Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

NVIDIA GeForce Now streaming service drama - publishers pulling out

Joined
Jan 14, 2018
Messages
50,754
Codex Year of the Donut
someone explain this geforce now shit to me
how are companies removing their games from it? Didn't they already give the OK for it to be on nvidia's library?
AFAICT you have to actually buy the game itself on nvidia's website?
 

abija

Prophet
Joined
May 21, 2011
Messages
2,893
Dexter:

A game is not a movie, it's a piece of software and anyway you can stream whatever you want to yourself through a VPS.

Google wants part of the sales and exclusivity when possible, that's why they go that route.
Nvidia could have plenty reasons to not go to court, that doesn't change the fact that is strongarming, like a lot of the clauses in EULAs are. And usually they don't hold at all in court.

rusty_shackleford you don't buy anything on nvidia. You log in a virtual machine session to your steam/blizzard/whatever account.
 

Dexter

Arcane
Joined
Mar 31, 2011
Messages
15,655
Dexter, quick question, do you know what Plex is?
Not particularly, but a 5 second Google search already tells me that whatever argument you're trying to make doesn't work, since it's a client-server media player where the software and not the content is being sold. A user Streams his own media files from a personal NAS or server he sets up and as such assumes all legal liabilities for such content, the content doesn't come with or from the service.
Plex is a client–server media player system and software suite comprising two main components. The Plex Media Server desktop application runs on Windows, macOS and Linux, including some types of NAS devices. The server desktop application organizes video, audio, and photos from a user's collections and from online services, enabling the players to access and stream the contents. There are also official clients available for mobile devices, smart TVs, and streaming boxes, a web app, and Plex Home Theater (no longer maintained), as well as many third-party alternatives.

Further it seems to have integration for things like Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Prime Video etc. where the user requires an account for any of said services and the content again comes from said services in partnership with copyright owners and not from Plex's servers.

Even further they seem to have expanded their business by entering content partnerships with specific distributors in an ad-supported revenue model:
Streaming exclusively to US users, Plex will roll out the content later this year. There’s no programming line-up yet, so we don’t know if users will be treated to current movies and TV, Warner’s collection of classics, or some combination of the two. One detail that Plex did clarify upon is that the content will be free; you won’t need to be a premium member of the service.

The Warner Bros. movies and TV shows will likely be just the beginning of Plex’s ad-supported content, as the company plans on working with additional media partners to expand its catalog. So while the main draw of the app will still be the ability to stream a personal media library, it may eventually become a centralized app for on-demand content across networks.

None of this applies to what people are retardedly arguing ITT. Also this is getting really fucking dumb now, I feel like I'm holding up an apple, pointing at it and saying "apple" and there's a bunch of toddlers going "pear?" or in some cases even "GlUe?"
 

Decado

Old time handsome face wrecker
Patron
Joined
Dec 1, 2010
Messages
2,544
Location
San Diego
Codex 2014
someone explain this geforce now shit to me
how are companies removing their games from it? Didn't they already give the OK for it to be on nvidia's library?
AFAICT you have to actually buy the game itself on nvidia's website?

They gave the okay for the games to appear on the service when it was in beta -- a lot of people don't realize this, but Geforce Now has been in beta for like five years (lol). I had it back in 2014 when I bought my Shield Tablet.

The reason they are taking them down now is the same reason that nobody is doing business with Google: they don't want to share first sale profits with nVidia on an experience that might be substandard for a gamer. They're just not sure about the service yet. Also, I'm betting many of them have deals with Microsoft and X Cloud that will come to light when the new Xbox comes on line.
 

abija

Prophet
Joined
May 21, 2011
Messages
2,893
How are they sharing sale profits with nvidia?

on an experience that might be substandard for a gamer. They're just not sure about the service yet
Sure...
 

Decado

Old time handsome face wrecker
Patron
Joined
Dec 1, 2010
Messages
2,544
Location
San Diego
Codex 2014
How are they sharing sale profits with nvidia?

Do you think either of these companies works for free? If nVidia wants to let you stream an Activision game of some kind, they need to get Actiivision's permission. It doesn't matter if you own the game (which is something people in this thread seem to be missing). Activision owns the brand, and they have final say on how that brand is presented for commercial purposes. nVidia cannot "feature" them on anything without permission, and all of the attendant legal horseshit that goes along with getting and maintaining that permission. You think Activision is going to let nVidia use their brand to sell their service, for free?

