Dum_Gen

TLD is removed from GeForce Now

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, DaveMcD said:

Its very easy to sit back and say " They should just do X" or "They should've done Y"

This is not a brand new disease, although, by the time beeing, it is gathering steam (no pun intended) with populism and quick delivered judgements through social networks.

Anyway, in order to advertize and use IP protected material, companies have to make a deal first. There is no way that the IP owner should accept beeing confronted to the fait accompli and its consequences.

From this very first wrongdoing by Nvidia, there is no way you can blame Hinterland. They do not have to be dragged into consequences as they didn't break any deal or law.

Tryin to use consumers who bought the game via an unapproved plateform against the IP owner is wrong.

All the blame is on the giant Nvidia who think he can get along with it. Do you really think that Nvidia lack of legal department staff and they do not know what they do and the risks ?

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for bringing up a point about how the situation could be unique for each developer @DaveMcD

I'm not a fan of ports and reselling games on multiple platforms; but until game streaming leaves its early and rough experimental stages it is still very much an acceptable and common business practice. There's been tidbits about Hinterland making a switch version and I wouldn't Imagine GFN is a very good thing to have pop up after such an investment. 

It also just upsets me when a big company like Nvidia acts like they don't have the resources to contact developers directly before doing anything with their game, or rather they don't think they have to. 

That said, I totally understand player's frustration with Hinterland but I think the blame is less black and white than "Greedy developers want to double dip"

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  

16 hours ago, ajb1978 said:

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.

Well my son is 6 years old, has the appropriate income for that age, and access to gigabit Internet ....  So I guess he would be the target audience. The kind of hardware he has (an Amazon play tablet, and a Z8350 Atom box to watch Netflix) could technically be used to connect to GFN, but not to run real games. In general the real appeal of streaming games is mostly in that you can do it with most every device, technically even a "Smart TV". You can build a streaming box for under 50 bucks with a Raspberry Pi.

Buying a computer with equivalent specs would land you somewhere around 1500 bucks. So technically you can either buy a new PC, or subscribe to GFN for 25 years.

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Her are Hinterlands Intellectual property rights, clear and unambiguous unlike most Eula's. Very simply and well done in 2017. No surprises, last minute edits etc.

IP rights

I liked the post about porting. I've always resisted buying but understood that if I wanted a piece of software to run on another platform, as in several consoles, that I would have to buy several pieces of software. I could not expect something I bought for Xbox to run on Nintendo. If I wanted it to run on Sony I would need a third purchase and If I wanted to run it on a PC I would need a 4th.

I Do like that Steam has a lot of games that will run on Linux and I don't think I was charged extra for that. I don't even know if TLD will run on Linux without wine but If it does I would consider it a perk and not a right.

I do agree somewhat with those that feel like their license should give them more ownership rights but I also know that despite what I want, I don't always get what I want for the price I want to pay. There are a ton of games I purchased on steam that I've played less than ten hours and never played again. I have other software that I pay for every year but barely use. I have gotten so much value and playtime from the Long Dark that I almost feel guilty when updates and upgrades release. I say to myself,  Another free one? 

I'm all for anything that helps them make enough money so they don't have to start charging me for extras. :) Siding with Hinterland is only siding with myself.

Edited by Muestereate
text color for link
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 3/1/2020 at 10:24 PM, jeffpeng said:

 

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 pay for the privilege of playing The Long Dark, but I don't own The Long Dark franchise. That much is understandable.

However, because I've paid for the privilege of playing The Long Dark (PC platform), how, where, and when I choose to play it is irrelevant. I should be able to pick my PC up, travel to any location, plug it in, and continue playing. Likewise, I should be able to travel to any internet cafe, rent a PC, log into Steam from the internet cafe, download The Long Dark if it's not already locally installed, and resume playing from my cloud save. However, if Freddy Frost-Fingers behind me looks over my shoulder and is curious to see what I'm playing, they shouldn't be able to hop onto my PC after I'm done with it and start a new game of The Long Dark for themselves just because it's now locally installed on that machine. They haven't paid for the privilege of playing The Long Dark, so they shouldn't be allowed to do so (unless they're using my steam account with my permission).

Regarding revokable permission, a dev may revoke my permission to play their game only after they've refunded me in full the price I paid for the permission to play it in the first place. Otherwise, they can take a long walk off a short pier. That would be fair. And, if I had the funds necessary to make such a case in court, I absolutely would, even if it's over a matter of merely $30. Principles matter, and I worry that someone in a position of power (in this case, a game developer) might be willing to shakedown what is otherwise fair and principled because the cost of contesting the matter before the courts would cost the end user more than the actual license to play.

