Reardan:

In the case of Geforce Now Nvidia is just providing a PC, you're providing the licenses. The sticking point is that some developers are pretending your license isn't valid for the service. In the case of BLizzard, they're technically right (but morally wrong) but for others like 2k and Hinterlands they're lying and hoping no one challenges it legally

If only more posts on Guru3D had the same level of infallible logic 🙂 This, ladies and germs, is why Stadia is failing - and let us be honest, were you even thinking about it before I mentioned it?

jitadasi:

Do they get a royalty for each user who plays a game, or for each instance of a game run? Is it a flat rate for the IP overall?

It's neither - Nvidia isn't paying anything for the IP and why would they? It's my license I'm just playing it on a rented computer.

nosirrahx:

So what's the gamble here? Do the studios believe that there is tangibly more $ to be made forcing people to use only certain devices to play their games than there is selling games to people that will only buy them if they can play then on just about any platform?

Publishers are stupid single sighted companies that only see the cha ching of dollar signs. Any 'service' that is offering people a way of playing their games and they are not getting some sort of money from it is basically them not getting money they think they deserve. Now my understanding, is that to play a game via G force Now you have to own the game. Which basically means you have already bought and paid for the game, the publisher has made their cash from you but publishers being publishers they believe that some how some way they should be getting more money. Remove G force now and it's basically them expecting YOU to keep paying to play the game you have already bought.

Loobyluggs:

If only more posts on Guru3D had the same level of infallible logic 🙂 This, ladies and germs, is why Stadia is failing - and let us be honest, were you even thinking about it before I mentioned it?

Um.... False "In the case of Geforce Now Nvidia is just providing a PC, you're providing the licenses. The sticking point is that some developers are pretending your license isn't valid for the service. In the case of BLizzard, they're technically right (but morally wrong) but for others like 2k and Hinterlands they're lying and hoping no one challenges it legally" This is an invention there is some legal distinction regarding licensing. It's not logic, it is just a claim. If they are "technically correct" they are not lying. That's just another way of trying to argue against something you don't "like" but don't have legal basis to argue. Claiming they are 'morally wrong but LEGALLY CORRECT' is also not a logical argument. It is a plea to emotion.

The Laughing Ma:

Publishers are stupid single sighted companies that only see the cha ching of dollar signs. Any 'service' that is offering people a way of playing their games and they are not getting some sort of money from it is basically them not getting money they think they deserve. Now my understanding, is that to play a game via G force Now you have to own the game. Which basically means you have already bought and paid for the game, the publisher has made their cash from you but publishers being publishers they believe that some how some way they should be getting more money. Remove G force now and it's basically them expecting YOU to keep paying to play the game you have already bought.

Nvidia can generate revenue from this service by leveraging it to sell their products. Your last point I don't see how that follows. The game developer is not going to charge you for playing your game on your system. They just do not want another company leveraging their IP for profit.

HeavyHemi:

Um.... False "In the case of Geforce Now Nvidia is just providing a PC, you're providing the licenses. The sticking point is that some developers are pretending your license isn't valid for the service. In the case of BLizzard, they're technically right (but morally wrong) but for others like 2k and Hinterlands they're lying and hoping no one challenges it legally" This is an invention there is some legal distinction regarding licensing. It's not logic, it is just a claim. If they are "technically correct" they are not lying. That's just another way of trying to argue against something you don't "like" but don't have legal basis to argue. Claiming they are 'morally wrong but LEGALLY CORRECT' is also not a logical argument. It is a plea to emotion.

He's clearly referring specifically to blizzard. The other companies don't have any prior language in their licensing to restrict cloud gameplay.

HeavyHemi:

Nvidia can generate revenue from this service by leveraging it to sell their products. Your last point I don't see how that follows. The game developer is not going to charge you for playing your game on your system.

