Game Streaming Platforms and Technology (xCloud, PSNow, GeforceNow, Luna) (Rip: Stadia)

You seriously don't believe that the publishers have a right to any cut of the revenue for a service using their content ?

OK then we'll ignore the legal argument for a second and pretend that the courts did rule in favour of the supposed defendent, Nvidia because even if they did win their case the publishers would have another means of punishing Nvidia.

Remember when I said that developers controlled their source code ? Did it cross your mind that they could also control the performance characteristics for each hardware vendors ? What if because of Nvidia's bad behaviour, instead of making their games perform normally on Nvidia hardware they would rather place in a bunch of slow paths to make their competitors look better ? Developers might not be obligated to get their fair share but that also means they aren't obligated to optimize their graphics code on a hostile vendor.

If Nvidia wants to bring a fight to the developers then the latter is more than prepared to write anti-vendor code. Hardware has died out before (Itanium) because of politics so what's one more mean to the history books anyway ?
 
You seriously don't believe that the hardware manufacturers have a right to any cut of the revenue for software that can only exist because of their hardware and software?

You think that sounds ridiculous? Because that is exactly what you are saying. Why does it make any difference if I pay Nvidia (or whoever) upfront for the hardware, or pay a small monthly fee for hardware? What do publishers have to do with how I pay for the hardware I play on?
 
Well for starters the publishers can just exclude their software from running on Nvidia hardware so they do get to decide nearly everything since they're in absolute control of their code!

If publishers have to find some other legal way to protect their cloud service, let it be known that sabatoging performance on a hostile vendor one way to do it. To the publishers, Nvidia are replaceable in their eyes.
 
hughJ said:
I didn't realize we were getting this deep into a technical discussion. It's all fun and games until someone starts letting loose with the tech jargon.
Click to expand...

Well publishers can stand do even dirtier than what I've mentioned so far. How about a 30FPS framerate cap and a 720p resolution cap if the developers detect that you're running their software on hardware from a vendor they don't like ? Does that hurt Nvidia's ego or is that not enough to bring them down ?
 
I'm just sat at home, with my morning coffee, having a read of Authority by Jeff Vandermeer. I hope the publisher of the book doesn't catch wind of all this, lest they start demanding a cut of the profit from my chair, coffee, milk, cafetiere, rent, and utilities.
 
Ubisoft fully supports Nvidia GeForce Now”, not pulling games out of the cloud platform
In a note issued to Kotaku, Ubisoft has confirmed it is supporting Nvidia GeForce Now and won’t be pulling its games out of the cloud gaming service anytime soon.

“Ubisoft fully supports Nvidia’s GeForce Now with complete access to our PC games from the Ubisoft Store or any supported game stores,” Chris Early, the company’s SVP for Partnerships and Revenue, said.

“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.”
https://www.gamepur.com/news/ubisof...w-not-pulling-games-out-of-the-cloud-platform
 
Lurkmass said:
Well for starters the publishers can just exclude their software from running on Nvidia hardware so they do get to decide nearly everything since they're in absolute control of their code!

If publishers have to find some other legal way to protect their cloud service, let it be known that sabatoging performance on a hostile vendor one way to do it. To the publishers, Nvidia are replaceable in their eyes.
Click to expand...

How does this have anything to do with the discussion at hand? You keep coming up with nonsensical arguments.

Yeah sure a dev can prevent their games from running on Nvidia hardware. The moment they do they will be out of business as they pretty much prevented the majority of the PC gamers to play their games.

How about you try to come up with some real arguments why paying a monthly fee for hardware in the cloud somehow entitles devs to a cut of the revenue while buying the hardware does not? And why by the same logic, hardware manufacturers are not allowed a cut of game revenue for games running on your desktop on their hardware?
 
tongue_of_colicab said:
How does this have anything to do with the discussion at hand? You keep coming up with nonsensical arguments.

Yeah sure a dev can prevent their games from running on Nvidia hardware. The moment they do they will be out of business as they pretty much prevented the majority of the PC gamers to play their games.

How about you try to come up with some real arguments why paying a monthly fee for hardware in the cloud somehow entitles devs to a cut of the revenue while buying the hardware does not? And why by the same logic, hardware manufacturers are not allowed a cut of game revenue for games running on your desktop on their hardware?
Click to expand...

I never agued that Nvidia didn't deserve some cut of the revenue. I argued that developers are entitled to a cut since Nvidia are using their content without permission. It's your loss for not grasping this really.

Here's a nice hour long vid from an actual attorney in profession explaining this:


Also, PC gamers with discrete graphics hardly constitute the 'majority' of sales even for AAA game developers.
 
Lurkmass said:
I never agued that Nvidia didn't deserve some cut of the revenue. I argued that developers are entitled to a cut since Nvidia are using their content without permission. It's your loss for not grasping this really.

Here's a nice hour long vid from an actual attorney in profession explaining this:

Click to expand...
+1 Good video link. -1 Bad attitude.

