So you're saying that Microsoft should give a portion of the XCloud subscription service revenue to any and all publishers that have their games on XCloud? Irrespective of Game Pass?
Microsoft acquired Activision Blizzard King for $69 Billion on 2023-10-13
- Thread starter Rangers
- Start date
Who's to say that's not already happening for the games offered on XCloud as part of GPU?
Currently the only game not on GPU but on XCloud is Fortnite, and that was done via an agreement between Epic and Microsoft.
Yeah I'm not sure. Are XCloud games only ones that are currently on Game Pass? If someone buys the game whilst it's on game pass, can they still play it on XCloud after their GP expires?
I don't think they can.
There was talks about Microsoft wanting it so games you own being playable on xCloud but we haven't seen or heard anything since.
Yea. They don’t allow you to run your own games on xcloud. It has to be bound to gamepass.
Wait , you think that MS isn't paying developers to have their games on xcloud ?
You realize that MS pays a developers to be part of game pass and xcloud while Nvidia doesn't pay developers to be part of geforce now.
Well that's my point. Game pass is one thing, it's providing the game to the end user as part of the subscription. GeForce now isn't providing any games as part of its service. All it does it provide access to a PC to play it on, the user has to own the game already.
I never understood why publishers threw a stink about having their games available. Of course they saw it as some kind of additional revenue and thus removed their games unless Nvidia game them a share of... Something?
Silent_Buddha
Legend
Rights get ... complicated.
A user buys a game and has a right to run it on their machine or any machine they have local (physical) access to.
Those rights are expanded if you buy them on Steam, because Steam owns the rights to any game sold through Steam for the purposes of distribution to users who bought the game on Steam (validating a key on Steam is the same thing). Because of that they also technically have the right to stream the game to the end user as that is considered part of the distribution chain of ownership.
However, because of how rights are owned, a user must stream the game from their account on their machine (things get a little fuzzy here, but it basically has to be a privately owned machine) to their account on another machine that they own or have access to. Steams rights to the game just means that the end user can use Steam to facilitate that streaming, but it has to be from a locally (physically) accessible machine to another such machine. For example, from a PC to a mobile device.
Microsoft have negotiated rights to stream games that are on GP from their servers, but they do not have the rights to do that for games that are not on GP. So Microsoft cannot just stream any game that a user owns unless they negotiate that with each developer and publisher first and/or include it in the contract to distribute games on Xbox.
NV do not have any rights related to game distribution nor restreaming from a non-local machine (a server). They could try to get around that by claiming they are renting hardware to a user from which they can run their games, but I'm guessing their lawyers advised them that it would likely not hold up if it went to court and thus they backed down if a publisher/developer asks them to remove their game from the streaming service.
Regards,
SB
When a company puts their game on game pass they have the option to put it on xcloud also. its part of the contract and there are different pay outs for different options. The more opportunity for a person to play your game the more opportunity to make money from it.
With geforce now people are paying a subscription to play steam games on nvidia's hardware and nvidia charges them for that. But the game developer gets no additional money and there is no streaming license with steam. A developer is going to of course want a piece of a person streaming the game.
You can say either way if you think that is right or not. But that is all in the contracts signed. I am sure companies would embrace geforce now if they got a piece of that sub revenue also
And that's what I don't understand. The user has already purchased the game, the appropriate profits and any potential ongoing revenues from ingame purchases going to the publisher. No one can stream a game they haven't already paid for in full. It's all just because the publisher views streaming a game as somehow different than playing a game on the user's local PC and thinks they somehow deserve additional revenue from it.
If I stream a game from my PC to my Shield, should publishers charge me $0.25 every day that I play it?
But they haven't. They purchased a license for the game that doesn't include the ability to stream it over other companies servers. I am sure at some point someone will challenge it in court. However what you will likely see if companies pulling their products from services that allow that streaming. I am sure that valve will also include in their license to use steam that it can't be streamed via the cloud.
Yea this one is a bit of a weirder area, but it's actually quite common to see this one.
The challenge here is that each company is responsible for their own product and also responsible for the service, reputation, and generally responsible on how that product is received; it's also one of the driving reasons for a company to reach parity between two competing platforms.
During an entirely free beta service, these companies do not have an issue for it because there is no charge, therefore there is no responsibility on their hands to ensure that the product is qualified.
But once money is charged, they are now responsible for the qualification of that service and supporting it for streaming usage. Consider it from the perspective that people are thinking that this game, must reach a particular standard level for them to be paying to play it.
