Jump to content

Nvidia Shield GeForce Now


Recommended Posts

Sounds good. Thanks chap :)

 

On subject. After a couple of weeks with GeForce Now, I don't think I can justify keeping it going. It plays poorly with my connection* and can't play mist of my library on there. The tech works but it's going to be ruined by those who run it. 

 

*Since it came out of beta anyway. Was brilliant during the beta period. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 23/02/2020 at 18:07, Mogster said:

I don't think xcloud will have quite the same issues. It's not like there will be any other way to stream Xbox games, so there's no chance for a publisher to set up a competing service. Also going forwards I imagine Microsoft will make xcloud a requirement of releasing games on their platform.

 

The Geforce Now situation is a bit weird. By all account, Bethesda and Activision were on board for the beta, and Nvidia assumed they had permission to keep their games around for the launch. Clearly the publishers had other ideas though.

 

I'm not really sure whether Nvidia or these two publishers are the ones taking the piss here. It depends whether you see Geforce Now as its own thing, like xcloud or Netflix, or just a gateway to games on Steam and other existing platforms.

 

Geforce NOW is essentially a white list now, as both Valve and Epic block games not on the approved list and multiple major publishers have chosen to not allow some of their games to be available, for whatever reason, likely commercial.

 

I don't see how Microsoft can force copyright holders to allow their content to be made available on a commercial service without being paid a cut, much like PS Now has to pay to stream other people's content.

 

They will allow you to use the Microsoft equivalent of remote play as that is running on your own local box, just way laggier.

 

Quote

 

Some areas to consider around game streaming specifically for Project xCloud include:

 

Title Availability. Only games that have been published to Project xCloud are available for streaming there.

 

 

https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/gaming/game-streaming/get-started/project-xcloud-vs-console-streaming

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh ffs.
 

They should just go Shadow PC-style: give everyone some storage, increase the price to cover the cost, and let everyone install whatever they like to fuck them over.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if there will be issues with Shadow too down the line. I know it is a different setup, but I am willing to be there is something in the EULAs that will fuck that up too. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

It does seem like Nvidia were extremely presumptuous about what developers and publishers would be ok with when they launched the service. However, it's really shitty that major publishers like 2K left their games available on the service for so long after launch. Smaller developers like whoever made The Long Dark could be justified in taking a while to get their games taken down as they probably don't have in-house lawyers and the like to handle these things. 

 

Major corporations leaving their titles on the service for weeks before pulling them can get to fuck though. Based on the sheer amount of people who've used Geforce Now it's hard to believe that 2K haven't benefited financially from people buying their games to use via Geforce Now over the last month. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s really not a simple thing though. It’s a really weird grey area and I don’t think it fair to specifically jump on developers/publishers as this is a really weird middle ground that almost certain could be considered to be a breach of existing Game Pass/PSNow etc contracts.

 

Nvidia are as much in the wrong here for just assuming they can use the IP of others on their platform. The fact that they just pull games when requested basically says they know what they’re doing isn’t quite right. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bojangle said:

It’s really not a simple thing though. It’s a really weird grey area and I don’t think it fair to specifically jump on developers/publishers as this is a really weird middle ground that almost certain could be considered to be a breach of existing Game Pass/PSNow etc contracts.

 

Nvidia are as much in the wrong here for just assuming they can use the IP of others on their platform. The fact that they just pull games when requested basically says they know what they’re doing isn’t quite right. 

Like I said, Nivida were extremely presumptuous and if a company doesn't want their game on the service they are fully entitled to have it removed.  

 

My issue is that the likes of 2K didn't pull their games immediately despite having the resources and contacts to do so. Hypothetically if they had a deal with Google that Borderlands 3 could only be streamed on Stadia it wouldn't have taken them four and a half weeks to get it taken down from Geforce Now. It would have been gone within hours.  It's very hard to look at the length of time it took for them to pull their games and come to any other conclusion than they were looking to get paid by Nvidia. They are gambling on customers being more annoyed with Nvidia than they are with 2K, vice-versa in Nvidia case. Both companies are letting down people who just want to buy and play Borderlands 3. So fuck 2K. And fuck Nvidia. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, bear said:

Like I said, Nivida were extremely presumptuous and if a company doesn't want their game on the service they are fully entitled to have it removed.  

