ESO bails on GeForce Now
-
darthgummibear_ESO✭✭✭✭✭
✭darthgummibear_ESO wrote: »witchdoctor wrote: »It is not just Bethesda. Activision was the first to leave GeForce Now. Possibly more leaving soon.
https://www.pcgamer.com/au/bethesda-softworks-games-have-been-removed-from-geforce-now/
So far it's just those two, the main reason being they are greedy as hell and wanted a bigger piece of the pie. CDPR is certainly onboard with Nvidia, and that's huge.
It’s not unreasonable for content creators (movie makers, music makers, game developers) to want the lions share of any distributed material rather than handing that over to the distributor/platform. You can see exactly the same conflict over rights for Spotify, Apple Music etc and it’s clearly a driving force behind both Netflix and Amazon’s desire to produce their own programming rather than pay others to do that for them.
If I were running a game development studio I would be looking to safeguard my IP and revenue too, while if I ran one of many game streaming services I’d be wanting to drive down payments to content creators as that might damage my subscriber base. Clearly GeForce and some studios disagree on the value of the game content.
The problem I have with this is with all these companies trying to do their own thing without any sort of equitable unification, digital entertainment is basically turning into cable television where you end up paying exorbitant amounts of money for content you'll in large part never use. Personally I've simply stopped partaking in most of it because I'm sick of feeling like a marketing yo-yo instead of a consumer who just wants more value for his money.2 -
Nanfoodle✭✭✭✭✭nafensoriel wrote: »Little upset here, I bought the game a second time on steam just to be able to play ESO on my PC or on my Shield in the living room. Also love doing things like crafting on my phone while I watch TV. I bought a Shield just for this option. Pls don't do this
Maybe Nvidia should stop being predatory jerks and trying to force everyone else to do whatever they think everyone else should do.
People are dropping them like the turd they are because they can't seem to understand that they are not allowed to tell other businesses what to do.
how is this nvidia telling them what to do?
It's not.0 -
Royaji✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭sekou_trayvond wrote: »It's early, but this is my nomination for "Most Adult and Level-headed Response to a Comment on ESO Forums" for 2020.darthgummibear_ESO wrote: »witchdoctor wrote: »It is not just Bethesda. Activision was the first to leave GeForce Now. Possibly more leaving soon.
https://www.pcgamer.com/au/bethesda-softworks-games-have-been-removed-from-geforce-now/
So far it's just those two, the main reason being they are greedy as hell and wanted a bigger piece of the pie. CDPR is certainly onboard with Nvidia, and that's huge.
It’s not unreasonable for content creators (movie makers, music makers, game developers) to want the lions share of any distributed material rather than handing that over to the distributor/platform. You can see exactly the same conflict over rights for Spotify, Apple Music etc and it’s clearly a driving force behind both Netflix and Amazon’s desire to produce their own programming rather than pay others to do that for them.
If I were running a game development studio I would be looking to safeguard my IP and revenue too, while if I ran one of many game streaming services I’d be wanting to drive down payments to content creators as that might damage my subscriber base. Clearly GeForce and some studios disagree on the value of the game content.
That would be the case, had the analysis not been way off target. With GeForce Now, players need to previously own the games or have valid access to them, i.e. it works on your existing game library. This is very different from Stadia, that provides access to a catalogue of games as part of the streaming service itself. As I see it, Activision Blizzard and Bethesda Softworks appear to be trying to double dip by getting the game price (as well as in-game purchases) AND part of the GeForce Now subscription.
I owned a pc copy of the game, to play on GeForce I had to buy a copy on steam.
That may be the case, but it's beside the point. I was replying to a claim that Bethesda was arguably justified in pulling their IP from GeForce Now as a way of protecting their IP. I don't know if the service is restricted to Steam games or not, what I said is that whatever the case, you need to previously have access to a game of you want to stream it on GeForce Now, as opposed to the game being included with the service as I believe happens with Stadia. If ESO were available in both services, ZOS would only be paid by Google in the case of Stadia, but would receive the game price from the player in addition to whatever it charged Nvidia in the second case. Hence my mentioning double dipping.
