Dum_Gen

TLD is removed from GeForce Now

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

GeForce Now is streaming service from Nvidia, where you basically rent a virtual PC and can play games, that you bought on Steam.

Recently, Hinterland Studio requested TLD to be removed from the service, so everyone, who bought the game and service can not play it anymore:

Raph's tweet.

Nvidia's removal announcement.

What do you guys think about it? Should people be able to play their games on any (even virtual) devices? Or developers have a right to restrict what devices people can or can't use?

Edited by Dum_Gen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Intellectual property rights only hold for as long as the owner tries to keep them. Letting nVidia get away with putting their game on the service without permission, even if nVidia had eventually paid money, is not enforcing Hinterland's I.P. rights, and weakens them.

If they did not talk to Hinterland in any way about putting TLD on GeForce Now, @Raphael van Lierop didn't really have any choice in the matter.

I work in the software world (albeit not in games software). That move explains a great deal about what's been happening around GeForce Now. It's totally cheeseball and I understand now why you have game studios pulling their entire lines of software from the service. 

nVidia really screwed the pooch top pocket on that one.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could you explain how is different from buying/renting a PC/laptop and playing TLD from my Steam library?

Every internet cafe or PC producer must get permission from the developers, so user could play games/use software that they already purchased?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure. If they're renting you a machine, then you're going to install steam, download and install the game to it, and pay what it costs to do that. I could, for example, fire up a container at Amazon, and get steam installed and use the cli tool to install the game, etc. But that's not how it works, now is it?

Inherent in the value of their service is the list of games on it that are able to be played. In fact, it's not just inherent to the value, it's the entirety of its value; you can already rent CPU and GPU time on cloud services all over the internet. You're renting CPU and GPU time on a system that's been configured specifically to run games over a stream.

I have no trouble understanding the people that own all the content on that service expecting a piece of the pie. GFN is a profit driven enterprise profiting from access to TLD (along with a whole lot of other games). I have no trouble understanding why Hinterland would want some of those profits.

Furthermore, you completely didn't address my point. Intellectual Property protections only work for as long as their owner asserts them. If the owner of IP doesn't assert them, they become accessible to all. It sure looks like the right to host streaming services based on games has value as people are trying to do it. Why is it that you think the owners of the content should not be able to have the right to some of that money? Big part of the point here is that if they don't assert their rights now, they won't be able to argue for them later, so now's the time and Raph is doing the right thing to protect his firm and its assets.

 

  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
22 minutes ago, stratvox said:

But that's not how it works, now is it?

I think that is more or less how it works. I can't play games, that I didn't purchase on Steam. Consequently, I only rent CPU and GPU time. Which means that GeForce Now is one of those cloud services that you mentioned. 

22 minutes ago, stratvox said:

Furthermore, you completely didn't address my point.

That's because I don't understand how it can be applied to mentioned cloud services. Nvidia didn't claim that they have rights on TLD IP or that they distribute it. They don't grant access to games that you did not purchase via Steam and/or some other platforms. They just published a list of games that are compatible with their services, unless some developers, like HL did not allow people to play games via such services.

Edited by Dum_Gen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel like this discussion really is much more complicated than being in favor or against. There are valid arguments for all three sides: The IP holders, the service provider (Nvidia) and the players.

I get the side of the IP holders as in that their IP is actually what's providing value to the service. Nvidia could have just marketed a virtual machine you can install and run games (or any other software) on, but that probably wouldn't have the same appeal. And it's not like those services don't exist - they do, actually for quite some time now. The problem with that would be that Nvidia wouldn't know what game you would run, so they had to offer the full performance for every instance - which they currently do not. Simpler games are run on simpler (hence: cheaper) nodes. So if what the IP holders provide is an intrinsic part of the value - why aren't they compensated?

On the other hand I get Nvidias side - which is quite rare of me to get anything these people do, honestly. They pay for the hardware, which isn't just a few servers here and there, but a global infrastructure that costs millions if not billions and they pay for the connectivity, which won't come cheap since it probably involves some priority routing to keep latencies in check (net neutrality my bass, btw). If anything: having access to a high performance gaming platform will lead people to buy more new games, especially from the AAA roster, simply because now they have the appropriate hardware to run them on as a gaming PC with comparable performance to what you get on Geforce Now on the fastest nodes quickly costs in excess of $1000. And it's not like Game developers get a share of PC sales just because you can run their games on a PC. So if you can drive the argument - and quite successfully so - that game developers do, albeit it passively, earn from Geforce Now, why don't they just play ball?

