Dum_Gen

TLD is removed from GeForce Now

Recommended Posts

Using the gym analogy.

They're not taking your equipment, they're offering a more efficient and "cheaper" way to get to the gym. Instead of buying a car(home PC) they have a bus system(servers) that lets them get subscribers to your gym. Should you get the revenue from the bus service just because one of their stops just so happens to be your gym? If someone goes to your gym without a membership will you let them in? No, but this allows more people to be able to use the gym, not everyone can afford a car that can get them to the gym and potentially more people to buy the gym membership. By them saying they don't want a bus stop nearby they're essentially saying they only want people with cars(be it a PC or console) to go to their gym. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

@SpottdrosselWhile this is true don't let out that

Quote

To be fair, the level of enforcement or protection you’ve provided a work can be a factor in how much damages are awarded. For example, if a photo you took has been circulating widely for years with no action and you sue one user of the work, that would mitigate the market value of the work, the damage the infringement could have done and how the court feels about the infringement itself. All of these things can affect the final judgment.

So how much really is your copyright worth if you enforce it years later and all you get is that you are right, and a few dollars to cover some of your legal costs? Not to mention good luck locking horns in court with a coportation that is literally a thousand times larger than you.

Edited by jeffpeng

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, PyroYuy said:

Using the gym analogy.

They're not taking your equipment, they're offering a more efficient and "cheaper" way to get to the gym. Instead of buying a car(home PC) they have a bus system(servers) that lets them get subscribers to your gym. Should you get the revenue from the bus service just because one of their stops just so happens to be your gym? If someone goes to your gym without a membership will you let them in? No, but this allows more people to be able to use the gym, not everyone can afford a car that can get them to the gym and potentially more people to buy the gym membership. By them saying they don't want a bus stop nearby they're essentially saying they only want people with cars(be it a PC or console) to go to their gym. 

Your analogy is flawed in that Nvidia is not bringing customers to my gym with a bus, but actually packing up my gym in a truck to bring to the customers. Plus even if it wasn't flawed .... if someone built a busstop on my property I would want to be asked first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jeffpeng said:

Your analogy is flawed in that Nvidia is not bringing customers to my gym with a bus, but actually packing up my gym in a truck to bring to the customers. Plus even if it wasn't flawed .... if someone built a busstop on my property I would want to be asked first.

So you don't want the added foot traffic and potential customers because you don't like a bus stop outside the gym?

What they did is anti-consumer.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


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

Your analogy is flawed in that Nvidia is not bringing customers to my gym with a bus, but actually packing up my gym in a truck to bring to the customers. Plus even if it wasn't flawed .... if someone built a busstop on my property I would want to be asked first.

In the end they found a way to connect users and developers without damaging anyone of them. Unless you think that users must buy the game several times.

In the end Nvidia apologized and offered  to negotiate, so the devs were asked but decided to damage customers who bought their game.

Being legally right != Being ethically right.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, PyroYuy said:

What they did is anti-consumer.

What Nvidia did is anti-consumer for selling you a bus ticket to a bus station Nvidia had no business building in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So using their logic I need to ask for permission to install the game on a gaming computer and stream it to my potato rig in my living room?

The added steps here are that the computer is rented and in a remote location. Sure it's a bit of a faux pas to not ask permission to have it on their nodes or whatever Nvidia wants to call it, but the end user already paid for the license to play the game I see no reason for them to have any issues. Yes they will get some css tickets for some issues that are caused by the server, but they'll also get css tickets from customers because their monitor or anything else that can go wrong, but they won't be the only ones getting css tickets, so will Nvidia.

There is no way you can tell me that it's not anti-consumer, they lost customers and will lose even more because of this move. What they should have done is pull it, then put it back up when Nvidia asked. And then flaunting that Nvidia even offered an apology as a joke shows how low this developer is. They deserve to go under just for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Dum_Gen said:

In the end Nvidia apologized and offered  to negotiate, so the devs were asked but decided to damage customers who bought their game.

So Nvidia offered their game on a platform Nvidia owns, runs and takes revenue from without HL's conscent and that is anti consumer of ... HL? Sure it's shitty for the people that bought the game, but that's like saying you're anti consumer because you don't let people into your party that someone else sold tickets for.

Share this post


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

What Nvidia did is anti-consumer for selling you a bus ticket to a bus station Nvidia had no business building in the first place.

