D
Deleted member 2197
Guest
Last edited by a moderator:
Game Streaming Platforms and Technology (xCloud, PSNow, GeforceNow, Luna) (Rip: Stadia)
- Thread starter lefantome
- Start date
-
- Tags
- cloudwars f facebook
Yes, but though nVidia are technically guilty of copyright infringement, the devs aren't losing anything - there's no duplication. People aren't getting to experience the game without paying for it. That contrasts with your YouTube example where someone watching a game is experience the artistic creation without having paid for it.
Reacting to these copyright infringements isn't necessary. Plenty of times a blind eye will be turned if it's nothing major or free publicity. There's a shocking amount of Nintendo IP exploitation that isn't locked down, for example. There's no economic reason for these companies to care about this particular redistribution, so why withdraw their game and potentially reduce sales of it?
Reacting to these copyright infringements isn't necessary. Plenty of times a blind eye will be turned if it's nothing major or free publicity. There's a shocking amount of Nintendo IP exploitation that isn't locked down, for example. There's no economic reason for these companies to care about this particular redistribution, so why withdraw their game and potentially reduce sales of it?
The same reason why if you buy a game on Xbox you can’t play it on PlayStation.
Or if you made an exclusive deal with Xbox and they allowed Steam as a platform for PC but not GeForce Now, you would be in breach of contract. I mean considering that Xbox has XCloud coming such deals could definitely exist.
He may be working to build out a plan with MS in which his games appear on game pass and XCloud and he gets paid for it. And then sudden GeForce now is peddling the same service for free but he only gets paid when people play on game pass.
People paying for the content does not give Nvidia the right to distribute such. GeForce NOW is a potential competitor to Google Stadia and if publishers have a deal with the latter but not the former then they absolutely stand to lose out in terms of maximizing their revenue. People need to stop spreading the misconception that GeForce NOW doesn't hurt the content developers in any way because it definitely can since they lose out potential revenue if the platform vendor decides not to reimburse them.
Also even if it's not hurting the developers from a financial perspective, it is STILL within their right to exercise copyright regardless. Nvidia is NOT above the law no matter what anyone says.
It’s like a famous Streamer is given a large contract to stream on Mixer. He does so and is paid said large contract to do this.
Another company comes along and freely distributes his content from Mixer to another platform in which people have to pay to view his content.
He is now in breach with the original company and his income is now threatened as long as he does nothing.
Another company comes along and freely distributes his content from Mixer to another platform in which people have to pay to view his content.
He is now in breach with the original company and his income is now threatened as long as he does nothing.
This is Steam to Steam though. The platform isn't changing.
That's actually a fair argument from the POV of streaming services. However, that's a deal to include the game on MS's service which doesn't involve buying the game. In the case of your example, the player already bought the game on Steam and is now streaming it on GFNow; the dev isn't deprived of any money except in the case someone wants to stream the game, was going to use xCloud, but is now going to stream on GFN.
No-one's spreading anything. It's a discussion. Be respectful and help explain to people where the problems lie.
I don't understand - who would/should be reimbursing whom? Can you provide an example of where a dev selling a game on Steam is losing money when that game is streamed on GFN?
Yes, I acknowledged as much, but if it's not in the devs best interests, they may be better off ignoring that and considering it a grey-ara of copyright law not worth fighting over. The point is they have no obligation to pull copyright defence moves; they don't risk losing their IP to the public domain if the let nvidia cache games distributions.
Who says they are?
The store is Steam. The platform is Geforce Now.
Basically it was never part of contract with respect to any deals that may have been penned in between the developers and any other platforms they are working with.
A simple way to describe this would be:
MS puts Halo MCC on Steam to support their PC player base.
Geforce Now is now redistributing it over streaming software which means it can now show up on any devices that Nvidia wants it to show up on. You can get Halo on Switch and on PS4 for instance.
If you can see why MS would stop this immediately, this would apply to any developer then.
