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

Dexter

Arcane
Joined
Mar 31, 2011
Messages
15,655
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.
This is not about you privately installing a software or game on your cloud storage service, I think we've clarified this enough already. This is about Nvidia, if you (and some other people) don't want to get it it's not really my problem.

The bolded part is exactly what Nvidia is also doing btw., just replace "cable companies" with "Cloud Streaming/Gaming companies" or potentially "Digital Distribution companies".

Also see: https://rpgcodex.net/forums/index.p...ishers-pulling-out.132044/page-3#post-6556906

You even quoted the part that specifically tells you why it's different and what would presumably be allowed ffs:
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.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jan 14, 2018
Messages
50,754
Codex Year of the Donut
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.
This is not about you privately installing a software or game on your cloud storage service, I think we've clarified this enough already. This is about Nvidia, if you (and some other people) don't want to get it it's not really my problem.

The bolded part is exactly what Nvidia is also doing btw., just replace "cable companies" with "Digital Distribution companies" or "Cloud gaming companies".

Also see: https://rpgcodex.net/forums/index.p...ishers-pulling-out.132044/page-3#post-6556906

You even quoted the part that specifically tells you why it's different and what would presumably be allowed ffs:
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.
alright I'm done, you're actually retarded
 

DalekFlay

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Oct 5, 2010
Messages
14,118
Location
New Vegas
alright I'm done, you're actually retarded

You really can't read that last paragraph he quoted and not see the obvious difference it's pointing out? Like Dexter said, it's literally addressing exactly what you're saying. It is pointing out a clear difference between a consumer upload and a company providing the service, when it comes to copyright law.
 
Joined
Jan 14, 2018
Messages
50,754
Codex Year of the Donut
alright I'm done, you're actually retarded

You really can't read that last paragraph he quoted and not see the obvious difference it's pointing out? Like Dexter said, it's literally addressing exactly what you're saying. It is pointing out a clear difference between a consumer upload and a company providing the service, when it comes to copyright law.
maybe take a moment to realize he purposely omitted the sentence before it
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.
 

Dexter

Arcane
Joined
Mar 31, 2011
Messages
15,655
maybe take a moment to realize he purposely omitted the sentence before it
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.
Here's the keywords in that too. Does Nvidia offer a "cloud storage service" or is it closer to "respondent's system" in the case? No, they offer a Game Streaming service that's functionally equivalent to all the others out there (and arguably also many Digital Distribution platforms where you Install and Play games). Note also that it talks about "individual consumers" and "private performances".

Also note how a "public performance" is defined before:
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.
Does Nvidias service in your estimation do that (commercially, to add), or do they just broadcast/transmit their own private copies of the games to their family and close social circle?

To even move what they're doing into a "grey area" that a court would have to re-hear, they could change their service and marketing entirely to providing "cloud hosting" or something similar to their customers, then get a bunch of Windows licenses and allow people to install programs like Steam in their own private instances, and allow them to install games from there. Maybe they'd have a chance of making the legal argument then that the purpose of their service is different and the instances are private and users can do what they like on them, but any potential lawsuit would point out the original intent and functionality of the service before the rebranding, making it harder for them.
 
Joined
May 6, 2009
Messages
1,875,968
Location
Glass Fields, Ruins of Old Iran
(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)
Legalese smokescreen nobody really cares about since it pulls from the user's library, you're not buying the games on nvidia or getting extra copies.
 

passerby

Arcane
Joined
Nov 16, 2016
Messages
2,788
Imagine GOG added all Steam games to GOG Connect program without asking publishers for a permission, it's comparable from licensing pov.
 
Joined
May 6, 2009
Messages
1,875,968
Location
Glass Fields, Ruins of Old Iran
Not quite. Gog connect gives you a new copy of the game, if I delete my steam account I should still have access to the game on gog. GeforceNow you gives a library screen with game titles to look pretty but it uses my library on the platform I bought the game on. I understand why the publishers would want $$$ since their titles are used as publicity but it doesn't affect their control in any way.

edit: wait, that's not entirely correct. From the faq:

If I no longer have the game in my Steam library, do I still keep it in GOG.com?

