Why the fuck are gamers "outraged" about devs having control over their product?

>beclowns self
>this board is a joke
well played, retard-kun

Based

NOOOOO YOU CAN'T JUST MAKE MONEY FOR MEEEEEEE YOU NEED MY PERMISSION

i really hope valve ends up issuing no-questions-asked refunds to cut themselves off this "drama" and ruins this faggot.

>Sorry to those who are disappointed you can no longer play
>we asked them to remove it
>Take your complaints to them, not us

?????

For anybody who doesn't know what the fuck Geforce Now is. It's basically a cloud virtualization platform for games.

Their servers, your game license, they render, you play.

You have to own a game to play it on this platform.

So it;s basically "no not my precious potential forced profitino"?

No, Geforce Now is their cloud-gaming service.

now explain it to the retarded entitled devs who cant into reading comprehension

>deny someone the ability to play the game they payed for because fuck you
Fuck this guy

It's not even a store, it's a launcher. It's like going "we don't want our game to be launch able from the games folder on Windows systems"

It's a self serve Stadia

incels

there's other similar services been around. gayforce is only known because it's new and nvidia

nope, more like
>go to fast food parlor
>pay, bag it and prepare to leave
>have your food snatched by "restaurant's" manager the second you cross the door and get yelled at because you didn't ask the cook for opinion and he deserves to have a say in where you eat

>i stream the game from my pc to another pc i own
>that's ok

>i stream the game from a pc i rented to another pc i own
>STOP RIGHT THERE, CRIMINAL SCUM! YOU VIOLATED THE LAW! PAY THE COURT A FINE OR SERVE YOUR SENTENCE! YOUR STOLEN GOODS ARE NOW FORFEIT!

Attached: 1541115906853.png (1278x720, 765.02K)

Yeah, I have no doubt about that. I just don't understand the controversy. This would be something that could potentially boost game sales, and devs acts like it's the end of humanity.

They would rather refund you than have their game played via GeForce Now. I genuinely don't get it.

Theres been more threads on this shitty game than people who use nvidias garbage stream service

So what's the point of playing it through Geforce Now if you already own the game?

Indies are just as greedy as aaa studios. Just took a while for people to realize it.

Play on the toilet

You don't see how bullshit that is? They included a game on their service, not only without permission, but without even telling the devs what it was.
That's very fucked up.

I can't tell if your serious but Nvidia was not offering anything. You have to already own the game. You are just renting a PC from Nvidia to run it on. No one was selling the game without his permission.

>That's very fucked up.
Well, not really. It's absolutely a marketing mistake on GeForce's end, but calling it 'very fucked up' is a bit of an overstatement. Have the developers of Wine ever told a dev what the sevice is, and have they ever had a dev asked to be removed?

literally what is the downside of having your game playable on GeForce Now?
You still have to own the game to play it

The developers do have control over their product. Once people purchase that product, it is no longer the developers' product and is instead property of those people.

It's like if I went to my friends house, logged in with my own Steam account and the dev revoked my game license because I didn't inform him I was going to play it somewhere else.

I'm fairly certain the issue is that the developer didn't understand this and thought it was a Netflix for games thing. And now either he doesn't believe them, no one has explained things, or he's a faggot that won't admit he's wrong. Possibly all three.

You dumbass, BK has had "The Big King" for years also has the Bacon King to rip off Wendy's Baconator.

Anyways, the appropriate analogy is this:
>buy bic mac at McDonalds
>take it into BK, they are cool with you eating McDonalds in their restaurant
>Ronald McDonald breaks through the window and takes the sandwich you paid for at his store out of your hands

what i dont get is why this cunt is so against people playing his game on their phones away from home its the same steam copy

did the same thing happen with Bandai Namco then? because they pulled a ton of games from GeForce Now a while back as well with no explanation

And Blizzard barred it's entire catalog as well.

i find it hilarious no one pitched a bitch when shadow did the same thing

Nvidiacucks

the truth is the devs are braindead idiots and thought geforce now is a store and nvidia is not sharing sales profits with them, so they freaked out and demanded it be taken down and now that its been explained to them how wrong they are they are too proud to backpedal and admit their mistakes

I wouldn't be surprised. GeForce has done an absolute terrible job marketing this and most people have no fucking idea what it actually is. Though there's always the chance that Bandai and Blizzard are just idiots because those companies are both famously terrible these days anyway.

Though granted, this is actually the first time I've even heard about this service or any drama around it, so I'm probably just talking out my ass now.

i mean it would have been nice to play games on my phone

That is not how software licensing works, read your EULAs or you are in for a rude awakening someday when someone takes away your "property"

I figured it out.

It's greed. The devs want to get paid extra to allow someone to play their games on this service. Nvidia is making money providing a service, and video games facilitate this business running. They know that, and they want a cut.

As if I care about EULAs

Nobody does, until some company tries to bite them in the ass thanks to a clause somewhere in a 20 page EULA.

I don't read them either, but just keep in mind you legally don't own shit and you are more than likely always signing an agreement that the publisher retains the right to take away you license as they see fit.

If they didn't ask to put the game on GeForce Now, that implies they didn't pay for a license either.

>Nvidia shills trying to tell IP holders what to do with their own properties.
Why do gamers consistently show themselves to be the dumbest fucking consumers?

Even macfags laugh at gamers while their face is covered in pie.

EULAs are baseless scraps of garbage that any court will overrule instantly
I could write in an EULA that I am allowed to spit in your icecream that you buy from me but that doesn't mean I would actually be able to do that

The Long Dark is also no longer on GoG for some reason. They never really gave an explanation for that one. They seem to be very picky about what platforms their game is on. Seems like autism. Many such cases. Sad.