Strikes me as an ill-defined grey area. Let's say Kojima is allowed to release Death Stranding on Steam only as part of their deal with Sony, so PS4 and Steam. Someone buys it on Steam, and then starts streaming the game on GFN; are Sony supposed to stop them because streaming of the game wasn't part of the deal? I doubt any contracts at this point factor in game streaming because it's a new territory. If the deal was 'you can sell it on Steam' then I think streaming from Steam would be okay.
Steam allows remote game play. You can have the game on PC and stream it somewhere else. I can run a game on my PC and stream it at a friend's house, or allow them to access my game remotely, or install the game on their PC and play it streamed in my house. If that's allowed, why isn't this? Are Remote Play games licensed differently?
Steam allows remote game play. You can have the game on PC and stream it somewhere else. I can run a game on my PC and stream it at a friend's house, or allow them to access my game remotely, or install the game on their PC and play it streamed in my house. If that's allowed, why isn't this? Are Remote Play games licensed differently?
I think the answer is yes. These contracts are definitely looked over by lawyers. For something like 360 and OG XBOX BC on Xbox One, MS had to re-license every single title. So even though they could make the wrappers for all those games, the ones we have access to the are the ones that re-signed. Newer titles made today are signed with this concept of forward-generation compatibility. But those older contracts did not.
A lot of titles did not make it because those titles also borrowed licensed assets (like music) and they did not want to re-sign those as well.
I apologize if I came off as being overtly aggressive.
Nvidia should be the one to reimburse on the developer's terms, not whatever Nvidia wants.
They could be better off ignoring it but that's for them to decide in the end. Also this is hardly a grey area of copyright law as seen previously on Youtube with copyright claims and if you believe that developers don't have an obligation to make copyright violation claims like such instances then why isn't Nvidia challenging them to go to court ? If Nvidia were truly confident that they had a case to win in court then it could potentially set a new industry wide reaching precedent for the way streamed content is monetized.
I think from my experience with Geforce Now the client (Steam...) is modified as the session is locked to the game you previously selected and you can't select any other game. Geforce Now is currently not 100% PC remote play.
D
Deleted member 2197
Guest
AdoredTV OPINION: Geforce Now isn't hurting developers and Nvidia doesn't owe them revenue
March 2, 2020
March 2, 2020
https://adoredtv.com/opinion-geforce-now-isnt-hurting-developers-and-nvidia-doesnt-owe-them-revenue/
But why? It's like...going to Virgin Megastores to buy a video tape, and then going to Radio Rentals to rent a VCR to play it on. The developer sells the game to the player, and charges the player through the Steam platform, which may be a one off payment, or subscription or IAPs, or whatever. nVidia isn't interfering with that at all (unless they are; I don't know what the interface is like!).
So again, I ask you, who's losing out and why? What dollars aren't going to the devs that should be? Why should they get $n for the Steam sale and then additional $x from the hardware rental service to play those games?
It's very expensive and not considered worth it at the moment. Maybe later they will? Or maybe they'll lean on public pressure to get devs/pubs to enable games on GFNow?
upnorthsox
Veteran
Why spend money (on devs or lawyers) when you can just call on the NDF to come to the rescue!! Sounds like what is happening.
Nonsense. There is an honest concern here for consumers and doesn't require an obsession with the company to consider what's happening possibly isn't right or good for the consumer. I'm very much against a lot of Nvidia's practices and detest the barrage of marketing, but personally I have an issue with how this is being handled by publishers.
Again this is not up for debate. Only the copyright holder can dictate the conditions for monetization. The big difference between a VCR and GeForce NOW is that one is used for content distribution while the other isn't so renting a VCR falls under fair use.
As for who's already losing out I've already explained this. Nvidia is using copyrighted content to purely profit off from their service without giving the creators their desired share. Developers potentially stand to make so much from Stadia just from the ad revenue. It is not in the developers interests to just see income from the store but from service providers as well such as cloud game steaming vendors too since their value is also derived from the content they provide.
Or more likely Nvidia's legal team knows that their in hot water. If Amazon, Google or Netflix knew they could distribute content without permission from the authors they would be already taking advantage of this loophole or precedent.
