NVIDIA GeForce Now streaming service drama - publishers pulling out

[vonAchdorf]

Video game publishers are total cunts. Reminds me of the old music industry that ate itself. People were fed up to the bollocks of paying $$ to $$$ for mediocre music and music publishers couldn't adapt. May the game industry go the same way.

They adapted by streaming and now are back to the revenues of the CD era heydays while legal DRM free music purchases (downloads) with permanent licenses are on a 14 year low.

 

[Dexter]

Now Indies are starting to pull out


LOL: https://www.forbes.com/sites/erikka...r-is-wrong-to-pull-the-game-from-geforce-now/

 

[Nifft Batuff]

These developers are retarded.

We are living in a time in which the only way to own a thing is to steal it.

 

[DalekFlay]

We are living in a time in which the only way to own a thing is to steal it.

Buy on GOG, backup the installer, ownership!

 

[rusty_shackleford]

flat out stating they should be allowed to control how you use a product you paid for

Hey it's like that thing Rusty talked about where you don't own proprietary software

 

[Dexter]

Still not sure what you people don't seem to get or understand.

You can't just expect as a company to set up a service for $8 a month and market it for playing certain games without the consent and agreement of the publisher/developer/copyright owners.

GFN functions like every other Digital Distribution platform out there, it offers you a library of games with a "Play" button, upon which a window opens and you can start playing a game directly Streamed from Nvidia's servers:

The gimmick with "You have to Log into Steam once" is about as meaningful legally as the Disclaimers on Torrent sites that everything uploaded there is uploaded by users and thus there's no liability for the owners of the site.

THAT. IS. SIMPLY. NOT. HOW. THINGS. WORK. and Nvidia knows this obvious fact. I'm not coming up with fringe theories or making any abstruse claims, I'm explaining the status quo and it's like I'm talking to brick walls.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

Still not sure what you people don't seem to get or understand.

You can't just expect as a company to set up a service for $8 a month and market it for playing certain games without the consent and agreement of the publisher/developer/copyright owners.

GFN functions like every other Digital Distribution platform out there, it offers you a library of games with a "Play" button, upon which a window opens and you can start playing a game directly Streamed from Nvidia's servers:

The gimmick with "You have to Log into Steam once" is about as meaningful legally as the Disclaimers on Torrent sites that everything uploaded there is uploaded by users and thus there's no liability for anyone else.

THAT. IS. SIMPLY. NOT. HOW. THINGS. WORK. and Nvidia knows this obvious fact. I'm not making any abstruse claims, I'm explaining the status quo and it's like I'm talking to brick walls.

uhhh
you realize you have to actually own the game to play it, right?

 

[Nifft Batuff]

This situation is similar to the attempt by Sony to stop running the PS games on emulators. Sony filed suit against games to run on non-Sony hardware, but ultimately lost.

(And in that case it made vaguely sense, since Sony it is also an hardware producer. But in this case we are speaking of software developers that want to control your hardware).

 

[rusty_shackleford]

This situation is similar to the attempt by Sony to stop running the PS games on emulators. Sony filed suit against games to run on non-Sony hardware, but ultimately lost.

(And in that case it made vaguely sense, since Sony it is also an hardware producer. But in this case we are speaking of software developers that want to control your hardware).

and to be fair, how many people using emulators actually own the games?
When using this you have to prove you own it.

 

[Nyast]

I think part of the problem is that they advertise / green-light individual specific games.

It is true that you have to login to your Steam account to play a game you own, however you can't just play any game you own on Steam. You can only play very specific games that are beeing "advertised" ( as in: shown from their launcher ) by Nvidia.

If their launcher, instead of showing individual games, instead showed invidual platforms like Steam and allowed you to play any game you own on these platforms, I think there'd be less controversy.

 

[baud]

Now Indies are starting to pull out

Why is he removing his game? I mean that way his game can be played by more players and since the available games on NVidia are curated, it's more visible there than on Steam. It just seem petty.

(though Nvidia should have asked the devs before putting the games on the plateform, as I think Nvidia shouldn't make the games available like this without agreement with their publishers)

 

[Naraya]

(though Nvidia should have asked the devs before putting the games on the plateform, as I think Nvidia shouldn't make the games available like this without agreement with their publishers)

Why would I have to ask a developer if I can install the game (that I bought from him) on a specific computer? In essence - this is what it boils down to.