If the modern game industry has proven anything publishers / developers have no issue with other companies using their IPs to make money. Look at the amount of cross selling and advertising that goes on, ironically you even get games bundled with GPUs. The only difference in this instance is that the publishers / developers in this instance aren't making any cash, which I could understand if Nvidia was using their IP at a cost to them, i.e I could go on to Gforce now and play any 2k game I wanted and the only person making cash out of it would be Nvidia but my understanding is that for me to use their service to play a 2K game I have to already own that 2K game. In which case 2K have already gotten my money, all I am doing is renting hardware from Nvidia to play the game. I am also not really buying that Nvidia are using the service and their IP to sell their products. Doesn't their service negate the need to buy their products? Isn't the ironic thing that this service makes it so that folk who wouldn't normally be able to buy a system heavy game will now be able to go out and buy it knowing that they can use Gforce now to get the benefit out of a game they would otherwise have had to pass on? The whole thing just seems like a whole load of folk with too much money seeing who can p*ss hardest in to the wind and so far everyone seems to be getting the splash back.

Nvidia will never be able to compete with Steam's service, these big publishers are slow to understanding that fact..

Denial:

He's clearly referring specifically to blizzard. The other companies don't have any prior language in their licensing to restrict cloud gameplay.

Well pretending like this just became a thing is.... A game developer or publisher legally owns the rights to use of game images and video through copyright law. A game’s copyright holder can use copyright law to limit how their video game is used in online videos and streaming gameplay. For example, a video game developer may refuse to permit legal videos or images from their games, and could have their attorney send unauthorized users of their content legal takedown notices or sue unauthorized game streamers. Streamers have limited legal responses, with, arguably, the strongest legal defense being that the stream satisfies the Fair Use exemption. That’s a narrow rule saying that for purposes such as criticism, news reporting, teaching, and research, permission from or payment to the copyright holder isn’t required. From a business perspective, developers may adopt user-generated streaming content and game streaming as a fundamental and profitable area of the video game and esports industries. Streaming of video games can expand a game’s user base, drive sales, generate free publicity and foster groups of players who share their gaming experiences with one another. These communities are especially lucrative for advertisers, video game makers, and streamers. Many prominent video game developers have taken a middle-of-the-road approach, attempting to balance protecting their intellectual property with capturing the benefits of streaming gameplay. Perhaps the best example of video game makers exerting control over user videos and streams is Blizzard Entertainment. Blizzard explicitly allows consumers “to create video productions using Blizzard’s Content” so long as a video is available without charge. This policy limits use of company content to “non-commercial use,” but includes exceptions for video creators to earn partnership revenue from mainstream platforms such as YouTube, Justin.tv, Own3d.tv, and Ustream.tv. https://venturebeat.com/2017/05/27/the-emerging-legal-battle-over-video-game-streaming-rights/

The Laughing Ma:

If the modern game industry has proven anything publishers / developers have no issue with other companies using their IPs to make money. Look at the amount of cross selling and advertising that goes on, ironically you even get games bundled with GPUs. The only difference in this instance is that the publishers / developers in this instance aren't making any cash, which I could understand if Nvidia was using their IP at a cost to them, i.e I could go on to Gforce now and play any 2k game I wanted and the only person making cash out of it would be Nvidia but my understanding is that for me to use their service to play a 2K game I have to already own that 2K game. In which case 2K have already gotten my money, all I am doing is renting hardware from Nvidia to play the game. I am also not really buying that Nvidia are using the service and their IP to sell their products. Doesn't their service negate the need to buy their products? Isn't the ironic thing that this service makes it so that folk who wouldn't normally be able to buy a system heavy game will now be able to go out and buy it knowing that they can use Gforce now to get the benefit out of a game they would otherwise have had to pass on? The whole thing just seems like a whole load of folk with too much money seeing who can p*ss hardest in to the wind and so far everyone seems to be getting the splash back.

"If the modern game industry has proven anything publishers / developers have no issue with other companies using their IPs to make money. Look at the amount of cross selling and advertising that goes on, ironically you even get games bundled with GPUs." Actually they DO have issues, which is why they have CROSS LICENSING DEALS. You're making my point. Everyone wants to protect their cut of the revenue pie from their IP. Yes, we agree.

I think the best example of why this is messed up from the developers/publisher side is this: If i were to create a subscription based PC business that hands physical PCs to people for a monthly cost, never have ownership, and must return the PC when you stop subscribing/renting my computer, according to how nvidia is utilizing their service, game developers/publishers could tell me that i can't allow people to play their paid games on my systems they are renting. Sure, one you have physical access, the other you don't, but who cares? If i go and rent out a VM, am i not allowed to play a game on it, or rather is the VM company not allowed to allow us to play games on it? Where's the logic in that?