Unlikely that there's such after copyright law has stood the test for over a century.
Silent_Buddha
Legend
Yes, but again it the line for enforcement versus non-enforcement is most often drawn at the personal use versus commercial use of a product.
From a user perspective whether they use it on their PC, a friend's PC, streamed from their PC to another PC, or streamed through GeForce now it's all the same.
From the developer/publisher perspective they are completely different beasts. The first three cases are non-commercial uses of their IP. The last is (under current law) a commercial use of their product. Just like Internet Cafes.
Steam has over many years laid the groundwork that allows them certain rights when it comes to redistribution of games WRT purchased games. Part of that is that developers and publishers require games that are redistributed by Steam to be used in a "non-commercial" manner.
While the owner of a game isn't using those games in a commercial manner, NVidia are technically using them in a commercial manner which would technically be a breach of contract. However, Valve aren't likely to pursue this as they can't afford hits to their image. You'll notice they've been very quiet about a lot of things ever since EGS popped up, preferring to let EGS shoot themselves in the foot and keeping bad publicity squarely on EGS.
But the important thing here is that these are rights that Valve have negotiated with developers and publishers in order to allow those games to be sold and redistributed by Steam.
Unless NVidia has done something similar with GeForce Now, under current laws in most countries, developers and publishers are well within their right to remove those games from the service.
As I've noted before, this didn't matter before when GeForce Now was free. Those games were being used in a "non-commercial" manner. Once GeForce now started charging for the service, the games are now technically being used in a "commercial" manner.
And, again as I've noted before and some have mentioned since, this is more important than ever with 3 major corporations (Google, Microsoft, and Sony) working on game streaming services.
However, even if that wasn't the case, it's likely that some developers and publishers would have a problems with NVidia benefitting commercially from their games via a service fee to enable people to play streamed versions of those games regardless of whether another party owns a license to play those games.
Just like with internet cafes regardless of whether a person owns the game or not. Regardless of whether a game is single player or not.
One last thing, I believe it was Activision Blizzard that mentioned they had a contract with NVidia to have their games on the service during the BETA period when it was free, but weren't offered a contract when it went into commercial service. At that point it's entirely on NV. And a contract wasn't offered likely because NV weren't willing to go through negotiations, which might have involved licensing fees, in order to have a contract signed that was agreeable with both parties.
Regards,
SB
If I buy a game and play it on my computer, Dell owes the publisher nothing for "use of their IP" as a selling point for the hardware.
If I stream that game that I'd bought from my computer to my TV, Linksys owes them nothing for "redistributing copyrighted content."
If I install my purchased game on a rented remote VM and stream it to my home, Amazon AWS owes them nothing for "benefitting commercially" from my business.
If I install my game which I have paid for through Steam in GeForce Now, and stream it to my own devices for my personal use, Nvidia owes them nothing. And neither do I.
If I stream that game that I'd bought from my computer to my TV, Linksys owes them nothing for "redistributing copyrighted content."
If I install my purchased game on a rented remote VM and stream it to my home, Amazon AWS owes them nothing for "benefitting commercially" from my business.
If I install my game which I have paid for through Steam in GeForce Now, and stream it to my own devices for my personal use, Nvidia owes them nothing. And neither do I.
that's totally fine, but this isn't about the consumer. This is about the developer.
It's not fine if you made a product; Sony, MS, or Google paid you hundreds of thousands of dollars for platform exclusivity with a small clause that you could sell your game on steam. They restrict the rights of it being distributed on any other platform. Then a company comes and redistributes Steam content on a competing platform to Google, MS, or Sony (whomever) you signed up with. You are now in breach of contract and your income is now in jeopardy.
I think the terms "platform" and "redistribute" are hard to apply here since the game is using the Steam platform and I think it's hard to say they're "redistributing" it as they don't sell it to you, there's no downloading it from them. The closest would be that it's installed on Nvidia's PC you're renting.
Similar threads