 

[baud]

(though Nvidia should have asked the devs before putting the games on the plateform, as I think Nvidia shouldn't make the games available like this without agreement with their publishers)

Why would I have to ask a developer if I can install the game (that I bought from him) on a specific computer? In essence - this is what it boils down to.

The terms of service of Steam give you the right to install a game on your computer, not on a service that's offering you to do it for you. (at least that's how I understand it)

 

[FeelTheRads]

The terms of service of Steam give you the right to install a game on your computer, not on a service that's offering you to do it for you. (at least that's how I understand it)

In other words, enjoy paying full price for renting games.

 

[Dexter]

The terms of service of Steam give you the right to install a game on your computer, not on a service that's offering you to do it for you. (at least that's how I understand it)

It's not about you, it's about Nvidia, you can go ahead and order a Virtual machine and install whatever you want on it.

Here this guy put it into simple words:

 

[Nifft Batuff]

 

[baud]

The terms of service of Steam give you the right to install a game on your computer, not on a service that's offering you to do it for you. (at least that's how I understand it)

It's not about you, it's about Nvidia, you can go ahead and order a Virtual machine and install whatever you want on it.

Here this guy put it into simple words:

A VM you've rented might be a grey area in regard to the Steam T&A, but it might work (while you're renting it, it's considered yours). But the licence you've got to download and install Steam games is not transferable to any third party. And the Nvidia service is not a virtual machine, it's a service that can remotely run a Steam game from your library, among those supported.

 

[Dexter]

But the licence you've got to download and install Steam games is not transferable to any third party. And the Nvidia service is not a virtual machine, it's a service that can remotely run a Steam game from your library, among those supported.

Exactly, your license/right to play games on Steam you bought doesn't extend to Nvidia and isn't transferable to them installing the game on their servers and Streaming it to you, if they don't have the distribution rights to said games there's no dice. Which is why I said on the previous page that it doesn't matter if you own the same game on 5 or more other platforms since that's irrelevant to what Nvidia can or cannot do, it only matters whether Nvidia is allowed to Stream it to you: https://rpgcodex.net/forums/index.p...ishers-pulling-out.132044/page-3#post-6557098

There are also legal precedents of other companies trying the same before in other areas for instance, The Supreme Court found that: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/573/431/

Viewed in terms of Congress’ regulatory objectives, these behind-the-scenes technological differences do not distinguish Aereo’s system from cable systems, which do perform publicly. Congress would as much have intended to protect a copyright holder from the unlicensed activities of Aereo as from those of cable companies.

e.g.

The gimmick with "You have to Log into Steam once" is about as meaningful legally as the Disclaimers on Torrent sites that everything uploaded there is uploaded by users and thus there's no liability for the owners of the site.

Their argument was that because "ClOwD" this doesn't apply to them because "DiFfErEnT" and it was swatted away:

“The spectrum that the broadcasters use to transmit over-the-air programming belongs to the American public, and we believe you should have a right to access that live programming whether your antenna sits on the roof of your home, on top of your television or in the cloud,” Mr. Kanojia said in his letter to Aereo users.

If Nvidia wants a humiliating legal defeat they can go ahead and sue whoever, but that doesn't change that the copyright owner has an exclusive right to decide where their work can be distributed or broadcast according to their conditions.

No distribution deal = Nvidia can stamp their feet as long as they want.

 

[baud]

Nvidia can stamp their feet as long as they want.

Well, they're not exactly stamping their feet, they're removing the games when asked (because they would lose in court). It doesn't make the devs pulling out less stupid, though

 

[CrunchyHemorrhoids]

Publishers can't get "available as a stream exclusively on stadia/xcloud/amazon" moneyhats otherwise. But you already bought the game you say? Well fuck you, you will learn to buy our game again and again whenever we say so, sucker.

 

[Nyast]

2K games ( Borderlands, Bioshock, Civilization ) is also out:

https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/20...ds-bioshock-and-more-from-nvidia-geforce-now/

 

[DalekFlay]

I'm sure nVidia love destroying their service for the fuck of it, since these publishers don't actually have any power, right guys?

 

[rusty_shackleford]

2K games ( Borderlands, Bioshock, Civilization ) is also out:

https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/20...ds-bioshock-and-more-from-nvidia-geforce-now/

Many publishers and developers may be none too happy at a third-party making bank from streaming their games – especially if, as van Lierop suggests, they’re doing so without asking first.

That's like accusing Nvidia of making money from their games by selling graphics cards to play them.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

But the licence you've got to download and install Steam games is not transferable to any third party. And the Nvidia service is not a virtual machine, it's a service that can remotely run a Steam game from your library, among those supported.