EULAs are unenforceable in the courts.

I don't care about legality either. I care about only reality.

You don't understand. You basically get access to a high end PC via GeForce Now.

You have to login to your own Steam/Etc account and actually download/install your game to play it.

They don't have to pay for a license, because you have to.

>EULAs are unenforceable in the courts.

Attached: 1536672991773.jpg (260x272, 6.19K)

Which is meaningless because you won't be taking them to court.

>the long dark
who gives a shit

GeForce Now only lets the end-user play games that the END USER HAS A LICENSE FOR. I, as the user, bought the game, and I am being told “you can’t play that on unapproved hardware”.

That’s essentially what this is, since GeForce Now is basically renting a high-powered server to run your software and stream the results to your phone or whatever.

It’s a hardware arrangement.

This is the first I've ever heard of GeForce Now. When did this come out?

Congratulations on having no idea what GeForce Now is. Maybe do some reading before posting again. It's a service that uses your own games libraries and then installs them for you to stream on lighter weight hardware, like a tablet or chromebook with a controller connected. GeForce Now is not Google Stadia where there are a contracted set of games available.

But you are paying to use their service. I can see the argument that the devs should be getting some of that money since the service exists solely to play those games.

I literally can't even think of an example or precedent to compare this to. Technology like this is just too new, and I understand developers that don't want to set the precedent that they don't deserve money from this when it's arguable they do.

Game looks like shit desu, I'd thank him for removing his garbage.

Then why bring up the EULA? It doesn’t matter what it says, the reality is they can make any arbitrary demand that they fucking feel like, contract or not, and as long as the cost of compliance is less than the cost of fighting their attorneys at trial, you’ll do it. The EULA doesn’t have shit to do with that, they could just as easily issue a copyright claim, or file a libel suit, or claim fraud, or any of a billion other bullshit things.

dont bother publisher greed has killed the platform

>>food analogy

So? Do you not eat food?

i would like to know how there's any fucking outrage at all over a game streaming service like onlive

most people on this board are retarded commies who want the government to control everything for them

>not being thankful to our gods and saviors for gracefully allowing us to use mouse in their masterpiece of a game with no extra fee attached

That’s fucking stupid. I pay NVidia for the GPU I use to render the games on my own machine, too, but the devs don’t get a cut of that.

They sell a software license to an end-user. The devs/publishers don’t need to wiggle their greedy little jew fingers in every single transaction involved in owning a gaming setup.

Because they have the ability to remove your license using it. You theoretically have the ability to say 'no you can't' but that doesn't matter you don't have that ability in practice. The fact that the EULA exists and you agreed to it means that it would actually need to be taken to court. If there was no EULA, then the step of actually taking it to court would likely be unnecessary as an organization like the better business bureau of Valve themselves would step in. Because who the fuck would buy a game on their platform if it could be taken away for no reason with no warning? The EULA gives them that level of plausible deniability, for lack of a better term.

Based fast food connoisseur.

Yeah, I don't know how I'd argue this in any real capacity. It's a good point. I mean there are plenty of games where you can to buy a separate copy for PC/XBOX/PS3 and etc.

Here, you technically have to own a PC game, but you can stream it to anything with a controller or Mouse+Keyboard setup and internet access.

Theoretically, a dev would lose sales from hardcore players who might have bought a single game for multiple consoles separately.

>That’s fucking stupid. I pay NVidia for the GPU I use to render the games on my own machine, too, but the devs don’t get a cut of that.
That's different because it is a one time fee and the GPU is used for other things as well. This service is subscription based and is ONLY used to play games. Those are both very key distinctions in the business/legal world.

People here are being retarded, this is essentially like a dev saying hey I want my game on Steam but don't want to allow Steam remote play from a specific PC.

The only reason they aren't allowing this is they want to be able to charge you on another platform like how Stadia works.

>Because they have the ability to remove your license using it.
No, they don’t. The words of that agreement don’t grant them legal permission to do so, as courts have ruled time and time again.

They may have the TECHNICAL capacity to do so, irrespective of the agreement itself, by somehow invalidating the software license remotely (either themselves or via having Valve or whoever revoke the key) but in that case, I have the TECHNICAL capacity to just torrent a cracked .exe. The ability to do something and the legally sanctioned right to do it are very different.

It's a Rent a Remote Computer service. Why do devs/publishers even have a say about this?

>They included a game on their service
That's not how it works, sweatie. Go educate yourself.

It's a simple line of argument. The service exists for the sole reason to play these games, therefore these games add value to the service. Without these games the company would not be getting any money because no one would use it. Therefore, since the games are the only reason people are paying to use the service, the games should get some of that money.

It's a similar argument to saying why an actor should get royalties. Are people going to this movie solely because of the actor? Or could you replace the actor with another one and the sales would be identical? In this case, you cannot replace these games with anything else and retain the userbase.

high iq post

Because now you don't have to buy a separate copy of the game for PC, for your Wii, for your Mac, for your PS4, etc.

You buy a PC version, and stream it to anything you want potentially. Nvidia cuts your sales in the process, and makes money.

It's basically the eternal debate of how much of a money grubbing shit you should be. The dev of The Long Dark decided he wants every cent he can get.

According to the dev, Nvidia didn't ask permission to put their game on the premium license.

Because it's a different type of service than a full VM, you don't play every game in your library, only a selected few, and there is money involved.

