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

[Silent_Buddha]

I found this article interesting about the whole situation.

https://engnews24h.com/publishers-are-leaving-geforce-now-for-misunderstandings/

The so-called “misunderstanding” is essentially the lack of a contract. NVIDIA says they don't need it because GeForce Now is just a rental hardware, so the player buys the game on another platform and, if available within the system, you can play it through GeForce Now. However, individual publishers may interpret the situation differently as they may consider it a new platform, requiring a commercial contract. This may be based on the fact that there is no passage between the individual game stores, so if someone bought an address on Steam, for example, it would not automatically be available to you within the Epic Store or GOG. A separate agreement between the parties involved is required for this to happen. This is not impossible, among other things, GOG Connect has already made many Steam Purchase Addresses available to affected users during GOG registration, but these are largely non-exhaustive agreements that are specific to a single work and sometimes temporary. Therefore, GOG pays the affected publishers, which also pay all compensation to Steam, as it is disadvantageous for Valve to have access to another system after purchasing a license through its own platform.

So for now, there is a difference of opinion between NVIDIA and individual publishers. The biggest problem is that GeForce Now can be interpreted in many ways. It can be considered as rentable hardware or even as a platform-level service. Activision Blizzard and Bethesda can rank the system in the latter category and would therefore like to enter into a commercial contract for NVIDIA to pay them if they want to run their games. However, if GeForce Now qualifies as a service, game store owners will also be able to claim financial compensation, which may be part of the deal with publishers.

I think it would qualify more as a service rather than a hardware rental. In a similar way that when you contract for cloud services you are contracting for a service that is provided and not just for the hardware being used.

Geforce now is a rather interesting case. While it can be considered as renting hardware in order to play the game, you are also paying for a service that allows you to stream that game.

As well, licensing rights can get a bit complicated. When you buy a game you are paying for a license that allows you to run the game on your hardware. In the case of Geforce Now, NVidia is running the game and streaming it to you for a monthly fee.

This is similar to how Internet Cafes are generally required to pay a license fee to publishers for any games run on a machine (per machine, not per user) in their establishment regardless of whether a player owns that game or not.

Regards,
SB

 

[tongue_of_colicab]

As well, licensing rights can get a bit complicated. When you buy a game you are paying for a license that allows you to run the game on your hardware. In the case of Geforce Now, NVidia is running the game and streaming it to you for a monthly fee.

Is it? I don't think that argument holds up very well when Steam etc. allow you to install your games anywhere you want. Or what about people that lease a pc or use a pc provided by for example work? Streaming functionality is also built into stores and drivers from Nvidia/AMD so that isn't anything new either.

Running your game on remote hardware doesn't change how the software is accessed either. There are still potential installation limits, still only one user can play at the same time etc.

IMHO there is no fundamental difference whether you run your games locally or on remote hardware. All the same limitations still apply. There are some far fetched arguments such as sharing logins will allow more people to play as they don't need to own hardware which they would need with something like Steam game sharing.

I don't think it is comparable with internet cafes as the setup is obviously different. Game streaming is still very much linked to a individual with a single account, needing to buy your own games etc. while a internet cafe obviously operates under the basis that many different people will play on the same game instance/license.

How it works legally I don't know but from my perspective this is just another attempted cash grab.

 

[Deleted member 2197]

As well, licensing rights can get a bit complicated. When you buy a game you are paying for a license that allows you to run the game on your hardware. In the case of Geforce Now, NVidia is running the game and streaming it to you for a monthly fee.

When you buy a game you own it (a purchase, not a license) and the seller passes ownership to you. Based on a ruling against Steam last December 2019 a court found Steam could not restrict the resell of digital games it did not own.