And I guess the side I understand most is the side of the players. You see: The proverbial "I" already paid for that game. I "own" it. That's how most of us perceive "buying" something: You pay a certain amount of currency in exchange for ownership of whatever you purchase. The concept that intellectual property isn't something you own, but rather something you pay "protection money" for so that the IP owner doesn't sue you for using/consuming their IP is something totally alien to people not entangled with intellectual property. When I buy a game I don't buy the game, but I buy the revokeable permissing to play that game under very specific conditions laid out in the EULA (End User License Agreement). Pretty much the same goes with any other type of intellectual property: music, movies, books, in short: everything you can copy. You pay for it, but you don't own it. Now since this concept is very hard to convey to "us" (and I'm not saying it's a perfect or even fair concept) "we" simply don't get why we can play our game on any computer we own, but not on a computer we rent over the internet.

I think Nvidia is to blame as far as apparently they did a very poor job of acquiring permissions from especially smaller studios - meaning in most cases they just didn't, as is typical Nvidia fashion. Maybe at some point those people will realize that pissing off every one and their mother in the industry is not a sustainable business model. The IP holders are to blame as far as, again, you can very successfully drive the argument that they still are making money from this, albeit not as much as they could if everyone bought their games "again" for Geforce Now. Then again: since that would basically remove a lot of the appeal from Geforce Now .... would they really make any money this way?

All of this showcases something very important: we need to redefine how people should be allowed to use software they paid money for, and cloud computing needs a legal framework defining how virtual customer instances differ from physical machines - and how they don't. Stadia and Geforce Now are just the newest kids on the block in an IT world that's in the midst of an unprecedented paradigm shift towards "Cloud Computing", which basically means nothing else than centralizing computing in datacenters opposed to distributing computing to the customers. We'll see the day where your Desktop doesn't run on your "PC", but is merely an instance on some server in some Datacenter, and all you have for a computer is what you call a "thin client" - a low spec computer (Comparable in power and complexity to your Fire TV stick or a Raspberry Pi) that does nothing but relay inputs to and outputs from the server. A popular example of this is NVidia's Shield, and I think a lot of people working for bigger corporations will know similar devices to connect to their "Citrix" instance at the office. We'll all have that at some point, just globally.

My personal opinion is that I should be able to play any game I purchased on Steam on any device I want - whether if that device is in my physical posession, or a rented device in some datacenter. Also my personal opinion is that, as always, the customer is expected to pay the dues here, and that, as always, the customer is taking the can for corporations fighting money. Whic is unacceptable. So until people figure out a way to better protect customer interests when it comes to software licensing .... stick with what works - which is running stuff on your own machine.

  • Upvote 8
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
29 minutes ago, jeffpeng said:

I feel like this discussion really is much more complicated than being in favor or against...

Thank you, jeffpeng, for extended answer, that what I was hoping for.

Thank you too, stratvox.

I mostly agree with jeffpeng. Besides, I think I took this issue more personally than other with context of TLD and  cloud computing. My current laptop is quite old and I doubt that I will be able to afford another one when it finally breaks. And with such a long time HL takes to release the story mode it jeopardize my chances to finally  experience the Wintermute, taking into account that they already removed access to TLD for people with old software (32-bit systems or smth.), even if it was involuntary. 

Consequently, I was considering cloud computing options, such as GeForce Now and other. As a result, I am very disappointed with this notion of removing access from people who already paid for the game and just trying to find an option to play games without spending too much on the hardware. In addition, I believe it can be damaging to HL themselves, because they will lose the market of cloud computing users. Unless of course they believe that people should pay one more time for the game (like people have to do with consoles). That opinion I hardly disagree with, especially with TLD, mainly because they are taking so long to deliver what they advertised with TLD. I kind of understand, that they have to adapt the game to consoles, which explains additional fees. However, with GFN and others they don't need additional work, those are basically PC and Nvidia and others will include adapting into their fees.