It isn’t, though. Fuck, game devs/publishers couldn’t legally shut down renting games themselves, they damn sure can’t shut down renting the hardware that plays it.

>the dev of long dark wants the money for the product he made
what a shocker
usually im one of the muh outrage but not this time. they didnt ask to put it on geforce now. deal with it you plebians and get a real pc.

Because devs/publishers want to return to the days of CD keys and having to buy the same game multiple times if you change your PC

play it on the phone or while using an underpowered PC

When was the last time you rented a PC game?

The bigger reason they couldn't shut down renting was that there was no real way to stop it without huge, multi-million dollar lawsuits. It is far, far simpler to shut this down with modern technology even without a lawsuit.

days ago after months of beta. apparently it's allright.

5 bucks a month is cheaper than 800 to get a new PC if all you have is a laptop.

Wouldn't it be more like

>Person walks into Mcdonalds and pays for a big mac and doesn't pick it up from there for whatever reason.

>company has a fucking teleporter which can teleport the already paid for big mac directly to you for a small fee.

>Mcdonalds intercepts the food and snatches it away from you, leaving you hungry.

That wasn't how CD keys worked at all. You fucking joke of a moron. If anything Steam DRM is how you are forced with keys stuck to a place, that can be removed if you fuck up enough.

If you are renting a Nvidia machine, then why can't people play every game in their library ?

Attached: 1542905214681.jpg (368x353, 13.94K)

stop food analogies.

I'm hungry dude, all I can think about is food right now

I love when devs attempt to use shit like this as PR

Your old dead game is dead, idiot. You are not gaining anything by removing it from a overproduce mirroring service.

sao go eat something faggot FAGGOT
F
A
G
G
O
T

DUDE IT IS FUCKED UP! PEOPLE WANT TO PLAY THEIR GAME THEY BOUGHT! WTF!

You can install your games on multiple computers. You just have to play it on your account.

>google geforce now
>it's ANOTHER store front / gaming service
Wait what the fuck? They just put someone elses game on that without even asking / paying them for the use? And people are mad at the DEVS for not being okay with that?

Attached: 1557862095202.gif (310x266, 131.65K)

>overproduce

yes, gamers are the most entitled people on the planet

it uses your steam account to determine the games you can play on it its not a storefront

>the eternal leaf

Still seems like the sort of thing that you should get permission to use. Especially if they're charging a fee for it.

This is why you should never trust Eurotrash devs.

ikr, next people will be playing it on their non-approved laptops or something.
Think of all those hypothetical mobile sales STOLEN by these bloody customers only paying once for the same product, the nerve.

Because NVidia complies with requests from publishers who want games to be unplayable on the service. The biggest two offenders here, Bethesda and ActiBlizz, also both have announced their own competing streaming service (which is obviously why).

NVidia is clearly not interested in telling devs/publishers to go fuck themselves with a stick when they issue these requests, even if they likely have legal ground to do so, because GFN is a small and uncertain revenue stream for them and they don’t want to burn bridges with major developers/publishers in their primary GPU and rendering tech business.

>single player game is a dead game
back to your containment site zoomie

I'm always down for shitting on devs. Devs are scum.

its literally no different from playing them on a rented virtual machine

They are canuks not yuropoos

true, but if i remember well the subscription to use the service is free, the payment is only for the other application directly affiliated to Nvidia

>nVidiots on suicide watch
dev is right, cope and seethe

So it basically let's people with low-end PCs play demanding games? Weird. If that's the case though, it's a bit strange to buy games that you can't natively run in the case that the platform shuts down. Then again I can't stand playing games on my phone so maybe I just don't get it.

It's not like it's even a store. It's a service that allows you to play games you already bought and paid for. Literally no excuse to remove your game from it other than pure greed.

I laughed at the word "property", remembering that it only (really) applies to video games in a physical copy. At least that is how it works in the good old days when people really owns their games, not like today where almost every video games are treated as a service (GaaS), where nobody really "owns" anything anymore. But of course, there's always some exceptions, but then again, it couldn't compare to the vast majority - GaaS - anyway.

It's more like buying a big mac and going to sit down and eat it in a burger king, or something
>food analogy

So it's not just a VM, you need to adapt games to the system to be playable, it's new service, I can't just open the Steam library and boot Unreal Gold on GeForce Now, Unreal Gold wouldn't be compatible with GeForce Now.
If GeForce Now was just a VM that you could boot up Steam/EGS/GOGalaxy, the licenses wouldn't matter, it would be a custom cloud machine.

I don't actually get this. Doesn't this streaming service essentially supply the hardware while the games available are from the user's own accounts? If the user paid for the game, why shouldn't he be allowed to install and play it on NVIDIA's computer? This is retarded, it's like saying you can't install the game on some internet cafe computer if you already have it on your account and have paid for it. The user paid for the game, why the fuck do devs get to pick what PC hardware you're allowed to run it on? It's not like NVIDIA is selling their game, NVIDIA is only supplying the hardware as far as I know.

You're better off streaming from your own PC in the same house and on the same network than from some cloud server.

Why would they need to ask anyone's permission? Geforce Now is simply a middleware solution.

>nvidiots review bombing the game
>steam hides them anyway and deletes them
kek retards

No it's different, GeForce Now have a curated list of games, it's not a VM that let's you play Steam games, it's a service that supports certain games, they need licenses from developers to be able to play the games in the services.
If was just a VM with Steam Big Picture, no one would give a shit.
nvidia.com/en-us/geforce-now/games/

Is behaving like a mentally arrested retard really the norm on Yas Forums now?