Besides, if memory serves right, The Long Dark did not come with an EULA.

Though I speak only for myself, I am confident that this opinion is one held by the majority of gamers and is not up for debate. If the developers disagree, they can refund me i full and I'll happily uninstall The Long Dark in exchange. And I mean in full. I've got over 1000 hours in The Long Dark, but if Hinterland doesn't want me playing it anymore, they must refund me every single penny I paid for it initially.

Quote

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.

Here's your definition: I paid for X, I can use X however, whenever, and wherever I want, provided that I have the means to do so. I won't accept anything less.

Quote

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.

 

This is no different from the days of yore, where "dumb" terminals were used to access larger machines via an interface, usually connected by an RS-232 cable. The terminal itself had no brains, but rather served as an extension of a larger mainframe and acted as its Input/Output device for whoever was accessing the terminal at the time. The chief difference is that nowadays, that mainframe can be in some remote location, and instead of using an RS-232 cable, we're using our internet connection.

I cannot fathom why someone would want to run EVERYTHING from the cloud. I certainly can understand -- and appreciate -- storing files on the cloud. Start a spreadsheet at work, save it to the cloud, pick it up again once I get back home. Very convenient. No different from saving the file to a USB drive, but saves me the hassle of doing that. But entire systems? No. Boggles the mind.

Quote

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.

I concur.

 

Now, I had a powerful PC before, and I just recently purchased an even more powerful PC. I would never dream of using a cloud service like the one Nvidia has, so I'm not familiar with exactly how it's operating. What I do know is this: The Long Dark used to be in the library, now it's not. I'm confused by this, because my understanding is that if I'm using Nvidia's cloud service, that I'm logging into a steam account in order to play The Long Dark via that cloud service. The only way I could see this being incorrect is if the service was allowing people to play The Long Dark without needing to log in to a platform like Steam. As in, the player signs up for the service, and now has access to a library of games they didn't pay for. THAT is understandably a problem. A problem which could be resolved by selling the equivalent of an Enterprise license for The Long Dark to Nvidia.

Edited by GothSkunk
Adding something I didn't consider before.
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


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

I Do like that Steam has a lot of games that will run on Linux and I don't think I was charged extra for that. I don't even know if TLD will run on Linux without wine but If it does I would consider it a perk and not a right.

1. Technically it does, however the Linux port is currently broken. It works okay via wine.
2. Yes having multi binary releases on Steam for no extra cost is pretty amazing and it would be understandable if they weren't since actually porting a game to a different OS is no small feat.

6 minutes ago, GothSkunk said:

Here's your definition: I paid for X, I can use X however, whenever, and wherever I want. I won't accept anything less.

IF you could use X however you want, that would include, but not limit you, to: resell X or parts of X, redistribute X or parts of X, modify X or parts of X, create, publish and sell deriviative work of X or parts of X. However you will find that with pretty much no example of X (X being any Intellectual Property) you can do that at a retail price, with the very special exception of works under an Open Source Agreement such as the GNU Public License, or works under a permissive license such as Creative Commons.

So while I wish you the best of luck with your opinion, and I even sympathize with it as a customer, I feel inclined to recommend you not putting any bets on you being right on this one.

16 minutes ago, GothSkunk said:

This is no different from the days of yore, where "dumb" terminals were used to access larger machines via an interface, usually connected by an RS-232 cable. The terminal itself had no brains, but rather served as an extension of a larger mainframe and acted as its Input/Output device for whoever was accessing the terminal at the time. The chief difference is that nowadays, that mainframe can be in some remote location, and instead of using an RS-232 cable, we're using our internet connection.

The difference is that this time this is happening on a global scale, with several magnitudes or order of more data and computing is much more centered in our civilazation than it has been in the 60/70s you are referring to. The sheer difference in scale and importance would be alone to warrant caution, but today we're not talking centralizing a couple of office building into a basement full of computers but centralizing literally the planet full of private people. So ..... 🤷‍♂️ yeah, some difference. Actually all the difference.

23 minutes ago, GothSkunk said:

I cannot fathom why someone would want to run EVERYTHING from the cloud. I certainly can understand -- and appreciate -- storing files on the cloud. Start a spreadsheet at work, save it to the cloud, pick it up again once I get back home. Very convenient. No different from saving the file to a USB drive, but saves me the hassle of doing that. But entire systems? No. Boggles the mind.

Why? Why does that boggle the mind? If you substract problems like latency, bandwith limitations and compression artifacts, which are problems that will be sorted out eventually (at least to a satisfactory degree)... why? You are obviously comfortable to put your data into the cloud - why not all of it? I'm not saying it's ready, and I'm not saying it will be anytime soon. But eventually? Why pay a thousand dollars for a piece of hardware you will have to throw out in 3-4 years anyways - assuming it doesn't break first - instead of paying let's say 120 dollars annually and you get reasonable recent performance at any point. Technologically the advantages of cloud computing are overwhelming. Financially as well. Even ecologically.

