PC The controversy over GeForce Now, explained

[AbsolutSurgen]

The controversy over GeForce Now, explained

Quote

At the beginning of February, we said that Nvida's GeForce Now is the cloud streaming service that Stadia should've been. It largely performs better, lets you play games you already own, and offers perks like RTX ray tracing. Those things are still true, but throughout the month GeForce Now has become unexpectedly controversial. Activision Blizzard and Bethesda pulled their games from the service, and so did the indie developer of survival game The Long Dark, claiming Nvidia never had their permission to include the game at all.

Developers asking Nvidia to pull their games from GeForce Now has prompted some backlash from users who argue that GeForce Now isn't a "platform" at all, because you're simply renting a cloud server from Nvidia to run your own games on. You have to own the game on Steam or another store already; if you've already bought it, shouldn't you be able to run it on any PC you want, even a remote one? 

 

Quote

Nvidia didn't ask for our permission to put the game on the platform so we asked them to remove it," tweeted The Long Dark developer Raphael van Lierop, adding that "devs should control where their games exist." For Vice, Patrick Klepek reached out to several other indie developers who weren't aware their games were on GeForce Now, and said they didn't have active agreements with Nvidia. When reached for comment, Nvidia pointed me to a recent blog about what's next for GFN, and offered to put me in touch with some developers, but didn't answer specific questions about how its partnerships work or how games are added to the service.

Nvidia definitely did have agreements in place with publishers like Activision, but the publisher's stance changed when GeForce Now left its free beta. Publishers seemingly saw things differently when the paid subscription tier was added.

When Activision Blizzard's games were removed from GFN, Nvidia told Bloomberg: "Activision Blizzard has been a fantastic partner during the GeForce Now beta, which we took to include the free trial period for our founders membership. Recognizing the misunderstanding, we removed their games from our service, with hope we can work with them to re-enable these, and more, in the future."

When Bethesda's games were removed, Nvidia didn't offer a specific reason, but posted this on its blog: "As we approach a paid service, some publishers may choose to remove games before the trial period ends. Ultimately, they maintain control over their content and decide whether the game you purchase includes streaming on GeForce Now. Meanwhile, others will bring games back as they continue to realize GeForce Now's value."

An indie publisher I spoke with who had games on GFN characterized their contract with Nvidia as being simple and good for the publisher, saying it laid out in clear terms that Nvidia would only launch games from the developer's chosen platform (eg, Steam, Epic, etc) and was entitled to no profits from any game sales (GeForce Now doesn't sell games, but this means Nvidia gets no affiliate sales cut, either). The contract also allowed for the relationship to be easily terminated.

 

Quote

"Though admittedly we did not know that this would be a paid service, as it is only accessible to gamers whom already own Terraria, it only seems fair to let gamers play the game they paid for the way they prefer," wrote Murphy.

For its part, Nvidia has written on its blog that there are many more GeForce Now games to come: "We have an additional 1,500 games in our onboarding queue, from publishers that share a vision of expanding PC gaming to more people."

We'll continue to monitor whether other developers find their games available on GFN without their knowledge, and what gets removed from the service.

 

Let me play my PC games where I want to.

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

I really have to give this issue a bit more thought before evaluating whether the developers have a valid grievance and should therefore be entitled to a cut of some sort from Nvidia.

[Brian]

Nvidia is providing a service that allows you to stream games you bought and own.  It’s no different than using a service like Plex for movies that lets you stream your catalog.  I don’t see the problem with it. 

[Keyser_Soze]

Sounds like publishers don't actually know what it is.

[SimpleG]

18 hours ago, ManUtdRedDevils said:

Nvidia is providing a service that allows you to stream games you bought and own.  It’s no different than using a service like Plex for movies that lets you stream your catalog.  I don’t see the problem with it. 

Correct me if I am wrong but doesnt Plex just allow you stream from a home machine to any device capable of running plex?

[TwinIon]

I suppose publishers are well within their rights to prevent a service like GFN from allowing their games on it, but unless they’re offering a competing service I don’t see why they would. Doesn’t seem like there’s much harm to allowing GFN to stream your game. Nothing to do with the sale of the game changes, they’re not losing a sale or a cut of anything. If I were a publisher, mostly what I’d want is all the usage data.

[AbsolutSurgen]

In theory GeForce now gives people an additional incentive to buy games on Steam.  I would think that developers would want to support the platform.

[stepee]

1 hour ago, TwinIon said:

I suppose publishers are well within their rights to prevent a service like GFN from allowing their games on it, but unless they’re offering a competing service I don’t see why they would. Doesn’t seem like there’s much harm to allowing GFN to stream your game. Nothing to do with the sale of the game changes, they’re not losing a sale or a cut of anything. If I were a publisher, mostly what I’d want is all the usage data.

 

I’m not sure if they are within their rights, since it’s using your own purchased license to play the game, just on a rented machine. But I’m also not sure if this has been exactly legally tested yet.

