-
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.
Bethesda follows Activision in pulling games from Nvidia’s GeForce Now
- Thread starter ghostcrew
- Start date
What profit? You release this is a loss leading strategy from Nvidia? You honestly think the the free tier and $5 a both to rent a VM is sustainable? This as about as short sighted as the publishers themselves. The only thing this does is help streaming adoption which is good for them even if they plan to release they're own services later on.
I'm not sure why people are making a big deal about Activision and Bethesda. Capcom, Square Enix, and Rockstar's games aren't in the service, either.
What does it change? GFN is obviously going to start charging more in the future to make it profitable. Not making deals with the publishers was very short-sighted of them.
It's goddamn ridiculous that we have people on this thread acting like publishers should somehow get a "cut" from Nvidia for having their games work on GFN.
Like holy fucking shit.
Like holy fucking shit.
Well everything your arguing about for a start. As it stands there's no money to be made and there will be no money to be made for at least a year so they're cutting off their nose to spit on their face for what reason exactly? There's no way to construe that the service is harming their current or future plans but there is evidence that the service is improving streaming penetration so you'll find little evidence to suggest that this is nothing other than prime time shortsightedness that will cost them in both the short and long term.
Because of the way their games were removed after the service left beta.
Nvidia isn't cheating the system, they're providing a new way of getting access to the games you've already payed for, they're simply letting you use their hardware, it's a PC in the cloud. Every streaming platform except Stadia would "cheat the system" since everything was at first bought for one very specific local hardware. Say goodbye to xCloud, (Xbox in the cloud), PS Now (Playstation in the cloud), Shadow, whatever Valve is planning to do and already is doing with in-home streaming, etc. What you're describing would literally block you from taking any of your ecosystem purchases to any other box than you bought them on. Because why would you be allowed to play Hollow Knight on Vita through Remote Play? Nope, you bought that game for PS4, you obviously need to buy it on Switch or you're totally ripping off the poor publisher from a secondary purchase.
/s
As for Switch ports I'd say it's Nintendo's own fault if it turns out that it's as good or better to play games streamed from a cloud to a phone. And if that happens I'm sure Nvidia would allow them to team up and get PC versions streamed to Switch.
What does that change? Those companies are still as unwilling to participate in the streaming service as Activision and Bethesda, but Activision and Bethesda actually gave it a try (and clearly found it unsatisfactory) but are somehow the villains for it.
It's close but you mean this?
Id Software built a framework to make streaming video games better
Bethesda is jumping on the cloud-gaming train with Orion, a software collection that optimizes game engines for streaming. Essentially, Orion is designed to make games run better on platforms like Google's Stadia or Microsoft's xCloud. It works with any game and any platform, lowering latency by...
www.engadget.com
It's not like Nvidia is a small company that can't operate on a loss for a while. Securing deals with publishers should have been their priority. But maybe when GFN starts to actually make profit, Nvidia can make deals with the big publishers like Rockstar, Activision, Bethesda, Square Enix, and Capcom. Until they do, I don't understand the outrage over the publishers not wanting to be part of the service that isn't beneficial to them (for now).
I bet Microsoft would secure deals with the publishers for xcloud.
I'm lost. Like, legally could they even pull their games off?
If the user is logging into his own account accessing the games the user already bought and paying just for the streaming/rent of a machine running the game... What should the pubs receive?
I was just pointing out why they're being talked about and the others aren't.
The question is what money are the publishers owed? They already got paid by the people playing the games, and Nvidia is just getting paid for providing machines to play the games on, which costs them money. xCloud is a totally different thing because you don't "own" those games. It's a library you pay to access, so it makes sense for the publishers to get paid there.
Yes I'm sure we'll see plenty of deals going forward, as in exclusivity deals. I'm not sure that'll be something to look forward to.
The publishers are already getting payed for the games they sell. It should be enough. Why does it matter who I'm paying or what I'm doing to get access to a PC to play the games I've already bought?
It's up to the streaming service provider to secure deals with the publishers. And Geforce Now isn't in the same position as Xcloud, because Nvidia is a third party selling the service, rather than the platform you sell your game on anyway. Microsoft already has deals with all publishers that sell their games on Xbox and many deals for Gamepass. Adding an additional clause to their contracts to allow streaming wouldn't be difficult. If Nvidia can't manage to secure the publishers' permission, it doesn't mean other streaming service providers can't do it.
I suspect it's not so simple. I mean, Activision, Capcom, EA, Konami, Remedy, Rockstar and Square Enix, and now Bethesda aren't allowing their games to be on Geforce Now.