Exactly, your license/right to play games on Steam you bought doesn't extend to Nvidia and isn't transferable to them installing the game on their servers and Streaming it to you, if they don't have the distribution rights to said games there's no dice. Which is why I said on the previous page that it doesn't matter if you own the same game on 5 or more other platforms since that's irrelevant to what Nvidia can or cannot do, it only matters whether Nvidia is allowed to Stream it to you: https://rpgcodex.net/forums/index.p...ishers-pulling-out.132044/page-3#post-6557098

There are also legal precedents of other companies trying the same before in other areas for instance, The Supreme Court found that: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/573/431/

Viewed in terms of Congress’ regulatory objectives, these behind-the-scenes technological differences do not distinguish Aereo’s system from cable systems, which do perform publicly. Congress would as much have intended to protect a copyright holder from the unlicensed activities of Aereo as from those of cable companies.

e.g.

The gimmick with "You have to Log into Steam once" is about as meaningful legally as the Disclaimers on Torrent sites that everything uploaded there is uploaded by users and thus there's no liability for the owners of the site.

Their argument was that because "ClOwD" this doesn't apply to them because "DiFfErEnT" and it was swatted away:

“The spectrum that the broadcasters use to transmit over-the-air programming belongs to the American public, and we believe you should have a right to access that live programming whether your antenna sits on the roof of your home, on top of your television or in the cloud,” Mr. Kanojia said in his letter to Aereo users.

If Nvidia wants a humiliating legal defeat they can go ahead and sue whoever, but that doesn't change that the copyright owner has an exclusive right to decide where their work can be distributed or broadcast according to their conditions.

No distribution deal = Nvidia can stamp their feet as long as they want.

did you even read the majority opinion?
They flat out state that something like Nvidia's Geforce Now would be fine because the recipients already own the product.

Further, we have interpreted the term “the public” to apply to a group of individuals acting as ordinary members of the public who pay primarily to watch broadcast television programs, many of which are copyrighted. We have said that it does not extend to those who act as owners or possessors of the relevant product. And we have not considered whether the public performance right is infringed when the user of a service pays primarily for something other than the transmission of copyrighted works, such as the remote storage of content. See Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 31 (distinguishing cloud-based storage services because they “offer consumers more numerous and convenient means of playing back copies that the consumers have already lawfully acquired” (emphasis in original)). In addition, an entity does not trans-mit to the public if it does not transmit to a substantial number of people outside of a family and its social circle.

and if we refer to that

Reversal of the judgment below need not threaten the legality of cloud computing. One function of cloud-computing services is to offer consumers more numerous and convenient means of playing back copies that the consumers have already lawfully ac-quired. A consumer’s playback of her own lawfully-acquired copy of a copyrighted work to herself will ordinarily be a non-infringing private performance, and it may be protected by fair-use principles as well. Respondent’s service, by contrast, enables sub-scribers to gain access to copyrighted content in the first instance—the same service that cable companies have traditionally provided. Unlike cable companies, however, respondent does not pay licensing fees to the copyright holders. A decision holding that respondent publicly performs the broadcast programs it transmits to paying subscribers will not threaten the use of different technologies that assist consumers in hear-ing or viewing their own lawfully-acquired copies of copyrighted works.

…

Contrary to respondent’s suggestion (Resp. Br. 21-22), reversal of the decision below need not call into doubt the general legality of cloud technologies and services. One function of such services is to offer consumers more numerous and convenient means of playing back copies that the consumers have alreadylawfully acquired. Respondent’s service performs a wholly different function. That service provides a means by which consumers can gain access to copy-righted content in the first instance—the same ser-vice that cable companies have traditionally provided. There is consequently no sound reason to suppose that

Unlike respondent’s system, cloud storage services typically permit individual consumers to use the In-ternet to receive private performances of copyrighted works after the consumers have lawfully acquired their own copies. This may occur, for example, when a consumer purchases a digital copy of a movie, uploads it to a so-called “virtual locker” service on the Inter-net, and streams a performance of the movie back to herself in a convenient way (for example, on a mobile device). The commercial entity that produces and sells the digital copy must obtain a license from the copyright holder, since those acts implicate the exclu-sive rights to reproduce and to distribute copyrighted works. See 17 U.S.C. 106(1) and (3). The consumer’s subsequent streaming of copyrighted content to her-self, however, is analogous to the private playback of a lawfully acquired CD or DVD, for which no separate license is required.

 

[Nyast]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vIF3GutJu0o