[SimpleG]

11 minutes ago, stepee said:

m not sure if they are within their rights, since it’s using your own purchased license to play the game, just on a rented machine

I think they are because they storing the games on the hardware and not streaming from the customers hardware is the issue. Its kind of like Movies Anywhere service.

 

11 minutes ago, stepee said:

But I’m also not sure if this has been exactly legally tested yet.

I dont think it has and I assume Nvidia doesnt want the headache of dealing with it so they just pull the games.

[SimpleG]

1 hour ago, TwinIon said:

I suppose publishers are well within their rights to prevent a service like GFN from allowing their games on it, but unless they’re offering a competing service I don’t see why they would. Doesn’t seem like there’s much harm to allowing GFN to stream your game. Nothing to do with the sale of the game changes, they’re not losing a sale or a cut of anything. If I were a publisher, mostly what I’d want is all the usage data.

They arent losing money but I can understand someone not wanting another company to make money using their IP.

[SimpleG]

I am on the fence about this. I think morally the Devs are in the right and Nvidia might be treading in to a grey area. The Long Dark Devs have long been know to be douche bags and I have a feeling this just another DB move. 

[stepee]

14 hours ago, SimpleG said:

I think they are because they storing the games on the hardware and not streaming from the customers hardware is the issue. Its kind of like Movies Anywhere service.

 

I dont think it has and I assume Nvidia doesnt want the headache of dealing with it so they just pull the games.

 

Wouldn’t that be the same as playing a game you own on a friends computer/console though? 

[SimpleG]

56 minutes ago, stepee said:

 

Wouldn’t that be the same as playing a game you own on a friends computer/console though? 

Not really 

Using the friend example, Steam is distributing the data to your friends pc for your use, In this case Nvidia is storing the data locally and transferring the data to the machine you remote in to. Of course Nvidia isn’t providing this service  to be altruistic and is making money off others IP.

[TwinIon]

17 hours ago, stepee said:

I’m not sure if they are within their rights, since it’s using your own purchased license to play the game, just on a rented machine. But I’m also not sure if this has been exactly legally tested yet.

 

3 hours ago, stepee said:

Wouldn’t that be the same as playing a game you own on a friends computer/console though? 

You're buying a licence to play these games and they can put whatever onerous terms and conditions they want on there. It probably says somewhere in there that you shouldn't play your steam game on your friends computer, and the article in the OP specifically mentions that Blizzard's says you're not allowed to use cloud computing. So yeah, I'm pretty sure that they have the right to prevent you from using a service like GFN.

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

2K Games just pulled theirs as well.

Quote

Per publisher request, please be advised 2K Games titles will be removed from GeForce NOW today. We are working with 2K Games to re-enable their games in the future.

 

[Duderino]

9 hours ago, stepee said:

 

Wouldn’t that be the same as playing a game you own on a friends computer/console though? 

Sure, if your friend was pocketing $5 a month to loan his hardware to you.

 

Comercial software or services that allow you play (or view) content on another potentially unsupported device can be pretty good grounds for a lawsuit if there is no agreement in place.  Even if nVidia were to win the potential case(s) in court, the service could be taken offline until the verdict is reached.  

See what happened to Connectix.

( How ironic it would be to see Apple sue nVidia over this  )

[monkk]

That's called PC Bangs, and it's been established for decades.

[AbsolutSurgen]

 

 

[Keyser_Soze]

Wow you can play a free game on GeForce now!

[Ghost_MH]

This seems pretty straight forward. As far as licensing goes, GFN should probably treated as a new platform. Just because I own Witcher 3 on GOG doesn't mean Nintendo is allowed to give me the game for free on the Switch. I don't really see much of a difference between the two scenarios.

[crispy4000]

8 hours ago, Ghost_MH said:

This seems pretty straight forward. As far as licensing goes, GFN should probably treated as a new platform. Just because I own Witcher 3 on GOG doesn't mean Nintendo is allowed to give me the game for free on the Switch. I don't really see much of a difference between the two scenarios.

This is why Rainway also can’t catch a break.  Nintendo/Microsoft/etc won’t even allow you to stream a game from your own computer through their browsers.

 

GeForce now is one further step removed, but it’s the same argument.  Each platform wants to be able to collect royalties for play on their machines.  Publishers want more money too, and are generally happy with selling you multiple copies.

[Dexterryu]

I'm sorta mixed on this....

 

On the one hand, if a consumer has paid for the game license then they should be able to play it on whichever platform/machine they wish.

 

I can see publishers wanting a little bit of a cut for a service making money off of the ability to play their games and I don't see that as terribly unreasonable. That said, if the service allows for their game to be played by more people (therefor more sales), then I don't see how it's really hurting them.

[crispy4000]

2 hours ago, Dexterryu said:

I can see publishers wanting a little bit of a cut for a service making money off of the ability to play their games and I don't see that as terribly unreasonable.