So is the consumer trying to transfer their license to a 'virtual system' owned by gfxp which they are in turn renting access to? I don't really get the interaction

Why? Is NVIDIA selling games? Are they making money off of it? Just because they have a pretty front-end and curate games which work well doesn't mean it's not a VM which streams games you have on your accounts. The accounts are still yours and you still paid for those games, why shouldn't you be able to stream them from NVIDIA's hardware? What, does the dev need to be paid twice if I run the game I paid for from a server with a green logo instead of my own computer?

>IMAGINE BEING AT COMPUTERS

>Nvidia needs the publishers / devs allowance to host a game
>People can download the game anyway by simply starting Steam in nvidias cloud and downloading the games, it's just not instant
I love how money greedy all these fucks are cuz they want money for something they don't deserve since all nvidia does is renting out PCs, not full game licenses like stadis n such do

You do since you posted in this thread.

what money?

>NOOOO POOR LITTLE NVIDIA IS GETTING PUSHED AROUND BY THE BIG BAD INDIE DEVS
>THIS IS ILLEGAL BUT POOR LITTLE NVIDIA DOESN'T HAVE THE MONEY TO CHALLENGE THE INDIE DEVS
Imagine being American enough to defend Big Corp. like they're the victims.

Attached: 1582978500149.png (1229x871, 456.33K)

Legal reasons, and I think Nvidia hosts a custom version of the game, not your Steam version, they don't download from your library.

It's curated because they can't just upload the entire Steam library on their servers and stream to the entire world, retard. Plus they need to configure each game manually for optimal streaming experience. They're not doing anything that requires license or permission from devs/publishers. This is just pure greed from devs/publishers who want to double dip.

because those "gamers" are actually nvidia shills. ever heard of guerrilla marketing? it's real

you have to be a drone from the start for buying nvidia overpriced shit, they're basically at the same level of applefags, this is expected normal behaviour from them

They’re holding out hope Stadia or PSNow or some other competing service will pay them a big fat stack of exclusivity cash and that won’t happen if GeForce Now can run the game.

Boy oh boy will these devs get salty when they realize Steam Remote Play allows the same thing and they can’t possibly stop it because Valve doesn’t give a fuck

There is no custom version. It's just caches a version of the steam version. Look into how steam authentication works.

That doesn't work most of the time and IIRC you need to jump some hoops to actually access the Steam client from within Nvidia's VM. If Nvidia actually literally gave you a VM you can do whatever the fuck you want with then devs would have no leverage to make demands, but since it's a heavily cut down and curated VM explicitly advertising it runs X and Y games in particular and not whatever piece of software you want then tough shit for Nvidia.

Ronald would never do that. He's based and fights against evil.

>But you are paying to use their service
Their service boils down to giving you remote access to a PC. There's nothing more about it, you don't get to play any games you didn't buy.
At most this argument should end at the developers being entitled to compensation if their games are used in advertising but at the end of the day it has nothing to do with them.

Ronald is dead, bro.

Don't you fucking say that.

I just played Sonic Mania on my phone. Am I morally in the wrong for not waiting for the phone version?

Attached: 1583352257032.jpg (2160x1080, 1.9M)

betty white is dead bro

You're arguing with console faggots, plebbit transplants and other low level consumerist retards.
Do you really think they can understand what a rented virtual machine is?

Yes, it's insane how fucking stupid the average person is, but they're just not going to understand what you're attempting to explain to them.

>tough shit for NVidia
Tough shit for an indie dev dealing with backlash over literally fucking nothing. Somehow I don’t think anyone who’s actually paying for GFN is cancelling that because it can’t play The Long Dark, but Hinterlands is processing a big meaty sack of refunds right now.

What compels retards to those retarded long ass I AM SILLY arguments? I don't think I've ever seen one that hasn't been full retard.

>be at your friend's house
>turn on his TV
>log in to your own Netflix account to watch Breaking Bad
>Sony Pictures breaks into the house claiming you can only watch that series on your own TV

The entire gang is gone.
It's time to let go, user...

Attached: mcd.jpg (1170x600, 109.11K)

Just pirate and call a day

Attached: 73026431_699372403896498_5725903283512410112_n.jpg (800x312, 23.1K)

I once broke into a supermarket and cracked their safe stealing all the money inside, no wrong was committed and they're not victims though because they're a big company and i'm just a lowly entrepreneur trying to make ends-meets in the cut-throat world of business.
Thankyou for your support.

Attached: flat,550x550,075,f.u3.jpg (372x550, 62.36K)

>Valvegroid is retarded

Why doesn’t this surprise me?

yeah, refunds from retards that never played the game and were never going to play it anyway
literally sjw tier

No. I won't hear it. Not on this board. When you believe in magic you'll always have a friend wearing big red shoes. That's what he told me.

>Somehow I don’t think anyone who’s actually paying for GFN is cancelling that because it can’t play The Long Dark
No but I'm sure Bethesda, Actiblizz, etc. pulling out are important. It's funny how everyone here centers on the nobody indie dev that pulled out because INDIES ARE EBIL but nobody says a fucking word about all the big AAA that got pulled as well.
>but Hinterlands is processing a big meaty sack of refunds right now.
Really doubt that, you can't refund a game out of the blue months/years after you bought it, so unless there was a huge sale for the game in the last couple weeks I doubt they will even feel this.

Since you're simply renting a virtual machine, the example is even more ridiculous:
>buy big Mac
>sit on park bench with a burger King advertisement on it, to eat it
>Ronald Macdonald runs up and takes your Big Mac
>"Your license to consume said Macdonald's burger is limited to said place of purchase, or said home residence."