 

Why? I buy a game, I play it on a computer, I fail to see what business it is of a developers where I happen to keep that computer.

 

What next? Removing from Steam home streaming? Refusing to work if my hdmi cable is longer than 90cm?

  • Upvote 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah it's a really weird shitty stance to take. I've already paid them for the game, I'm just paying Nvidia for access to a better computer than mine so that I can play those games.

 

Stop that service and I just stop buying those games full stop. So short sighted.

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Dudley said:

 

Why? I buy a game, I play it on a computer, I fail to see what business it is of a developers where I happen to keep that computer.

 

What next? Removing from Steam home streaming? Refusing to work if my hdmi cable is longer than 90cm?

Based on Nvidias willingness to remove games from the device when challenged I think it's a safe enough bet that the EULAs give developers/publishers the power to demand that happens. I've never said it was morally right. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's really no different to you buying a song or movie off the Apple store and the copyright holder having a problem with you then expecting it to be available on Apple TV streaming or Apple Music streaming. They view that as something different and expect to be compensated if Apple (or Nvidia in this case) are using their content to sell you this service which Apple/Nvidia are making a profit from.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah I'm sure they can legally demand it, I'm saying they shouldn't be able to.

 

If this works I really believe they'll be after Steam over home streaming.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It makes sense when you consider that we're coming from markets that have been artificially splintered by hardware requirements. The same game today has different costs on PC, Mobiles, PS4 and Xbox for a variety of reasons and PC is pretty much always the cheapest. GeForce Now (and all streaming platforms) has provided a means for the consumer to consolidate to a single market without the publisher having any say in this. It's understandable that they want to control the price of this transition.

 

Ultimately, the win for the consumer here in the medium term is the removal of the current situation where the same product costs widely different amounts across different platforms. Neither publishers or consumers want this - it's a function of the different costs and serviceable market of today's different platforms.

 

I'm amazed NVidia made this stumble. It was entirely predictable so the logical conclusion is that they tried their luck here and that will go down badly with the big publishers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Has any publisher actually come out and said why they have asked for stuff to be removed? after all,  you still have to actually buy the game to play it! they still get paid!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well Blizzard have a fairly explicit section devoted to it in their EULA (yeah, yeah, not legally enforceable, tell it to the judge instead of me):
 

Quote

 

License Limitations. Blizzard may suspend or revoke your license to use the Platform, or parts, components and/or single features thereof, if you violate, or assist others in violating, the license limitations set forth below. You agree that you will not, in whole or in part or under any circumstances, do the following:

 

Cloud Computing:  Use the Platform, including a Game, in connection with any unauthorized third-party “cloud computing” services, “cloud gaming” services, or any software or service designed to enable the unauthorized streaming or transmission of Game content from a third-party server to any device.

 

 

https://www.blizzard.com/en-us/legal/fba4d00f-c7e4-4883-b8b9-1b4500a402ea/blizzard-end-user-license-agreement

 

Pretty explicit exclusion which still allows streaming from your own box.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think any of them have given a public reason (EDIT - apart from Blizzard it seems!). The Long Dark dev claimed it was a matter of principle for him, as he didn't like Nvidia assuming they had his permission without asking.

 

For the big publishers it's probably a combination of things. Some may have their own streaming ambitions, some may even have deals with other streaming services that may conflict with this. Some may just be doing it as a precaution in case it becomes an issue when making deals with other services.

 

As much as it sucks, I can understand the decisions to some extent. Sure the publishers get paid for their games either way, but they could be making even more money by selling the game again on other services, or at least getting some kind of income from Game Pass or something similar. I think the only company that directly profits from GeForce Now is Nvidia. Basically capitalism is ruining things for everyone as usual.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Mogster said:

Basically capitalism is ruining things for everyone as usual.

