GeForce Now is now losing Xbox Games Studios, Warner Bros. Games, Codemasters and Klei Entertainment
- Thread starter Lant_War
- Start date
No Nvidia is not selling or renting any PC games on GFN.
Nvidia makes no money whatsoever from any game that is purchased by a GFN user.
Nvidia only charges (in theory, no one has been charged yet) for the rental of its hardware.
Plenty of companies do this with mobile devices today. It is legal, if a bit clunky. You can't just toss down a device and expect it to work.
Those aren't stock Xbox One S consoles serving up games in the XCloud blades.
There was no distribution. A consumer installing a piece of software on a rented machine does. Ot equal distribution by the hardware owner.
So, your position is that emulators are illegal? Your words effectively argue that point.
Nvidia isn't renting a single copy of a game to thousands. It is renting hardware to thousands of gamers and telling them to BYOG.
You can do this with AWS. AWS even advertised it as a product for two years. It didn't get dropped because of legal issues. It go dropped because data transfer was expensive and Amazon effectively told people to use S3.
Activision excepted, the vast majority of the game EULAs have no such restrictions in them.
You keep making this claim, but you never back it up with clear prohibitions in EULAs.
GFN is not a separate platform. IIRC, it is running on Grid and is comparable to AWS or Azure.
Yes. And it still does.
Why should you have to pay for software that the person who rents your hardware licenses and installs?
You're not providing the software. They're not paying you for the software.
The core issue is between the end users (who have games that didn't have restrictions in the EULA and were using GFN when the games were pulled) and the publishers.
That is already a limited subset of overall consumers, and an even smaller number are likely willing to file an arbitration demand with a publisher over it. Someone doing so in the US though would have a high likelihood of getting the full game cost refunded.
This may also be for most when it comes to publishers. Nvidia may be willing to blacklist games due to its hardware business agreements, but other players in the space won't be as hesitant.
You do get a Windows VM with GFN. It is just running Windows in kiosk mode.
If Nvidia has an agreement with a company (ex Ubisoft) the game data is ready to go and mounted to your VM when needed. So super fast loading.
If Nvidia doesn't have an agreement, you have to download the whole thing over Steam and install it into your VM.
Dell is benefitting from your work. Dell doesn't pay you a cut for every gaming PC it sells.
Emulator authors benefit from your work. Emulator authors don't pay you a cut everytime someone plays your game in their emulator.
Right idea, wrong quoted case.
If you're comparing to TV you should be looking at Cablevision which established that Cloud DVRs are legal in the US. The Aereo decision specifically avoiding overturning that issue. Comcast relied on Cablevision when it launched its Cloud DVR in 2014. The only issue it has was unrelated to content. It was patents with Tivo.
The GFN setup aligns with Cablevision. It does not align with Aereo.
You could flip that and say why aren't devs paying Nvidia? Nvidia put all the effort and risk into creating low cost virtual PCs that are super powerful and developers freeload off that to get a bigger potential market.
See how silly that sounds?
A developer is fairly paid when someone purchases a game.
Nvidia is fairly paid when someone rents a GFN PC.
The consumer benefits by combining the two for a better game experience at a lower overall cost.
GFN is a full Windows 10 install. The difference between GFN and Shadow (aside from cost) is that GFN runs Windows in kiosk mode.
Every service you listed provides content as part of the sub fee, so of course they have to pay royalties.
GFN does not provide you content. You have to purchase the content from the publisher and bring it to GFN after you have already paid for it.
1) Someone would need standing.
2) Graphics card business is currently bigger than the streaming business.
Sony lost.
You can do this today. (Well you could when theaters were open.)
Is there a list of publishers that have pulled their games from the service? I think it's time to start calling them on their shit and start boycotting their games and services.
I get it (especially since as I mentioned in my previous post, there are problems with stuff like advertising and trademarks and the like regardless in all likeliness at this point), but it's nonetheless so weird there's so much focus on stuff like video game publishers in this thread.
Because if I were to use a service like this personally, it would be for the purpose of avoiding buying a PC powerful enough to play AAA games, not avoiding paying the publishers whose games I already need to own a license for to use it.