I understand, that every company wants to maximize their profits, including via vague User Agreements. However, I disagree from the personal perspective, I believe that people should be able to buy a personal right to use the product for a fair price, if it does not damage profits of the company (like copying, etc.). 

Edited by Dum_Gen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I said and @stratvox also hinted at there are other services that actually offer you a "real" remote machine. Don't ask me what's the particular name, but I remember reading about a service that offered that with a decent GPU at least in the Americas. Although I'm not particularly convinced TLD is the game you should need a cloud service for as the hardware requirements are pretty understated. I guess it should be rather expensive to get a laptop that runs TLD at satisfactory performance, but you can get away with a very cheap PC and then in-home stream to pretty much a toaster.  I don't know how constrained your budget is, but you can run TLD somewhat okayish on a R3-3200G, which you should be able to build a PC around for less than 300 bucks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, jeffpeng said:

...you can run TLD somewhat okayish on a R3-3200G, which you should be able to build a PC around for less than 300 bucks.

It is a case right now. But as I mentioned, maybe this system will not be supported by HL/ Unity engine when they finally release the rest of the game, as it happened with 32-bit systems. I think those problems were not serious issues when those people bought TLD back in a day.

I hope HL will be more lenient with "real" remote machines and will not find any applicable part of the user agreement that will restrict out options to use it with those services. Thank you for your advice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest kristaok
Posted (edited)
11 hours ago, Dum_Gen said:

GeForce Now is streaming service from Nvidia, where you basically rent a virtual PC and can play games, that you bought on Steam.

Recently, Hinterland Studio requested TLD to be removed from the service, so everyone, who bought the game and service can not play it anymore:

Raph's tweet.

Nvidia's removal announcement.

What do you guys think about it? Should people be able to play their games on any (even virtual) devices? Or developers have a right to restrict what devices people can or can't use?

I think if people buy the game then they should have the right to play that game wherever they want, sadly with technology today (everything going digital) it appears we don't really own anything. This is one of the reasons why I've pretty much got out of gaming in the sense that I only buy/play older games that I know I own from the CD era. 

Now with that being said; Im not nor have I ever been fond of whatever these things are "streaming services", where you pay or whatever to stream games idk. Call me old fashioned but I come from the CD days. 

...

Anyway...

I just feel like it's greed overall though, and for a small indie thing like TLD... I feel like it could cause more harm than good.

This is just my personal opinion. 

Ps. I must say though that there's something about the mocking tone of this tweet / reply that really bothers me... 

"Sorry to those who are disappointed you can no longer play #thelongdark on GeForce Now,” Lierop tweeted. “Nvidia didn't ask for our permission to put the game on the platform so we asked them to remove it. Please take your complaints to them, not us. Devs should control where their games exist.”

Lierop followed up his statement by saying that “[Nvidia] offered us a free graphics card as an apology, so maybe they'll offer you the same thing,” though it’s not entirely clear if he meant the comment in jest or was serious.

Source: https://www.ign.com/articles/long-dark-nvidia-geforce-now-streaming-takedown

I already see people saying they will boycott this game and even reviewing it negatively on Steam, again decisions like this will only hurt the game in the long run. 

Edited by kristaok

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the new world we live in: you think you pay a game to own it, but in fact no. You paid a Digital Right on Steam, which is a "promise" and has a value equals to the confidence you have toward the platform/developer. It seams this time HL weren't up to their own standards, since you couldn't possibly know when you bought their game that they were not OK with this GeForce thing. To me you were innocent but you paid the price. It's a bit like the people you bought the game on GOG. Althought not entirely, since they still can play the game they bought (cause they didn't buy a right to play it).

Unfortunately, if you already purchased the game once, you'll just have to take it back for free, no matter the means. If you didn't purchase one yet (don't know what this GeForce thing is), well it's up to you to put you trust in Hinterland or not.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I work extensively in both cloud computing (albeit in numerical scientific computing) and dealing extensively with IP (in this case I mean Intellectual Property, not Internet Protocol... though I work with Internet Protocol extensively as well). 

It's not like TLD is licensed under an OSS agreement. *You* can install it on any machine you have care and control of. nVidia cannot. That's the entire crux of it right there. 

I pretty much guarantee you that there's a docker filesystem layer in GFN's server infrastructure with TLD on it, and that's used to spin up a container that can run the game. Not asking to be allowed to do this with software they don't have rights to is absolute hubris on the part of nVidia. 

