• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
  • Hey Guest. Check out the NeoGAF 2.2 Update Thread for details on our new Giphy integration and other new features.

Drama Game Dev Platform Nvidia GeForce Now loses Bethesda Softworks games, 2K Games, Activision Blizzard...

IbizaPocholo

NeoGAFs Kent Brockman
Dec 1, 2014
25,086
24,811
1,335
ibiza

A week after losing all its Activision Blizzard games, Nvidia’s GeForce Now streaming service has lost “most Bethesda Softworks titles,” Nvidia said in an announcement Friday afternoon.

Wolfenstein: Youngblood will remain available for all users, Nvidia said. An Nvidia representative later told Polygon that Youngblood will be the only Bethesda title to stay on the service. Other Bethesda games leaving GeForce Now include the remainder of the Wolfenstein series; Fallout 3, 76, and New Vegas; The Elder Scrolls 5: Skyrim (and its Special Edition); Doom (2016); Dishonored and Dishonored 2; and The Evil Within 2.

Nvidia had no additional comment beyond the brief blog post.

Reached by Polygon, an Nvidia rep declined to comment when asked if Nvidia expected GeForce Now to lose access to other publishers’ titles. Ubisoft has several games in the streaming service’s catalog, as do 2K Games, Warner Bros. Games, Sega, and Codemasters.

Polygon also reached out to a Bethesda representative for comment, but did not receive a reply by publication time.

Thanks mods for the title change🍻
 
Last edited:

Lupin3

Targeting terrorists with a D-Pad
May 9, 2006
2,436
3,112
1,790
 

llien

Member
Feb 1, 2017
9,483
7,468
935
So someone makes a decent streaming platform and companies remove their games to tank it.Whats going on here?
Soo.. what makes it decent please?
GAF told me game streaming sucks, cause latency, traffic, among other things.
 

Soltype

Member
Mar 30, 2015
2,497
1,617
570
Soo.. what makes it decent please?
GAF told me game streaming sucks, cause latency, traffic, among other things.
It's the best one I've tried.Streaming is never ideal, only used when absolutely necessary.
 

llien

Member
Feb 1, 2017
9,483
7,468
935
It's the best one I've tried.Streaming is never ideal, only used when absolutely necessary.

Note that being "the best of them" doesn't make it decent. E.g. one of the cars produced in USSR was the best of them, but none were decent.
That being said, which other PC game streaming services did you try? (comparing it to console only streaming isn't fair)
 

thelastword

Member
Apr 7, 2006
11,629
11,499
1,850
Which brings us to the ever recurring decimal.....It does not matter how big you are......You have the balls and warchest of MS, Google, Nvidia, Amazon......but do you have the games, (the propellant?), the activator, the thing that makes gamers give a damn....

What's stopping any developer from taking it's games off your service and establishing their own if they have a large stable of their own games......Streaming is games delivery like anything else, the games need to be the attractor....The best streaming service next gen will be the streaming service that offers the most appealing games, just like the people who purchased the console with the most appealing games this gen.....How you deliver the game is not the issue, it's what games you deliver....
 
Oct 16, 2017
1,524
2,419
405
This is the unexpected new barrier to game streaming; game companies being greedy and wanting to sell the same game to the same player twice.

This is clearly a grey area in the "game license" argument. Clearly, it isn't enough that game studios don't want you to copy the game files you purchased; they also want to dictate what hardware you get to play your games on. I actually think the law would come on the side of Nvidia on this one; but that requires that Nvidia bother to spend the money to fight a costly court case.

Well, at some point someone will fight against it. And then we will know if we will lose ANOTHER right as a consumer.
 

M1chl

Currently Gif and Meme Champion
Dec 25, 2019
8,752
15,126
935
Prague, Czech Republic
That's why only solution which is addition to local HW make sense, not this shit...

This is the unexpected new barrier to game streaming; game companies being greedy and wanting to sell the same game to the same player twice.

This is clearly a grey area in the "game license" argument. Clearly, it isn't enough that game studios don't want you to copy the game files you purchased; they also want to dictate what hardware you get to play your games on. I actually think the law would come on the side of Nvidia on this one; but that requires that Nvidia bother to spend the money to fight a costly court case.

Well, at some point someone will fight against it. And then we will know if we will lose ANOTHER right as a consumer.
Because this never happend before, right? Oh wait, it has always been like this. Closes you can get is with GamePass and that's with additional payment for the GP: Ultimate, so not really the case still. And on the top of that, you never own those games.
 
Last edited:

wolffy71

Member
Feb 19, 2014
607
559
555
Im trying to think of an example of this that is equivalent. Streaming music comes to mind but its not quite the same. Tv show producers maybe? They would be paid to put their media, on say broadcast tv, but do they get paid extra if FX streams it over an app?
 

diffusionx

Member
Feb 25, 2006
14,571
14,665
1,800
Taking away every game but Youngblood is just adding insult to injury.

This is the unexpected new barrier to game streaming; game companies being greedy and wanting to sell the same game to the same player twice.