 

Well Nvidia could easily fix it by either paying publishers a cut or taking one for the team and not charging for it as without premium content, nobody realistically or practically gives a shit about streaming services. I will point you to all the major successful streaming/subscription services as evidence of this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tim Sweeney has come out heavily in support of Geforce Now. 

https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2020-03-07-some-publishers-may-be-abandoning-geforce-now-but-epic-is-wholeheartedly-supporting-the-streaming-service

 

Quote

Epic is wholeheartedly supporting NVIDIA's GeForce Now service with Fortnite and with Epic Games Store titles that choose to participate (including exclusives), and we'll be improving the integration over time," Epic Games' boss, Tim Sweeney, announced on Twitter. "It's the most developer-friendly and publisher-friendly of the major streaming services, with zero tax on game revenue. Game companies who want to move the game industry towards a healthier state for everyone should be supporting this kind of service!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

His most successful product relies on the networking effect and IAPs/subscriptions. He has everything to gain and nothing to lose, so yep, if I was him, I'd be fully behind it too :)
 

Link to post
Share on other sites

But again, there is no cost to publishers or devs, they still get paid for the game!? this is what's so confusing to me, it only works with games you already own!

 

You own the game, why should you not be able to play it if you are not at home?

 

It simply comes across as very anti consumer. end of.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In simple terms it’s another large company taking a revenue stream from publishers IP without them giving a cut. 
 

Moreover by making gaming pcs more accessible it potentially restricts their ability to sell products at a higher price on other formats. The Switch ‘tax’ springs to mind for one. If you can stream on a shitty laptop, tablet or mobile phone why would you pay significantly more for the Switch version when you can probably get a PC key for buttons? Almost everyone has one of those three devices...

 

I wouldn’t say I agree with the move the big publishers have taken but I can understand it and NVIDIA is going to have to make deals with them if the service is to survive

Link to post
Share on other sites

In a company like Activision's case whose launcher previously worked with Geforce Now someone playing Overwatch through that service instead of the Switch wouldn't be paying the Nintendo Tax when they buy the game or on any loot boxes, all that money would go to them as Nvidia don't take a cut of that. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, dreamylittledream said:

In simple terms it’s another large company taking a revenue stream from publishers IP without them giving a cut. 

 

Nah, if you accept that then your PC should monitor every game you play and Intel / Nvidia / Corsair / Acer and Logitech should all be sending Sega money when I play 2 Point Hospital.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dudley said:

 

Nah, if you accept that then your PC should monitor every game you play and Intel / Nvidia / Corsair / Acer and Logitech should all be sending Sega money when I play 2 Point Hospital.

 

They have a co-dependent relationship in that case as you need the hardware to run the software and without compelling software, why would you buy the hardware?

 

Geforce NOW is a completely one-sided relationship, the software doesn't need it to work as it was designed to run on local PCs in the first place while GFN is useless without publisher/developer support (also the key criticism of Stadia, it has weak publisher/developer support). The power is entirely in the publisher/developers hands, not Nvidia's in this case.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well only in that the software doesn't need it a 1080ti to run because you can also run it on a 1070ti.

 

It's just another hardware to run the software on, and it's a much cheaper one for the customer than anything else they can get to run your software, which you would think would be good news.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Amusingly enough, the sales pitch to developers for GFN was that it would expand the market for their games to non-gaming PCs and other devices, but people are arguing about using their existing content library with it, which doesn't quite fit with that sales pitch.

 

Here's a hypothetical for all the people who might care about this service:

 

If all the major publishers pulled their content but you could play literally everything else that runs on a Windows OS PC, would it be worth the money still? Or is running premium content the big draw?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean it's normally that big publisher stuff that needs the power of a decent computer so that's why I signed up. Any indie stuff I can run on my aging computer with little difference but I don't have the spare £2k to drop on an RTX card.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.