In fact it's even more ridiculous than that, but that's about as stupid as we can make it with food analogies.

I doubt people will give a shit about this, after the weekend, some ewhores will make videos about it, and everyone will move to the next drama.

They don't have the proper IQ to make food analogies. They can handle other analogies but if it involves food, they're completely lost. .

So what? It’s not about active players, it’s about them losing a bunch of money for absolutely no gain whatsoever. Nobody is going to pay them extra for permission to install their software on a VM; this “pull” is just causing refunds needlessly.

If NVIDIA is in the right why did they take the game out of their service?

Uh-oh brainlets.

Can devs even do anything about it legally if Nvidia had chosen to ignore them? Obviously they wouldn't for publicity reasons. It's not like they're selling the game, so what case do Devs have against them?

>no u
Try harder faggot

there's already a country where a fast food chain offers big mac because judge voided mcdonald's trademarks

Nice argument retard-kun.

Because the devs & publishers want as much money as possible. Thats really all there is to it.
Apparently Stadia works differently and they get a cut from that, so they feel cheated by this new service.

>missing the point
How American of you. Big Corp doesn't need you to stand up for them, Big Corp is more than capable of doing so themselves. If Big Corp even suspected it was being wronged they would sue the other guys out of existence faster than you can bend over and spread your ass for them.

Attached: 1567059068974.jpg (683x623, 38.51K)

>No but I'm sure Bethesda, Actiblizz, etc. pulling out are important.
They definitely are, but since those two are starting their own competing service, they’re never going to “agree” to any of NVidia’s terms here. The only shot at their games being playable is for NVidia to tell them to pound salt and not yank the games; no amount of cut or kickback will make them give up their own games to a service competing with their own. They want those easy “exclusives” to drive up subscribers.

Because they probably don't consider it worth the fight.
They probably don't want some kangaroo court making a boomer tier ruling on a technology they won't understand.
Given how difficult it is for people here to understand that it's simply a rented virtual machine, I doubt some boomer judge a year from retirement will be able to comprehend the matter.

The fact the big boys are moving away from streaming is a good sign, video game streaming is cancer.

>Nvidia hosts a custom version of the game
What custom version? How can they have a custom version of the game if the developers aren't involved to make and provide that version? Is NVIDIA breaking DRM and reverse engineering games in order to stream them, or how exactly are they getting these custom versions?

>Legal reasons
What law is NVIDIA breaking? How is this significantly different from running a game from an account I own on a net cafe PC which I do not own? I don't think there are any laws about streaming games or renting streaming hardware to users.

Sure, but Stadia is operating as a game shop. You need to buy games there, NVIDIA isn't taking any money from game sales.

Nice cope amerimutt, now go eat some fast food.

I can do this with Parsec already. Or at least I could until they stopped letting you rent servers to do it the fucking melts

>Apparently Stadia works differently and they get a cut from that,
Well, obviously, because if you want to stream stuff on Stadia, you have to buy the Stadia version all over again. You don't have to do so with Nvidia's system, it's enough to buy it once.
This whole thing is basically about double dipping and nothing more. Same about all the AAAs pulling out, why would they want to allow people to stream their game if they already own it on a particular platform instead of potentially selling it again?

>moving away
Google Orion. They’re not pulling out because they’re against streaming, they’re pulling out because they only want to be on a streaming platform they own and operate.

>food analogy
The simplest way to put it is they bought Bloodborn on an Xbox

Attached: 92e1b29.jpg (480x360, 30.58K)

realize that nobody that plays the game is refunding it. The devs aren't losing money, they're just losing time dealing with manchildren that buy the game and refund it instantly. They were never going to pay for it anyway. Why do you think Steam hides all this bullshit after sometime? Because it's retarded. The reviews aren't about the game.
>pay them extra for permission to install their software on a VM
why do you think that's the goal?

So I thought the whole point of Nvidiots in these threads is that no dev or pub is actually in a position to refuse since Nvidia is renting you a computer and you should be able to run whatever you please on it? Does that truth not apply to big publishers?

Its even dumber. He goes in and makes bans the eating of big macs on that park bench because the company that owns the park bench doesn't pay them.

Then what is the option in your opinion? Either side with the side who's wrong or just not say anything at all?

It’s hilarious watching PCgroid digicucks trying to fight back the right to stream games, fucking lmao.

Maybe in Afghanistan or whatever shithole you crawled out of but here in America you can’t take a shit without renting your own bunghole from Comcast first.

Obviously it's better to just agree to developers leaving your service for future business relations, user. I guess they could try and force the issue if they really wanted but what's the point?

>pay them extra for permission to install their software on a VM
>why do you think that's the goal?
What in the fuck else could the goal POSSIBLY be? Either they’re holding out for some chunk of free extra money or throwing a tantrum over not being “consulted” about shit that has nothing to do with them.

This is genuinely an insane situation developing here. And Yas Forums retards clearly don't understand the gravity of the situation.
If a company can control what kind of pc you play their game on, then who's to say they can't later tell you to buy a new copy each time you buy a new pc?
If they can unilaterally and retroactively claim that you cannot play their game on a could server running a virtual machine, using your own steam account/bnet client/whatever, then what stops them from claiming you can't play games on a new pc, or a friend's pc, or on two different pcs at different times?

This has long lasting ramifications.

