A thread about the removing of eso from geforce

ProfessionalNoob

I know it has already been discussed but is so disgusting given the fact that we who have toasters as PC's cant play the game anymore, like i payed money for dlc's you know just as other with nasty pc's did, cant we make something to put it back somehow, after all bathesda is suffering here together with their clients because of their greedy decision, like really, what kind of nasty personality one can have to do something like this... with ge force you would have much more clients because it can be played on a potato.
What's next, excluding bathesda games for the ones who have an LG screen?...

JasonSilverSpring

Shadow might be your best bet if available in your area. With it you can even use add-ons since it is a full virtual PC. ESO will be coming to Stadia later this year. Hopefully it will allow use of existing PC accounts.

witchdoctor

Another batch of developers dropped GeForce Now this week.


With that much smoke, there is a fire, and not on ZOS's end.

Hurbster

I'm sure it's all to do with money.

witchdoctor

Hurbster wrote: »

I'm sure it's all to do with money.

Of course it is.

But when it was one or two developers, maybe they were the ones demanding more.

When more and more keep jumping ship, maybe it is the host that is demanding too much.

MJallday

Google will boot ESO from stadia if it can’t live up to its contractual performance SLAs. I’m actually quite looking forward to it happening as it’ll improve performance for everyone . ZOS certainly won’t want to annoy google !

Edit I just want to bring back the convo to the original post.

The decision to remove GeForce is a puzzling one, considering it’s widespread use in the industry

RefLiberty

We’ve seen this before; Activision Blizzard and Bethesda have pulled their games from GeForce Now, presumably for similar reasons. I say presumably because neither of those giant publishers has explicitly stated why they did so, and just what about GeForce Now they find dissatisfying. In Activision Blizzard’s case, there was a licensing dispute we are aware of, and there’s the matter of Nvidia not re-acquiring permission to use its titles once it began charging $5 a month for the public trial of GeForce Now early last month.

The publishers have given vague statements, leading many to surmise that it may be due to the lack of a revenue split or the fact that big game publishers would rather charge customers a second time for a separate license to play a game on a cloud gaming service, regardless of how it’s structured. Stadia, for instance, charges customers for games even if you own them on Steam already, and a lot of big publishers have signed up under those terms. But again, these are assumptions.

https://www.theverge.com/2020/3/2/21161469/nvidia-geforce-now-cloud-gaming-service-developers-controversy-licensing

ProfessionalNoob

Hurbster wrote: »

I'm sure it's all to do with money.

Greediness is a hell of a drug

ProfessionalNoob

JasonSilverSpring wrote: »

Shadow might be your best bet if available in your area. With it you can even use add-ons since it is a full virtual PC. ESO will be coming to Stadia later this year. Hopefully it will allow use of existing PC accounts.

Even if i appear stingy 13$ is quite something here in eastern europe, geforce is so cheap and good...

VaranisArano

The Verge's article goes a lot more indepth explaining some of the issues at hand than the snippet excerpted above.

One of the bigger questions is simply "I bought the game, right? So why can companies tell me where I can play it?"

The answer is that its all in the licensing agreements. And Nvidia doesn't have the licensing agreements. They aren't just renting you a PC, they are redistributing the game to you as well. Redistributing takes special licensing agreements, such as in the example of Steam's PC Cafe Program where gaming cafes get the rights to host the gaming software even if their clients own the game already. As we've seen with at least some of the removed games, Nvidia erroneously assumed or did not bother to reach out to some game developers to secure agreements or even permission to include their games.

The article then goes into more detail about why those licensing agreements benefit publishers, as well as why getting this whole mess sorted out would be great for consumers.


Overall, I have not been impressed with Nvidia's handling of their transition from free to a paid service. They lost a number of games just prior to the transition, and afterwards its been coming out that they seem not to have done their due diligence in some cases when it comes to basic things like double-checking or even asking permission to include games on their service for redistribution. Leaving aside issues with legal agreements or the problems it can cause for publishers, I would think that asking permission would seem like a basic step to take when you are redistributing a game, not just renting out the hardware.

Tandor

ProfessionalNoob wrote: »

Hurbster wrote: »

I'm sure it's all to do with money.

Greediness is a hell of a drug

The world is full of two types of people where greed is concerned. Those who want to rip you off by over-charging for everything, and those who want to rip you off by demanding everything for nothing.

daemonios

This is actually an interesting legal issue. Is GeForce Now simply renting virtual machines and players are running their own software on said virtual machines, or can the service be said to be running the games independently?

As a general rule, you can't store or run code for which you don't have a license. With GeForce Now, players need to purchase each game separately, so they are autorized to store it and run it on their own machines. If GeForce Now is considered a for-rent virtual machine, one could say that the player is taking their game, storing it in a rented machine, and running it there. Publishers asking for a cut in this model seems like an attempt at double dipping, since they have already been paid by the player who purchased the game.