I don't agree, I'm all for paying for the products I play. Game Studios more and more are finding ways to get people to rebuy content they have already bought. In this case just for the ability to stream it. ESO was pulled by the studio with no thought that their customers would need to rebuy the game again to get the same service they have already paid for.
Here is the slippery slope we as gamers need to start speaking out about now. No longer do we own anything or the rights to anything. This type of practice can become common as studios get better offers from different streaming services. Or as streaming services decide to put things behind pay walls. Won't be long before we get the short end of the stick in many ways. Studios need to be held responsible for how their decisions effect this customers wallet in this kind of matter. And this should outrage gamers. If we don't, we are not gonna like where this will end up. Zen needs to do something, anything to show these customers they matter.
As with any new and upcoming technology the legislation is slow to catch up. In this case the license you have acquired from ZOS most likely has no mention of streaming in any way or form because streaming was not even a thing when it was written. As streaming services establish themselves the legislation will slowly start catching up and you will start seeing more and more cases of companies stating directly which streaming services you will be able to use with your license.
The bumps an early adopter has to experience are usually par for the course with any kind of new thing. But if we were to look at objective facts, you don't have any legal ground to demand anything from Zenimax or nVidia in this case.2 -
daemonios✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭sekou_trayvond wrote: »It's early, but this is my nomination for "Most Adult and Level-headed Response to a Comment on ESO Forums" for 2020.darthgummibear_ESO wrote: »witchdoctor wrote: »It is not just Bethesda. Activision was the first to leave GeForce Now. Possibly more leaving soon.
https://www.pcgamer.com/au/bethesda-softworks-games-have-been-removed-from-geforce-now/
So far it's just those two, the main reason being they are greedy as hell and wanted a bigger piece of the pie. CDPR is certainly onboard with Nvidia, and that's huge.
It’s not unreasonable for content creators (movie makers, music makers, game developers) to want the lions share of any distributed material rather than handing that over to the distributor/platform. You can see exactly the same conflict over rights for Spotify, Apple Music etc and it’s clearly a driving force behind both Netflix and Amazon’s desire to produce their own programming rather than pay others to do that for them.
If I were running a game development studio I would be looking to safeguard my IP and revenue too, while if I ran one of many game streaming services I’d be wanting to drive down payments to content creators as that might damage my subscriber base. Clearly GeForce and some studios disagree on the value of the game content.
That would be the case, had the analysis not been way off target. With GeForce Now, players need to previously own the games or have valid access to them, i.e. it works on your existing game library. This is very different from Stadia, that provides access to a catalogue of games as part of the streaming service itself. As I see it, Activision Blizzard and Bethesda Softworks appear to be trying to double dip by getting the game price (as well as in-game purchases) AND part of the GeForce Now subscription.
I owned a pc copy of the game, to play on GeForce I had to buy a copy on steam.
That may be the case, but it's beside the point. I was replying to a claim that Bethesda was arguably justified in pulling their IP from GeForce Now as a way of protecting their IP. I don't know if the service is restricted to Steam games or not, what I said is that whatever the case, you need to previously have access to a game of you want to stream it on GeForce Now, as opposed to the game being included with the service as I believe happens with Stadia. If ESO were available in both services, ZOS would only be paid by Google in the case of Stadia, but would receive the game price from the player in addition to whatever it charged Nvidia in the second case. Hence my mentioning double dipping.
I don't agree, I'm all for paying for the products I play. Game Studios more and more are finding ways to get people to rebuy content they have already bought. In this case just for the ability to stream it. ESO was pulled by the studio with no thought that their customers would need to rebuy the game again to get the same service they have already paid for.
Here is the slippery slope we as gamers need to start speaking out about now. No longer do we own anything or the rights to anything. This type of practice can become common as studios get better offers from different streaming services. Or as streaming services decide to put things behind pay walls. Won't be long before we get the short end of the stick in many ways. Studios need to be held responsible for how their decisions effect this customers wallet in this kind of matter. And this should outrage gamers. If we don't, we are not gonna like where this will end up. Zen needs to do something, anything to show these customers they matter.