Socially.... yeah that's where I see problems. Legally, too, which is why I think we need a more robust legal framework that defines what "Cloud Computing" actually is, how it does compare to personal computing and who owns what and to what capacity. Because if you don't own something it gets that much easier to take it away from you. But when I look at how "Right to repair" is actually a discussion ..... how much do you even own anything today? But in the long run .... it is inevitable.

Share this post


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

This is a good article on the subject: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2020/03/03/why-the-long-dark-developer-is-wrong-to-pull-the-game-from-geforce-now/amp/

At the bottom it explains in short how there's no way nvidia could give a cut to game devs. It's all worth a read. 

While I don't agree with the article in general (read it before, but thanks for linking), I agree that Nvidia shouldn't have to compensate game developers. But afaik that isn't really the issue. The issue is that Nvidia does not have the legal right to host those game on their Platform (and yes, Mr. Erik Kain, it is a platform) without acquiring a permissive agreement in advance. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Btw, as far as I understood, removing TLD was legal according to the US laws. Is there difference in laws of Canada, the EU and Australia?

I heard that EU and Australia had more customer-oriented legislation, e.g. with regards to refunds, loot boxes, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest kristaok

@jeffpeng I agree they probably should have asked permission, my point is that I don't think pulling the game from GeForce was a good idea. In fact I think it was a bad idea, and it will do more harm than good. I don't think this issue is going to just blow over either. 

Share this post


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

Why? Why does that boggle the mind? If you substract problems like latency, bandwith limitations and compression artifacts, which are problems that will be sorted out eventually (at least to a satisfactory degree)... why? You are obviously comfortable to put your data into the cloud - why not all of it? I'm not saying it's ready, and I'm not saying it will be anytime soon. But eventually? Why pay a thousand dollars for a piece of hardware you will have to throw out in 3-4 years anyways - assuming it doesn't break first - instead of paying let's say 120 dollars annually and you get reasonable recent performance at any point. Technologically the advantages of cloud computing are overwhelming. Financially as well. Even ecologically.

Socially.... yeah that's where I see problems. Legally, too, which is why I think we need a more robust legal framework that defines what "Cloud Computing" actually is, how it does compare to personal computing and who owns what and to what capacity. Because if you don't own something it gets that much easier to take it away from you. But when I look at how "Right to repair" is actually a discussion ..... how much do you even own anything today? But in the long run .... it is inevitable.

Not for me, they won't.

My internet connection presently is 6 megabits down/0.5 megabits up. This is the best that I can get, given my residence. Such bandwidth makes cloud computing on this scale entirely untenable, whereas using the cloud as a file storage dump is usable. I don't do it, but I could. I'm actually not comfortable putting any personal information on the cloud. If I do so, it's only to store it temporarily as I move from one place to the next, then I delete it from the cloud.

I spent $2500 ($CDN), actually. And this PC is so beefy it should last me 8-10 years. My previous PC did. Heck, there was nothing wrong with my previous PC. It still worked, played Long Dark easily, as well as a number of other games. But it would not be able to handle the AAA games of tomorrow, so I junked it and bought a new one. And if it last me that long, I'm comfortable with that. Additionally, the management of my data becomes something I alone am responsible for. If I cloud compute, then my data is at the risk of a breach, or -- as in the case of the manufacturer of my NAS -- an engineer going rogue and inserting malicious code inside a regular firmware update.

That "right-to-repair" is being discussed is shocking to me. There should be no discussion at all. If I own a device, the device breaks, and I can fix it, I absolutely should be allowed to do so. A manufacturer constructing proprietary parts and tools as a way to get around that will certainly befuddle a layman user, but an intuitive engineer who can work around that should absolutely be allowed to do so. Provided that there is an understanding that the manufacturer is no longer under any obligation to honour an outstanding warranty.

Quote

IF you could use X however you want, that would include, but not limit you, to: resell X or parts of X, redistribute X or parts of X, modify X or parts of X, create, publish and sell deriviative work of X or parts of X.

Resell X: Yes, absolutely. In fact, there have been at least two occasions (Mass Effect: Andromeda and Spiderman PS4) where I have deliberately sought second-hand copies of video games due to actions and behaviours from developers I objected to. I still wanted to play the games, I just didn't want them making any money from the sale.

