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

Actually last year there was a ruling against Steam who tried to prohibit the sale of digitized games.

I would not be surprised to see a challenge regarding consumer rights to games they own.

 

Yeah, still waiting to see when Sony and Microsoft allow reselling of PS4 and XBO games. Also waiting to see when Apple and Google allow reselling of digital apps and games purchased on their platforms. I wonder when I'll be allowed to resell my WinRAR license or FastPictureViewer license.

Also waiting to see when Amazon and other companies allow reselling of digital content (music and movies).

Oh yeah, and even better the reselling of Stadia games. Oooh, and how about reselling of games bought through Onlive?

Also, any applications bought on NVidia's shield.

That French ruling is a not very well thought out ruling, IMO. Digital goods don't suffer the wear and tear that physical goods suffer.

Regards,
SB

 

Offtopic but one does not rule out the other IMHO. Just because there is no physical wear doesn't mean you shouldn't be allowed to resell digital content or that digital content doesn't diminish in value over time. It obviously does. Digital games only decrease in price, for example. OTOH physical products, despite wear and tear, can and obviously do increase in value over time.

The ruling in itself is fine. Now there needs to be sensible legislation that governs how digital content can be resold. I don't see any real problems with the likes of Google, Apple and Steam. For them it would be pretty straight forward to build a market place where people can sell their stuff, take a cut as a service fee, and remove the item from one's library. Hell, Stream market place is exactly that.

DRM free content might be a bigger issue. Though even that should be doable as long as content can only be resold through the same platform you bought it on.

 

Physical goods very rarely increase in price. It can happen, certainly, but it's pretty rare. For the vast majority of cases, the value decreases sharply in the first couple years. Sometimes in the first week of ownership (Automobiles, for example).

I suppose a fair way to do it is to prorate the max value a digital title can be resold for that goes down over time. So, as an example, it can be resold for 75% of the new value in the first few months. Then 50% over the next year or two. Then 25% down to 5% over the course of a decade.

And on top of that the developer of the title gets a cut of the sale every time it is resold. That would be fair, IMO.

Of course, this would penalize developers that don't go the F2P or microtransaction models which may push more and more developers to move to F2P or heavily push microtransactions for "temporary" game benefits (IE - increased bag space in an RPG costs you 5 USD and lasts for 30 days) and consumables. Although a developer getting a %cut (say 30%) everytime a title is resold may prevent something like this happening.

Regards,
SB

 

I agree devs/pubs should be getting a cut, I disagree with setting a minimum price. Capitalism, free markets and all that. I also don't think it would really make much difference. Maybe a set time between purchase and resell would be more sensible. Especially in the case of games where most sales or front loaded.

If a game is sold for 60, it is unlikely large amount of people are going to severely undercut that price. They might if the game is rubbish and they try to recoup at least something or if the game is very short. Both cases sound like the product was not up to consumer standards and if that is the case, should products like that really be protected?

I don't see a game like Witcher 3 being resold for much lower prices soon after launch. You could also argue many people don't want to pay full price so netting a smaller part of a resale might actually not be that bad in the long run.

There is also other things that might entice people to buy new such as pre-order bonuses or steam trading cards. I think a lot of people also like to keep their games, especially the good ones.

I'm sure some will suffer but I don't think it will be all doom and gloom.

 

Selling digital downloads will just push games even more towards F2P models. No point selling a game for $40 if it'll be resold to 10 people over the years. Release it for free and have in-game consumables and money from everyone who plays it.

 

And entice big publishers to move to subscription models only.

 

I just read the ars technica comments and people are trashing Nvidia for the fact that they make people pay extra to "use features they paid for". This was because Nvidia said they would enable rtx features on pay tier. So some fools, or rabble rousers cannot distinguish between buying a card, or not buying it and paying $5 a month. If this is actual confusion from a theoretically astute audience I worry about Nvidia ability to explain the system to regular gamer people.

 

Cyberpunk 2077 is Coming to GeForce NOW

https://www.techpowerup.com/264046/cyberpunk-2077-is-coming-to-geforce-now

 

Nvidia's GeForce Now hits 1 million users after two weeks, pledges day-one Cyberpunk 2077 support

https://www.pcworld.com/article/3528285/nvidias-geforce-now-hits-1-million-users-after-two-weeks-pledges-day-one-cyberpunk-2077-support.html

 

Bethesda has pulled out as well. I am going to go install it before more companies take their games off. And I will not buy new release games that do not support it since they have less value.

 

Yup just coming to post that.

http://www.theverge.com/2020/2/21/2...ulling-games-activision-blizzard-cloud-gaming

 

I did not realize it did not support GOG so I am a bit frustrated now. I think I could actually see myself doing this otherwise, but I also tried to support GOG in the past for reasons... I don't have time to play regularly enough to justify a top end rig any more so this sort of setup is very appealing to me.

 

I think it may be about a few things.

• Before it was fine when NV weren't monetizing those games. But now that they are charging for GeForce Now, they are tangentially monetizing those games.
• With Google, Microsoft, and Sony making a play for cloud streaming, publishers are likely positioning themselves for licensing deals with various companies...assuming those deals aren't already in place.
  • This means that allowing games to be streamed on NV's service may be counterproductive.

I could see more publishers potentially pulling out of GeForce Now due to those 2 concerns.

In some ways it's similar to game modding using copyrighted material (say, for example, Mario and Luigi). As long as no money is involved at any point (including 3rd party download services like Nexus Mods) then it's mostly fine. But as soon as any money is involved at any point, many publishers will move very quickly to serve cease and desist letters.

Regards,
SB

 

There is also this service called Shadow, basically renting high-end PC and playing your existing library.

https://shadow.tech/int


it's more expensive though, $35 per month.

 

Bethesda and Activision have one reason to step away from Geforce Now, Greed
February 24, 2020

https://www.overclock3d.net/news/so..._reason_to_step_away_from_geforce_now_greed/1

 

Thanks for the laugh.

 

Whatever it takes to get you back.

 

TV and Cloud Gaming Market is Set for a 90% Jump According to Jon Peddie Research

https://www.pdvg.it/en/2020/02/24/t...r-a-90-jump-according-to-jon-peddie-research/

 

Bethesda And Activision Blizzard Thumb Their Noses At Players Over GeForce Now
February 25, 2020

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kevinmurnane/2020/02/25/bethesda-and-activision-blizzard-thumb-their-noses-at-players-over-geforce-now/#37bde6612b7c