Aura89:

If i go and rent out a VM, am i not allowed to play a game on it, or rather is the VM company not allowed to allow us to play games on it? Where's the logic in that?

This is the part I don't understand, essentially Geforce Now is a VM. If you need a new license to play your game on a VM then what's to stop these developers/publishers from saying cdkeys/accounts are system bound? Imagine telling everyone that bought a new Ryzen CPU/mobo to re-purchase all their games.

HeavyHemi:

Well pretending like this just became a thing is.... A game developer or publisher legally owns the rights to use of game images and video through copyright law. A game’s copyright holder can use copyright law to limit how their video game is used in online videos and streaming gameplay. For example, a video game developer may refuse to permit legal videos or images from their games, and could have their attorney send unauthorized users of their content legal takedown notices or sue unauthorized game streamers. Streamers have limited legal responses, with, arguably, the strongest legal defense being that the stream satisfies the Fair Use exemption. That’s a narrow rule saying that for purposes such as criticism, news reporting, teaching, and research, permission from or payment to the copyright holder isn’t required.] From a business perspective, developers may adopt user-generated streaming content and game streaming as a fundamental and profitable area of the video game and esports industries. Streaming of video games can expand a game’s user base, drive sales, generate free publicity and foster groups of players who share their gaming experiences with one another. These communities are especially lucrative for advertisers, video game makers, and streamers. Many prominent video game developers have taken a middle-of-the-road approach, attempting to balance protecting their intellectual property with capturing the benefits of streaming gameplay. Perhaps the best example of video game makers exerting control over user videos and streams is Blizzard Entertainment. Blizzard explicitly allows consumers “to create video productions using Blizzard’s Content” so long as a video is available without charge. This policy limits use of company content to “non-commercial use,” but includes exceptions for video creators to earn partnership revenue from mainstream platforms such as YouTube, Justin.tv, Own3d.tv, and Ustream.tv.

Streaming a game is not the same as streaming gameplay. The audience for streaming gameplay is potentially thousands of people who may or may not have purchased the game, which may or may not fall under fair use. The audience for steaming a game is one, and that one definitely legally purchased the game. Zero effect on intellectual property usage. It's a horrible comparison.

HeavyHemi:

"If the modern game industry has proven anything publishers / developers have no issue with other companies using their IPs to make money. Look at the amount of cross selling and advertising that goes on, ironically you even get games bundled with GPUs." Actually they DO have issues, which is why they have CROSS LICENSING DEALS. You're making my point. Everyone wants to protect their cut of the revenue pie from their IP. Yes, we agree.

Anyone who uses Geforce NOW to play a game will need to purchase the game. The money they make remains the same regardless if it's played locally or using Geforce NOW.

Reardan:

I don't see why, that kind of language exists in agreements. These are licensing agreements and what they say does have some bearing on how the software is used provided the requirements aren't ridiculous and that one isn't. The best they could hope for, I think, would be that people who purchased before the ToS was changed could still be allowed to stream... But then they would just say people are breaking the ToS for the launcher software and shut it down.

The change is retroactive, and because not agreeing to the change prevents you from using your paid for games, the courts might not consider it a valid one, especially for those who were already using gfnow/splashtop/shadow, should they choose to contest it.

Cyberdyne:

Streaming a game is not the same as streaming gameplay. The audience for streaming gameplay is potentially thousands of people who may or may not have purchased the game, which may or may not fall under fair use. The audience for steaming a game is one, and that one definitely legally purchased the game. Zero effect on intellectual property usage. It's a horrible comparison.

How is a fact, a "horrible comparison"? Because you make assertions and state your opinions, does not make them true or alter what is the argument. I cited simple facts and the law. The point is someone else making money off of their IP not them making more or less revenue. It's the same concept as you profiting of the likeness of a famous actor. Congrats, you missed the entire point of nearly every post in this thread and the article I posted. Wow.

Cyberdyne:

Anyone who uses Geforce NOW to play a game will need to purchase the game. The money they make remains the same regardless if it's played locally or using Geforce NOW.

Obviously. I mean why are you trying to explain distinctions to me I already know and it is perfectly clear I know from my posts. They are not a dispute against the IP arguments made by those holding the rights. Trying to profit off of the IP of others is covered by law. Stick to arguing that. How you feel about it, is irrelevant.