I honestly don't understand your replies. Google Stadia rents out games. GeForce Now does not. It lets you stream a cloud-hosted copy of a game that you've independently purchased. The game publisher will already have been compensated, and I assume in the case of ESO any additional payments - ESO+ or microtransactions - are paid to the publisher. Nvidia only provides the cloud hosting and streaming.Edited by daemonios on February 22, 2020 8:34PM1 -
Nanfoodle✭✭✭✭✭sekou_trayvond wrote: »It's early, but this is my nomination for "Most Adult and Level-headed Response to a Comment on ESO Forums" for 2020.darthgummibear_ESO wrote: »witchdoctor wrote: »It is not just Bethesda. Activision was the first to leave GeForce Now. Possibly more leaving soon.
https://www.pcgamer.com/au/bethesda-softworks-games-have-been-removed-from-geforce-now/
So far it's just those two, the main reason being they are greedy as hell and wanted a bigger piece of the pie. CDPR is certainly onboard with Nvidia, and that's huge.
It’s not unreasonable for content creators (movie makers, music makers, game developers) to want the lions share of any distributed material rather than handing that over to the distributor/platform. You can see exactly the same conflict over rights for Spotify, Apple Music etc and it’s clearly a driving force behind both Netflix and Amazon’s desire to produce their own programming rather than pay others to do that for them.
If I were running a game development studio I would be looking to safeguard my IP and revenue too, while if I ran one of many game streaming services I’d be wanting to drive down payments to content creators as that might damage my subscriber base. Clearly GeForce and some studios disagree on the value of the game content.
That would be the case, had the analysis not been way off target. With GeForce Now, players need to previously own the games or have valid access to them, i.e. it works on your existing game library. This is very different from Stadia, that provides access to a catalogue of games as part of the streaming service itself. As I see it, Activision Blizzard and Bethesda Softworks appear to be trying to double dip by getting the game price (as well as in-game purchases) AND part of the GeForce Now subscription.
I owned a pc copy of the game, to play on GeForce I had to buy a copy on steam.
That may be the case, but it's beside the point. I was replying to a claim that Bethesda was arguably justified in pulling their IP from GeForce Now as a way of protecting their IP. I don't know if the service is restricted to Steam games or not, what I said is that whatever the case, you need to previously have access to a game of you want to stream it on GeForce Now, as opposed to the game being included with the service as I believe happens with Stadia. If ESO were available in both services, ZOS would only be paid by Google in the case of Stadia, but would receive the game price from the player in addition to whatever it charged Nvidia in the second case. Hence my mentioning double dipping.
I don't agree, I'm all for paying for the products I play. Game Studios more and more are finding ways to get people to rebuy content they have already bought. In this case just for the ability to stream it. ESO was pulled by the studio with no thought that their customers would need to rebuy the game again to get the same service they have already paid for.
Here is the slippery slope we as gamers need to start speaking out about now. No longer do we own anything or the rights to anything. This type of practice can become common as studios get better offers from different streaming services. Or as streaming services decide to put things behind pay walls. Won't be long before we get the short end of the stick in many ways. Studios need to be held responsible for how their decisions effect this customers wallet in this kind of matter. And this should outrage gamers. If we don't, we are not gonna like where this will end up. Zen needs to do something, anything to show these customers they matter.
I honestly don't understand your replies. Google Stadia rents out games. GeForce Now does not. It lets you stream a cloud-hosted copy of a game that you've independently purchased. The game publisher will already have been compensated, and I assume in the case of ESO any additional payments - ESO+ or microtransactions - are paid to the publisher. Nvidia only provides the cloud hosting and streaming.
And in both cases a customer has bought a game to play on a service. Zen has taken away ESO from GeForce so that copy of the game no longer works on that service. So now to stream ESO that same game needs to be bought again. 6 months from now, 1 year, or when ever Zen decides they like a deal better elsewhere. Same thing, the copy of the game you bought with Google is no longer useable. Time to buy it at another service. Then say the new service decides MMO players, play longer then the average gamer and now adds a MMO fee?