If a game is removed from your Steam account for any reason, such as through manual deletion or a refund – we reserve the right to remove the games from your GOG.com library.
 
Last edited:

DalekFlay

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Oct 5, 2010
Messages
14,118
Location
New Vegas
This will just go 'round and 'round obviously, but the fact nVidia is pulling all the games should probably tell you what the industry consensus is.
 

Nifft Batuff

Prophet
Joined
Nov 14, 2018
Messages
3,169
ckOyI8b.png


Read well.
They want to control what you bought from them. They want you to pay for their right to fuck you how and when they please.
Ok then.

Piratey%2C_vector_version.svg
 

Infinitron

I post news
Staff Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2011
Messages
97,228
Codex Year of the Donut Serpent in the Staglands Dead State Divinity: Original Sin Project: Eternity Torment: Tides of Numenera Wasteland 2 Shadorwun: Hong Kong Divinity: Original Sin 2 A Beautifully Desolate Campaign Pillars of Eternity 2: Deadfire Pathfinder: Kingmaker Pathfinder: Wrath I'm very into cock and ball torture I helped put crap in Monomyth
https://blogs.nvidia.com/blog/2020/04/20/geforce-now-dev-support/

Full Stream Ahead: PC Community Rallies Behind GeForce NOW
More than 100 game makers, including Ubisoft, Epic, Bungie and Bandai Namco streaming on GeForce NOW.

The GeForce NOW game-streaming service gives gamers a world-class GeForce PC gaming experience – low latency and beautiful ray traced graphics – on nearly any device. As the number of registered gamers grows by the millions, our catalog of instantly playable games continues to evolve.

Gaining access to this growing base of new PC gamers, without adding development work, is why top publishers and developers like Ubisoft, Epic, Bungie and Bandai Namco are among the hundreds that have committed to streaming their games on GeForce NOW.

We’ve used GeForce NOW’s extended trial period as an opportunity to refine our library, with developers and publishers affirming their commitment to GeForce NOW. While some are still evaluating their cloud strategy, most are incredibly supportive. Thirty of the top 40 most-played games on Steam already stream on GeForce NOW. And we’re working to bring over 1,500 more games to the service.

“Ubisoft Fully Supports GeForce NOW”
Many of Ubisoft’s catalog of AAA franchises, available both on Uplay and other supported game stores, are already streaming with GeForce NOW. With their support, we’re excited to announce that we’re adding the complete Assassin’s Creed and Far Cry series, starting today. More Ubisoft games will arrive in the coming weeks.

“Ubisoft fully supports NVIDIA’s GeForce NOW with complete access to our PC games from the Ubisoft Store or any supported game stores,” said Chris Early, senior vice president partnerships at Ubisoft. “We believe it’s a leading-edge service that gives current and new PC players a high-end experience with more choice in how and where they play their favorite games.”

One of the most popular games on the service is Ubisoft’s Tom Clancy’s Rainbow Six Siege. It appears alongside a variety of games from many of Ubisoft’s top franchises: Assassin’s Creed, Far Cry, For Honor, Tom Clancy’s Ghost Recon, Tom Clancy’s The Division and Watch Dogs.

The GeForce NOW Game Library Evolves
As we prepare for commercial service in June, we’ll be adding and removing games through the end of May.

Behind the scenes, we’re working with digital game stores so publishers can tag their games for streaming on GeForce NOW, right when they publish a game. This will help us bring more games to the library, quicker, as well as provide a more stable catalog.

We’re transitioning as many games to GeForce NOW as possible over this time. For those leaving, we’ll give gamers as much notice as possible. Games from Warner Bros. Interactive Entertainment, XBOX Game Studios, Codemasters and Klei Entertainment will be removed from the service on Friday, April 24. We hope they’ll return in the future.

In the meantime, look for Game Ready on GeForce NOW releases every Thursday, including larger batches throughout April and May.