Of course not. Money has to change hands for all of this. Not to mention this whole area is still nascent enough for the really difficult legal questions to still be a grey area. Nobody is willing to go to court over this shit yet, not until they know how much money it can make so they can determine if a drawn out legal battle is worth it.

So, Activision says "If you want to advertise your streaming service with our games, you need to pay up." nVidia decides not to publicly feud about it, acquiesces, and lives to fight another day. Pretty standard, really.
 

abija

Prophet
Joined
May 21, 2011
Messages
2,893
So every VPS company needs legal agreements from every software company to allow you to install software you own?
Company A is selling me a piece of software, company B is renting me hardware. Simple as that.
 

Decado

Old time handsome face wrecker
Patron
Joined
Dec 1, 2010
Messages
2,544
Location
San Diego
Codex 2014
So every VPS company needs legal agreements from every software company to allow you to install software you own?

It depends on how they advertise this, but yes this is possible. This is a battle that has not been fought, not yet. Also, it is not as simple as just storing the game on the server -- like I said, the bigger issue is branding.

Company A is selling me a piece of software, company B is renting me hardware. Simple as that.

Company B is selling their rental service by specifically referencing, and thereby befitting from, Company A. Company A has a right to control how its brand is represented. So, it is not that simple. Also, there is the software licensing agreement to worry about, which basically gives publishers every right under the sun to determine how their games are used/displayed.

I mean the fact that this has happened -- that Activision said "take our stuff down" and nVidia said "Okay!" basically proves my point. Both companies have billions of dollars and many smart lawyers at their disposal. Yet they chose to defuse the situation. Can you imagine why that would be? nVidia is unwilling to argue with Activision about this. Because I'm sure all of their very smart lawyers took a look at current law, and the possible future interpretations of that law, and then had a chat with business development guys, and then said "Okay, this isn't worth fighting over." Especially for a fringe service that is not really nVidia's bread and butter, which is still probably not making them any real money (in fact, the service is probably running at a loss for them).

So, again, it's not simple. If it were simple we wouldn't be shitposting about it on the internet.
 
Joined
Jan 14, 2018
Messages
50,754
Codex Year of the Donut
I really, really doubt there's any legal footing for preventing what is essentially a VPS from running your software. If this went to court and I was betting on it, I'd put everything on nvidia.
 
Joined
Jan 14, 2018
Messages
50,754
Codex Year of the Donut
I mean the fact that this has happened -- that Activision said "take our stuff down" and nVidia said "Okay!" basically proves my point. Both companies have billions of dollars and many smart lawyers at their disposal. Yet they chose to defuse the situation. Can you imagine why that would be? nVidia is unwilling to argue with Activision about this. Because I'm sure all of their very smart lawyers took a look at current law, and the possible future interpretations of that law, and then had a chat with business development guys, and then said "Okay, this isn't worth fighting over." Especially for a fringe service that is not really nVidia's bread and butter, which is still probably not making them any real money (in fact, the service is probably running at a loss for them).
More likely because it's not worth the bad blood with such major publishers when they work so closely together.
 

Decado

Old time handsome face wrecker
Patron
Joined
Dec 1, 2010
Messages
2,544
Location
San Diego
Codex 2014
I really, really doubt there's any legal footing for preventing what is essentially a VPS from running your software. If this went to court and I was betting on it, I'd put everything on nvidia.

Have you ever met a lawyer in real life? None of them are this cavalier.

Jesus Christ you guys. Just play this out. Let's say nVidia says "Fuck you, we're keeping them up!" and then goes to court, and then wins. What then? Do you realize how many business deals, partnerships, etc, exist between these two companies? Why would they jeopardize that? It is simply a better option all around to retreat to the negotiating table.

ETA: Or basically, your cross post. So it looks like we agree. So I will edit my post.
 

Dexter

Arcane
Joined
Mar 31, 2011
Messages
15,655
So, again, it's not simple. If it were simple we wouldn't be shitposting about it on the internet.
I think it's pretty simple.