But if GeForce Now is installing the games independently from the players, or somehow providing something more than mere storage and processing capacity, then they likely would require a separate license from the publisher. I think this is what is being argued by Bethesda, Activision/Blizzard and others who have taken down their games from the service.

I have never used GeForce Now, so I have no idea how it is implemented from a technical standpoint, but as a consumer I'm not particularly keen on paying several times for the same thing. If I need to purchase a game, I shouldn't need to pay for it a second time in order to have it run on GeForce Now. The fact that games are stored and run on a machine that isn't my own doesn't cause any economic damage to the publisher - I will have paid them already - and in fact could be viewed as a net benefit since it allows people who don't own sufficiently powerful computers to run games they would otherwise not purchase.

In the end, it does feel like double dipping to me, and I have precious little sympathy for the gaming industry right now to grant them much consideration in this issue, so I'd love to see a decision that GeForce Now doesn't need to license games from the publishers. That said, if someone could explain why a publisher might take issue with this service - bearing in mind that it is NOT a streaming service where players are able to play games that they have not separately purchased - I'm all ears.

VaranisArano

daemonios wrote: »

This is actually an interesting legal issue. Is GeForce Now simply renting virtual machines and players are running their own software on said virtual machines, or can the service be said to be running the games independently?

As a general rule, you can't store or run code for which you don't have a license. With GeForce Now, players need to purchase each game separately, so they are autorized to store it and run it on their own machines. If GeForce Now is considered a for-rent virtual machine, one could say that the player is taking their game, storing it in a rented machine, and running it there. Publishers asking for a cut in this model seems like an attempt at double dipping, since they have already been paid by the player who purchased the game.

But if GeForce Now is installing the games independently from the players, or somehow providing something more than mere storage and processing capacity, then they likely would require a separate license from the publisher. I think this is what is being argued by Bethesda, Activision/Blizzard and others who have taken down their games from the service.

I have never used GeForce Now, so I have no idea how it is implemented from a technical standpoint, but as a consumer I'm not particularly keen on paying several times for the same thing. If I need to purchase a game, I shouldn't need to pay for it a second time in order to have it run on GeForce Now. The fact that games are stored and run on a machine that isn't my own doesn't cause any economic damage to the publisher - I will have paid them already - and in fact could be viewed as a net benefit since it allows people who don't own sufficiently powerful computers to run games they would otherwise not purchase.

In the end, it does feel like double dipping to me, and I have precious little sympathy for the gaming industry right now to grant them much consideration in this issue, so I'd love to see a decision that GeForce Now doesn't need to license games from the publishers. That said, if someone could explain why a publisher might take issue with this service - bearing in mind that it is NOT a streaming service where players are able to play games that they have not separately purchased - I'm all ears.

You should read the linked article as it explains that Geforce NOW is not just a PC rental service. https://www.theverge.com/2020/3/2/21161469/nvidia-geforce-now-cloud-gaming-service-developers-controversy-licensing

In particular: "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."

To clarify that statement and look further into how GeForce NOW works and why its not as simple as "Well, I'm just renting a virtual machine so I should be able to do what I want", I'd look to this source:
https://www.pcgamer.com/the-controversy-over-geforce-now-explained/

Nestor

I blame the Lawyers.

Lawyers are always messing up our fun, and billing us for it.

daemonios

VaranisArano wrote: »

daemonios wrote: »

This is actually an interesting legal issue. Is GeForce Now simply renting virtual machines and players are running their own software on said virtual machines, or can the service be said to be running the games independently?

As a general rule, you can't store or run code for which you don't have a license. With GeForce Now, players need to purchase each game separately, so they are autorized to store it and run it on their own machines. If GeForce Now is considered a for-rent virtual machine, one could say that the player is taking their game, storing it in a rented machine, and running it there. Publishers asking for a cut in this model seems like an attempt at double dipping, since they have already been paid by the player who purchased the game.

But if GeForce Now is installing the games independently from the players, or somehow providing something more than mere storage and processing capacity, then they likely would require a separate license from the publisher. I think this is what is being argued by Bethesda, Activision/Blizzard and others who have taken down their games from the service.

I have never used GeForce Now, so I have no idea how it is implemented from a technical standpoint, but as a consumer I'm not particularly keen on paying several times for the same thing. If I need to purchase a game, I shouldn't need to pay for it a second time in order to have it run on GeForce Now. The fact that games are stored and run on a machine that isn't my own doesn't cause any economic damage to the publisher - I will have paid them already - and in fact could be viewed as a net benefit since it allows people who don't own sufficiently powerful computers to run games they would otherwise not purchase.

In the end, it does feel like double dipping to me, and I have precious little sympathy for the gaming industry right now to grant them much consideration in this issue, so I'd love to see a decision that GeForce Now doesn't need to license games from the publishers. That said, if someone could explain why a publisher might take issue with this service - bearing in mind that it is NOT a streaming service where players are able to play games that they have not separately purchased - I'm all ears.