>getting some of that money since the service exists solely to play those games.
They are not selling you games they are renting you a high end pc to play whatever you OWN. Complete retard.
>I literally can't even think of an example or precedent to compare this to.
Thats because you are completely retarded, this is no different from the anti consumer "you dont own shit argument" that companies have been pushing into our throats for years now.

The reason this moron is sending people to complain to Nvidia is because he believes that he can get some free bucks out of this.

What are devs gonna do, make their games incompatible with the biggest discrete PC GPU vendor on the planet?

>buy movie
>put disc in my xbox instead of my dvd player
>can't play it on my xbox because the movie creators decided that unless microsoft gives them a cut of their earnings thats not allowed

This particular dev is just a pain in the ass and a huge faggot in general. It's the big brain who unironically says things like
>you need my permission to mod the game
so in this case, he might just actually be retarded.
For the bigger publishers, the goal is obviously to sell the game again through a service such as Stadia or whatever.

Your point is retarded, this is a thread discussing it yet i can't share my opinion because it favours the larger company of the two? I'm not standing up in front of congress to protect poor old nvidia you fuckwit.

Yes.

FUCK DEVELOPERS
FUCK PUBLISHERS
FUCK INDIE GAMES
FUCK JANNIES

This is even better, fucking Zenimax of all companies taking a shot at streaming, I hope EA and Actishit do the same thing, I hope every major studio do the same thing, I hope every AAA game turns to streaming the next decade, and I hope each one costs up to $15-30 dollars a month.

Attached: 1559490468110.gif (337x263, 3.96M)

>control
Scope is inappropriate. You are not paying for access to a machine that provides access the game to you as part of an access bundle. You are simply paying for remote access to a powerful computer for arbitrary usage - one of the permutations of that usage is signing into Steam and playing the games in your library. Neither is it a performance: Nvidia isn't making a performance out of the game through a game that it itself has a license to or otherwise provided to the end user. The end user brings their own license and plays for themselves on the computer they are remotely accessing. Nvidia might have to work something out with Microsoft, for example, because Microsoft's Windows operating system will be installed on those machines by Nvidia and provided, as Nvidia owned Windows licenses, to the user. That's how a company like Nvidia could become liable in a situation like this.
But Nvidia owes as much to these game devs as Foxxcon, Newegg or Best Buy. Out of all the retarded analogies made about this debacle, the only genuinely fully accurate one would be the dev standing in front of a Chinese sweatshop demanding that hard drives capable of storing his game not be produced until he receives compensation.

Scope's inappropriate.

this was hilarious

Imagine thinking devs were going to allow their games to be streamed for free and without permission so NVIDIA can sell a subscription and profit from them.

Is everyone here defending NVIDIA legit braindead or you’re just shitposting because the dev is indie?

I mean i hate indie pixelshit cancer as much as all of you here, but this is just embarrassing.

who the fuck uses geforce now?

This.

Legally NVidia could almost certainly tell Blizzard to get gangfucked, but the calculation goes like this:

>what’s the cost to us if every Activision game for the next five years has an AMD title card on opening and doesn’t support our exclusive rendering tech?
>and what’s the cost if every GeForce Now user who owns an Activision game cancels their subscription when they can’t play it from our servers?
>fuck it, do whatever Activision says. Not worth pissing them off as a partner.

>If a company can control what kind of pc you play their game on, then who's to say they can't later tell you to buy a new copy each time you buy a new pc?
They can and they did, google what PC DRM was like before the days of Steam.

this is how you recognize a jew from an artist
an artist is proud and happy when their creation is appreicated and available for a wider audience
A jew thinks with business mindset at all times. They get appalled and seethe from silly shit like this,

A good dev will go as far as to encourage pirates just so they can get more fans
A bad dev will blame everything except themselves

If I rent a space, such as a movie theater and watch a movie in that space, most theatres let use a DVD or bluray hookup to their projector, the theatre doesn't need to license that product.

>another thread filled with morons getting btfo because they couldn't be bothered to google what geforce now even is
You retards know who you are, and I hope you take this lesson to heart.

This guy is like a confused boomer or something. He would be getting sales from that platform as well.

>Imagine thinking devs were going to allow their games to be played for free and without permission so internet cafes can sell a fee and profit from them.

>Is everyone here defending internet cafes legit braindead or you’re just shitposting because the dev is indie?

>NOOOOO NOT MY HECKIN GAME STREAMERINO
literally who gives a fuck. Why is this being spammed?

"Intellectual property" is a scam.

Attached: Ancap-0.png (930x666, 673.5K)

This is squarely about Big Corp vs Indie Dev shitposting, there's threads about TLD leaving Nvidia's service day in and day out yet not a peep about the likes of Doom 2016 or Overwatch (unarguably bigger games) leaving. Anyone pretending to be an impartial concerned citizen is full of shit.

You rented a license on Steam to play the game digicuck, that doesn’t include third party streaming services like GeForce.

But it's not a streaming platform.
You're renting a cloud server with a virtual machine on it with Nvidia and then using your own steam account/bnet/whatever.

It'd be like saying you can't sign into your steam account at a computer Cafe and play your games there, because you don't own the pc you're playing on or something.
This is actually a pretty big deal for consumer rights.
The logic of this would make it valid for them to ban you playing the game on any pc that isn't the original machine of purchase.

Either the purchase of said license gives you the right to run said license on any machine of your choosing, or it doesn't.
If it doesn't, then that's even less control than we had before.
And this arguably affects consoles as well. If you buy a digital copy of a game on ps4, and then you have to get a new ps4, they can make the argument that you need to buy a new copy.