My point is game studios need to be held responsible for these decisions that impact our wallet. You can't do that with the streaming service. Ultimately we are Zen's customer. This will become a slippery slope if we don't.2 -
VaranisArano✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭sekou_trayvond wrote: »It's early, but this is my nomination for "Most Adult and Level-headed Response to a Comment on ESO Forums" for 2020.darthgummibear_ESO wrote: »witchdoctor wrote: »It is not just Bethesda. Activision was the first to leave GeForce Now. Possibly more leaving soon.
https://www.pcgamer.com/au/bethesda-softworks-games-have-been-removed-from-geforce-now/
So far it's just those two, the main reason being they are greedy as hell and wanted a bigger piece of the pie. CDPR is certainly onboard with Nvidia, and that's huge.
It’s not unreasonable for content creators (movie makers, music makers, game developers) to want the lions share of any distributed material rather than handing that over to the distributor/platform. You can see exactly the same conflict over rights for Spotify, Apple Music etc and it’s clearly a driving force behind both Netflix and Amazon’s desire to produce their own programming rather than pay others to do that for them.
If I were running a game development studio I would be looking to safeguard my IP and revenue too, while if I ran one of many game streaming services I’d be wanting to drive down payments to content creators as that might damage my subscriber base. Clearly GeForce and some studios disagree on the value of the game content.
That would be the case, had the analysis not been way off target. With GeForce Now, players need to previously own the games or have valid access to them, i.e. it works on your existing game library. This is very different from Stadia, that provides access to a catalogue of games as part of the streaming service itself. As I see it, Activision Blizzard and Bethesda Softworks appear to be trying to double dip by getting the game price (as well as in-game purchases) AND part of the GeForce Now subscription.
I owned a pc copy of the game, to play on GeForce I had to buy a copy on steam.
That may be the case, but it's beside the point. I was replying to a claim that Bethesda was arguably justified in pulling their IP from GeForce Now as a way of protecting their IP. I don't know if the service is restricted to Steam games or not, what I said is that whatever the case, you need to previously have access to a game of you want to stream it on GeForce Now, as opposed to the game being included with the service as I believe happens with Stadia. If ESO were available in both services, ZOS would only be paid by Google in the case of Stadia, but would receive the game price from the player in addition to whatever it charged Nvidia in the second case. Hence my mentioning double dipping.
I don't agree, I'm all for paying for the products I play. Game Studios more and more are finding ways to get people to rebuy content they have already bought. In this case just for the ability to stream it. ESO was pulled by the studio with no thought that their customers would need to rebuy the game again to get the same service they have already paid for.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but you still own the copy of ESO that you bought to use for streaming, right? You just lack any way to play it now since you only use the Nvidia devices. Do I have that correct?1 -
Cireous✭✭✭✭✭
✭Stupid question: When ESO was working on Geforce Now, could you play it on your phone using addons? Cuz that would have been amazing.0 -
MehmetCan✭✭✭It's nothing else but Bethesda's greed.
We have already paid for our game. We can play it wherever we want. And we also choose to pay nvidia to use their hardware to play our own game.
6 -
CallmeFishmeal✭✭✭I hate that ESO is gone from GeForce Now
That's the only game I played for years during beta and paid for the founder membership to keep playing. Now that it's gone, and the game especially with this event is getting more and more irritating, I'll prob just have to stop playing. Too bad I already prepurchased Greymoore. ZOS has my money, why would care if I play or not now? 3 -
zaria✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭
Problem is not servers its clients, think its mostly the cpu on consoles are weak.butterrum222 wrote: »Want to play on your tv? Console > pc
Oh wow, no one has figured that out.
I am sure people love to
1. Buy second copy
2. Play worse version of game. No addons, graphics are same as on low at pc (and still fps is bad) and several removed features
3. listen annoying voice chat that is on default on with console versions
4. What I can tell from forums, servers are even worse on consoles.
Yes PS5 and new Xbox will help a lot here.
