign in to GeForce Now, Nvidia opens Steam and then streams the image to you. From there, you navigate and interface with it to sign in to Steam, install the game you want to play, and then launch it from Steam.

Unless I'm missing your point here.

Deleted member 25042 · Mar 2, 2020

I'll never understand why some devs/pubs are against this.
Well apart from them wanting to make some more money but screw that.
You got your money already, why would you give a shit if I play it locally or via a VM?

Kain3984 · Mar 2, 2020

I really hope Nvidia and the game devs can get this sorted out. I specifically bought a copy of Lego - Jurassic World on Steam this weekend so that I could play it with my 5 year old boy (who loves dinosaurs) on my old crappy laptop through Geforce Now and we had a lot of fun playing it together. I never would have purchased the game otherwise, so there's definitely an argument to be made I think for devs allowing access of their games through Geforce Now, and seeing increased sales numbers of their games as a result.

Earvin Infinity · Mar 2, 2020

Jiffy Smooth said:
This is basically like when the music industry tried to claim it breached copyright to copy your CD collection to your iPod.

The gaming industry is still catching up to the music and television industries when it comes to streaming. Things will get ironed out eventually.

Gohlad · Mar 2, 2020

No_Style said:
But it's still a streamlined experience. What I'm saying is: Would devs/publishers have issues with this if NVIDIA was serving up a virtual PC desktop and users had to navigate and interface with it like it was your PC. And I mean, you had to sign-in to Steam, install the games, and launch it from the actual client.

That's exactly what it is though. When you start up its a Windows VM with a auto-hid Startmenu, Steam opens -> you sign into Steam -> >you library opens -> you press install on the game you want to play -> it opens the installation menu -> it installs -> you press launch/start game -> it starts.

Gestault · Mar 2, 2020

No_Style said:
But it's still a streamlined experience. What I'm saying is: Would devs/publishers have issues with this if NVIDIA was serving up a virtual PC desktop and users had to navigate and interface with it like it was your PC. And I mean, you had to sign-in to Steam, install the games, and launch it from the actual client.

I get what you're asking now, but I think the distinction serves to further underscore how little that falls into the purview of the publisher, unless we accept that this is a rights grab over current license use standards. Like, what you're saying amounts to the publisher getting to decide if you can use desktop shortcuts; obviously that's an exaggerated example, but it's not far off if you consider a service like Geforce Now to be akin to renting hardware (which it is).

A dev/publisher really needs to justify themselves better than I've seen for this situation, when they're restricting which hardware someone is permitted to play their PC games on (when using something like their Steam login). As a buyer, that kind of thing is poison in terms of who I want to buy games from.

Fisty · Mar 2, 2020

Like it or not GFN would be worth $0 per month without the games, and Nvidia is making money from it. If a service like this would have been conceivable in the past, Valve etc's EULA would include language and stipulations already, and Nvidia would have to cut pubs/devs in on revenue share

Deleted member 54073 · Mar 2, 2020

So if I want to buy a game but can't because I have a bad PC.. this allows me to purchase that game and play with GeForce Now.

I don't see the downside for devs here.

No_Style · Mar 2, 2020

Gohlad said:
That's exactly what it is though. When you start up its a Windows VM with a auto-hid Startmenu, Steam opens -> you sign into Steam -> >you library opens -> you press install on the game you want to play -> it opens the installation menu -> it installs -> you press launch/start game -> it starts.

Ok. Thanks. I just looked up another video showing the Epic Games Client install process it is like what I described for the most part. However, still "streamlined" in a sense that the clients are already installed. I'm wondering if NVIDIA would catch so much flak from the devs/pubs if it was just a blank VM that happens to stream everything including games.

Gestault · Mar 2, 2020

Fisty said:
Like it or not GFN would be worth $0 per month without the games, and Nvidia is making money from it. If a service like this would have been conceivable in the past, Valve etc's EULA would include language and stipulations already, and Nvidia would have to cut pubs/devs in on revenue share

They're the player's game licenses, accessed through the original storefront they bought them on.