>You rented a license on Steam to play the game digicuck, that doesn’t include third party playing services like internet cafes.

By your logic, literally any rental company is unfairly being paid at the expense of anyone whose products you use on it. It makes absolutely no sense when the product is the virtual machine itself, not just the ability to stream (which you can already do btw)

It's not a streaming service, it's a cloud server running a virtual machine.
You are using your own steam account in this process.

You’re not streaming on an internet cafe retard, now go rent some other license on Steam DeShawn.

Holy fucking based.

Kill yourself, bootlicking retard.

Oh I'm sorry instead of sending the data through video cables it sending it through EVIL ethernet cables or worse wifi!

>What in the fuck else could the goal POSSIBLY be?
Dealing with complaints that are not coming from the platform you're working on?
Be notified when somebody advertises something else with the product you made?

There are plenty of other reasons to bitch about Bethesda or Activision, that they’re greedy and shitty is not breaking news to fucking anyone.

The developer is entitled to choose what streaming platform is allowed to stream his game.

You certainly can. In fact, lots of SC pros used to do that if they didn't live in Seoul.

>It’s not a streaming service, it’s a streaming service.

Do you have some kind of brain damage?

So is me using my own pc at home to stream a game on my steam account to my own TV a violation?

What if I'm at work? Steam link allows me to stream from my home pc to my smartphone over the web. I can play some games using my touch screen as a mouse (slay the spire for example).
Is that a violation?

there also seems to be a decent TLD audience that plays with geforce now though, which is why its being brought up

>finally don't have to spend thousands of dollars to play with glorified toys
I'm kinda hyped for this. Not gona jump into it now but in a few years when fags are done beta testing I'm switching to based GAS.

I wish I was 12 too user

The fuck he is. I’ll stream anything I want anywhere I want, my software and my hardware. Fuck any developer who thinks they can stop me.

These devs are just getting by on NVidia’s desire to not ruffle feathers. I can stream The Long Dark over Remote Play or Moonlight right the fuck now and all their tiny indie tears can’t do shit to stop it.

Nobody gives a shit what bugmen do Steamgroid, you don’t own anything in your steam library, the fact that you think you have the right to stream those games is hilarious.

So do they have a right to make me stop playing on my phone from my home pc while at work?
I play slay the spire at work sometimes on my phone off my personal pc via steam link.

>the dev is entitled to choose what hardware you run the game on
good luck enfofcing that in court LMAO. enforcing literally anything in the EULA was hard enough as is

Underrated

Fuck off retard.

>you cannot legally profit by distributing another company's video game without their permission
>this is a difficult concept for Yas Forums brainlets

>nvidiots on suicide watch

You don’t own anything in your steam library digicuck, you have QUITE LITERALLY no rights at all, Steam can remove your entire library today and there’s nothing you could do about it, illegal 3rd party streaming services are the least of your worries.

>i can't even google what the thing is
>v are the idiots

there is no distribution of their game though. the game customer, who already paid for the game, is using said game on the service.

>distributing
They aren’t “distributing” it you drooling fuckknuckle. They’re renting a virtual machine that only streams software already in the end-user’s Steam library. STEAM is distributing the game keys.

What is it about indie devs that makes them so unlikeable? Nvidia execs could literally rape thier wives and if they came bitching to twitter I would still be unsympathetic. Even if I agree with them I still want them to be fucked over.

If todd howard took to twitter in some incredibly lame and pathetic attempt to defend his jewry we'd be talking about it instead, it happened to be some indie dev instead.
Go make a thread about those games then and quit being a retard here if you're not happy with the purview of this one.

Come on do you seriously believe people care this much about some random years old indie game that anyone can run on a netbook? The killer feature of Geforce Now always was being able to run Doom 2016 and other more demanding games.

t. Amerimutt

youtu.be/d3E7goHin4A
GeForce Now is just a VM with restrictions, Nvidia fucked up by not advertising as a cloud VM.

Attached: 1461361255981.png (546x1268, 135.05K)

So I guess Nvidia should get a cut every time somebody boots up the developer's game on their own computer if said computer uses an Nvidia gpu. The developer is benefiting from Nvidia's hardware after all.

Attached: 1573059423095.jpg (1080x1080, 192.54K)

>Steam can remove your entire library today and there’s nothing you could do about it
I could just apply an account crack and keep all my games by routing around Valve’s attempt to invalidate my keys.

Steam is the one distributing it, you mongoloid. Using the key I already purchased on Steam, I should be allowed to download that game on whatever computer I buy or rent. I already paid the dev via Steam for the game legally.

You are conflating what people know as streaming service - something like Netflix, where you pay a monthly fee and have access to EVERYTHING - with a different type of streaming service where you pay monthly to have access to hardware that can only play things you have a license for.

I know you don't give a fuck and this is the designated shitposting street anyway but whatever

>Pay for game once on PC
>Devs want you to pay for it again even though GeForce Now users only other option is buying a PC where they already have the game purchased.
Why do people in the video game industry have autism?

>buy game
>dev decides where and how you can play it

how is it any different from buying like a steam link and streaming it from your own PC. its still your copy of the game your playing, its just running on a different piece of hardware

the only thing I can think of is the devs are dumbfucks and misunderstood this as something like Game Pass where you get access to those games for a fixed fee

You shouldn't be allowed to play a game on another device. You only bought a single license, it's not fair for the developer if you suddenly can play the game on a mobile device. Maybe he'll decide to profit off it in the future. You are literally taking his money.