It's really not unexpected at all. See what happened with Netflix once it started bringing in real money. Nvidia should have been prepared for this quite frankly. This is on them.
 
Last edited:
Oct 16, 2017
1,524
2,419
405
Because this never happend before, right? Oh wait, it has always been like this. Closes you can get is with GamePass and that's with additional payment for the GP: Ultimate, so not really the case still. And on the top of that, you never own those games.
What do you mean? It was never like this. The person who buys a game, owns the license to play that game for that person. But there was never any attempt to say you could only play it on one machine. You were suppose to be able to transfer the software to new machines. That's what a "license" mean.

If I own a licence of Windows 10, I am able to transfer it to a new computer when I upgrade. That's how software licensees work. If it doesn't work like that, then software as we know it would stop existing. It would no longer be software if it is restricted to one machine.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Azelover and M1chl

M1chl

Currently Gif and Meme Champion
Dec 25, 2019
8,752
15,126
935
Prague, Czech Republic
What do you mean? It was never like this. The person who buys a game, owns the license to play that game for that person. But there was never any attempt to say you could only play it on one machine. You were suppose to be able to transfer the software to new machines. That's what a "license" mean.

If I own a licence of Windows 10, I am able to transfer it to a new computer when I upgrade. That's how software licensees work. If it doesn't work like that, then software as we know it would stop existing. It would no longer be software if it is restricted to one machine.
Oh I thought, that you meant, that "now companies going to be being greedy", my bad, sorry about that.
 

Fbh

Member
Dec 6, 2013
15,186
10,502
1,070
Not surprising. If streaming takes off big franchises become valuable just as they are on TV streaming . So big companies will want to stay away from services where they get no direct revenue

Soo.. what makes it decent please?
GAF told me game streaming sucks, cause latency, traffic, among other things.

It has a decent free tier and you can link your steam account (and I think other services too) to be able to play all your compatible games at no additional cost.

It doesn't necessarily make it good, but it's a way better deal than Stadia
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Azelover and llien

Soltype

Member
Mar 30, 2015
2,497
1,617
570
Note that being "the best of them" doesn't make it decent. E.g. one of the cars produced in USSR was the best of them, but none were decent.
That being said, which other PC game streaming services did you try? (comparing it to console only streaming isn't fair)
I tried Stadia, and Shadow when I was out of town.Price and performance considered,GeForce Now is decent.I get the feeling you're being duplicitous, I may be wrong though.What services have you tried, what are your experiences with cloud gaming?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Azelover and llien

Danny Dudekisser

I paid good money for this Dynex!
Oct 13, 2008
21,009
8,421
1,480
Customer: "I'd like to buy 10 sheets of drywall from you. I don't have my own truck, but my neighbor is willing to pick it up and deliver it to my house for me."

Store: "No"

I mean, that's kind of reductive. The reason companies are pulling their games is because Nvidia launched this thing that's only as valuable as the games that it allows you to play, but Nvidia isn't paying most of these devs and is essentially just leeching off of their content. Maybe that's not entirely fair, but that's *literally* the reason why for more than a few of the big devs. There's more in the process of pulling their games in the next few weeks, too.
 
Oct 16, 2017
1,524
2,419
405
Not surprising. If streaming takes off big franchises become valuable just as they are on TV streaming . So big companies will want to stay away from services where they get no direct revenue
But legally, it is not up to the game studio to make that decision. The user had purchased a software license.

The issue here is that the legal battle to allow the user to install on a remote machine is costly. i expect some company rich enough, to actually fight for that right. There is a real case here. You running a game on a cloud should NOT be considered a separate license to running that same game on any other piece of regular hardware.

As long as the game owner is playing for himself by himself, it should not matter what machine he runs the software on.

I mean, that's kind of reductive. The reason companies are pulling their games is because Nvidia launched this thing that's only as valuable as the games that it allows you to play, but Nvidia isn't paying most of these devs and is essentially just leeching off of their content. Maybe that's not entirely fair, but that's *literally* the reason why for more than a few of the big devs. There's more in the process of pulling their games in the next few weeks, too.
But that is exactly wrong. the games are paid for, the users already paid for the software license. Nividia provided a distant hardware rental service and was being compensated for the cost of streaming and electricity. There is no leeching, and to pretending there was leeching is misrepresenting reality.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: diffusionx

EverydayBeast

thinks Halo Infinite is a new graphical benchmark
Aug 18, 2017
9,254
6,474
870
Mount Olympus
www.neogaf.com
Wolfenstein series; Fallout 3, 76, and New Vegas; The Elder Scrolls 5: Skyrim (and its Special Edition); Doom (2016); Dishonored and Dishonored 2; and The Evil Within 2.

These are game of the year contenders, huge lose. Think about it, Elder Scrolls? It's everywhere. Evil Within 2? Legit game. Having Bethesda games on your service helps it.
 

Danny Dudekisser

I paid good money for this Dynex!
Oct 13, 2008
21,009
8,421
1,480
But that is exactly wrong. the games are paid for, the users already paid for the software license. Nividia provided a distant hardware rental service and was being compensated for the cost of streaming and electricity. There is no leeching, and to pretending there was leeching is misrepresenting reality.