The courts found that under EU law, users should be able to resell digital games, deeming the controversial Steam clauses unlawful. They argue that when a product passes on to the purchaser, the seller loses the right to restrict subsequent sales within the secondhand market.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

Is it? I don't think that argument holds up very well when Steam etc. allow you to install your games anywhere you want. Or what about people that lease a pc or use a pc provided by for example work? Streaming functionality is also built into stores and drivers from Nvidia/AMD so that isn't anything new either.

Running your game on remote hardware doesn't change how the software is accessed either. There are still potential installation limits, still only one user can play at the same time etc.

IMHO there is no fundamental difference whether you run your games locally or on remote hardware. All the same limitations still apply. There are some far fetched arguments such as sharing logins will allow more people to play as they don't need to own hardware which they would need with something like Steam game sharing.

I don't think it is comparable with internet cafes as the setup is obviously different. Game streaming is still very much linked to a individual with a single account, needing to buy your own games etc. while a internet cafe obviously operates under the basis that many different people will play on the same game instance/license.

How it works legally I don't know but from my perspective this is just another attempted cash grab.

The difference comes in when it's being run on a commercial service versus a private machine.

Hence, internet cafes, the closest real world analogue to GeForce Now generally requires those businesses to pay licensing fees to the game developer/publisher regardless of whether a user using a system owns the game or not.

These are commercial instances of games running on a separate service that users pay a fee in order to play their games.

Installing on a friend's computer or even work doesn't involve a service fee. If your friend was charging you a service fee to run your games on his system, then that becomes analogous to GeForce Now. Similarly if your workplace charges you a fee in order to install and play your game on their computers.

Hence, prior to GeForce Now becoming a commercial service there wasn't anything done.

Regards,
SB

 

[tongue_of_colicab]

IMHO internet cafes are not a real world analogue at all. De facto you know many different users are going to play the same game in a internet cafe. There is absolutely nothing to indicate that game streaming in the form of GeForce Now is going to lead to massive account sharing leading to the same game/license becoming more actively used than otherwise.

Again, account sharing is already possible, but how many people do that? Hell, game sharing is actually a much better alternative as different users still get their own saves (I believe). All the limitations will still be there. Can't have two people use the same game at the same time etc.

I don't see how renting hardware (because that is what this effectively is) to play your game is any different from running it on your "own" machine despite all the same limitations when it comes to accessing and playing those games aren't any different.

Hence, prior to GeForce Now becoming a commercial service there wasn't anything done.

Of course there wasn't. The bean counters saw this coming. Let Nvidia invest in building this into a commercial service. Once the investments have been made and its announced as a commercial service? Start holding your hand up for some free monnies or threaten pulling "your" games. Nvidia stands to make less money if they agree and pay, or potentially lose their investment. Nividia loses either way. Pubs only stand to gain because running games "in the cloud" isn't costing them anything. I'm sure they'll love to argue game hosting cost will increase but A) as explained above I doubt that will be the case and B) you know how people could just host their own servers and pubs thought it'd be a good idea to force you to play your games though their servers so you have to keep buying new versions of the same game? Yeah, screw 'em.

 

[Deleted member 2197]

The difference comes in when it's being run on a commercial service versus a private machine.
Hence, internet cafes, the closest real world analogue to GeForce Now generally requires those businesses to pay licensing fees to the game developer/publisher regardless of whether a user using a system owns the game or not.

The internet cafe is a poor example since the internet cafe is held in a public setting and does require a commercial license operate. People gathering and playing in an internet cafe are physically using depreciable assets (computers, monitors, keyboards and mice) in a commercial establishment. That's not quite the same as using a Geforce Now in a non-commercial setting to access cloud games that you have bought (not licensed) and have legal ownership over.

Even though I don't use any music players, that might be a more relevant example where someone has a music library on the cloud and use different music players (local or cloud) for access. The music players may offer free or premium options for their customers.

 

[milk]

Why stop there? Bethesda should charge a percentage of my rent to my landlord since he is providing me a platform (house) to play Bethesda's games in with a service fee. Charge the electricity company too, and my internet provider while at it.