Clearly Nvidia has no legal ground to stand if the publishers don't want their games on their service.
I don't get why there are still gaming VM providers like Shadow that allow you to do what you want, and all of a sudden it's an issue when Nvidia does it.
The funny/weird part is Nvidia are actually the ones who kind of lose out on things when this takes off as way less people will be upgrading their video cards in the future lol...
Publishers however are just freaking out right now for no apparent reason. I can rent a vm anywhere, install steam and play my games right now, and theres no problem. Why should there be one here i have no idea.
Publishers however are just freaking out right now for no apparent reason. I can rent a vm anywhere, install steam and play my games right now, and theres no problem. Why should there be one here i have no idea.
I hope this isn't because they asked portion of the subs profits. You already sold games you greedy fuckers.
You are renting a VM which is restricted to running a game client and the game you selected in the GeForce NOW front-end.
You are actually logging into Steam on the VM and installing the game yourself:
(queue times to access a GFN "rig" and install times were cut to shorten the video)
But while you have access to a Steam client, GFN will not permit you to install games other than the one you selected.
If you select Prey (2017) in the front-end it only grants write permission to
C:\Program Files (x86)\Steam\steamapps\common\Prey\ and to run Prey.exeTrying to install another game will fail and GFN will display an error message instructing you to only install the selected game.
The beta for GFN did not have those restricted permissions, and could run anything you owned.
I tried to trick it by installing Prey (2006) in place of Prey (2017) but Steam has fixed the issue where both games would previously install to the same directory, and it now installs the older game to
\Prey 2006\I'm not sure if there are other games with the same problem that currently run on GFN.
I don't think that is necessarily true, but they are choosing to comply rather than fight it.
It's more likely that people using the service are going to have weaker systems than GFN servers, or don't have a PC at all - and this could encourage people to buy a gaming PC if they like the experience but want something better.
It doesn't replace a gaming PC for (most) people that already have a capable system.
There is an obvious difference between "never on the service" and "removing games I already paid for" from the user's point of view.
Just wait until they stop selling games. That's where this is headed.
Eh. Not at all. Because games by Capcom, EA, Konami, Remedy, Rockstar and Square Enix were also paid for by the user on Steam and other services, same as Activision and Bethesda's games, and those companies aren't allowing the customers to stream them, just like Activision and Bethesda. As Nvidia defenders keep saying here, Nvidia isn't selling games, the user isn't buying them on their service, so Activision and Bethesda aren't more anti-consumer than Capcom, EA, Konami, Remedy, Rockstar and Square Enix. Strange double standards.
The whole notion of some people defending this seems to be built on the idea that the developers deserve to resell you your game on every different platform that exists, which is absolutely ridiculous. I already bought the game. If there's another platform where they spend more development time to actually get it to work there and maybe make improvements then sure, I can see asking for money there but if I can make the game I paid for work on another device I paid for or am paying for then it's ridiculous that they should somehow deserve an extra fee for that.
If anything it should work the other way, I shouldn't have to rebuy games I already have just because they're on another platform.
If anything it should work the other way, I shouldn't have to rebuy games I already have just because they're on another platform.
some of these posts make me think some of yall think pc gamers are legally obligated to rebuy their entire library if they own both a laptop and desktop if they want to play their games on both
OP
OP
Quote from GeForce Now boss Phil Eisler regarding their current 90 day trial period that the service is in (as in, nobodies paying for it yet):
Like I mentioned before, Sunset Overdrive and Minecraft work. No Killer Insinct, unfortunately.
Nothing of value was lost. Bethesda is pure garbage. But i hope the trend does not continue. If i cant play Division 2 in the future GFN wont be worth it for me.
There are no Nvidia defenders or double standards, there are just regular people getting pissed off when games are pulled from a streaming service that is actually great. All publishers that are doing this has been criticized, this is just the last one. The games are already bought on Steam. Why does it matter who I pay (or don't pay, there is a free service too) to provide the hardware to run Steam on?
Man, fuck this. Be it a laptop, my desktop PC, a GPD Win or a goddamn cloud service, if i paid for the PC version of a game i *should* have the right to play in whatever PC derivated platform i want.
Stop it with this greedy nonsense ffs.
Stop it with this greedy nonsense ffs.
Yes, it is and it's probably not as far off as we would like to think.
I was responding to the person who said it was somehow more acceptable that the other publishers left after the beta. It makes no sense, especially since Nvidia said any publisher is free to leave during the trial period.
btw, terms like 'nvidia defenders', apple fanboy, Nintendo fanboys etc are there just to raise tensions and oppose people, imho people should stop using them unless their intentions are bad.