Like I said in my initial comment on this thread, it now makes a LOT more sense why suddenly right before launch they're losing the privilege of streaming these games to customers. Once again, if the owner of IP doesn't assert a particular right *when they discover it's being used by someone they didn't grant that right to*, they lose that particular right to their IP. In this case, we're talking about what are called mechanical copyrights; the right to make a copy of the IP in question... one of the absolutely most fundamental of the rights inherent in the overall legal framework governing IP.

@Raphael van Lierop's decision is completely understandable. I'm not at all surprised that he also feels insulted that nVidia didn't take the time to query the rights holders (in this case we're talking about Hinterland Inc.) about whether that was all right. Seriously, folks, this is on nVidia. I'm actually blown away by the fact that they didn't think they needed to do this.

Judging by the growing list of publishers/dev houses etc that are pulling their games, apparently he's not the only rights holder that feels this way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, stratvox said:

I pretty much guarantee you that there's a docker filesystem layer in GFN's server infrastructure with TLD on it, and that's used to spin up a container that can run the game. Not asking to be allowed to do this with software they don't have rights to is absolute hubris on the part of nVidia. 

100% agree. It's this hubris that will one day get Jenson's smug leather jacket wearing backside fired.

1 hour ago, stratvox said:

Once again, if the owner of IP doesn't assert a particular right *when they discover it's being used by someone they didn't grant that right to*, they lose that particular right to their IP. In this case, we're talking about what are called mechanical copyrights; the right to make a copy of the IP in question... one of the absolutely most fundamental of the rights inherent in the overall legal framework governing IP.

What I know are mechanical licenses - from making music. And while I understand HL's decision, I don't think they would have voided any rights on their own IP - but please correct me if I am wrong. If anything game companies could present NVidia with some legal text that grants them the permission to install certain games for the exclusive purpose of people running them that do own the game on steam. Then again: This kind of legal work doesn't happen over night.

1 hour ago, stratvox said:

@Raphael van Lierop's decision is completely understandable. I'm not at all surprised that he also feels insulted that nVidia didn't take the time to query the rights holders (in this case we're talking about Hinterland Inc.) about whether that was all right. Seriously, folks, this is on nVidia. I'm actually blown away by the fact that they didn't think they needed to do this.

Well, it's Nvidia. They usually get away with this sort of moosepoop. I could make an extensive list of instances Nvidia has freezed over people in the industry or customers. If these people would play by the rules almost everyone else sticks to I could maybe be swayed to recommend somehting with their sticker on it at some point in the distant future. But they don't. I think this is a also an important part in why devs react so .... hostile. It's not some oversight from someone that usually behaves. It's the schoolyard bully robbing you for your milk money again.

The thing is .... I get why HL did what they did, and I guess I would have probably acted the same all things considered. By now I also thought about a lot of other reasons why a game developer would not want they IP featured on a streaming service they have no control over, like lackluster performance being associated with the game rather than the service, etc. But I really wanted to emphasize that this is something customers don't understand and should not have to understand.

But it's kinda funny. Stadia was pretty much DoA, and now GFN is looking to be the best streaming service around, just without any games.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Dum_Gen said:

It is a case right now. But as I mentioned, maybe this system will not be supported by HL/ Unity engine when they finally release the rest of the game, as it happened with 32-bit systems. I think those problems were not serious issues when those people bought TLD back in a day.

I hope HL will be more lenient with "real" remote machines and will not find any applicable part of the user agreement that will restrict out options to use it with those services. Thank you for your advice.

It's unlikely that will happen. Cutting off 32 bit support was overdue and frankly I was surprised they kept it around that long. Especially if you consider that there exists no hardware that is 32 bit only that could run TLD anywhere near satisfactory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Many licenses are one license, one machine. With schemes like Microsoft and adobe. I can pick how many machines I want to be able to install on. For instance MS Office for  69 dollars a year I can install on one machine, for 99 I can install on three. If I want my whole business to run MS office, I pay by the seat. same goes for Adobe. 

My Kindle is similar. I buy a book, I can read it on 5 devices.