Streaming or record your gameplay isn't owned by a company, you as a user create new content and are sole owner of it. Regardless this isn't the same thing. You simply play your purchased game on a rented HW and again the publisher has no right to say on which HW I can or cannot play the game I bought. By purchasing that game I own that one copy and can do whatever I want with it, regardless of what they put in their EULA. Because it is just a piece of paper that does not supersede the local laws.

Backstabak:

Streaming or record your gameplay isn't owned by a company, you as a user create new content and are sole owner of it. Regardless this isn't the same thing. You simply play your purchased game on a rented HW and again the publisher has no right to say on which HW I can or cannot play the game I bought. By purchasing that game I own that one copy and can do whatever I want with it, regardless of what they put in their EULA. Because it is just a piece of paper that does not supersede the local laws.

Where the problem comes is, you, meaning the collective public or single persons, are a private citizen not a corp. In our example, a corp is using the IP of another for their streaming game service. Nvidia, is not a charity. They expect in some manner, a return on the investment. It would appear existing IP laws cover this regardless of the EULA. I'm not arguing a pro or con, simply that the existing laws, would appear to be with the developer.

HeavyHemi:

Where the problem comes is, you, meaning the collective public or single persons, are a private citizen not a corp. In our example, a corp is using the IP of another for their streaming game service. Nvidia, is not a charity. They expect in some manner, a return on the investment. It would appear existing IP laws cover this regardless of the EULA. I'm not arguing a pro or con, simply that the existing laws, would appear to be with the developer.

EULA is regarding the streaming of your gameplay. It's solely your property that you have uniquely created by playing as you would. Any court, even in USA, would deem it to be obviously within fair use. I admit that I'm not familiar with specifics how Nvidia now works, so maybe they do use other's IP, even though they sell VM service. But maybe that's exactly their problem, that they sell it as a service for specific games. If they simply advertised it as a VM where you rent time and where there is preinstalled steam with most games and you just log in with your account and play, there would really be absolutely nothing any publisher could do. I don't think there is regardless, but maybe Nvidia thinks they need their consent or are at least afraid that they could be served with several lawsuits that could hinder the service.

Backstabak:

EULA is regarding the streaming of your gameplay. It's solely your property that you have uniquely created by playing as you would. Any court, even in USA, would deem it to be obviously within fair use. I admit that I'm not familiar with specifics how Nvidia now works, so maybe they do use other's IP, even though they sell VM service. But maybe that's exactly their problem, that they sell it as a service for specific games. If they simply advertised it as a VM where you rent time and where there is preinstalled steam with most games and you just log in with your account and play, there would really be absolutely nothing any publisher could do. I don't think there is regardless, but maybe Nvidia thinks they need their consent or are at least afraid that they could be served with several lawsuits that could hinder the service.

This is more or less how it works. When you first launch GeForce now it presents you with an opportunity to add games to a list in a UI not dissimilar to GeForce experience's games list. Once you click one, the VM opens and the steam login pops up and you log in. If you own the game, it launches, if you don't, it takes you to the steam store page for that game.

HeavyHemi:

How is a fact, a "horrible comparison"? Because you make assertions and state your opinions, does not make them true or alter what is the argument. I cited simple facts and the law. The point is someone else making money off of their IP not them making more or less revenue. It's the same concept as you profiting of the likeness of a famous actor. Congrats, you missed the entire point of nearly every post in this thread and the article I posted. Wow. Obviously. I mean why are you trying to explain distinctions to me I already know and it is perfectly clear I know from my posts. They are not a dispute against the IP arguments made by those holding the rights. Trying to profit off of the IP of others is covered by law. Stick to arguing that. How you feel about it, is irrelevant.

Yes I understand that's the law, but my point is streaming video gameplay on twitch is not a relevant comparison. The law you're citing doesn't apply.

Reardan:

This is more or less how it works. When you first launch GeForce now it presents you with an opportunity to add games to a list in a UI not dissimilar to GeForce experience's games list. Once you click one, the VM opens and the steam login pops up and you log in. If you own the game, it launches, if you don't, it takes you to the steam store page for that game.

Then I don't see how any publisher can demand anything from Nvidia. I think it's as I've said before, that Nvidia simply wants to show goodwill rather than strong-arm them. Plus if they were to e.g. disregard some small dev company, Nvidia would be demonized by public for profiting off of some poor small dev while paying them nothing.