 

[BRiT]

This is simply a matter of license terms, just like Unity, Apple MacOS, Windows OS, any Free Software projects using Apache License v2, requiring a different license if used personally or commercially or commercially in the cloud. If you want to change this, it's going to have huge ripple effects across the entire industry and you're not going to like it one damn bit.

 

[Deleted member 2197]

If publishers only want to license their products they should not presume the current cost of a game will prevail under a weekly/monthly/annual subscription scenario, or that the revenue stream will be comparable to they currently earn under the current purchase scenario.

If they want consumers to purchase their product and relinquish ownership rights to the consumer then they have to stop telling people what hardware or access methods can be used to play a game, or whether a person can resell the game they own.

 

[BRiT]

They already sell you just a license, otherwise they wouldnt be able to ban accounts or prevent abuse in the multiplayer modes.

 

[Deleted member 2197]

They sell you a product, not a license. Banning doesn't come into play since a customer can not be prohibited from playing a purchased game in non-multiplayer, single player game environments.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

...otherwise they wouldnt be able to ban accounts or prevent abuse in the multiplayer modes.

Those are managed by the online agreements for those services. A company may also be able to stop someone streaming their game through copyright. I don't think any company can stop someone playing a physical game they bought in offline mode.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Those are managed by the online agreements for those services. A company may also be able to stop someone streaming their game through copyright. I don't think any company can stop someone playing a physical game they bought in offline mode.

That probably doesn't stop somebody with you much money taking you to court because they think they can.

I think these online streaming service business woes will eventually sort themselves out, I've not looked into Nvidia's service but I assume in some way this is depriving publishers of what they feel they deserve. Logically, allowing people without good gaming hardware to buy and play games via streaming should be win-win for everybody, somebody has to buy a licence to the game and the streaming service provide has to get paid for their hardware time.

 

[trinibwoy]

The Long Dark is pulled from GeForce Now because Nvidia never asked permission.

The bit about developers controlling where their games exist is pure nonsense of course. Wtf should developers control which PC a PC game runs on?

https://twitter.com/x/status/1234181315840229376

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I don't get it. Users bought the game, and are free to install it on whatever PCs they want, and choose to rent a PC at nVidia to play it? Devs aren't missing out on anything, right? They still get the sale?

 

[trinibwoy]

I don't get it. Users bought the game, and are free to install it on whatever PCs they want, and choose to rent a PC at nVidia to play it? Devs aren't missing out on anything, right? They still get the sale?

Basically, yeah. No devs have come out publicly to say why they have a problem with their games running on Nvidia’s cloud.

 

[cheapchips]

Only noticed I was signed up for xCloud yesterday. Gave it a quick go. Works fine in the living room where my router sits. Surprisingly slow to load titles but found it works pretty well when connected. Had a go on Ace Combat 7. It's UI really suffers from being crammed onto a small screen. Still playable enough though.

Going to give local streaming a go this evening (but that's a bit OT).

 

[Deleted member 2197]

I would imagine some businesses lease or rent PC's in their office, which may include some game publishers.
Do cloud software companies also charge the lease/rental companies for software that the businesses might be using?

 

[BRiT]

Depends on the license terms of the software and if those lease/rental companies are resellers.

Since Geforce Now is obviously it's own platform and Nvidia can control exactly what games are available, how does it handle game sales? Maybe we're looking at the wrong side or aspect of their platform.

 

[trinibwoy]

Depends on the license terms of the software and if those lease/rental companies are resellers.

Since Geforce Now is obviously it's own platform and Nvidia can control exactly what games are available, how does it handle game sales? Maybe we're looking at the wrong side or aspect of their platform.

The GeForce now business model doesn’t have anything to do with selling games so they don’t have to do anything.

Your usage of the service is contingent on you already owning the game. Nvidia’s problem right now is they can’t guarantee that a game will remain on the service.