Now the Nvidia service seems more like a Server than an application. A game like Minecraft has a server as part of the whole package.  Quite a few multiplayer games offer server license packages, Some are part of the package and some are premium priced like a dlc.. Massive Multi players like Eve Online or WOW don't have these though because they need that huge infrastructure and server subscription fees are how they worked around piracy too

The Long Dark has agreements with Humble, Microsoft Store and Steam. On all of them you purchase the game through them and they in turn kick back whatever negotiated amounts to Hinterland. But NVidia? No purchase required? How does Hinterland get it's money or enforce something like one license, One machine at a time? I could play a game through my Steam account and my nephew play through Nvidia at the same time. Why that just cut a sale from Hinterland! How are they to purchase Trees?

If they sit down at the table they can hammer out whatever but someone with profits like NVIDIA shouldn't be able to pirate freely . Let them purchase a thousand or ten thousand licenses or one license per instance at a reduced bulk price. Let them access a Steam API and code it to Hinterlands satisfaction that it only allows one at a time. Kick back per game hour or whatever they chose but the Long Dark has never been free and I've never regretted the money spent on it. My gosh just let people purchase it through NVIDIA, the boilerplate is already hammered out with Steam, Humble and Microsoft. Even let us buy DLC that allows us to play it on Nvidia, whatever. This is One of my BEST game purchases ever really.

Edited by Muestereate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Muestereate said:

The Long Dark has agreements with Humble, Microsoft Store and Steam. On all of them you purchase the game through them and they in turn kick back whatever negotiated amounts to Hinterland. But NVidia? No purchase required? How does Hinterland get it's money or enforce something like one license, One machine at a time? I could play a game through my Steam account and my nephew play through Nvidia at the same time. Why that just cut a sale from Hinterland! How are they to purchase Trees?

As far as I understand it GFN literally runs the steam runtime to run you game online. So not only do you need to purchase the game first through steam, also do the same restrictions apply when it comes to running multiple instances of the same game from the same account at the same time.

41 minutes ago, Muestereate said:

Now the Nvidia service seems more like a Server than an application. A game like Minecraft has a server as part of the whole package.  Quite a few multiplayer games offer server license packages, Some are part of the package and some are premium priced like a dlc.. Massive Multi players like Eve Online or WOW don't have these though because they need that huge infrastructure and server subscription fees are how they worked around piracy too

GFN is neither a server for a game, nor is it (at it's core) an application. What you basically do with GFN is that you run your game on a PC in some datacenter and then stream it to your own device, much like you can do with Steam at home. So technically the service isn't so much different from you renting a PC in an internet cafe.

The crux really lies in how GFN does all of that:

Basically when you start a game, GFN starts that game on what they call a node. A node is a virtual machine running on a server. That node gets a share of the resources that server has to offer - in some cases even all resources. This way GFN can make sure they give you the performance you need, but not more. So you get a full server when you run stuff like Battlefield V, but you don't block a full server when you play something less demanding like, let's say, Monkey Island. To be able to do that GFN needs to have these games already installed and ready in some container, and that's one of the big problems IP owners have with GFN: They have those games, their IP, already installed on their systems, and all that without even asking permission to do so.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest kristaok

If someone bought my game I could personally careless where they played it, but that's just me. 

Its not like the people using it through GeForce or whatever didn't really own the game. 

As for the whole 32bit thing, the sims 4 did the same thing. I can use the 64bit, but with that being said I don't blame those who can't for being hurt and upset. I don't know why someone would make a game that can utilize 32bit then change it later on dropping support for it. If you don't intend to support it then just go 64bit from the get go? Idk. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, jeffpeng said:

What I know are mechanical licenses - from making music. And while I understand HL's decision, I don't think they would have voided any rights on their own IP - but please correct me if I am wrong. If anything game companies could present NVidia with some legal text that grants them the permission to install certain games for the exclusive purpose of people running them that do own the game on steam. Then again: This kind of legal work doesn't happen over night.

They would've voided the ability to control mechanical licensing... exactly the same right you're talking to wrt musical IP. And yes, nVidia could've taken that route but they chose not to. I personally suspect that they were figuring on rolling over the tiny firms (like Hinterland) because they're Big And Rich.

51 minutes ago, kristaok said:

If someone bought my game I could personally careless where they played it, but that's just me. 

Its not like the people using it through GeForce or whatever didn't really own the game. 