That is to say, if anything, by using a service like this, I'd be trying to avoid giving companies like AMD/Intel/Nvidia themselves or hell, even companies like perhaps ones like Dell if we start to factor prebuilt stuff in there hundreds of dollars on various components, not publishers.
Like, how to put this.... I suppose this reminds of piracy arguments in a particular way. Like, how publishers like to argue how each and every pirated copy is a lost sale, when that's not nearly how that works and you also have to consider stuff like how likely they ever were to actually buy the game in the first place and all that.
In the sane way, in all these "poor publisher" posts, like, if not for this service, there seems to be some assumption that like if it didn't exist, then like people would sign up for like Bethesda's own solution AND Microsoft's AND Ubisoft's, AND Activision's, et, etc, etc.
When, no. No, no, no, no, no.
If not for services like this, I'd just such it up and buy a good PC instead. Or a next-gen console.
Certainly not another copy iof the games I already in, or their in streaming services, or anything like that. The point if it for me would be a cheap way if avoiding buying hardware for AAA gaming, with a service that allows me to play the bulk of my Steam library, and none of those other options begin to offer me that.
It's not really a lost sale, because those were options I'd never consider to begin with and aren't alternatives in any way, but it's nonetheless interesting how baked in an assumption it's being treated as that publishers are losing money in some way when, while I can only speak for myself here, it would be hardware I'd be avoiding spending money on here, not publishers games which I already own to begin with or their own streaming services which I was never going to use with OR without this.
But yeah, Friday m that perspective, it's just interesting to me that there's so much focus on stuff like video game publishers in this thread, which, on the one hand, I get for obvious reasons, but on the other, on the other hand if we're going to nonetheless accept that argument as a given regardless...
If we're really going to accept that argument regardless, it nonetheless makes me at least a bit curious about why there aren't more like "but what about Intel et Al" because surely you'd be able to make at least as much of a direct argument that these kind if services are costing companies like Intel potential $$$ by avoiding the need to buy their hardware components by offering a streaming alternative, that Nvidia is buying hardware in other people's behalf costing them potential lost sales in much the same way people argue this is instead costing publishers money through various near s, but almost nothing on that front at all.
Because if I were to use a service like this personally, it would be for the purpose of avoiding buying a PC powerful enough to play AAA games, not avoiding paying the publishers whose games I already need to own a license for to use it.
That is to say, if anything, by using a service like this, I'd be trying to avoid giving companies like AMD/Intel/Nvidia themselves or hell, even companies like perhaps ones like Dell if we start to factor prebuilt stuff in there hundreds of dollars on various components, not publishers.
Like, how to put this.... I suppose this reminds of piracy arguments in a particular way. Like, how publishers like to argue how each and every pirated copy is a lost sale, when that's not nearly how that works and you also have to consider stuff like how likely they ever were to actually buy the game in the first place and all that.
In the sane way, in all these "poor publisher" posts, like, if not for this service, there seems to be some assumption that like if it didn't exist, then like people would sign up for like Bethesda's own solution AND Microsoft's AND Ubisoft's, AND Activision's, et, etc, etc.
When, no. No, no, no, no, no.
If not for services like this, I'd just such it up and buy a good PC instead. Or a next-gen console.
Certainly not another copy iof the games I already in, or their in streaming services, or anything like that. The point if it for me would be a cheap way if avoiding buying hardware for AAA gaming, with a service that allows me to play the bulk of my Steam library, and none of those other options begin to offer me that.
It's not really a lost sale, because those were options I'd never consider to begin with and aren't alternatives in any way, but it's nonetheless interesting how baked in an assumption it's being treated as that publishers are losing money in some way when, while I can only speak for myself here, it would be hardware I'd be avoiding spending money on here, not publishers games which I already own to begin with or their own streaming services which I was never going to use with OR without this.
But yeah, Friday m that perspective, it's just interesting to me that there's so much focus on stuff like video game publishers in this thread, which, on the one hand, I get for obvious reasons, but on the other, on the other hand if we're going to nonetheless accept that argument as a given regardless...