And it has been no issues running pc games on an TV since hdmi became common.
Plug hdmi cable into graphic card and the other end into TV. Use it to play plenty of videos myself.
Grinding just make you go in circles.
Asking ZoS for nerfs is as stupid as asking for close air support from the death star.1 -
Lady_Linux✭✭✭✭✭Well if you want it back on Nvidia, you're going to have to sue and claim a violation of the tos and claim that the system you rented from geforce now qualifies as your personal computer and that zos is denying your right to play on your personal computer, though it be a rented one...
aside from that i see no way forward...I simply must protest. There are no Penguin avatars for me to use in the forums.
BTW, I use arch too2 -
witchdoctor✭✭✭✭✭
✭I think the interesting question didn't get answered: when you signed up for GeForce Now, did they tell you this was a trial period and services presently available may or may not be there in the future?
If so, then why are you shocked it changed?
If not, then your anger appears misplaced.4 -
nafensoriel✭✭✭✭✭nafensoriel wrote: »Little upset here, I bought the game a second time on steam just to be able to play ESO on my PC or on my Shield in the living room. Also love doing things like crafting on my phone while I watch TV. I bought a Shield just for this option. Pls don't do this
Maybe Nvidia should stop being predatory jerks and trying to force everyone else to do whatever they think everyone else should do.
People are dropping them like the turd they are because they can't seem to understand that they are not allowed to tell other businesses what to do.
how is this nvidia telling them what to do?
Nvidia has an extremely long history of shady behind the scenes demands and attempts at acquiring absolute exclusivity on anything with their brand name attached.
The last time they tried this they attempted to force manufacturers to drop AMD from brands that were under the Nvidia umbrella(Strix for asus as an example). This would have forced manufacturers to make new product lines(not easy or cheap).
You won't hear a single thing about these demands unless the companies involved say anything. Most oddly enough don't say a peep and it gets leaked by employees months later.
If suddenly EVERYONE is dropping an Nvidia product though you can be darn sure its Nvidia doing something they absolutely do not agree with.
2 -
Narvuntien✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭Super disappointing since GeForce now was basically a Rent-a-PC service rather than the pointless Stadia.
I could see myself using GeForce Now for a month if I went on Holiday and still wanted to play games.2 -
krayphysh✭✭✭ZOS, how about an explanation? We deserve to know why you have complicated the lives of millions of your customers.2 -
Everstorm✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭Narvuntien wrote: »Super disappointing since GeForce now was basically a Rent-a-PC service rather than the pointless Stadia.
I could see myself using GeForce Now for a month if I went on Holiday and still wanted to play games.
I'm using an actual rent-a-pc service. No issues with licenses and what not: Shadow.tech.0 -
Reverb✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Lady_Linux wrote: »Well if you want it back on Nvidia, you're going to have to sue and claim a violation of the tos and claim that the system you rented from geforce now qualifies as your personal computer and that zos is denying your right to play on your personal computer, though it be a rented one...
aside from that i see no way forward...
But it’s not a violation of the terms. Cloud gaming (on any platform) isn’t one of the services they committed to in the tos. And even if someone were to make the claim that GE Force Now is their Pc, the terms specify “ ZeniMax does not warrant, represent or guarantee that a Service will be accessible or useable on all equipment”. Additionally the GE Force Now system doesn’t meet the minimum system specifications defined by Zeni for the game. Anyonw who filed a lawsuit on that basis would be wasting their money and their time. Frankly, it’s a ridiculous suggestion.Battle not with monsters, lest ye become a monster, and if you gaze into the abyss, the abyss gazes also into you. ~Friedrich Nietzsche0 -
nafensoriel✭✭✭✭✭
Wrong company.
Bethesda now controls ID software btw. As much of a trainwreck as FO76 was the fact that anyone made creation engine multiplayer is actually a pretty huge accomplishment. I think people will be surprised at future MP enabled games from Bethesda if they ever allow IDs team to truely go ham.0 -
Lady_Linux✭✭✭✭✭Start a class action claiming zos violated the tos for not allowing you to play your game on your rented system. Short of that i doubt you will see a change any time soon.I simply must protest. There are no Penguin avatars for me to use in the forums.
