Any such hypothetical clause being applied here is draconian and ludicrous. If a title is allowed by contract to be sold on Steam, whether it is then streamed to a console or a TV or any other receiver is immaterial; the actual purchase was made from Steam, not the competing platform.
Game Streaming Platforms and Technology (xCloud, PSNow, GeforceNow, Luna) (Rip: Stadia)
- Thread starter lefantome
- Start date
-
- Tags
- cloudwars f facebook
Any such hypothetical clause being applied here is draconian and ludicrous. If a title is allowed by contract to be sold on Steam, whether it is then streamed to a console or a TV or any other receiver is immaterial; the actual purchase was made from Steam, not the competing platform.
Silent_Buddha
Legend
Additionally you're paying for a service. It's may not be just renting hardware (which you technically aren't doing). Unless it's common to rent just part of a piece of hardware, in the case that multiple games are being run on a piece of hardware servicing (that service you are paying for) multiple users.
Regards,
SB
Even with Backwards Compatibilty on Microsoft's Xbox One. They had to go back and get all the titles (360 and OG Xbox) re-signed to run on Xbox One. Which is why we don't have access to the full library. So I would disagree, the contracts in these types of deals are very specific.
Silent_Buddha
Legend
Because the developer/publisher has a contract with Steam. Steam owns the right to any game WRT distribution that is sold to a consumer through Steam. This is so that Steam can continue to distribute the game to you regardless of whether a developer/publisher withdraws from the service.
That contract is conditional on how Steam sells, distributes, and limits how games are used by the purchaser of a license to that game.
And even then Steam aren't the sole owners of the rights to the game on their platform. The developer/publisher still has rights related to the game licenses that are sold to the public. For example they can bar you from being able to play said game if it uses their own launcher or requires a login. But they cannot force Steam to prevent you from downloading and installing said game.
Electronic product sales are FAR more complex than people seem to think.
GeForce Now had contracts with developers/publishers during the free (non-commercial) BETA period of the service. They do not WRT commercial service of their service (at least with some or potentially all developers/publishers). Hence, developers and publishers who feel that the service is not a benefit to them or is in competition with other contracts they have (with MS, Google, or Stadia for instance) can and will withdraw their games from NVidia's service.
Regards,
SB
Last edited:
You don't have access to the full Xbox library because old titles had to be individually wrapped, vetted, and recompiled for actual redistribution on a new store. Backwards compatibility on the PS2, original PS3, and NDS was unrestricted because the media, distribution, and substrate effectively did not change. That is the case with GeForce Now: games are installed from Steam onto PC hardware, as they always have been.
I honestly think streaming is legally a different platform. Regardless of where you buy it. I also don't expect the entire library of xbox games to be available on Xcloud for the same reasons.
Explain to me at what juncture streaming legally becomes a new platform. If I stream my personal computer to a local network-connected display instead of a wired monitor, does that then trigger contract law and entitle the publisher to prevent or seek additional rent from me? Is that legal? Is it right?
I disagree with the copyright infringement and “streaming platform” argument. This is 2020 and we can interact with Windows PCs over the internet, this is not a new thing.
From a technology standpoint the game is running on Steam on a PC. Yes, the user’s gamepad/keyboard inputs are streamed over the internet and the monitor output is streamed back but that capability has nothing to do with the game itself.
As I’ve said before this is a pure money grab that has nothing to do with protecting IP and more to do with shutting down a basic PC capability - i.e. remote desktop.
Stream it yourself. Problem solved.
Frenetic Pony
Veteran
Opinions on here don't really matter, what matters is a courts opinion on the service, and what companies think the court's opinion on such a service may be. So far it appears Nvidia isn't taking any chances with any company that has enough money to take them to court, which is bad news for GeForce Now users insofar as game selection is concerned.
As for what courts would actually say, probably a complete crapshoot. Courts in no country in the world seem equipped to handle actually understanding or deliberating on high tech matters, witness the shitshow that is software patents.
Dont' try and silence the debate. If people don't agree with you, or don't understand, then it's open for debate.
GFNow isn't content distribution but remote play. It's renting a VCR in another building and transmitting the signal to your home TV.
I asked you to point out where the money is disappearing, because I'm not understanding your argument and want to understand where a dev selling a game on Steam is now missing out on money. If you're 'I've already explained it' explanation was sufficient, I wouldn't be asking you for an example, would I?