- Nvidia says they're building a Streaming Service "GeForce Now", says it's gonna test it and asks a bunch of publishers to be part of it
- They say sure, go ahead, you can use this, this and that game
- Nvidia at some point decides to go out of Beta, asks $8 per month to play TOP AAA GAMES from their servers, tells publishers "LOL u get nuthing, customers already paid for these games on Steam or your own Online stores"
- Some publishers like Capcom, EA, Konami, Remedy, Rockstar, Square Enix jump off board right there
- Some other publishers like Activision Blizzard and Bethesda that were a bit slower realize what's going on, go "U WOT, m8?" and tell Nvidia "Take our games off your service, or else."
- Nvidia realizes that there is no chance in hell they could possibly win a legal challenge for offering a GAME STREAMING SERVICE for a monthly fee Streaming TOP AAA GAMES from various publishers that they have no ownership of or distribution rights to from their servers without an agreement or commercial license with said publishers, complies with the requests and takes down all their games

End of story. Oh wait:
- Retards go wild on the RPGCodex claiming JUSTICE must be done and Nvidia should SUE all the Ebil publishers instead for making use of their legal rights and protecting their copyrighted content
 
Last edited:

Tacgnol

Shitlord
Patron
Joined
Oct 12, 2010
Messages
1,871,734
Codex 2016 - The Age of Grimoire Grab the Codex by the pussy RPG Wokedex Strap Yourselves In Codex Year of the Donut Shadorwun: Hong Kong Divinity: Original Sin 2 Steve gets a Kidney but I don't even get a tag. Pathfinder: Wrath I helped put crap in Monomyth
I really, really doubt there's any legal footing for preventing what is essentially a VPS from running your software. If this went to court and I was betting on it, I'd put everything on nvidia.

Have you ever met a lawyer in real life? None of them are this cavalier.

Jesus Christ you guys. Just play this out. Let's say nVidia says "Fuck you, we're keeping them up!" and then goes to court, and then wins. What then? Do you realize how many business deals, partnerships, etc, exist between these two companies? Why would they jeopardize that? It is simply a better option all around to retreat to the negotiating table.

ETA: Or basically, your cross post. So it looks like we agree. So I will edit my post.

Yeah they may stand a decent chance in court, but probably deem it isn't worth the cost and the damaged relationships that would inevitably result.

They don't want all new AAA releases having AMD logos up the ass, that's bad for business.
 
Joined
Jan 14, 2018
Messages
50,754
Codex Year of the Donut
If I understand the platform's service correctly, then Nvidia has done nothing wrong.
As far as I can tell, it simply lets me play games I can prove that I already own(e.g., logging in through Steam.) Nvidia is not doing something like letting an unlimited number of people play a single copy of a game — they're letting people who own a game play their game.
This is effectively nothing but roundabout DRM, preventing you from accessing a product you own in a way you wish to play it. Even if I dislike streaming, it's still your product and you should be allowed to pay to play it on a cloud server. A developer or publisher should not be able to tell you how you can use your product.
I am against this.
 

Cromwell

Arcane
Joined
Feb 16, 2013
Messages
5,443
Dexter still doesnt understand the difference between Nvidia streaming a game to me, and me streaming my game to me through Nvidias hardware.
 

Dexter

Arcane
Joined
Mar 31, 2011
Messages
15,655
If I understand the platform's service correctly, then Nvidia has done nothing wrong.
As far as I can tell, it simply lets me play games I can prove that I already own(e.g., logging in through Steam.) Nvidia is not doing something like letting an unlimited number of people play a single copy of a game — they're letting people who own a game play their game.
Whether you own a game or not is completely irrelevant and immaterial to Nvidia as a company having or not having the right to Stream games from their servers to you on their Game Streaming service for commercial purposes. If they solely offered and marketed private servers which happened to also allow you to install Steam it might be another matter (the grey area people were referring to) and your business, but that's not what they are marketing and selling.