Thing is, you can use their service for free from the bus if you wanted to, but you still had to pay for the membership. The only thing paying the bus company gets you is better seats and cooler lighting effects for places that offer it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, PyroYuy said:

Thing is, you can use their service for free from the bus if you wanted to, but you still had to pay for the membership. The only thing paying the bus company gets you is better seats and cooler lighting effects for places that offer it.

Yeah because Nvidia does that out of the good of their raytraced, hairworked, physX'd heart :D 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyways .... I respect your peoples opinions. Maybe consider reading the entire thread, and if you then stick with your opinion ... what can I say. 🤷‍♂️ I made my arguments twice over for anyone interested in reading them. Have a good one.

Share this post


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

So Nvidia offered their game on a platform Nvidia owns, runs and takes revenue from without HL's conscent and that is anti consumer of ... HL? Sure it's shitty for the people that bought the game, but that's like saying you're anti consumer because you don't let people into your party that someone else sold tickets for.

Nvidia isn't selling the game, Steam is. If you pay for GeForce now it doesn't get you access to the game unless you own it on Steam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jeffpeng said:

Anyways .... I respect your peoples opinions. Maybe consider reading the entire thread, and if you then stick with your opinion ... what can I say. 🤷‍♂️ I made my arguments twice over for anyone interested in reading them. Have a good one.

What you don't understand is that Nvidia doesn't get any money from somebody buying the game, they only get money from people subscribed to their service. Just because your game is advertised on their service doesn't mean everyone using that service can play it, only those who already own the game through Steam can.

Share this post


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

So Nvidia offered their game on a platform Nvidia owns, runs and takes revenue from without HL's conscent and that is anti consumer of ... HL? Sure it's shitty for the people that bought the game, but that's like saying you're anti consumer because you don't let people into your party that someone else sold tickets for.

Nvidia offered to use their hardware for money. Users play games that they paid for to the developers. Nvidia did not sell TLD to anyone. So you ticket analogy is not applicable.

HLs desicion to both deny people of an option to play and rejecting refunds is anti-consumer. I don't know why it is difficult to understand.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, PyroYuy said:

Just because your game is advertised on their service doesn't mean everyone using that service can play it, only those who already own the game through Steam can.

Did Nvidia really advertise TLD on their service without knowledge and consent of Hinterland? And you do not see that it's wrong?

The other thing is that the owner of the intellectual property has the right to decide in which way he wants his property to be distributed. Especially when they haven't been asked. Is it that so difficult to understand?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Dum_Gen said:

HLs desicion to both deny people of an option to play and rejecting refunds is anti-consumer. I don't know why it is difficult to understand.

 

1) Please respect other forum members and read the thread before posting. At three pages you're likely repeating a point someone already made, so at least you can acknowledge that. It also helps keep the discussion progressing rather than having to reset anytime anyone new arrives.

2) Please familiarize yourself with our guidelines before posting. This includes not posting multiple replies in a row (edit your post instead).

3) Refunds are done by the platform or store you purchased the game on. So that's a discussion for Steam, Xbox or PlayStation (Sony) and not through us. We do not control Steam, Microsoft or Sony's, or other store's refund policies. Claiming that we are refusing refunds is incorrect, we have nothing to do with that.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Plot Twist; Raph & the Team pulled TLD from GeForce to get on the News aka free exposure. TLD went from niche (not well known) to now front page of Google News right up there with the Coronavirus!

Edited by kristaok
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Admin said:

Refunds are done by the platform or store you purchased the game on. So that's a discussion for Steam, Xbox or PlayStation (Sony) and not through us. We do not control Steam, Microsoft or Sony's, or other store's refund policies. Claiming that we are refusing refunds is incorrect, we have nothing to do with that.

Considering Raphael's reaction on GOG's new 30 day refund policy, it is not fully true IMO.

 

And I thought it is basically the same discussion with the same people. But what can I say - warning is warning, I will try critisize you easier.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Dum_Gen said:

I don't know why it is difficult to understand.

I must confess: I do not understand.

No wonder I felt so touched when I read Daniel Keyes's "Flowers for Algernon" 🐭

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I must confess: I do not understand.

No wonder I felt so touched when I read Daniel Keyes's "Flowers for Algernon" 🐭

Sorry, apparently I am not allowed to explain this opinion further.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had never heard of GeForce Now until this blew up.  I have to say...kinda sounds like a waste of money. Who's their target audience anyway?  People who have gigabit Internet and a potato for a computer?  Sounds like you'd be begging for lag.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ajb1978 said:

I have to say...kinda sounds like a waste of money.

