4 ms·

Geforce now doesn’t directly offer games. You need to pay to buy those via Steam or another store; you effectively login to a remote Windows desktop and get tha

Geforce now doesn’t directly offer games. You need to pay to buy those via Steam or another store; you effectively login to a remote Windows desktop and get that streamed. So, I don’t understand publishers’ complaints, people could only play games they paid for, and Nvidia provided the streaming service. It’s probably technically correct on the publisher side, but I feel Nvidia did nothing wrong there.

charcircuit 3y ago
>Geforce now doesn’t directly offer games. But they do use the games commercially. >So, I don’t understand publishers’ complaints Nvidia gains value by having publisher's games in their catalog. Publishers want Nvidia to pay for that value.
- solardev 3y ago
  I don't understand this line of thought. What difference to the publisher does it make if I buy a PC or rent a Nvidia VM to play their game? They get paid through a sale, not based on what computer I play it on. And those games are still playable on Shadow, Airgpu, etc., just as bigger headaches. There are many titles I've purchased because they were available on GFN. (And many I didn't because I don't have a machine to play them on otherwise).
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - ketzo 3y ago
    The publisher could, theoretically, double dip: Require a user to buy the game on Steam, and also require Nvidia to cough up the cash to list the game for streaming. I am cynical enough about the games industry to say this is possible, even probable.
    - solardev 3y ago
      I don't think Nvidia cares enough one way or the other. The opt-in is just a checkbox in Steam for devs.
    - alanfranz 3y ago
      This is probably the “technically correct” part, but it still makes no sense. The publisher is taking away my rights as somebody who bought the game. How is that model impacting a publisher’s bottom line? What’s next? Should I pay 2x a game for a SLI config with two cards on my PC?

charcircuit 3y ago

>Geforce now doesn’t directly offer games. But they do use the games commercially. >So, I don’t understand publishers’ complaints Nvidia gains value by having publisher's games in their catalog. Publishers want Nvidia to pay for that value.

solardev 3y ago
I don't understand this line of thought. What difference to the publisher does it make if I buy a PC or rent a Nvidia VM to play their game? They get paid through a sale, not based on what computer I play it on. And those games are still playable on Shadow, Airgpu, etc., just as bigger headaches. There are many titles I've purchased because they were available on GFN. (And many I didn't because I don't have a machine to play them on otherwise).
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- ketzo 3y ago
  The publisher could, theoretically, double dip: Require a user to buy the game on Steam, and also require Nvidia to cough up the cash to list the game for streaming. I am cynical enough about the games industry to say this is possible, even probable.
  - solardev 3y ago
    I don't think Nvidia cares enough one way or the other. The opt-in is just a checkbox in Steam for devs.
  - alanfranz 3y ago
    This is probably the “technically correct” part, but it still makes no sense. The publisher is taking away my rights as somebody who bought the game. How is that model impacting a publisher’s bottom line? What’s next? Should I pay 2x a game for a SLI config with two cards on my PC?