As for the whole 32bit thing, the sims 4 did the same thing. I can use the 64bit, but with that being said I don't blame those who can't for being hurt and upset. I don't know why someone would make a game that can utilize 32bit then change it later on dropping support for it. If you don't intend to support it then just go 64bit from the get go? Idk. 

It's not about the users in this case, it's about nVidia doing something they clearly had no right to do without talking to the owners of the content (like Hinterland) first.

Mechanical reproduction is the most basic of copyrights; it's the right to print a book, make a record, burn a CD, or copy software from installation media to a hard drive. When you bought TLD, you bought the right to copy the software to your hard drive. nVidia did not do that, but copied the software anyway.

Once again, in order to continue to retain copyright, one must enforce copyright. I can see how Hinterland, had they been approached by nVidia, could've worked something out (sort of like the classic "I'll rent you this corner of my property for a buck a year for as long as you have that driveway there; I do this so you can't get a right of way and deprive me of the use of my property at a future date if I have a reason to use it"), but that would've required nVidia to spend money and time doing that.

I think they figured they were just going to run over those firms, and only strike deals with kickbacks to the AAA studios; that the little guys would be all "Oh, thank you nVidia for violating our IP". Big mistake, imho.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, kristaok said:

If someone bought my game I could personally careless where they played it, but that's just me. 

As a customer I'm 100% with you. As a software developer that earns his dime on the premise that my "intellectual property" is exactly that - my property - I understand game developers pulling their games when Nvidia didn't even ask - hell, they didn't even notify them. And after reading up on the legal background especially on your side of the pond I must agree that @stratvox is right. Not asserting their "right" would have pretty much lead to losing their ability to ever exert it again with Nvidia.

1 hour ago, kristaok said:

As for the whole 32bit thing, the sims 4 did the same thing. I can use the 64bit, but with that being said I don't blame those who can't for being hurt and upset. I don't know why someone would make a game that can utilize 32bit then change it later on dropping support for it. If you don't intend to support it then just go 64bit from the get go? Idk. 

I think a lot has to do with Windows 7's End Of Life. Afaik Windows 7 was the last Windows you could own that had 32bit only versions. And if I recall correctly, you couldn't just "upgrade" to a 64 bit version for free, at least not strictly legally. Considering how many people stuck with Windows 7 (and still do  ......) it made sense to have a dual binary release in both 32 and 64 bit. But now that Windows 7 is officially dead (as in no longer supported), and with it the last mainstream 32 bit OS, it makes as much sense to drop 32 bit support. Because, frankly, having both 64 and 32 bit versions of your software means that you have to bugtest and actually bugfix both of them. And that's a lot of work. Also keeping in mind that your software has to run on 64 and 32 bit comes with a few caveats you have to consider when actually writing your software. (although the latter part might not really apply to TLD due to it being based on Unity which is based on C#, which is rather platform agnostic).

Also ..... who really "can't" use 64 bit? The latest desktop processor that didn't support that was, iirc, the Intel Core series - not the Core i series, but the original Core processors (Yonah) based on the Pentium M. Those are from 2006. That's 14 years ago. No modern game should run, at least not "well enough", on these.

Now I see how a very small amount people might get upset about this, but it is neither feasible nor really sensible from a business standpoint to keep supporting a legacy platform that has gone out of service and became obsolete a decade ago. It's like when they finally cut normal terrestrial television broadcasts in Germany in favor of digital broadcasting. Sure a few people got upset, but you can't support obsolete technologies indefinitely or you'll run out of room for new ones.

45 minutes ago, stratvox said:

I personally suspect that they were figuring on rolling over the tiny firms (like Hinterland) because they're Big And Rich.

Yeah as it's their way. Nvidia has this history of doing not totally stupid stuff, but in a totally stupid way. But now that I think about it .... I guess a lot of people will keep pulling games from GFN. Now we already established that the entire hardware and infrastructure will have cost them hundreds of millions, billions if you factor in they bought Mellanox for pretty much this specific project. Now let's see how Big And Rich they are once their investors realize they have a game streaming service without games.