You should read the linked article as it explains that Geforce NOW is not just a PC rental service. https://www.theverge.com/2020/3/2/21161469/nvidia-geforce-now-cloud-gaming-service-developers-controversy-licensing

In particular: "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."

To clarify that statement and look further into how GeForce NOW works and why its not as simple as "Well, I'm just renting a virtual machine so I should be able to do what I want", I'd look to this source:
https://www.pcgamer.com/the-controversy-over-geforce-now-explained/

Having read the pieces you linked, it seems that GeForce Now is in fact more than a simple virtual machine. Still, I wouldn't call the argument about virtual machines "disingenuous", as it can still be useful to look into the economy of the situation. As it is, publishers are pulling their games because they can. Not because the service hurts their bottom line. As I said before, it's close to a double dipping scenario: get paid by the players when they purchase the game, then by nVidia when they host the game for streaming.

I realize that copyright law gives game publishers the exclusive right to control the distribution of their titles. If nVidia is making money from GeForce Now, it's natural for publishers to want compensation for making nVidia money. But as I said before, I have precious little sympathy for the gaming industry right now. Maybe nVidia is expecting publishers' decision to pull games to create enough backlash to give them an edge for negotiating licensing fees. I personally would be more likely to side with nVidia on this. But from what I've been reading, players' frustration is mostly aimed at nVidia, not the publishers.

MLGProPlayer

Video game publishers are scummy as hell. The only AAA publisher with a shred of integrity anymore is CDPR.

witchdoctor

Nestor wrote: »

I blame the Lawyers.

Lawyers are always messing up our fun, and billing us for it.

As a solicitor, I concur.

Your bill is in the mail.

MLGProPlayer

RefLiberty wrote: »

The publishers have given vague statements, leading many to surmise that it may be due to the lack of a revenue split or the fact that big game publishers would rather charge customers a second time for a separate license to play a game on a cloud gaming service, regardless of how it’s structured. Stadia, for instance, charges customers for games even if you own them on Steam already, and a lot of big publishers have signed up under those terms. But again, these are assumptions.

AAA publishers love double dipping.

Look at Bethesda. They've re-released Skyrim like 7 times on various platforms and even on the same platform. They charge you separately for each copy.

BuddyAces

MLGProPlayer wrote: »

Video game publishers are scummy as hell. The only AAA publisher with a shred of integrity anymore is CDPR.

Amen brother. There's no other company out there that can stand in the same room as them let alone be compared to them. They are what the standard should be. Not an anomaly.

Sylvermynx

CDPR? Not familiar with that....

Linaleah

Sylvermynx wrote: »

CDPR? Not familiar with that....

Witcher games and upcoming Cyberpunk

though I'm almost looking forward to CD project doing something businessy and immediately falling from grace with a certain kind of fan. some people put them on a pedestal so high, no company could possibly keep living up to that.

Sylvermynx

Linaleah wrote: »

Sylvermynx wrote: »

CDPR? Not familiar with that....

Witcher games and upcoming Syberpunk

though I'm almost looking forward to CD project doing something businessy and immediately falling from grace with a certain kind of fan.

Oh, is that the acronym for CD Project Red? I don't pay much attention there, as I don't have any interest in the games they release.

I'm.... pretty well set into TES. I won't play Witcher as it doesn't provide a female protagonist (also other games similar - I never play males as main protagonist), and Cyberpunk is (outside of Clockwork Castle in Skyrim - an addon) pretty much not my thing.

rpa

MLGProPlayer wrote: »

RefLiberty wrote: »

The publishers have given vague statements, leading many to surmise that it may be due to the lack of a revenue split or the fact that big game publishers would rather charge customers a second time for a separate license to play a game on a cloud gaming service, regardless of how it’s structured. Stadia, for instance, charges customers for games even if you own them on Steam already, and a lot of big publishers have signed up under those terms. But again, these are assumptions.

AAA publishers love double dipping.

Look at Bethesda. They've re-released Skyrim like 7 times on various platforms and even on the same platform. They charge you separately for each copy.

And Skyrim still have thousands of the bugs it had on launch left so first mods one has to install are the unofficial patches, before nude characters and skimpy armour.

Sylvermynx wrote: »

Linaleah wrote: »

Sylvermynx wrote: »

CDPR? Not familiar with that....

Witcher games and upcoming Syberpunk

though I'm almost looking forward to CD project doing something businessy and immediately falling from grace with a certain kind of fan.

Oh, is that the acronym for CD Project Red? I don't pay much attention there, as I don't have any interest in the games they release.

I'm.... pretty well set into TES. I won't play Witcher as it doesn't provide a female protagonist (also other games similar - I never play males as main protagonist), and Cyberpunk is (outside of Clockwork Castle in Skyrim - an addon) pretty much not my thing.

I believe there is a mod for Witcher 3 which allows one to play female protagonist. But I admit I have not tried it or Witcher mods in general, yet.