It's not something I would do personally, but I have a nice laptop and the money to buy another if need be. A lot of people don't have that kind of money, so for them it's probably not a waste of money. 

2 minutes ago, ajb1978 said:

Who's their target audience anyway? 

People who cannot afford a new desktop or laptop.

2 minutes ago, ajb1978 said:

People who have gigabit Internet and a potato for a computer? 

??? I don't even know how to respond to this... I used to think well if someone can't play the latest and greatest why not just get a new laptop! but I have learned that not everyone can afford that, so thankfully with the technology we have today we can play streamed games on older hardware. I've also learned that having the latest and greatest isn't always what it's cracked up to be, for instance I prefer Windows XP and 7 over 8 and 10, I wish there wasn't this push to get everyone on to that. I also prefer older games typically over newer games, etc. etc. for security reasons, and because I actually like owning what I buy but whatever.

5 minutes ago, ajb1978 said:

 Sounds like you'd be begging for lag.

Probably, I've never used it though. At any rate none of this matters, what matters is the fact that these people own the game, they have every right to play said game wherever and whenever they want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I think if Nvidia wants to run an Instance of TLD on one of its machines it should have to buy a copy just like I did. If they want to run 20000 instqances, they should buy 20,000 copies.

If I want to run TLD on one machine, I have to buy one copy, If I want to run it on my laptop at the same time I have to buy two copies.

Now what I do with it after I spin it up on my machine isn't regulated. But maybe it should be. If I stream on twitch, twitch makes money, Twitch should pay royalties to Hinterland. If I post a play on YouTube, YouTube should pay hinterland royalties. Why you say?

Well look at music royalties. If I play a bands music in a coffee shop, the coffee shop has to pay royalties. If you play commercial music on twitch they censor it, because they have to pay royalties. Same with music, even background music on YouTube vids. Quite often you will see that they blank out commercial music. Because they have to pay royalties. Why should games, which take many more hours than a song to write not get royalties and then some tune that some body puts together in 20 hours get paid?

YouTube and Twitch and other streaming services need sued too.

Edited by Muestereate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This will probably be the last chime in I make in this thread but one of the more compelling reasons I saw explained (I think it s in the same article perhaps linked earlier)

Imagine you're a developer with an existing game you are actively developing more content for. Your market research (mostly ppl shouting at you on the internet) has indicated a huge customer base could exist for this game if you ported it to another platform - lets say for the Switch or PS4 and even 30% of your existing customers would consider buying again for this platform. Now you spend 12 months porting your game because there's a huge amount of work to make it run on there and you want the game to live up to it's reputation. It's ok though because by all indications it looks like it will sell well once released and you can recoup the investment.

A few months before the announced launch a technology company has come up with a way for your existing game to be hosted in the cloud and played on ANY device including phones AND the platform you are currently porting to. Your publishers for the new platform can't make the numbers work on this metric - half your projected customers for it dissappear overnight - and they pull out of the deal. 

Now I've just made this up in my head but it's based off stuff in the article that ppl porting their games for other devices are now getting really nervous and need to recoup their investments so they literally cant afford for their game to be on GFN. 

This may or may not be a rationale for Hinterlands decision but the point is there are probably dozens if not more legitimate business decisions that weigh on any company trying to navigate disruptive technology. 

Its very easy to sit back and say " They should just do X" or "They should've done Y" as far as I'm aware Hinterland have not said "We're upset and our game will never be on GFN because we're petty" they've simply stated as a business they resere the right to decide... and now is the time for things like negotiations, market research (inlcuding listening to the community), financial analysis  etc, they havent had the chance up till now because no negotiation was on the table, it was just Nvidia going about it's own plan.

Now dont get me wrong the idea of GFN sounds facinating and probably 10 years from now if not sooner most of us will be playing that way (except maybe Australia with our terribly internet) and for that very reason alone is why the groundwork for how rights management and development strategies work for it needs to happen now and be negotiatied in good faith.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please do not cause this thread to be closed by derailing it with argumentative posts about moderation. We have a set of guidelines which you can read and that we expect all community members to follow. If you have a question about moderation please use a DM rather than post about it in a thread.

We do not discuss the moderation of other people's posts, but will discuss the rules and how they are applied or your own posts.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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