This is like saying AMD can't sell CPUs without giving an individual game publisher a cut of their sales, because players use those CPUs to play the games.

Gohlad · Mar 2, 2020

MagicWithEarvin said:
The gaming industry is still catching up to the music and television industries when it comes to streaming. Things will get ironed out eventually.

I hope not. Here in Germany at least the GEMA (a company that manages music rights/licences etc) had won a court order that entitles them to get a cut from EVERY storage device that could potentially be capable of storing an MP3 file. This means that every USB-stick, every iPhone, Android devices, game console, hard drive etc you buy a percentage fee is added to the price and payed to the GEMA. In reality companies already included this fee into their price, because they would get flak on if customers would see the actually price increase because of this. (For example if you want to buy an iPhone 11 right now from the Apple Store it cost you 799€ and at the check-out process it says "Includes 5€ copyright fee".

Now imagine game publishers would get something like this on every piece of hardware you buy for your PC, game console, smartphone etc.

Horned Reaper · Mar 2, 2020

MagicWithEarvin said:
GeForce Now Enabled:

[ ] Yes
[ ] No
[X] Only if I get a piece of the pie

Nvidia: middlefinger emoji

Developer: Fine! Take my games off your virtual machines. We didn't give you permission any way.

* developers see that sales are spiking for GeForce Now Enabled Games *

Developer: thinking emoji

Haha, pretty much!

FaceHugger · Mar 2, 2020

Gestault said:
I didn't wake up today expecting to have a newfound resentment of the Long Dark director, but here I am.

You're absolutely correct here. This is like Microsoft / Adobe / Citrix / whoever telling some corporation "Oh you're going to use virtual desktop infrastructure so users can run this software on virtual machines? Then you're going to have to buy another license for each user or else we're going to say you can't. Legally we have no standing and our license agreement doesn't prohibit or even mention such a scenario, but we want more money anyway".

This isn't like something like MS SQL, where the license specifies that if it's to be used in a virtualized environment then it's licensed against the number of cores in the hypervisor / virtualization host. This is merely a per user license. If I want to install Steam on my desktop, Macbook, and Windows laptop, and play the game anytime on any of them, the license grants that. Fair use grants that (right?). If I want to run it on a VM on the other side of the world I should be legally able to do that as well. This is just a money grab that seems like it would harm the actual devs and publishers more than it would help in the end.

Earvin Infinity · Mar 2, 2020

Gohlad said:
I hope not. Here in Germany at least the GEMA (a company that manages music rights/licences etc) had won a court order that entitles them to get a cut from EVERY storage device that could potentially be capable of storing an MP3 file. This means that every USB-stick, every iPhone, Android devices, game console, hard drive etc you buy a percentage fee is added to the price and payed to the GEMA. In reality companies already included this fee into their price, because they would get flak on if customers would see the actually price increase because of this. (For example if you want to buy an iPhone 11 right now from the Apple Store it cost you 799€ and at the check-out process it says "Includes 5€ copyright fee".

Now imagine game publishers would get something like this on every piece of hardware you buy for your PC, game console, smartphone etc.

Whoa, that's pretty crazy. Don't tell the gaming industry that!

Martmyte said:
So if I want to buy a game but can't because I have a bad PC.. this allows me to purchase that game and play with GeForce Now.

I don't see the downside for devs here.

The downside is that they aren't getting a cut of the $4.99 subscription fee that Nvidia is charging. They want your money and then some.

MattEnth · Mar 2, 2020

I worked on GeForce NOW for a year and a half. Love the service and the product and still use it often.

Sucks that consumers are being reminded, yet again, that you don't actually own your games or games library.

Fisty · Mar 2, 2020

Gestault said:
They're the player's game licenses, accessed through the original storefront they bought them on.

This is like saying AMD can't sell CPUs without giving an individual game publisher a cut of their sales, because players use those CPUs to play the games.

