Here's something interesting. I've put a link to the pdf and the comment below is from pg. 17.
https://www.copyright.gov/policy/software/software-full-report.pdf
Game Streaming Platforms and Technology (xCloud, PSNow, GeforceNow, Luna) (Rip: Stadia)
- Thread starter lefantome
- Start date
-
- Tags
- cloudwars f facebook
Pubs allow for streamers because they can extract value from streams in the form of free marketing. Streamers help sell games. Publishers own the copyrights and are free to grant free access for certain uses if they feel generous or find value.
2K Games is pulling all of its games from NVIDIA GeForce Now. 2K Games is a publisher owned by Take-Two that publishes games such as the Borderlands franchise.
If you work for a video game developer or publisher and you have opinions on NVIDIA GeForce Now that you'd like to share, please reach out to me, I'd like to talk to you.
The obvious solution to the lawfare coming from the shekelmeisters is to simply start a "new" service parallel to "geforce now" that literally is steam in a windows VM instead of a custom streamlined steam on a windows VM that it currently is.
The publishers can go have fun suing Microsoft for allowing Windows to play their games then
.
After that they can go pull all their games from Steam and sue Valve.
After that they can go pull all their games from their own Steam clones when Nvidia implements a Windows VM that runs their steam clone store.
And the shekelmeisters can go sue themselves.
Checkmate.
The publishers can go have fun suing Microsoft for allowing Windows to play their games then
.After that they can go pull all their games from Steam and sue Valve.
After that they can go pull all their games from their own Steam clones when Nvidia implements a Windows VM that runs their steam clone store.
And the shekelmeisters can go sue themselves
.Checkmate.
Last edited:
The obvious solution to the lawfare coming from the shekelmeisters is to simply start a "new" service parallel to "geforce now" that literally is steam in a windows VM instead of a custom streamlined steam on a windows VM that it currently is.
The publishers can go have fun suing Microsoft for allowing Windows to play their games then
After that they can go pull all their games from Steam and sue Valve.
After that they can go pull all their games from their own Steam clones when Nvidia implements a Windows VM that runs their steam clone store.
And the shekelmeisters can go sue themselves
Checkmate.
How much is Nvidia paying MS in your scheme?
The lawfare is to wait for microsoft's response to see which side they will pick (with their actions).
That way, they can make sure that they have a long lasting service and/or test the waters for getting attacked from even more sides and completely capitulate and stop their service entirely.
Currently as it stands they have essentially given 5+ years of free beta access to very very expensive hardware and all the TCO involved in running a streaming windows VM and have gotten nothing from it so far other than development of a service that they might be able to sell/license to someone else.
As with all warfare/lawfare negotiations, everything depends on "facts on the ground"
The solution i proposed above would establish "facts on the ground" and make sure that the service either is up and running for a long time and is relatively viable, or force the shekelmeisters to show their full hand sooner so that Nvidia isn't suffering continual economic/legal/b2b relations and/or PR attrition for as long as their current waffling actions that have them simply withering and dying on the vine.
Last edited:
You are totally missing the point.
Legal victories do not come from who is right or wrong, they come from who is more or less powerful and how they can leverage that power to achieve victory in their particular case.
Microsoft so far has not voided Nvidia's windows licenses and therefore has not shown their hand on what they intend for the current conflict.
Forcing the issue is the best way forward as that means less time/money spent on the attrition lawfare that is currently occurring before our very eyes.
Why would they void licenses? Why are we assuming they are even in violation? MS provides Windows licenses for cloud providers as a normal part of their business. I see no reason to believe nVidia is not already paying for these and using them within the scope of their agreement.
It was a continuation of my previous point
The obvious solution to the lawfare coming from the shekelmeisters is to simply start a "new" service parallel to "geforce now" that literally is steam in a windows VM instead of a custom streamlined steam on a windows VM that it currently is.
The publishers can go have fun suing Microsoft for allowing Windows to play their games then
After that they can go pull all their games from Steam and sue Valve.
After that they can go pull all their games from their own Steam clones when Nvidia implements a Windows VM that runs their steam clone store.
And the shekelmeisters can go sue themselves
Checkmate.
Whether you "violate a license" or not is in the eye of the license issuer.
Licenses are all written with clauses where you can void them for whatever reason you feel like in favor of the person providing the "service".
What I'm proposing is to shift the burden of the shekelmeisters'(publishers') legal action from Nvidia to Microsoft directly and then see how it plays out.
Last edited:
The obvious solution to the lawfare coming from the shekelmeisters is to simply start a "new" service parallel to "geforce now" that literally is steam in a windows VM instead of a custom streamlined steam on a windows VM that it currently is.
The publishers can go have fun suing Microsoft for allowing Windows to play their games then
After that they can go pull all their games from Steam and sue Valve.
After that they can go pull all their games from their own Steam clones when Nvidia implements a Windows VM that runs their steam clone store.
And the shekelmeisters can go sue themselves
Checkmate.
That’s like suing Toyota because the person that robbed you, got away in a Camry.
MS provides a VM they don’t control how you use it outside of protecting their business. MS’s VMs aren’t designed with the expressed purpose of allowing people to build game streaming services that cut publishers out of the picture.
Last edited:
No crime has been committed.
I'm simply gaming out the lawfare to where the attrition lawfare from the shekelmeisters will have to defeat Microsoft (unlikely to happen).
As I said, the only reason the shekelmeisters are targeting Nvidia in this manner is that they see Nvidia as a smaller, weaker entity to launch an attritional lawfare war against.
My solution would replace their target to Microsoft, and they would lose by default.
The game theory is escalate to de-escalate. Look it up.
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
It's definitely an interesting situation. I can understand the position of publishers which maintain that Nvidia need their own licences to install publisher's software on Nvidia's hardware even if the user's themselves have a licence but I still can't help but feel this is potentially limited sales of certain software to people who don't really have the gaming hardware to justice to the game but do have fairly decent internet.
I wonder if the rationale here is similar to why copyright is so aggressively pursues, because if copyright holders do not defence their copyright that in itself is grounds for the copyright claim to be forfeit. If in doubt, give no legal quarter.
You haven’t shown why MS would be legally liable either?
Using a piece of software as a tool to commit a crime or a civil offense doesn’t make the author of that software a perpetrator of the that offense.
It’s VM not MS’s Game Streaming Software: The Jacking Publishers Edition. Only way MS would be liable is if you could prove MS is willing perpetrator of the offense.
MS would only liable if the pubs won a civil case against the owners of software and MS purposely continued to help the owners’ illegal operation.
Last edited:
Last edited:
Similar threads