If we're really going to accept that argument regardless, it nonetheless makes me at least a bit curious about why there aren't more like "but what about Intel et Al" because surely you'd be able to make at least as much of a direct argument that these kind if services are costing companies like Intel potential $$$ by avoiding the need to buy their hardware components by offering a streaming alternative, that Nvidia is buying hardware in other people's behalf costing them potential lost sales in much the same way people argue this is instead costing publishers money through various near s, but almost nothing on that front at all.
Yeah, I was just correcting the person who said that GFN is equivalent to him/her opening a theater, charging customers for admission and letting them watch his/her Blu-ray collection.
There were, and probably still are, LAN centers that basically let you log in to your own Steam account, download the games, and play on their machines. It's effectively the same thing, but all virtualized and streaming.
And if there was a large LAN center franchise that publishers could have a word with - then I'm sure they would.
Honest question, would you also boycott pubs that never put their games on there to begin with? Sony for instance. And if your response is "but why would they, when they've got their own streaming service (PsNow)", then why would you be calling for an MS boycott when a large part of they they're pulling their games is cause they want to use their own service (xCloud). I don't get it.
Because streaming XB1 versions in 720p to Android phones, which I don't have, is not a comparable alternative to streaming maxed out PC versions in 1080p to a PC or TV. They're taking away something great and replace it with something crappy that I can't even use. And they already got my money, twice. I think it's in my right to be cranky.
I don't know all games that was there to begin with and which are infact removed, it would be hilarious if it was Minecraft when it's available literally everywhere else you can imagine, makes the whole thing a petty move just to help this snowball rolling. They don't lose any money on this.
Sunset Overdrive and Minecraft are the two MS titles I remember seeing on GFN.
huh, i thought streaming services wouldnt develop fanboy culture for at least another year or two but here we are.
1) MS services aren't out of beta yet so its hard to say what the launch quality will be like.
2) Iphones are in the testflight beta aswell but unfortunately apple have rated test flights to 10000 devices so your on a waiting list if you want to play there
3) its not up to you to decide how a publisher chooses to distribute their games. and unless you can supply relevant financial / legal protection or business docs that show they don't lose money I'm just going to assume you don't know what your talking about.
Lol then it's just a bs move to jump on the bandwagon and take a dig at a scarred competitor, it's like "Oh cool we can be on that list of removed publishers as well, lets do it!". This is not about losing money. How many versions of Minecraft do I have to buy before they're satisfied? Out of all games I've had during my 35 years as a gamer Minecraft is easily the one I've rebought the most. But they need their cut! lol /s
Last edited:
Not really?
Cablevision, as is Comcast, are cable tv companies, which means they' have license for that content.
While Nvidia is just unrelated third party like Aereo. And isn't licensing content from publish, but using Steam/Epics licenses.
Geforce Now isn't just dying. It's getting murdered.
It's also sad that it is pretty much the only well marketed streaming service available in my region.
It's also sad that it is pretty much the only well marketed streaming service available in my region.
Which means that it's right now a worse service which I can't use, which is what I said. If I would talk about the future I would say that Geforce Now had 4K and ray-tracing at 120hz or whatever. Anything can improve in the future, including Geforce Now, Stadia, PSNow, etc.
Or you could you show me a document that shows how MS is losing money on selling Minecraft.
I'll say this again, but there are very likely licensing issues attributed to a third party cloud-hosted VM solution. We see the same thing in commercial software where special licensing agreement is required where someone can buy in one region and consume in multiple other.
That's just an example, but it's likely not as straightforward as it sounds from a legal standpoint.
But also nVidia profits, here, by leveraging the brands that are on it but without compensating those brands. Even if legal concerns were sorted anyone can surely see the issues with that.
That's just an example, but it's likely not as straightforward as it sounds from a legal standpoint.
But also nVidia profits, here, by leveraging the brands that are on it but without compensating those brands. Even if legal concerns were sorted anyone can surely see the issues with that.
I won't say that's not a little surprising. That said I'm not sure any of those games would be popular enough for Nvidia to have put on the service to begin with. Does the service still allow manual installs since it came out of beta? Are we certain these games won't work?
Last edited:
It might currently be Android/720p only but that's cause the service hasn't even officially left beta/launched yet. It's obviously going to get better and be on more devices, that's the whole point of the service.
I've got no idea.
Any of the games that you can currently play on PC with PsNow.