Not the same thing at all, but ok. A company making DVD players doesnt need to share revenue per sale, a company that streams DVD content to its subscribers needs permission from rights holders.

random88 · Mar 2, 2020

Pennyfish said:
This is how it works. You boot up GeForce Now, and then sign into Steam.

Not really, you first pick a game and then sign into Steam and select a game there. I know it's being pendatic, but it is not the same because the way it is now, Nvidia is using specific games to entice you to use their service. If it was just a virtual desktop in which you could start up Steam and select your games, I don't think the devs could do anything.

DaveLong · Mar 2, 2020

Here's a question... is NVIDIA paying fees to Microsoft for all these Windows Virtual Machines they're serving up?

Fantastical · Mar 2, 2020

How is this not just developers saying they want you to buy/rent the game multiple times?

Gestault · Mar 2, 2020

Imagine if the publisher for every single app on your PC/Mac demanded individual licensing and compensation for the "right" to be used over standard remote access. That's preposterous on its face, and totally at odds with current standards. A change like that in entertainment could have the unintended consequence of single-handedly killing the IT world. And any dev who makes this demand needs to make a darned good case for why this right should be removed from their licenses, including retroactively.

MBABuddha · Mar 2, 2020

It's a bad situation all around but unfortunately I think game devs (especially indie devs) are going to burn through a lot of goodwill going down to war with Nvidia over this.

kyle mechlachlan · Mar 2, 2020

The only reason this is becoming a thing is because the service is getting popular. Shadow does nearly the exact same thing, except it serves you a literal Windows 10 VM with limited storage so you can install *whatever* you want there (can also do whatever you want on the VM including use it for other productivity apps) and nobody has bothered them one iota. Reason? Because they aren't that big.

NVIDIA is big and is making money and growing this service rapidly and now all these pubs and devs are seeing it as a opportunity for a cash grab and it's fucking GROSS.

PKrockin · Mar 2, 2020

As always, businesses will do whatever they can to fuck the consumer as soon as they smell money.

ghostcrew · Mar 2, 2020

Roadhou5e said:
It's a bad situation all around but unfortunately I think game devs (especially indie devs) are going to burn through a lot of goodwill going down to war with Nvidia over this.

There's not really a war. Nvidia allows rights holders to remove their games from the service if they want to and some devs/pubs have taken that option. Pretty boring war.

TE4M GREENE · Mar 2, 2020

With streaming and subscription services continuing to grow, it's unrealistic and unfair to expect game developers to sit back and not want a piece of the pie, especially since their products are the backbone of these service. Folks keep talking about support the devs. Well, cutting them out of a rapidly growing market won't do them any favors.

Gestault · Mar 2, 2020

Fisty said:
Not the same thing at all, but ok. A company making DVD players doesnt need to share revenue per sale, a company that streams DVD content to its subscribers needs permission from rights holders.

You're saying that users streaming [their own media] via something like a Plex server should be paying the original media publisher [again] for the content they already paid for. The publisher doesn't and shouldn't have anything to do with that arrangement, especially when the service goes out of its way to comply with normal license authentication.

Fawz · Mar 2, 2020

The people behind the games should have the ability to pull their games out of the service, I can see certain edge case scenarios where that's something they'd want to do (ie: Contractual obligations, Clash or mortals, Brand association, ect...). However people paid for the games through the platform the game is officially being sold on and they just get to play it on another machine through a subscription fee. It's not that different from rentals, internet caffes or library game sharing. Devs who pull their game out and try to pass it off as Nvidia being the bad guys for not asking them in the first place are trying to push a blame shifting narrative away from their anti-consumer practice and it's annoying to see

The Verge: Nvidia's GeForce Now is controversial among developers

User requested account closure

The Shrouded Ghost

Prophet of Truth

Unshakable Resolve - Prophet of Truth

User requested account closure

User requested account closure

The Shrouded Ghost