The Top PC Games, Streaming on GeForce NOW
We’ve worked with hundreds of publishers who’ve committed to enabling their games for streaming on GeForce NOW. Those games include some of the most-played games on Steam, including Destiny 2, Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, Hearts of Iron IV, Mount & Blade II: Bannerlord, Rust, Warframe and Wolcen: Lords of Mayhem.

“We’re already seeing a lot of our existing players take advantage of GeForce NOW to stream Destiny 2 so they can play anytime, anywhere with their friends,” said Gary Clay, director of Product Management at Bungie. “With Destiny 2 now free to play, we’re excited to partner with NVIDIA to introduce even more players — even those who previously couldn’t hit min spec — to our growing community of Guardians.”

Many publishers see GeForce NOW as a way to bring in new gamers while allowing current players to continue enjoying their favorite games.

“From Darks Souls III to Tekken 7, we’re seeing an increase in gamers that we can attribute to GeForce NOW,” said Katsuhiro Harada, executive producer at Bandai Namco. “The service is a great way for new players to experience our upcoming games, and for our existing players to continue enjoying them.”

We remain committed to bringing the best of PC games to GeForce NOW. There are already a ton of great games from amazing developers. Over time, more developers who share our vision to expand PC gaming for everyone will join us.
 

Siobhan

Arbiter
Joined
Feb 25, 2013
Messages
472
Location
1X 1Y 2Z
Late to the party, but this is one of the most interesting threads I've come across on the codex. It illustrates that legal systems are very much like a language's grammar in that we believe they are consistent, stringent rule sets when in fact they have developed organically over centuries, and as a result they are a Gordian knot of exceptions and historical remnants that no longer serve a purpose. Ideally, we would tear it down and redesign from scratch, but you can't just rip out the legal foundation that everybody's standing on.

From a technical perspective, GeForceNow seems completely different from streaming. It's more like renting out a kick-ass home theater so people can watch their own 4k blurays with Dolby Atmos on a 140in screen. But since our legal system is so fine-grained, inconsistent, and context-dependent, the devil is in the details.

First of all, is nvidia actually using your copy of the game? Perhaps. But suppose they have virtual machines set up for each individual game, and when you start the game they actually spawn an instance of the VM. They only use your Steam credentials to verify that you have some copy of the game, and to handle cloud saves. Is nvidia using your copy, then? From a technical perspective, they're completely identical, so who cares, but legally speaking that's not so clear --- if I take 20 bucks out of your pocket and put another 20 bucks in there, that probably constitutes theft in most Western legal systems, even though the two bills are identical wrt use as currency. To go back to the home theater case, you probably wouldn't be allowed to provide the customer with your own bluray after verifying that they indeed own the very same bluray, simply because you do not have a license to use your bluray for commercial purposes in any way. So if nvidia is spinning off multiple instances of the same VM, then multiple players would play the same copy, which means that this can't actually be any user's copy in legal terms and nvidia is using their own copy in an illicit manner.

The marketing angle is also not clear-cut. If you put up an ad for an apartment, I think you are allowed to mention things like "view of X, 5 minute walk to Y", even if X and Y are private property or trademarked terms. It's relevant information for the potential tenant. But in the home theater case, you probably can't advertise with "get your buddies and watch your copy of Avatar, in 3D, on the big screen, with booze". Because the connection between your home theater and Avatar is more tenuous and mutable. That's a wishy washy notion, of course, but that's exactly why judges can't just apply the law, they have to interpret it.

tl;dr I can see why nvidia wouldn't press a lawsuit, there's too many subtle points that could go wrong depending on how a judge interprets terms that are only loosely defined in the legal system. And I also understand anybody in this thread who thinks that this is bullshit. Like many Western institutions, our legal system has grown to a hypertrophic level where it is often an impediment to our society's well-being.
 

urmom

Learned
Joined
May 28, 2020
Messages
308
Do Unity games have faster load times on Geforce Now?
 

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