If they have a revenue sharing or other agreement with Capcom, EA, Konami, Remedy, Rockstar, Square Enix, Activision Blizzard and Bethesda to Stream their games then they can legally do so whether you own the game on Steam, PlayStation, Xbox, Nintendo or Retail or not. If they don't they can't even if you own them on all five. Nvidia is not part of the contractual relation between you, Steam/Valve and their publishing partners you buy games from as a customer, they can only take advantage of them if granted special permission (e.g. GOG Connect). These purchase agreements and other contracts do not extend to Nvidias Online services or offerings and magically grant them a irrevocable commercial license to install and Stream any games they want to their Subscribers.
 
Last edited:

abija

Prophet
Joined
May 21, 2011
Messages
2,893
Whether you own a game or not is completely irrelevant and immaterial to Nvidia as a company having or not having the right to Stream games from their servers to you on their Game Streaming service for commercial purposes. If they solely offered and marketed private servers which happened to also allow you to install Steam it might be another matter
How exactly is it different? It's even ensuring the games aren't pirated.

The only difference between something like https://shadow.tech/ and GFN is that it's big enough to make a piece of the pie worth it.
 
Joined
Jan 14, 2018
Messages
50,754
Codex Year of the Donut
Whether you own a game or not is completely irrelevant and immaterial to Nvidia as a company having or not having the right to Stream games from their servers to you on their Game Streaming service for commercial purposes. If they solely offered and marketed private servers which happened to also allow you to install Steam it might be another matter (the grey area people were referring to) and your business, but that's not what they are marketing and selling.
are you serious right now?
"yes please master tell me how I can use my product oh YESSS MASTER T H A N K YOUUUU"
 

baud

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Dec 11, 2016
Messages
3,992
Location
Septentrion
RPG Wokedex Strap Yourselves In Steve gets a Kidney but I don't even get a tag. Pathfinder: Wrath I helped put crap in Monomyth
For my understanding, the licence you get when buying a game on Steam allows you to install and run the game anywhere and on as many computers you want, so I don't really understand why Nvidia couldn't just continue to stream a game you own to you; publishers should be interested since it's a DRM system and they could have more players. But from the actions of the publishers and Nvidia, it seems that's not the case.

Though the Steam Subscriber Agreement says that "installation of Content and Services [ie games] onto your computer", so Steam's terms can also justify the position of the publishers, since the licence you have doesn't cover installation on a computer that you do not own.
 

Nyast

Cipher
Joined
Jan 12, 2014
Messages
609
When you use Geforce Now, you cannot just play any of your owned games or install your own software. For example, if you launch GF Now and connect to Steam and try to install an obscure indy game from your library, you'll get a notification that the game isn't authorized. So while *technically* it works like a VPS or Remote Desktop, its business model is clearly different. I think that might be the subtelity that explains why Nvidia decided to comply with pulling out games from their list.
 

Nifft Batuff

Prophet
Joined
Nov 14, 2018
Messages
3,169
And it's not like the publishers are losing out over this. You still need to buy the game and it opens up purchase possibilities from people who haven't got a good enough PC to play the latest games. Plus it prevents piracy. I'd have thought publishers would be lining up to grow a service like this because for them, I don't see a downside. Once they've managed to screw NVidia/ Google for as much as they think they can, they'll be back. The only question is will the players still be there or will they have lost faith because of this publisher bullshit?

Again, "publishers should support this new and commercially attractive idea" is a fine point to make. The idiot part is acting like they don't have to, the idea that because you own a license to play the game on Steam nVidia have the right to run it on their PC and make money streaming it to you without the publisher's consent. It's an entirely different thing, and it's baffling you guys don't see this.
No the situation is different. You could rephrase as: "[...] the idea that because you own a license to play the game on Steam nVidia YOU have the right to run it on their PC (the nVidia servers) and make money streaming it to you without the publisher's consent."

I should have the right to play my game on whatever PC I want. Including the nVidia servers (that I can rent).
 

DalekFlay

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Oct 5, 2010
Messages
14,118
Location
New Vegas
No the situation is different. You could rephrase as: "[...] the idea that because you own a license to play the game on Steam nVidia YOU have the right to run it on their PC (the nVidia servers) and make money streaming it to you without the publisher's consent."

I should have the right to play my game on whatever PC I want. Including the nVidia servers (that I can rent).

I think they could restructure their business model to better make this argument and have some success with it, but as of now they haven't done so and it's obvious they're not confident in their position.
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom