FYI Sunset Overdrive and Minecraft are already on 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.
Bethesda follows Activision in pulling games from Nvidia’s GeForce Now
- Thread starter ghostcrew
- Start date
I'm wondering what's the difference between NVIDIA and Google for Bethesda games.
Doom (2016) and Doom Eternal has been confirmed for a Google Stadia release.
Doom (2016) and Doom Eternal has been confirmed for a Google Stadia release.
They already get the money for the games they sell. Why do they want money for the PC it's played on as well? Will they start pulling the games from xCloud as well when that goes live? And what about Shadow and other streaming services?
It's greed, plain and simple, and it's destroying the wonderful future of game streaming before it even started.
It's such a weird decision imo. I don't think I'm the only one who was ready to buy games just to play on Geforce Now.
This is pish. Again just reinforces my belief that GFN is only for people with a gaming PC for now. You can't be paying for games you can lose at any time.
On Stadia you need to buy game and you can play that game only on Stadia.
Sure. How much should Nvidia get from ever game sold then?
These are different things. You can't compare a video card to a subscription service. Look, I work in the book publishing industry, and I can get the perspective of a publisher. It's the same as if a customer bought a physical book, but then a third party decided to scan those books and let the customer read it in ebook format for a monthly fee (if the customer can prove that they own a physical copy). It's not wrong from a customer's point of view, but that third party is still getting money for a service that uses my book. That service means that the book publisher might lose a potential ebook sale (Why would a person buy Skyrim on Switch if they can just pay Nvidia to stream it?). That would not be okay for me as the author of that book.
Again, do you expect to be able to play your blu-ray copy of a movie on Netflix (and for Netflix not to pay the publishers for the movies)? Just because games are digital, it doesn't change the fact that Nvidia must compensate the publishers for the games they use for the service they charge for. Without those games, their service is useless.
Hmm I feel like since Nvidia is using their games and software to make a profit, since the game still has to run on their own server, the publishers should get a taste. Didn't read what the actual agreement was though.
i wonder, do companies like vudu pay the production company any money when I watch a digital copy from a Blu-ray I bought and own?
lol this is the thought that will end the world. Nvidia pulling games from using their GPUs and specific features unless they get more money.
"- So, you want your new game to use ray-tracing? Open the wallet!
So, you want multi-screen support? Start paying!"
This gets me sad. This is greed and jealousy combined in the worst way. It doesn't matter if you've already sold the product to a person, you want that second sell as well even when it's to the same person, soon you'll want to sell it to the person's kids as well even in the same house.
From my perspective it shouldn't matter where the PC is located or who or what I'm paying to have access to it, as long as I've bought a game for PC I should be able to play it on any PC.
Actually you can upload your music on Google Play as far as I remember and listen it whenever and wherever you want and you can upload your ebooks on Amazon and read them on Kindle whenever and wherever you want. Those services are free but they still do same "damages" you claim that nvidia paid service does.
Yes, greed from Nvidia. They should share their profit, because they're potentially costing the publishers money. The publishers spend resources on their product; we would stop getting Switch ports if the streaming services don't compensate the publishers, because what is the point, then?
If you bought a game, sure, you can play it on any PC. But Nvidia's service extends to mobile devices, too, which are not personal computers. Do you expect to buy a game on Android and be able to play on Iphone? Nvidia is cheating the system by not sharing their profit with the owners of the games.
Why are there always so many corporate apologists? Look. It's a shitty greedy move designed to get paid twice for something people already bought. GeforceNow has even caused me to buy a game I had no intention of buying so they actually gained a sale due to NVIDIA. It's greed pure and simple.
Sure. Now what happens when GeForce now is also available on phones? Mac? Other people's PC's? Consoles?
The answer to your last sentence should probably be "absolutely", in theory, but given that you couldn't do this before without GFN it's kinda difficult to argue the point imo.
Also, especially with titles on stadia or other services (and even regular platforms) it's probably a way more complicated rights/licensing/exclusivity situation than most who complain suspect.
It's not the same. I'm comparing a third party getting money for scanning the paperback book and giving the ebook version to a customer for money, not you personally scanning your paperback and putting the ebook on your phone for personal use.
And again do you download games from Nvidia servers or you download game from Steam/Origin/UPlay servers as usual?Nvidia literally only provides hardware that's it. they are not handling any files.
If you're a publisher comparing "I can produce and sell Skyrim on everything" (you know, the literal reason publishers exist) versus "I will sell only the best looking version for the cheapest price and it will run on everything with a screen forever, and I will never see any money for it and all our publishing and porting work is for naught, oh and also Nvidia is getting money for it!" the situation becomes pretty clear.
Bethesda and ActiBlizz can go fuck themselves.
They already got their piece of the pie when I bought their game. This is not affecting them in any way. No lost sales. If anything, it may lead to people go buy a game they might not have because they couldn't run it before. It's like I'm doing in-home streaming or remote play on my phone. Paying extra for the "privilege" to have it streamed? Does Twitch pay them when someone streams or watches a stream of their games? It makes no sense to me.
I bet this is the doing of some suit who doesn't understand how this works. "What do you mean, people can stream our games for free? Did we allow that?!"
Have you heard of Steam Remote Play? Literally what you're describing. Free. Every game in your library on Steam. Playable on Android or iOS. No exceptions.
They already got their piece of the pie when I bought their game. This is not affecting them in any way. No lost sales. If anything, it may lead to people go buy a game they might not have because they couldn't run it before. It's like I'm doing in-home streaming or remote play on my phone. Paying extra for the "privilege" to have it streamed? Does Twitch pay them when someone streams or watches a stream of their games? It makes no sense to me.
I bet this is the doing of some suit who doesn't understand how this works. "What do you mean, people can stream our games for free? Did we allow that?!"
Have you heard of Steam Remote Play? Literally what you're describing. Free. Every game in your library on Steam. Playable on Android or iOS. No exceptions.
Last edited:
So what do you think a publishers job is?
edit after you edited
Oh so you DO know?
Last edited:
It doesn't matter. They're still getting paid for it. It may not be wrong from a customer's point of view because you paid for the game, but it's still wrong of Nvidia not to give the publishers any compensation, because their service likely hurts their mobile ports. If Nvidia really felt like they aren't doing anything wrong, they wouldn't give in and wouldn't remove Activision and Bethesda's games from their service.
Don't get me wrong: I'm all for streaming future, but I don't understand how anyone can think the publishers shouldn't be compensated by Nvidia when Nvidia is charging money to play those publishers' PC games on mobile devices.
Oh fuck off.
That was an actually decent streaming solution and now that everyone wants to launch their own it will makes this shit and the others not even worth a look.
That was an actually decent streaming solution and now that everyone wants to launch their own it will makes this shit and the others not even worth a look.
You do understand the difference between personal and commercial use, right?
Could say the same about PC clients, yet most publishers use Steam.
What mobile ports? Number of AAA Switch ports is still very low, and that number will go even lower with next-gen. Second thing you need internet to play those games everywhere so people will go and buy Switch ports in most cases. Nvidia just went and streamlined renting VM. They should just go and say f-it and offer rental of full VM without gaming brand and that way people will be able to play whatever they want and publishers wouldn't be able to do anything.
Kind of incredible that people in here are like, bewildered by this, lol.
I guess people really thought the streaming future was purchasing a game discounted on steam, and having a single, convenient streaming service solution that allows access to all of them. People really thought the massive corporate publishing giants wouldn't be sniffing around for their cut. You gotta admire the optimism at least.
I guess people really thought the streaming future was purchasing a game discounted on steam, and having a single, convenient streaming service solution that allows access to all of them. People really thought the massive corporate publishing giants wouldn't be sniffing around for their cut. You gotta admire the optimism at least.
Not apologising for them, I agree it's shitty. But Nvidia is unlikely to risk a court case even if it was in the right. It would permanently destroy the reputation it has with the publishers.
This is really interesting, guess Apple and Amazon both saw this would be a problem and tackled it this way. It also means there is a precedent for this and the publishers would probably use that as an example.
You were able to rent VM machines for years now, GeForce Now is just streamlined solution. As i said if Nvidia would go with standard VM renting publishers wouldn't be able to do a thing.
The legalities around making personal backups and the fair use of purchased music are a lot more settled. Google likely relies on those legal precedents in addition to the deals they have signed with all the major labels. Not to mention, if an audio recording you upload isn't in their matching database to begin with they have no way of knowing if you do or do not have the right to that media. It could be a personal recording you made and can do whatever you want with. And if it's not, there's no legal entity with the clout to say otherwise...
On the other hand, digital games have EULAs that specifically forbid this kind of commercialization and it would require litigation to settle if nVidia did not believe that was legal.
nVidia is definitely caching the game files locally which definitely exposes them legally. But their service wouldn't be very viable if they had to download 50GB games fresh from Steam every time you sign in. The CDN operators would take exception as well.
Bethesda is one of the few publishers that actually supported Switch with AAA game ports, so their withdrawal from Nvidia's service is even more understandable. The devs didn't work on those ports for Nvidia to stream their games without any compensation to the publisher.
Even if they would need to download from services directly they would have capacity, their server centers probably have really good links.
I didn't know that there is GeForce Now app on Switch. Oh wait.
I already bought Skyrim on PC, why shouldn't I be able to play it via Steam but on someone else's machine - free tier GFN mind, I'm not actively paying Nvidia anything to do this. Bethesda aren't missing out on any money from me.
