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

[BRiT]

So there is no direct means of game purchase when using GeForce Now? So there goes that possible objection to being on the service. Now I can only think some developers might have plans for portable version of their game, so they dont want to be on any possible game streaming platform? Hard pressed to think of reasons that haven't already been explored and discussed.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

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.

How do games get onto GFNow? Do you log onto Steam on the service?

 

[trinibwoy]

How do games get onto GFNow? Do you log onto Steam on the service?

Yep you log into your Steam or UPlay account just as if you were on your own PC.

The bit that’s different is game installs are super quick so it seems nvidia has some sort of caching in place.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

If nVidia is duplicating the data without a license to do so, that probably comes a cropper of copyright laws. Arguable. It could also be a web cache of Steam's pages provided as a fast web service.

Seeing as the devs lose nothing though, I don't understand the problem. They get the sale regardless what machines people play their games on.

 

[Malo]

Seeing as the devs lose nothing though, I don't understand the problem. They get the sale regardless what machines people play their games on.

Opportunity for more $$$

 

[AzBat]

Twitter thread seemed to suggest additional support nightmares from a platform/format they don't know anything about. Increase in support for a small indie house could be stressful & costly.

Tommy McClain

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Twitter thread seemed to suggest additional support nightmares from a platform/format they don't know anything about. Increase in support for a small indie house could be stressful & costly.

I don't think they need to support it though. They make and sell games to users to buy on their machine. If someone buys a game and then tries it on a different machine and it doesn't work, it's not really the devs fault or responsibililty. They can only deal with sensible, mainstream platforms, try a few different GPUs perhaps, and leave it at that. It's on nVidia to QA the games if they want to provide them in a way they weren't intended to be played. It's not the devs' responsibility to ensure nVidia's platform works.

 

[AzBat]

I don't think they need to support it though. They make and sell games to users to buy on their machine. If someone buys a game and then tries it on a different machine and it doesn't work, it's not really the devs fault or responsibililty. They can only deal with sensible, mainstream platforms, try a few different GPUs perhaps, and leave it at that. It's on nVidia to QA the games if they want to provide them in a way they weren't intended to be played. It's not the devs' responsibility to ensure nVidia's platform works.

That don't stop the calls or emails. "Your game is the only one I have problems with on Nvidia Now". Don't get me wrong, I think the developer is an ass with their response. It sets a dangerous precedent. But if the developer built the game to be consumed on "normal" PC devices, then I don't think it's that big of a stretch for them not wanting their game played on fringe devices like small form screens etc. But I agree needing permission to place a game on a cloud platform & asking them to remove it when they didn't seems a bit much.

Tommy McClain

 

[trinibwoy]

Yeah so why didn’t they raise all this stink while geforce now was in beta for years. All of a sudden they care about extra support and protecting IP when nvidia starts charging $5?

 

[AlphaWolf]

It's possible the publishers learned from the beta.

 

[upnorthsox]

Yeah so why didn’t they raise all this stink while geforce now was in beta for years. All of a sudden they care about extra support and protecting IP when nvidia starts charging $5?

Maybe they did and NV strung them along and finally cut them out in the end. I know, impossible to think NV would do that.

 

[Deleted member 2197]

Good read! Looks at both publisher and game owner perspective based on recent tweets...
https://www.theverge.com/2020/3/2/2...ming-service-developers-controversy-licensing

 

[BRiT]

This gets to good points once you get past the introductory parts...

A license to play a game does not mean another company can redistribute it, even if you personally bought the license. That’s what happening with GeForce Now, and it’s important to understand that. Nvidia isn’t just renting you a virtual machine. It’s renting you a virtual machine and then redistributing a video game sold by Steam under agreements that do not include Nvidia, at least not yet. It is not just a hardware rental service, and pretending it is one is disingenuous.​

Nvidia is effectively injecting itself into the sale and distribution of a piece of software. We’ve seen this time and again with companies that have hoped to similarly disrupt distribution, from failed over-the-air broadcast TV streamer Aereo to theater subscription plan MoviePass. It rarely works, because the companies either face steep fees out of fear of getting sued, their business plan is unsustainable, or because they go ahead without permission and get litigated into the ground. Strong-arming a new distribution model into reality is expensive and adversarial, and only a few companies, like Apple with iTunes, can successfully say they pulled it off.​

So even if it doesn’t seem Nvidia is doing something similar here, legally it is. This is precisely why Steam runs its PC Café Program, a bulk licensing service so gaming cafes can acquire the rights to host software that its customers may have already paid for. This is also why many developers choose to use their own PC launchers; doing so affords them freedom to control how the game is distributed even more tightly. That’s important for things like piracy, copyright infringement, and cheating, but also for protecting the intellectual property from being redistributed in ways the company doesn’t like.​

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Nvidia isn’t just renting you a virtual machine. It’s renting you a virtual machine and then redistributing a video game sold by Steam under agreements that do not include Nvidia

I don't understand this part. If you buy a game on Steam, you are entitled to download and play it on any PC where you log into your Steam account, no? If you log onto a remote PC, log in to Steam, and install a game, how is that different?

 

[BRiT]

Nvidia must have a local cache of games to make the installation process as quick as possible. Hence the technicality of redistribution?

If it was just using standard Steam client it wouldn't be possible for Nvidia to remove or limit games.

 

[Deleted member 2197]

Nvidia isn’t just renting you a virtual machine. It’s renting you a virtual machine and then redistributing a video game sold by Steam under agreements that do not include Nvidia, at least not yet. It is not just a hardware rental service, and pretending it is one is disingenuous.

If I rent PC hardware in my home for my gaming needs and put my Steam games on it, then there is no problem?

 

[BRiT]

If I rent PC hardware in my home for my gaming needs and put my Steam games on it, then there is no problem?

As long as they dont inject their own game launcher in the middle, then they're not redistributing the games. Or so the argument would go.

 

[Malo]

The most stupid thing out of all of this is that Nvidia didn't solve this issue before going ahead with their service commercially. So either they're lying about the publishers leaving situation and their apparent surprise, or their legal team assigned to this service are incompetent?

I don't see Nvidia paying out licensing fees to these big publishers so likely they're going to stick with whatever publishers are willing to stay with their service?

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Nvidia must have a local cache of games to make the installation process as quick as possible. Hence the technicality of redistribution?

Possibly. But then if it's just a 'web cache', is it redistribution?

I guess technically, someone buys and installs a Steam game on GFNow. Then when someone else plays that came, that copy is already available, or copied across. So technically speaking it is a redistribution. But for the devs, it's not affecting their bottom-line at all so I don't know what the fuss is about. What are they losing that they need go with some obtuse copyright principle to stop their games being streamed? None has actually presented a good, logical argument yet, have they? "This is why we don't want our games on GFNow"?

 

[Lurkmass]

What Nvidia are doing with GeForce NOW is called "copyright infringement". By streaming content which counts as redistribution too without permission of the publishers they are violating the IP holder(s) exclusive right to redistribution. This shouldn't come as any surprise to anybody since Google had to deal with this issue many times in the past with their Youtube video streaming platform by giving game publishers a cut of their ad revenues.

Lierop may have poorly worded his thoughts out but he is absolutely in the right while Nvidia is at the wrong side of the law unless they attempt a challenge in the courts which won't end well.