Apologies for replying to you waaaaay late and well after the thread has moved on, but, can you (or anyone else) elaborate any more on this?
Like, have Nvidia said outright they were removing the games due to low usage? or was it actually due to developer request?
I did a quick search and only found the Geforce Forum post that just said "The following games will be removed" and then listed a bunch of games I'd barely heard of, with Spy Party right at the end, with no reason given.
It would be quicker to make a list of publishers that haven't pulled their games from the service at this point.
As far as publishers that have pulled their games, as far as I can remember...
Activision Blizzard
Bethesda
2k
Codemasters
Warner Bros
Xbox Game Studios
Klei
Capcom
Konami
Square Enix
EA
Rockstar
Last edited:
Presumably the titles they have available via Steam. I don't think the Microsoft Store worked with it ever.
So probably Gears 5, Halo etc? I dunno, I only access those via Game Pass so could never check.
It's just I have it and I can't remember seeing any. Not that I searched for every game.
The articles don't say either. When it was 2k that went the articles mentioned Civilization, Borderlands etc.
Still there until 24th so was going to see if I had any and see how they run.
It's entirely feasible that Valve will integrate some kind of service like this into Steam.
I doubt they will manage it as poorly as Nvidia though. I would guess that it'll probably be opt in for existing games, and opt out for future games, with terms to the steam publishing agreement updated to account for it.
I'm not really seeing how any of this is Nvidia's fault. They tried to provide a useful service to consumers and a bunch of greedy "Me Too" publishers are trying to enforce (or even redefine) overreaching EULAs to fuck their customers over.
I dont think this has been posted already, but the situation with Klei and the Don't Starve games is interesting.
Quotes from JoeW. One of the Admins at https://forums.kleientertainment.com/forums/topic/117512-geforce-now-game-removal/
So........
A delightfully massive clusterfuck all round then (and definitely not one you can blame the publisher for either).
Quotes from JoeW. One of the Admins at https://forums.kleientertainment.com/forums/topic/117512-geforce-now-game-removal/
Then there were a couple questions, so he re-clarified a few points:
So........
A delightfully massive clusterfuck all round then (and definitely not one you can blame the publisher for either).
To the people saying just let GFN change it's marketing scheme and advertise itself as a VM service, you don't think those same publishers would throw a hissy fit if the service was popular?
Then I suggest you read the very simple explanations of how it is Nvidia's fault that have been posted throughout this thread.
I predicted this exact outcome. I have no idea why Nvidia, a multi-billion corporation, couldn't.
Last edited:
Yes, this was always obviously the concern from the start. Nvidia knew this, of course. I wonder if they have a long term plan in place, eg have companies pull their games and then Nvidia challenges it in court. It'd be an interesting case with far reaching implications across all media (and software). If a consumer buys a video game, can publishers control how they play it?
You really need to read the decisions.
Cablevision established cloud DVRs as legal based on who is making the copies (the consumer is directing a computer to do so) and who is performing the work (again the consumer).
Aereo was narrowly decided on a carve out in the '76 copyright law based on a "look-and-feel" test.
Thanks, I see it.
And with that, fuck this service.
I was a fan of it during the beta phase, despite the wonky connection and the occasional queues, and the rather hacked-together approach they took towards the interface. This however, fuck this.
Its one thing to have publishers tell you to take their game down because you naively failed to get permission (Its also pretty dumb for a company the size of Nvidia, but whatever), but to deliberately remove a game just because not enough people were playing it is......... why? Why would you even do that? Are Nvidia that short on server space? in a fucking data-centre? Or can they just not be arsed with the maintenance? (because patching games via steam is hard I guess).
There are people in this forum who bought games solely to play via GFN, and now they cant, and now not only are games not guaranteed to remain on the service due to publishers getting pissy, they may also get removed because Nvidia just doesn't feel like hosting them any more.
Absolutely inexcusable.
(PS: And just to be clear, I will be equally, if not even more pissed off at Google if games ever get removed from Stadia. They have given assurances that this wont happen, but you can never be fully sure of the future)
Figured as much but I think content providers would have a great case considering TVs are useless without content and I see constant ads selling TVs with generic football players every Superbowl.