If this logic checks out, publishers should all be getting a cut of Microsoft/Sony/Nintendo's online service fees too.  If what Nvidia is doing is unreasonable, then the console manufactures are scam artists.

You won't see publishers put up this type of stink with xCloud, because they're used to playing ball with console manufactures.  Own the game in Microsoft's ecosystem?  Sure, go ahead and stream it, the publisher will say.  We don't care that much.  A business relationship with Microsoft is too important, and that's what Microsoft wants.  We need to be in their retail space and on their storefront.

Nvidia has little leverage here by comparison.  It doesn't matter that the demand is nonsensical (you're essentially renting hardware, not a game library).  Nvidia doesn't bring any bargaining chips, and could be threatened with litigation.

[foosh]

well, publishers pay to sell games on MS/Sony/Nintendo platforms. theres no business agreement with GFN.

[crispy4000]

36 minutes ago, foosh said:

well, publishers pay to sell games on MS/Sony/Nintendo platforms. theres no business agreement with GFN.

 

GFN isn't selling their games.  They're selling access to a virtual PC in the cloud, essentially.

[foosh]

30 minutes ago, crispy4000 said:

 

GFN isn't selling their games.  They're selling access to a virtual PC in the cloud, essentially.

software licensing though. GFN doesn't have the rights to install software that they dont have the license to.

[crispy4000]

43 minutes ago, foosh said:

software licensing though. GFN doesn't have the rights to install software that they dont have the license to.

 

Generally speaking, the user has a right to install software on any PC.  Which, correct me if I'm wrong, is how this works:
 

Quote

HOW DO I INSTALL A GAME WHEN USING GEFORCE NOW?

Games must be downloaded and installed from a digital game store. You will be prompted to log in to verify that you own the game before you can install it on GeForce NOW. You must also accept any license agreements that are part of the normal download and install experience set by the publisher.

There are some publishers like Acti-Blizzard updating their license terms, btw.  Because they likely want to open a new revenue stream in this area (perhaps without putting in the effort themselves).  Or just will wait until a platform holder like Microsoft forces them to adopt terms that forgo it.

[crispy4000]

 

[foosh]

GFN clearly isnt a Personal Computer, no matter how hard you argue VM is another computer somewhere.

[crispy4000]

20 minutes ago, foosh said:

GFN clearly isnt a Personal Computer, no matter how hard you argue VM is another computer somewhere.

 

But there are several components to that.  Is a leased computer for the intents and purposes of running software, your PC?  Also, is NVIDIA liable for something that the user does on a leased computer?  What about outlets that rent physical computers to you... can software companies go after them?

It's not a simple issue.  My larger point here is that publishers shouldn't be acting now like they're entitled to a cut.  Because inevitably, someone they're already paying royalties to is going to force them into a no-cut agreement.  Just like with online paywalls.

 

It's cute to think they have a say.

[foosh]

Yes, nVidia would have liability. It's that simple. Just like Apple has liability with what you upload to your iCloud.

[SimpleG]

57 minutes ago, crispy4000 said:

 

Generally speaking, the user has a right to install software on any PC.  Which, correct me if I'm wrong, is how this works:
 

 

The user has the right ,Nvidia does not. The install is coming from them it’s essentially cached on Nvidia hardware then installed to the machine.

[crispy4000]

17 minutes ago, foosh said:

Yes, nVidia would have liability. It's that simple. Just like Apple has liability with what you upload to your iCloud.

 

And the computer store that rents you a computer?  I'm not convinced.

Could you show me an article that explains that Apple is liable for illegal things their users upload to icloud?  Or to Google with Drive, for that matter?

[crispy4000]

4 minutes ago, SimpleG said:

The user has the right ,Nvidia does not. The install is coming from them it’s essentially cached on Nvidia hardware then installed to the machine.

 

If it's rerouted somewhere other than the VM you're using, then yes, that's a bigger problem.

[Dexterryu]

3 hours ago, crispy4000 said:

If this logic checks out, publishers should all be getting a cut of Microsoft/Sony/Nintendo's online service fees too.  If what Nvidia is doing is unreasonable, then the console manufactures are scam artists.

You won't see publishers put up this type of stink with xCloud, because they're used to playing ball with console manufactures.  Own the game in Microsoft's ecosystem?  Sure, go ahead and stream it, the publisher will say.  We don't care that much.  A business relationship with Microsoft is too important, and that's what Microsoft wants.  We need to be in their retail space and on their storefront.

Nvidia has little leverage here by comparison.  It doesn't matter that the demand is nonsensical (you're essentially renting hardware, not a game library).  Nvidia doesn't bring any bargaining chips, and could be threatened with litigation.

You're not wrong. In general both from the perspective of the existing relationships with MS and Sony AND what publishers/devs are doing with Nvidia are both anti-consumer.