Game Streaming Platforms and Technology (xCloud, PSNow, GeforceNow, Luna) (Rip: Stadia)
- Thread starter lefantome
- Start date
-
- Tags
- cloudwars f facebook
More use equals higher cost... if you are paying for a streaming service it's because you want to play the game when you can't play it on your pc. If you are playing a game more often you are using the publishers services more, incurring a higher cost for them.
You can say you paid for the game all you want, but Nvidia obviously has not paid for the right to stream it or we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Anyway I'm done defending a publishers right to do with their product as they see fit. I'm sure the groundswell of dozens of butthurt geforce users will have activision crawling back in no time.
Most game publishers/developers love to have a higher stickiness (players keep playing their games) instead of lower, even for those one-time sale games. A higher player base means it's easier to secure fund for developing new DLC and sequel. So I'd say for whatever reason Activision's decision is probably not because they want their players to play their games less.
Any game that is supported by Geforce Now is there ready to play. You're not uploading anything, you're just using your Steam or whatever to authenticate your access to the game then Nvidia is loading it remotely for you to play.
No it can't also be running on your PC at the same time just like it can't be running on a friends PC at the same time with your same account used for the game.
So your argument is that publishers don't want the gamers playing their game more?
No, my argument is that they incur a cost from Nvidia adding their games to the streaming service.So your argument is that publishers don't want the gamers playing their game more?
No, the reason is probably that they want to be paid for the use of their product and there probably aren't enough geforce now users for them to give a shit. But the fact that it probably creates more issues than dollars for them doesn't hurt their justification.
And you've given no logical reason why this increases their costs. If they play it on their PC or on Geforce Now, they're still just playing the game. All your posts seem to somehow stem from some concept that playing a game via streaming on Nvidia's service has more impact on their servers (for multiplayer games) than if they simply played it on their PC. Which has no basis in reality because they're just playing the same game a far as the publisher is concerned.
This is getting tiresome.
ONE LAST TIME.
You own a game on PC, presumably that is where you will play the game and your opportunity to play said game will be limited to where your PC is located.
Now you pay a fee to subscribe to a streaming service so you can play the game anywhere on a number of other devices. Maybe there are a couple of masochists out there who just wanted a worse experience playing the game they own on the PC the game is already installed on, but I suspect most of the people who would pay a fee for this service want to game elsewhere on other devices, thus increasing the amount they play.
Done, if you don't get it yet I don't fucking care. I am not coming back to this topic.
Michellstar
Regular
Do games are tied to a particular PC or to a Steam account?? I mean legally, those Eulas for digital games.
And Is Ms cutting deals with publishers to let their games on Xcloud? Now is in a beta-test category, but they added some not from Xbox game studios, right?
And Is Ms cutting deals with publishers to let their games on Xcloud? Now is in a beta-test category, but they added some not from Xbox game studios, right?
It's reasonable to say that a game publisher might feel it's not worth the trouble to have their games on GeForce Now, but "your opportunity to play said game will be limited to where your PC is located" is simply not true.
I mean, just look at internet cafes. Especially in Asia, they exist mostly for people to play games there (including most Activision Blizzard games). Game publishers love to have internet cafes hosting their games. They don't really want to limit people's ability to play their games.
The more likely reason is probably because GeForce Now increases their support cost (and not enough increase of increased playing time to justify it), not because it increases their server maintenance or scaling cost (which, compared to development or marketing, are relatively small).
I doesn't cost the publisher, but it is potentially lost revenue for publishers trying to double dip. If the publisher has to modify code then that is a cost, but they don't have to ban the use of their games then, just don't modify the code. I like the Nvidia model where you buy games where you want and then play where you want. If Nvidia shuts down you still have the games. It is very consumer friendly. In this world that is a rare thing. It will open up the possibility of more consumers buying AAA games as they can now run on an IGP. I think it is a potential boon for everyone really. Now you can pay for a month instead of buying a card that allows you to play and will be out of date in a couple of years. It works well with the binge culture. Play games a month then watch Netflix for a month.
Do why would a company do something good? Obviously Nvidia sees a decline in people willing to pay for graphics cards and is trying to diversify. I hope it works for them.
Do why would a company do something good? Obviously Nvidia sees a decline in people willing to pay for graphics cards and is trying to diversify. I hope it works for them.
Last edited:
We get what you're saying.
You're implying that publishers have deployed infrastructure based on some expected playtime that may be exceeded if gamers can now "play anywhere". It just doesn't make sense given standard capacity planning best practices.
green.pixel
Veteran
I see it as a hedged bet. For gaming at home Geforce Now competes directly with Nvidia's core GPU business. That business isn't in any danger right now though. This upcoming console generation will spur a major PC upgrade cycle as developers target more powerful hardware.
If cloud takes off then Nvidia has a service offering and a proven hardware platform that can also be sold to other providers. If cloud fails then nothing major lost.
tongue_of_colicab
Veteran
Doesn't sound like a solid argument given that one could use a laptop or an even more portable x86 device (like that Alienware prototype) to play games. A PC isn't limited to your desktop at home.
This is just companies wanted to make an extra buck by claiming this use case somehow requires a different license. Nonsense if you ask me. If any I'd say there is probably less chance of people playing games using a cloud service as you need a pretty good internet connection, something you won't have on the road, in a hotel or at your grans place. A laptop or similar though will work everywhere.
A internet cafe is obviously different as it allows multiple people to play on the same license. This is not the case with GeForce now. You still have to buy the game and you are the only one that can play (obviously not entirely true but not less untrue than what you can currently do with games you buy on steam or wherever). The only thing that changes is the location where the game is running but as games can run on mobile hardware anyway, I don't see how that makes a fundamental difference.
Last edited:
Only the product is not theirs anymore after they've sold it. They own the IP, but that one copy belongs to the consumer that purchased it and they are free to run it in whatever hardware they see fit. At least that's how these issues have been classically delt with as far as I am aware.
EULA says otherwise, I assume. But who ever reads them? And most are unenforceable but who has money to take that to court to find out?
I believe it’s the highlighted clause 5 below. Clause 4 is particularly stupid. So I can’t backup a game or manually move it to another hard drive? Yeah right.
https://www.activision.com/legal/software-terms-of-use
Similar threads