And you would be charging for that because that is now a new platform you are supporting over just steam.
For example on game pass, most games on game pass is also on xcloud, and those xcloud titles can largely be run with a streaming UI attached to it to be able to run those games with only a mobile device if necessary.
If you don't want to bring the quality of your game on streaming to reach the standard that they have on xbox, ps, and pc, (and yet still charge them the same price) then you should pull your game.
The last thing you want is a class action lawsuit about how 10,000 people who don't have PCs, purchased CoD on Steam to play it on GFN, and the experience is complete utter shit. They want a refund, but Steam won't give it to them because this is happening all the time with GFN customers, then you get tarnished as a company for not supporting a platform that your game is on.
Last edited:
I think using something like Mcdonalds and grub hub as an example.
Mc Donalds is okay with Grub hub and uber eats to go and pick up orders from the restaurant as both companies pay them for the privilege. But Mc Donalds would file legal options if we here at B3D just started offering mc donalds delivering service. Sure you paid for your meal and we show up to pick it up and bring it but you know Mc Donalds is gonig to want some of that money from the delivery .
But it always goes deeper than that. It's not just paying for the privilege, it's acknowledgement of these companies reaching a delivery standard that the company is comfortable with so that grub hub and uber eats does not tarnish their good will. They will want to have specifics around delivery of ice cream, curation of menu, integration of processes. It's so much more, than that. Because if McDonald's didn't deny companies, there could be 100 food startups ramming mcdonalds staff while possibly giving shitty service to mcdonald's customers, and suddenly all their customers are no longer coming in the restaurants but going through these subsidiary companies that don't give 2 shits about McDonald's commitments to their own food quality and standards.
It's a lot more than just taking a piece of the cost. Yes, that is definitely going to be part of it, and part of it is actually denying other vendors from entering the space. Which may seem bad, but actually makes sense on paper.
U.S. Chamber of Commerce threatens to sue the FTC over proposed ban on noncompete clauses
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which has curried the favor of Republican lawmakers, said it will sue the FTC if it pursues a ban on noncompete clauses.
Looks like the FTC is going to be in court over their over reaching of the power for multiple things soon
console exclusivities aside I can swear and bet a kidney that Final Fantasy is going to eventually come to PC.
It doesnt have to come to the PC.
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
It doesn't have to but all fifteen main Final Fantasy games are on PC. To not release the game on PC is just leaving money on the table and I assume Square like money!
They never denied it was coming to PC.
Seems like SquareEnix's gameplan with their big titles is this:
Give PS first shot at an exclusivity deal
PS deal precludes Xbox version from happening either altogether, or for a lengthy period of time
Square reserves the right to ensure a PC release after PS terms expire, or alongside PS release
Sony can opt to extend their deal depending on how the game performs during the exclusivity period
PC is basically SE's only option to reach beyond just Playstation gamers because Sony seemingly doesn't have a problem with those games also releasing on PC after some period of time. SquareEnix and how they choose to support Xbox is really unfortunate. You get games like FF7 Crisis Core Reunion... but not FF7Remake... It must be really infuriating for Xbox customers.. and then it turns into a catch 22 where because they don't have the other games, people don't buy them on Xbox, and Square doesn't release games on Xbox because nobody buys them there..
I think Sony should just buy SquareEnix and get it over with.
Seems like SquareEnix's gameplan with their big titles is this:
Give PS first shot at an exclusivity deal
PS deal precludes Xbox version from happening either altogether, or for a lengthy period of time
Square reserves the right to ensure a PC release after PS terms expire, or alongside PS release
Sony can opt to extend their deal depending on how the game performs during the exclusivity period
PC is basically SE's only option to reach beyond just Playstation gamers because Sony seemingly doesn't have a problem with those games also releasing on PC after some period of time. SquareEnix and how they choose to support Xbox is really unfortunate. You get games like FF7 Crisis Core Reunion... but not FF7Remake... It must be really infuriating for Xbox customers.. and then it turns into a catch 22 where because they don't have the other games, people don't buy them on Xbox, and Square doesn't release games on Xbox because nobody buys them there..
I think Sony should just buy SquareEnix and get it over with.
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
And that's on Square. If I offer somebody money to screw over somebody else in some way, they don't have to accept.
Say no. The value in IP is relative to those who are a) interested in it, and b) can access it. Removing your IP from a segment of any market by restricting platform support will mean a segment of the market will turn away from that IP and it will be relevant and less valuable overall. If you later change tact, some people may just not be interested - they may have found others things.
Last edited by a moderator:
Similar threads