Edited by jeffpeng
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I purchased your game through steam, and would like to play it on my tv.  Should I email you tonight and ask for permission to play?  I am also thinking of purchasing a new PC.  Should I ask you which hardware I can purchase so I can play your game?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest kristaok

Guys I am not saying Nvidia shouldn't have asked, but at the same time why should they? The product was already paid for by the customer(s), it's not like these people playing it through Geforce whatever it is don't own the game already. Even though I admit with the way everything has gone digital we technically don't own anything, which to be quite honest (in my opinion) is sad... we as a society have grown too accustomed to that fact. This is why I have slacked off in buying games, I pretty much stick to the older titles, as I don't want to feel like I own something that I technically don't. Like for instance I have a lot of games I bought in the past on Steam which was dumb on my part, but anyway... I stopped doing that because Steam could go down any minute or my account could be hacked whatever, and I would just lose all of the games and the money I put into those games.

I stated this earlier and I will state it again... The Long Dark isn't a well known game, and I am not saying this to be mean at all! I LOVE TLD, but the fact of the matter is it's still an indie title. I could go to my local Gamestop right now and mention TLD and they probably haven't ever heard of it, it's pretty niche. I also have nothing at all against Hinterland or Raph, but there are some things that have been said and done that have left me with mixed emotions. Let's just say I am glad to see Raph is taking a break from Twitter, because sometimes I am like please don't say anything to stir the pot if that makes sense, because not only does a move like this harm the brand and game, but so does replying to all the angry posts etc.

I have personally seen people refusing to buy the game due to this, and I am sure there are other reasons like the lack of mod support, being slow to continue the storyline, dropping 32bit support, etc. haven't helped.

I am passionate about this game, I don't want to see it fail so this is why I am speaking so openly / bluntly about this. I could just keep my mouth shut (or hands tied so to speak) and just not say anything, or I can say how I feel on the matter since after-all the OP did ask everyone how they felt about the situation. 

Lastly... even though this is how I feel, I still don't agree with a lot of the hateful comments directed at Raph or the Team... my advice to them (Raph and the Team) if they cared to listen... would be to be professional, don't stir the pot, don't reply even if it's hard not to. All replying with snarky comebacks does is make the Team and the game suffer, and it adds fuel to the fire. Heres a little Proverbs that I think applies to this situation; "A gentle answer turns away wrath, but harsh words stirs up anger." Well and another tidbit of advice would be to consider thinking about the customers first, and also sometimes your vision may seem right to you but you need to ask yourself will this vision (what I want for said product) be right for others? will it turn others away from my product, or will it turn them towards my product? No offense to EA, but you don't want to go down the road they've been going for a while now and be greedy and thus be hated, not saying everyone will love TLD or Hinterland, but at least be willing to try. People are usually quick to guage if someone is just in things for profit, or if they're in it because they're actually passionate about what they're doing. I know I for one love to see someone passionate about something, it stirs me to want to help them succeed, but when I see someone greedy it makes me back off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I don't know a lot about geforce now and I hope jensen gets poo in his face, but if I understand correctly nvidia is renting out hardware you can log into your steam account with? Seems like they're lowering the barrier of entry for people buying the game? I don't see why this is bad. But then again it's nvidia. I am sure they're being dicks somehow.

edit------

I should say jensen is being a dick, not nvidia since that includes so many people who probably aren't complete garbage. Man that jensen guy is awful.

 

Edited by odizzido

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So Nvidia didn't ask for permission.  This was a very poor way of responding to that.  Denying customers access to a game they already paid for was not a very good look for the studio.  Sure, Hinterland has every right to ask to have it removed, but why?  It was free exposure.  Its not like people were playing the game for free.  They had already bought it through steam.  I own an Nvidia Shield so I had played it through there before back when GFN was in Beta.  Its fantastic that I can play a game I already paid for on my tv late at night in bed instead of sitting at my PC.  I guess Hinterland doesn't feel that way.  Very disappointing and poorly handled IMHO.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Wade said:

I purchased your game through steam, and would like to play it on my tv.  Should I email you tonight and ask for permission to play?  I am also thinking of purchasing a new PC.  Should I ask you which hardware I can purchase so I can play your game?

That's completely ridiculous, and only demonstrates that you have no idea what you're talking about.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest kristaok
27 minutes ago, stratvox said:

That's completely ridiculous, and only demonstrates that you have no idea what you're talking about.

I think they were just being sarcastic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.