I haven't time to watch the whole vid, but I skipped to the Aereo case and it's talking about broadcast television. The company captured the copyright broadcast and recast it. In GFNow's case, there is no content broadcast being recaptured. The 'performer' is the player. So what you have here is an opinion piece that may be from a lawyer, but that doesn't make it the be all and end all of the discussion. You may not have noticed this but lawyers kinda disagree a lot (it's their profession ;)). Your arguments are also undermined by a shitty, argumentative attitude, and by some rather left-field ideas about game developers taking active measures into their own hands as if there wouldn't be consequences. Truth is, no-one and everyone has all the power. Devs can withhold their game from nVidia GPUs, true. Gamers can ditch buying from a dev also in protest against them not releasing on certain hardware (or just because their PC isn't supported - they aren't going to rush out and buy AMD GPUs). Gamers can choose to boycott GFNow, or boycott pubs that don't release on GFNow. Valve can reject games that don't allow GFNow, and gamers can reject Steam for not providing the games they want. Devs can boycott Steam for not allowing games to stream on GFNow, or can boycott Steam for allowing games to stream on GFNow. Anyone and everyone can hold the rest of the market to ransom, but in so doing, they also punish themselves. No-one really wants to be heavy-handed about this as they're all codependent partners.
 
Shifty Geezer said:
+1 Good video link. -1 Bad attitude.

I haven't time to watch the whole vid, but I skipped to the Aereo case and it's talking about broadcast television. The company captured the copyright broadcast and recast it. In GFNow's case, there is no content broadcast being recaptured. The 'performer' is the player. So what you have here is an opinion piece that may be from a lawyer, but that doesn't make it the be all and end all of the discussion. You may not have noticed this but lawyers kinda disagree a lot (it's their profession ;)). Your arguments are also undermined by a shitty, argumentative attitude, and by some rather left-field ideas about game developers taking active measures into their own hands as if there wouldn't be consequences. Truth is, no-one and everyone has all the power. Devs can withhold their game from nVidia GPUs, true. Gamers can ditch buying from a dev also in protest against them not releasing on certain hardware (or just because their PC isn't supported - they aren't going to rush out and buy AMD GPUs). Gamers can choose to boycott GFNow, or boycott pubs that don't release on GFNow. Valve can reject games that don't allow GFNow, and gamers can reject Steam for not providing the games they want. Devs can boycott Steam for not allowing games to stream on GFNow, or can boycott Steam for allowing games to stream on GFNow. Anyone and everyone can hold the rest of the market to ransom, but in so doing, they also punish themselves. No-one really wants to be heavy-handed about this as they're all codependent partners.
Click to expand...

You should really watch the whole video, it goes highly in-depth about the whole subject.

I acknowledge that in a point of defense that the player could well be a performer but publishers have the exclusive right to distribute "derivative works" as well which could very well include gameplay videos. The biggest problem is Nvidia distributing these derivative works of the publisher which would constitute as public performances of the content owned by publishers. The author of the video pointed out the ABC v Aereo case and it's similarity to the situation currently as it is with game publishers problem with GFN because it's how he believes things would hypothetically play out in court.

I agree that it would be a loss for the developers to be heavy handed about withholding their software from running at all on Nvidia hardware but they could still think it's fair game to turn the whole world upside down by limiting the technical experience. Developers are holding a lot of political power in this since they all seem to be nearly united in this and are banding against Nvidia by denouncing their GFN service. No telling how they'll dish out revenge but things might get ugly since they can play the game of politics with their source code.
 
That's a good video and I personally agree with most of what he's saying from a legal perspective. It's pretty much my conclusion on how Nvidia are going about this service. My viewpoint on whether I like it or not is outlined in detail in Shifty's post as our thoughts align there.
 
Lurkmass said:
You seriously don't believe that the publishers have a right to any cut of the revenue for a service using their content ?
Click to expand...

Their service is using the publisher's content as much as my computer monitor manufacturer is. What is the difference? Should they pay a fee to publishers? Define the boundaries of your legal interpretation there mate.
 
milk said:
Their service is using the publisher's content as much as my computer monitor manufacturer is. What is the difference? Should they pay a fee to publishers? Define the boundaries of your legal interpretation there mate.
Click to expand...
No. Nvidia is executing code they do not own.
 
milk said:
Their service is using the publisher's content as much as my computer monitor manufacturer is. What is the difference? Should they pay a fee to publishers? Define the boundaries of your legal interpretation there mate.
Click to expand...

It was intuitively explained in the video. Publishers can choose however they wish to enforce their copyright. They can make exceptions whenever they want.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Rys
Reopening Architecture and Products + rules and guidelines changes
3 4 5
Replies
90
Views
13K
Shifty Geezer
Shifty Geezer
Shortbread
Next-Generation NVMe SSD and I/O Technology [PC, PS5, XBSX|S]
105 106 107
Replies
2K
Views
189K
Karamazov
K
N
How do you feel about next-gen gaming? *remodelled
2
Replies
32
Views
8K
AlNom
A
A
Holy Wall of Text: My impressions post Playstation 4 (PS4) unveil
2 3 4
Replies
70
Views
18K
(((interference)))
I
A
Forza: A Test Case for next gen hardware discussion
2
Replies
32
Views
8K
tuna
T
Back
Top