BTW, I use arch too0 -
Elsonso✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Lady_Linux wrote: »Start a class action claiming zos violated the tos for not allowing you to play your game on your rented system. Short of that i doubt you will see a change any time soon.
Even with that, I doubt you will see a change any time soon.
XBox EU/NA:@ElsonsoJannus
PC NA/EU: @Elsonso
PSN NA/EU: @ElsonsoJannus
Total in-game hours: 11321
X/Twitter: ElsonsoJannus1 -
Reverb✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Lady_Linux wrote: »Start a class action claiming zos violated the tos for not allowing you to play your game on your rented system. Short of that i doubt you will see a change any time soon.
Please link and paste the section of the ToS you think this violates?Battle not with monsters, lest ye become a monster, and if you gaze into the abyss, the abyss gazes also into you. ~Friedrich Nietzsche0 -
Contaminate✭✭✭✭✭
✭Lady_Linux wrote: »Start a class action claiming zos violated the tos for not allowing you to play your game on your rented system. Short of that i doubt you will see a change any time soon.
Please link and paste the section of the ToS you think this violates?
If ZOS terminated every active account and demanded everyone rebuy their game in order to have access restored, that’s technically not against their ToS, but it would be plenty to justify a formal BBB investigation.0 -
nafensoriel✭✭✭✭✭To anyone saying "sue ZOS"...
ZOS deals with Nvidia.. you deal with ZOS and you deal with Nvidia. You cannot sue ZOS for no longer dealing with another company. You cannot sue NVidia for being unable to keep ZOS as a client.
If you believe otherwise you are quite mistaken.
If anything you should be directing your anger at Nvidia. Nvidia sells its service as "access to other stores anywhere."
If you can no longer access a store or an item in that store that is Nvidias fault for failing to make the platform attractive enough for those companies.0 -
Avariprivateer✭✭✭Lady_Linux wrote: »Well if you want it back on Nvidia, you're going to have to sue and claim a violation of the tos and claim that the system you rented from geforce now qualifies as your personal computer and that zos is denying your right to play on your personal computer, though it be a rented one...
aside from that i see no way forward...
But it’s not a violation of the terms. Cloud gaming (on any platform) isn’t one of the services they committed to in the tos. And even if someone were to make the claim that GE Force Now is their Pc, the terms specify “ ZeniMax does not warrant, represent or guarantee that a Service will be accessible or useable on all equipment”. Additionally the GE Force Now system doesn’t meet the minimum system specifications defined by Zeni for the game. Anyonw who filed a lawsuit on that basis would be wasting their money and their time. Frankly, it’s a ridiculous suggestion.
Could that be explained further? Most of the servers run on Xeon or Intel CC150 and the GPU is either Tesla T10 or Tesla P40 24 GB VRAM.Edited by Avariprivateer on February 23, 2020 10:38PM3 -
Nanfoodle✭✭✭✭✭Avariprivateer wrote: »Lady_Linux wrote: »Well if you want it back on Nvidia, you're going to have to sue and claim a violation of the tos and claim that the system you rented from geforce now qualifies as your personal computer and that zos is denying your right to play on your personal computer, though it be a rented one...
aside from that i see no way forward...
But it’s not a violation of the terms. Cloud gaming (on any platform) isn’t one of the services they committed to in the tos. And even if someone were to make the claim that GE Force Now is their Pc, the terms specify “ ZeniMax does not warrant, represent or guarantee that a Service will be accessible or useable on all equipment”. Additionally the GE Force Now system doesn’t meet the minimum system specifications defined by Zeni for the game. Anyonw who filed a lawsuit on that basis would be wasting their money and their time. Frankly, it’s a ridiculous suggestion.
Could that be explained further? Most of the servers run on Xeon or Intel CC150 and the GPU is either Tesla T10 or Tesla P40 24 GB VRAM.
My guess they don't get what a streaming service is.0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YPw0wTfFLdI