2K Games titles bolt from the Nvidia GeForce Now stables

[HEXUS]

Inspires Tim Sweeney (Epic Games CEO) to defend the comparative value of Nvidia's service.

Read more.

[Corky34]

I wonder if we'll ever know why developers keep pulling their games, i guess there must be something wrong with GFN but what?

[philehidiot]

I wonder if we'll ever know why developers keep pulling their games, i guess there must be something wrong with GFN but what?

I expect that they don't like performance issues which are completely out of their control and caused by the quality of the internet connection being used. Especially with things like COD where the timings for events like quick time events are crucial, the internet playing up could ruin a game for someone and leave a bad taste for the rest of the franchise.

[TrinityCrusader]

I wonder if we'll ever know why developers keep pulling their games, i guess there must be something wrong with GFN but what?

I expect that they don't like performance issues which are completely out of their control and caused by the quality of the internet connection being used. Especially with things like COD where the timings for events like quick time events are crucial, the internet playing up could ruin a game for someone and leave a bad taste for the rest of the franchise.

Isn't it because we don't have to re-buy games to play those games on GFN? So they aren't happy about it?

[frozen-monkey]

I wonder if we'll ever know why developers keep pulling their games, i guess there must be something wrong with GFN but what?

I expect that they don't like performance issues which are completely out of their control and caused by the quality of the internet connection being used. Especially with things like COD where the timings for events like quick time events are crucial, the internet playing up could ruin a game for someone and leave a bad taste for the rest of the franchise.

That's funny if a little naive...try looking at it through the lens of corporate greed

[philehidiot]

That's funny if a little naive...try looking at it through the lens of corporate greed

I was.... if you are making a back catalogue available and they're ruined by gameplay issues, people won't shell out for the latest AAA title at £50 when you release.

[LSG501]

I wonder if we'll ever know why developers keep pulling their games, i guess there must be something wrong with GFN but what?

Basically it's the usual money grabbing culture of games companies....

Essentially they want to double dip and get you to have to rebuy all your games on the streaming service so they get multiple purchases rather than just one.... some companies (I know blizzard are) are even specifically rewording their eula for their 'steam' games etc to say they can't be used on streaming services without a separate license.

If they can't get you to pay they want Nvidia to pay even though nvidia's service is basically them renting a computer to you for specialised purposes, not selling a game to you... I'd like to hope nvidia are going screw you and that everyone is basically complaining to the games companies but I doubt it sadly.

It's not a lot different to hiring out a render farm for 3D rendering, video encoding etc in my opinion but gaming companies disagree...


In all honesty, I'm with nvidia on this one, when you have games being released at over £50 on pc (Death standing for example) at release, I want to be able to run it wherever the hell I please...

[frozen-monkey]

I was.... if you are making a back catalogue available and they're ruined by gameplay issues, people won't shell out for the latest AAA title at £50 when you release.

People will shell out for the latest AAA dross no matter how badly the back catalogue plays...Failout76/Starfield and GR Borkedpoint/WhateverNextFromUbisoft will be testament to that. The corporate greed is that there's no immediate financial benefit for these developers/publishers to have their games on the service. They're not getting a huge bung from Nvidia and as @TrinityCrusader says they're losing the opportunity to sell the same game repeatedly to the same person.

Also where are you getting AAA titles at £50 nowadays????

[philehidiot]

I'd be fairly happy with the idea of paying a subscription and having access for as long as the subscription is active. If that was £10/month then they'd be getting way more money out of me than I have been spending of late on games. I'd get to try and then maybe shell out for a hard copy down the line if I wanted to move services and still play their game. They'd get their double dip if they produced a quality product. I'd have definitely done that with Freelancer, for example.

But the way they're going I'll be buying off GOG and that's that. There are so many advantages to that, including your hardware costing a load less as your system requirements lag a few months behind, so you can get the GPU you require cheaper. As long as you're not obsessed with having it all and having it now, which is an attitude I used to have but they've beaten out of me with their launchers, DRM and general anti-consumer greed.