I'm not saying that you're wrong, but what publishers are actually saying is that Nvidia's service is benefiting from their IP, and they want to directly share in that success.
 
Last edited:

The Alien

Member
Feb 10, 2018
1,513
1,741
410
I missed all those articles where evil Micro$oft was stealing games away from virtuous Nvidia.

If anyone actually read why Activision pulled their games, they'd know why Bethesda did.

Nvidia never had the licensing agreements in place beyond beta. So although deals weren't actually in place, Nvidia decided to go out of beta....go live...and start charging.

But yeah, let's just blame Microsoft.....they're the easy villain.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SoloKingRobert
Oct 16, 2017
1,524
2,419
405
I'm not saying that you're wrong, but what publishers are actually saying is that Nvidia's service is benefiting from their IP, and they want to directly share in that success.
Then you are saying game studios should demand a share in profits of every computer sold, which was then used to play their game; that is the stretch in logic.

The Software License the gamer paid for, EXISTS. And Game studios don't get to decide that the license doesn't matter anymore just because they feel like it.

Right now this is simply something that had not been challenged in court yet, but I expect it to be one day.

I missed all those articles where evil Micro$oft was stealing games away from virtuous Nvidia.

If anyone actually read why Activision pulled their games, they'd know why Bethesda did.

Nvidia never had the licensing agreements in place beyond beta. So although deals weren't actually in place, Nvidia decided to go out of beta....go live...and start charging.

But yeah, let's just blame Microsoft.....they're the easy villain.
There is NO NEED for Nividia to have any license. The customers provided their own private software license, for the customer's personal use. Software can be transfered between hardware, that's what makes them "Soft". The fact that in game streaming the software was installed on remote piece of hardware does not invalid the license that exists. Nividia simply offers a computer rental service.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: diffusionx

Gamezone

Gold Member
Nov 2, 2014
7,968
2,133
985
34
Norway
Soo.. what makes it decent please?
GAF told me game streaming sucks, cause latency, traffic, among other things.

It still sucks. I would never replace local hardware for a streaming service, but GeForce Now was a cheap, alternative option for those who can't afford their own PC, or just want to play on the go.
 
  • Like
Reactions: llien

Gamezone

Gold Member
Nov 2, 2014
7,968
2,133
985
34
Norway
With GeForce Now basically fucked, I guess we have to wait for Valve to release their cloud service.

There are evidence that Valve is working on their own cloud service, and like with xCloud, publishers who wants their games on Steam most likely have to agree having their games on their cloud service.

 
Oct 16, 2017
1,524
2,419
405
With GeForce Now basically fucked, I guess we have to wait for Valve to release their cloud service.

There are evidence that Valve is working on their own cloud service, and like with xCloud, publishers who wants their games on Steam most likely have to agree having their games on their cloud service.

At the very least, Valve is wealthy enough to be willing to fight the legal battle over the player's right to their software license that they paid for.

I 100% believe that Nvidia was in the legal right, but that they were not willing to spend money on a costly courtcase to defend their buisness model. Valve, however, has the financial means.

If you bought a software license, you are free to run that software on any hardware as long as it is for your personal use. That is the LAW. Now we just need someone like Valve to defend that law.
 

Stilton Disco

Member
Aug 22, 2014
7,058
7,916
800
England
So we've got lag, image degradation, devaluing games, no modding, not owning anything you pay for, potential for games to just be pulled from the service one day due to licensing, exclusivity deal bollocks and now randomly pulling games due to backroom shenanigans and greed.

That streaming future for gaming, that shareholders are oh so furiously masturbating over the idea of is, just looking rosier and rosier for us all the time!
 
Last edited:
  • Triggered
Reactions: llien

Gamezone

Gold Member
Nov 2, 2014
7,968
2,133
985
34
Norway
At the very least, Valve is wealthy enough to be willing to fight the legal battle over the player's right to their software license that they paid for.

I 100% believe that Nvidia was in the legal right, but that they were not willing to spend money on a costly courtcase to defend their buisness model. Valve, however, has the financial means.

If you bought a software license, you are free to run that software on any hardware as long as it is for your personal use. That is the LAW. Now we just need someone like Valve to defend that law.

I believe that Nvidia is wealthy enough as well.
 

diffusionx

Member
Feb 25, 2006
14,571
14,665
1,800
I'm not saying that you're wrong, but what publishers are actually saying is that Nvidia's service is benefiting from their IP, and they want to directly share in that success.

This is like saying AMD or Dell or Intel or Newegg is benefitting from their IPs and they deserve a cut whenever a PC or computer component is sold; it is utter insanity.
 

Ascend

Member
Jul 23, 2018
3,265
4,672
525
If it's really the most developer friendly, why are they leaving in the first place?
 

Guileless

Temp Banned for Remedial Purposes
Jun 7, 2004
10,085
1,582
1,925
Memphis
Well, I don't own many PC games but I signed up to play Doom and Borderlands 3, which are both now gone.