Attached: 1583311878209.jpg (1248x706, 99.82K)

This. If the law itself informs anyone's morality or principles, then they deserve to have all of their money swindled from them.

The fuck is this faggot on about. You still have to buy the game if you want to play it with geforce now.

It's actually a question of devs with a bad game trying to survive. The Long Dark is not a good game. I bought the first version available and since then I try to play after updates and the game is always bad with an interesting premise.
It shouldn't be easy to try to survive in such a competitive industry when your only game is mediocre and luckily it has a small fan base.
When you trust your product you don't deny the kind of agreement that will give it visibility like Geforce's.

I realize this is bait and you're adding nothing to the conversation by being a pedantic faggot, but I'll clarify for those others who might fall for your bullshit.
Yes, it's technically streaming.
But it's not what is commonly understood as streaming.
You're not paying a unique rental fee to play a library of game you have no purchased.
You're paying a rental fee to rent a server with a virtual machine. You're then using your own steam account to access the licenses you've already paid for.

I play slay the spire on my smartphone at work sometimes via the steam link app off my own personal home pc. Yes its technically streaming, but it's kit the same as a subscription service with a library of games I don't otherwise own a license for (like stadia).

What if I rented an Amazon server and installed a virtual machine on it myself. Then logged into my steam account that way and played games that way?
Is this a violation?

I'll keep this in mind in the future, next time I'll pirate their game AND seed it so they don't get my money instead

>you have QUITE LITERALLY no rights at all
Maybe in burgerland, Valve's eula doesn't supersede consumer law here.

This is what they'll push us to. And then they'll try to be subscription streaming only. They're fucking insane.

So how can they "remove the game from their platform"? If you're the one downloading and installing it then it can't be "removed" by Nvidia.

I like it, I play it and there's nothing you can do about it, not even review bombing :)

>not continuously deleting your game files whenever the torrent completes costing the developer thousands
Amateur

I always love it when people cite EULAs but don't have concepts like
>if any part of the EULA is against the law, that point is void
>if a part of an EULA is surprising and against what a sound member of society would assume, that point is void
in their countries. Must be pretty shitty.

It seemed like there was a hell of a lot of conflicting information in this thread so I decided to download GeForce Now and see what it actually is.

When you first login you get an interface screen that shows a queue of games that GeForce Now supports (pic related). You "add" a game that they support to your library and it appears in the My Library queue.

You click one of the games in your library and you are added to a waiting list (you probably don't have to wait if you pay their monthly service fee) for a VM on one of Nvidia's servers.

Once in the VM you are requested to login to the steam client (I assume that is the only client they support right now). Once logged in you are brought to the game page where you can install the game on the VM itself. The installation seemed very quick to the point where they are probably using cached versions of the games instead of actually downloading data from the steam servers, but this is just speculation on my part.

There are some things of note. Once you've begun a VM session you can ONLY install the game you selected from the front-end. If you attempt to navigate/install a different game you are given an error message. As this is the case, you can ONLY install games that are supported from the front-end. If you search for your game and it's not there, you can't play it on this service.

I'm kind of neutral on this whole thing right now and just wanted to add some facts to the discussion. Please don't shoot the messenger, thanks.

Attached: geforce_now_example.png (1920x1040, 1.72M)

Does anyone even use GeForce Now?

You should rather wish you weren't a faggot.

Attached: tld.png (161x68, 6.96K)

Not that user.
>Is this a violation?
No, because it wasn't advertised as a video game platform, Nvidia put themselves into a legal mess when they advertise GeForce Now as a video game platform, if they advertised as a VM, nothing would have happened, but you wouldn't be able to have the streamlined UI.
>GeForce VM
>Use a online machine to do your graphic intensive work
Problem solved.

Why is everyone outraged over this one faggot when Namco and Blizz did the same shit?

having played a fair amount of tld I know they have a bit of an outspoken community.

>I literally can't even think of an example or precedent to compare this to.
It's literally just a render farm.

Those points are still a part of US contract law.

The problem is (in the US at least) there’s no Federal Bureau Of Fuck Your Business, so the financial burden is on the consumer to fight for their legally-guaranteed rights against an army of corporate lawyers. Europe’s consumer protection laws aren’t especially better than the US’s, but the EU has an agency who investigates and challenges violations of those rights at no cost to the consumer.

Big publishers being scum of the earth is understood.

Easier to bully some nobody dev with his tumblr nose looking ass game that no one wants to play as opposed to juggernauts like Bethesda.

The funny part is you have to own the game to stream it, Nvidia charges for the streaming and they want a cut of that.

I think it matters in the sense of what are we allowed to do with our license?
If I rent an Amazon server, install a virtual machine and then install and run my own steam account to play games, is this a violation?
Nvidia seems to be simply making the process easier by already doing the backend work for the average customer, as most wouldn't be able to set up their own Amazon server.

Maybe this is why they're attacking Nvidia specifically?
Maybe they realize that this kills their entire plan to make games streaming only?
Idk. I think they're 100% in the wrong.
If they're okay with me using that license across multiple computers, then I do not see why using a remote virtual machine is a problem.
Just because the backend work is already done for you?

And how is this relevant? Long Dark got a fan base because it presented an interesting initial premise. But it never made it into a decent game.
Devs are completely crazy, they have always been obsessed with "controlling" the way people play the game, as if they were some kind of Nintendo that can afford to be completely arrogant with their IPs and still keep selling well.
If you look at the Steam reviews, people have long been disgusted by the state of the game and the fact that the devs have sabotaged the only chance it will finally reach its potential, changing the engine and killing the mod scene.