I suspect some of the publisher's issues are around being tied to a company long term. If it's a streaming company and you want to shift your products to a different streaming service, you're tied down as you must provide continuing support to the existing customers who have bought a game and are streaming it (many will have only bought it to stream it as they can't afford the hardware) on the old company AND the new company as well.

That leaves them open to being gouged by the streaming company.

[philehidiot]

People will shell out for the latest AAA dross no matter how badly the back catalogue plays

I'm not.

[Corky34]

I'm not.

TIL philehidiot is a person.

[philehidiot]

TIL philehidiot is a person.

How DARE you.

[Tabbykatze]

I'm not sure on how this is different to Copryright, End User and licensing agreements like with Netflix, Prime and Now TV. The medium of presentation is different from the medium it was made for. GeForce now is a streaming service, it is not a PC in a cloud and as such, when you buy your game for Steam, it is designed to function in the platforms it was intended for like PC/Mac/Linux.

Netflix can't just start streaming Disney titles then you argue, "well i bought the DVD, i have a license to view it already". It doesn't work like that.

If GeForce Now was still a free service this would likely be a non issue as no money is to be made so who gives a damn.

But when Nvidia started providing paid for service, then the game companies actually have the ability to take offence to this. Nvidia is gaining at the detriment of the games companies.

This is not dissimilar to shadow.tech but the fundamental difference there is you have a full gaming platform that is licensed with Windows and is a complete computer, not a specially crafted streaming service.

Also i understand Game publishers were not notified of this paid for service so it was a bit of a head rear-er.

It is driven by corporate greed, just wanted to throw a perspective on it.

[LSG501]

This is not dissimilar to shadow.tech but the fundamental difference there is you have a full gaming platform that is licensed with Windows and is a complete computer, not a specially crafted streaming service.

I'd argue that it's still accessing a full platform, it's just that Nvidia have made a custom and streamlined UI/UX specifically for it's intended purpose, think of it like a custom linux distro designed around media streaming (ie like rasplex) for example.

Maybe it's because I work in 3D design and am fully aware of rendering via render farms where you have a 'full pc' but it has a custom interface so I just see it in a similar light.

[Tabbykatze]

I'd argue that it's still accessing a full platform, it's just that Nvidia have made a custom and streamlined UI/UX specifically for it's intended purpose, think of it like a custom linux distro designed around media streaming (ie like rasplex) for example.

Maybe it's because I work in 3D design and am fully aware of rendering via render farms where you have a 'full pc' but it has a custom interface so I just see it in a similar light.

If it has a customised restricted interface for a very specific purpose then it's not accessing a "full platform" and therefore not a full PC. It may seem like splitting hairs but Terminal Services App-V works, frankly, like you've described, it's still not a full PC.

Whereas Citrix virtualisation is a customised interface (thin client type) to an entire virtual PC. It's still an entire PC you have full control over.

I feel like you've missed my point.

[LSG501]

If it has a customised restricted interface for a very specific purpose then it's not accessing a "full platform" and therefore not a full PC. It may seem like splitting hairs but Terminal Services App-V works, frankly, like you've described, it's still not a full PC.

Whereas Citrix virtualisation is a customised interface (thin client type) to an entire virtual PC. It's still an entire PC you have full control over.

I feel like you've missed my point.

I don't think I have missed your point but this is where views differ.... I don't see a custom UI as meaning I'm not using a full pc (even though in this case it's virtualised). Technically you could argue that OS-X is a custom UI/UX over Unix, the same goes for Ubuntu (and every other customised version) over linux etc.

You also have things like SteamOS... which is essentially a UI/UX over a linux OS which you can't really get access to.

IMO and from a simplified standpoint if I was to use geforce now it is no different to me remotely logging into my pc at home using vpn/screensharing software from an internet cafe and instead of it loading into 'windows desktop' it automatically loads another program in full screen when you 'log in'. The only difference is I'm paying to hire my home pc rather than the internet cafe pc.