Here I believe Nvidia did not really protect themselves with contracts etc. because if you can remove your game like that without a minimal period, a prior notice, etc. It means something is fishy with their GFN agreements, maybe Nvidia did not clarify that those games were only there for the beta/test rather than the commercial version, nobody can say.
Btw Bethesda, I have bought all the games I wanted to play like many, Skyrim, Fallout 4, but streaming games like Wolfenstein, RAGE, etc, games that did not sell well could have been good imho. So I don't understand that, you're not going to tell me that skyrim, rage,wolfenstein, dishonored are selling like crazy right now ?
Eventually publishers will sneak anti-streaming or single device clauses into EULA's. I don't know, perhaps they already have. But publishers have no legal right to revoke access to licenses which do not include one. No one agreed to that when purchasing their licenses. But publishers are revoking access anyway, because they're in a position to force Nvidia to abide, and don't care if it tramples our legal rights.
Ideally they'd want to get paid for every time you access a game on a new device.
The differences between a remote virtual machine and a different PC are fuzzy.
At the very least, if you want to access a license from a virtual machine on a streaming service, you should have to pay the publisher toll.
Any publishers not on board with GeForce Now are thinking along these lines.
Just seems like this will all turn into some manner of anti-consumer hellscape.
Ideally they'd want to get paid for every time you access a game on a new device.
The differences between a remote virtual machine and a different PC are fuzzy.
At the very least, if you want to access a license from a virtual machine on a streaming service, you should have to pay the publisher toll.
Any publishers not on board with GeForce Now are thinking along these lines.
Just seems like this will all turn into some manner of anti-consumer hellscape.
OP
OP
Games like Skyrim and Fallout are always selling like crazy. They don't need the existence of GeForce Now to sell copies.
And that's kinda the point. These big publishers that have removed their games from the service - Bethesda, Activision, Konami, Square Enix, Capcom etc etc - don't need GeForce Now. Nvidia needs them. GeForce Now doesn't exist without content in the same way that Spotify doesn't exist without music. The service is nothing on its own. They've got all of the power.
It's close but you mean this?
Id Software built a framework to make streaming video games better
Bethesda is jumping on the cloud-gaming train with Orion, a software collection that optimizes game engines for streaming. Essentially, Orion is designed to make games run better on platforms like Google's Stadia or Microsoft's xCloud. It works with any game and any platform, lowering latency by...
You know what, this actually reinforces the idea that publishers are coming up with their own solutions just for their own titles which would fragment the already fledgling streaming drive.
Id Software designed it(which is really cool of them) and is targeted to consumers with slow internet, it should be available to as many people as possible.
OP
OP
That's exactly what iTunes Match is. It matches anything in your iTunes library (even, to use your comparison, digitised tapes at the lowest quality MP3 bitrate) and allows you to stream back that music from iTunes at proper quality. That's why it's called Match, because it matches your entire library with the iTunes library and fills in the gaps. It's amazing. I've been using it for years. Had hundreds of gigs of badly encoded MP3s from old CDs from years ago when I thought it was clever to encode them at a low bitrate to save space on an iPod. Now I've got access to them all at proper iTunes quality wherever I am (as long as I'm subscribing to Match).
And yeah, they kinda are renting you hardware to stream the music. The files are on their servers and the audio is simply being streamed to you, same as GeForce Now.
Not really the same thing. With Steam Streaming, you stream your games from your own PC. With GForce Now, you stream games from NVidia servers, which is the same as what you do with Stadia. Activision and Bethesda want you to double dip their games to stream from Nvidia servers.
It seems like bullshit really because this service really seems like the best option or there.
More flexible than Stadia and Steamlink, etc.
There are obviously desks going on behind closed doors, especially with XCloud around the corner and the recent Stadia launch. Profit will win over what's best for the consumer.
More flexible than Stadia and Steamlink, etc.
There are obviously desks going on behind closed doors, especially with XCloud around the corner and the recent Stadia launch. Profit will win over what's best for the consumer.
I asked this in the other activision thread and no one had an answer.
This is a bad analogy. This is more like me buying an e-book on kindle, and then reading it using a remote PC running the kindle app. Like ripping a DVD/Bluray to watch on Kodi or Plex. Or ripping a CD to upload to Google Play or Amazon Cloud.
OP
OP
The IP is owned by Sony these days but Sunset Overdrive on Steam is published by Microsoft.
Goddamn it, I was editing the post removing that quote before you hit post lol