Shame really, GFN has me actively back into PC gaming again but if the publishers can just strip their games from the service at any time then I won't;
- Buy PC games again. If I can't guarantee they'll work on GFN then I won't bother. So in some ways publishers are harming sales here, at least from my perspective.
- Pay for GFN. If the games I'm playing can be removed then I don't have the confidence to put money on it, suddenly it's potentially not good value to me.
Shame really, GFN has me actively back into PC gaming again but if the publishers can just strip their games from the service at any time then I won't;
- Buy PC games again. If I can't guarantee they'll work on GFN then I won't bother. So in some ways publishers are harming sales here, at least from my perspective.
- Pay for GFN. If the games I'm playing can be removed then I don't have the confidence to put money on it, suddenly it's potentially not good value to me.
I'm just gonna keep using Parsec or Steam Remote Play. This way I can access my entire library from any device.
But I am willing to pay a premium subscription in order to access my games trough Geforce Now. Nvidia have to figure this out. I can't imagine how much money they spent building those servers.
But I am willing to pay a premium subscription in order to access my games trough Geforce Now. Nvidia have to figure this out. I can't imagine how much money they spent building those servers.
The point of GeForce Now - going into the future - is that it theoretically works on everything, including consoles, TVs and mobile. Here's a hint, Bethesda is also publishing games on consoles, TV via Google and mobile.
Again, what do you guys think a publisher actually DOES?
It sucks, but it's the business. They want a piece of the cake.
Capcom and Square Enix weren't on it to begin with, for example. I think Nvidia has done a bad job here as far as the business deals goes and the consumer suffers for it.
Capcom and Square Enix weren't on it to begin with, for example. I think Nvidia has done a bad job here as far as the business deals goes and the consumer suffers for it.
Then why don't publishers agree to have something like Movies Anywhere? You literally can buy BR movie today, get code to enter online and have access to that movie anywhere you want. It's simply greed, hey would rather sell you same product 10 times. GeForce Now is perfect service for publishers because they are allowed to sell their games on their stores and get all MTX money with Nvidia getting 0% while providing access to millions of users that can't afford consoles or PC.But no that is not enough.
Yeah, it's hilarious how people defend them in this situation as if they are the little guy while in reality they are refusing to share their profits with much smaller companies.
exact;y. At what point in this list do the publishers suddenly think they deserve more money?
I buy a game on steam and then:
1) I install it on my pc at home and play it
2) I visit a member of my family, install on their pc
3) I visit a friend and install on their pc
a) I allow my family to play Using steam family sharing
b) I stream in the same house using steam link to a steam client on a laptop
c) I stream it in the same house using steam link app on an iPad
d) I stream it remotely to another house/hotel/airport using the same software
5) I rent a vm and install it on that and play remotely.
all of these feel like very similar in terms of behaviour and access
1. I really need to make it a point to avoid posting before I have my first coffee. Maximum crankiness.
2. This continues to bum me out. Essentially renting a computer to play your games on should just work. I can remotely play or watch anything with Steam Link as it is. The difference between "my PC" and a rented one is, to me, an insignificant distinction. Especially in a world where family share, remote play, and remote play together is already a thing. They just want to squeeze some more water from a stone.
2. This continues to bum me out. Essentially renting a computer to play your games on should just work. I can remotely play or watch anything with Steam Link as it is. The difference between "my PC" and a rented one is, to me, an insignificant distinction. Especially in a world where family share, remote play, and remote play together is already a thing. They just want to squeeze some more water from a stone.
From what I understand, this is essentially the equivalent of playing a game you own on a rented console or PC. The sale has already occurred, these companies have gotten their asking price and have no business telling us how or where we're allowed to play a game we bought. The only reason why they're able to pull this nonsense is because the consumer does not own the physical hardware despite owning a license for the game, and Geforce Now is just a service that supplements a traditional PC game ownership model.
If these publishers already feel bold enough to do this in the above scenario, expect even worse bullshit from them if cloud gaming, where the consumer essentially owns nothing, becomes the standard way to play games.
Agreed. There's gonna be a lot more big publishers jumping this ship,, and even if I almost feel bad saying it, Google did this part of the deal way better (as in, at all).
Mostly because movie distribution is a completely different beast compared to game publishing. I'm not sure how to reply to this, there's barely any similarity between publishing a game and distributing a movie. I'm pretty sure that "getting MTX money for one version" isn't outweighing "actually producing and selling 5 different versions for a library of systems, each with their own pricing, release and MTX plans, plus lots of more platforms in the future" is also not a good argument for allowing this from a publishers viewpoint.
The very idea of Bethesda trying their hands on their own streaming solution makes me laugh so hard, I honestly would love to see them try it just to see the level of clusterfuck they'll produce.