So the argument is from the POV of developers being able to add an additional revenue stream over and above the sale? Before GFNow, gamers would buy the game and then pay more to the dev for someone to provide a streaming service. GFNow allows the gamer to stream without paying any extra to the devs.
Okay, I think I understand the argument now. It's one that's against the consumer and so I can see why consumers would protest. I'm also still not sure whether nVidia have a legal issue or not. TBH I don't think copyright law as it stands extends to streaming from an interim. There is no similar parallel, I think. The purchase of a license on Steam allows that game to be played on any hardware as long as you log in. I don't think either party is right or wrong, but it's just a new area that needs resolution, which'll probably come from Steam changing it's T&Cs to prohibit streaming, or something similar. Although there may be something similar for Steam regards site licensing, I presume Valve are okay with what nVidia are doing as they haven't stopped accounts being streamed. So then it's between the devs and Valve as to what exactly the T&Cs allow Valve to do regards providing access to games.
Your interpreting the situation as something it's not. nVidia isn't distributing the content to end users, but letting end users access their paid content remotely. The only redistribution going on is nVidia caching the games. If the installs had to happen per player on the PC, download the game from Steam, then there couldn't be any copyright violation at all AFAICS.
Copyright law is very broken in many ways as it was invented long before digital lossless duplication became a thing. It's constantly being tested and reworked to try and create a workable solution, and some laws aren't at all fair and what people in general want but big business is managing to push it through. Streaming games is something copyright principles from the 17th Century couldn't begin to cover. Remote access is something untested (people are streaming content from NAS boxes at home for example, without protest). You may think it's clear cut, but others of us are seeing more complex issues.
I’m not saying what things should and shouldn’t be.
Developers have all the right to control where they want their games to show up at. That’s an argument beyond me or you. If developers don’t want it on GeForce Now that’s their choice. If it’s a money grab; that is also their choice.
'Copyright' can't begin to describe the issue of streaming a bought game from a remote platform. A person can buy a movie, rip it to NAS, and stream it half-way around the world without violating copyright. They can stream games from their PC to any other device just by logging in. GFNow is the very mid-point of the grey area!
I agree with this, but that's also different to suggesting nVidia are legally at fault. I don't think the law can state clearly either way that a user should be able to access their bought games from a remote PC or that devs have the right to prevent licenses from doing that unless explicitly laid out in the license agreement, where it become contract law (and of course Statutory rights can usurp that). I think the ruling from different countries will be very different because on whether they side more strongly with consumers of corporations.
I don’t think nvidia is legally at fault; the developer would be if somehow they are tied into an existing contract and GeForce now somehow breaks it for them.
that being said it does appear to be a money grab; but it’s still too early to know with so few details.
perhaps there is large fear of account sharing with steam. One person with a big library of games and several folks streaming from the same library across the world. I dunno.
But Whatever reason I come up with it will likely come down to money; either through breach of contract or loss of revenue with an existing contract. Or they just want to be paid more money for it.
But I do think it would be helpful to we see how the other big players handle it.
Nvidia’s reactions have much less to do with legal liability and more to do with the fact their entire business relies on good publisher and developer relations.
How much do you charge?I already do. Which is how I know this is BS
It's hard to imagine that a decade from now cloud-based VM desktop services are going to operate with a tax levied on their service for providing you access to every random utility, app, or piece of media you have a license for, whether it be winrar, photoshop, or your steam library. There's only two ways this is going to go, either license holders get no additional revenue, or these types of services will be non-viable due to death by a thousand cuts.
Except Nvidia's compliance towards recent publishers cease and desist order suggest otherwise. 'Transmitting' that so called content for others is illegal without the permission of the authors. The only case where transmitting content is permitted is solely for personal use which means that remote play is only acceptable if it's being purely done by the copy holder rather than involving another party which clearly doesn't hold the distribution rights. There's absolutely no legal defense for what Nvidia is doing.
Precisely, which is why developers aren't able to specifically capitalize from GeForce NOW as a service the way things are currently structured.
No parallel you say ? Then why does YouTube's terms of service prohibit the upload of copyrighted content even if the video is for private use ?
It's the opposite. Again user license's don't grant Nvidia themselves the right to access content even on behalf of the copy holder.
It still managed to stand the test of time and it's near unambiguous what is and isn't allowed. An end user's copy of the content still doesn't confer the right for external 3rd parties like Nvidia to access it for them.
Similar threads