Resell parts of X: Eehhhh... doesn't apply in this case, as the good being discussed is software. It's not like I can remove the Rifle from my copy of The Long Dark and give it to someone else for use in their game. Such an argument would be better applied to going to a junkyard to buy a carburetor for an old Chevy, or something.

Redistribute X or parts of X, modify X or parts of X: Yes, absolutely, to all of these. Though, with respect to redistribution, I would only have that privilege once. Once I redistribute X, I no longer have X, and thus cannot redistribute it further.

Create, publish and sell deriviative work of X or parts of X: No. This is where I draw the line. At least, insofar as trying to take credit for such derivative works as though they were entirely my own. Uploading a "Let's Play!" video to YouTube of me playing The Long Dark, on the other hand, would be permissible, provided I do not claim to be the developer of the game.

Edited by GothSkunk

Share this post


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

 Well my son is 6 years old, has the appropriate income for that age, and access to gigabit Internet ....  So I guess he would be the target audience.

Eh, that's fair.  Gigabit isn't even available where I live, so I literally don't know of a single person who has it in my area.  That's kind of what I'm basing my reaction on.  It's all DSL or cable, and all the shenanigans that comes with those infrastructures.  I can't even stream 4K without letting it buffer for a while.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this is the first time I've seen the long dark in the spotlight.....and it's pretty negative. I wonder if this will end up hurting the studio. We will likely never know. Oh well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest kristaok

@odizzido it's free exposure, sadly to some negative exposure is better than none. 

It will hurt them more than likely as it already has, but at the same time they've cemented a place on the front page of the news up there with the coronavirus. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Personally I think Nvidia was in the wrong on this.
It seems to me, it would be like one of us picking up one license and then sharing it with possibly millions of people...  That doesn't seem right or fair to the folks that have worked so very hard and dedicated so much of themselves to create this game.

I'm with Hinterland on their decision, It's their game.  They should be the ones to determine who distributes or otherwise grants access to it.

 

:coffee::fire:
I still think Hinterland deserves all the support we can show them.

[Addendum]
and no, I won't be arguing with anyone about it...  I just wanted to add a few of my thoughts to the pile.

Edited by ManicManiac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, GothSkunk said:

My internet connection presently is 6 megabits down/0.5 megabits up. This is the best that I can get, given my residence.

That will resolve itself eventually, even if eventually is like a decade away. Or more. Who knows. Like I said - it's not ready now.

4 hours ago, GothSkunk said:

Resell parts of X: Eehhhh... doesn't apply in this case, as the good being discussed is software. It's not like I can remove the Rifle from my copy of The Long Dark and give it to someone else for use in their game. Such an argument would be better applied to going to a junkyard to buy a carburetor for an old Chevy, or something.

You can very well dissect software into parts. Also, no offfense, but you are misusing some of the terminology here, at least when it comes to IP. Which is okay, as it only shows how hard this matter is to convey to someone not used to deal with software. Not going into details, but intellectual property is something you can very well sell or distribute multiple times. That's why it is such a complicated topic.

3 hours ago, ajb1978 said:

Eh, that's fair.  Gigabit isn't even available where I live, so I literally don't know of a single person who has it in my area.  That's kind of what I'm basing my reaction on.  It's all DSL or cable, and all the shenanigans that comes with those infrastructures.  I can't even stream 4K without letting it buffer for a while.

Let's say Gigabit is pretty rare even here, then again Germland is pretty behind the curve in the European Union when it come to digital infrastructure. I pay quite the premium for it, and if I wasn't using it for work I wouldn't have it. Most people in Germany run either on old copper DSL, which caps out at 25 Mbps here, or something like FiberToTheCurb, which still puts realistic limits of 100 Mbps on the entire line in most cases. Cable is really far and few between. Real FiberToTheHome like in my case is rare, usually very expensive, and has caught on only recently. But there are also completely white spots, or spots where you get like 2 Mbps, and not few of them. It's actually a big driving factor in urbanisation here, and there are literally ghosttowns in rural areas that weren't there 10 years ago due to the lack of internet access.

6 hours ago, kristaok said:

@jeffpeng I agree they probably should have asked permission, my point is that I don't think pulling the game from GeForce was a good idea. In fact I think it was a bad idea, and it will do more harm than good. I don't think this issue is going to just blow over either. 

Yeah we established that we have a differing view on that. And I even get yours and think it's not without merit, just that the potential advantages don't justify the potential damage. Also ... No this won't just blow over. Something actually not really tackled here is what kind of service @Raphael van Lierophas done to the industry and especially other indie developers with pulling out of GFN as publically as he did. That guy stood up, didn't wait for others to test the water, showed that a small indie studio can say "no, not in our backyard" to a multi-billion-company, and stood his ground. I mean ... kind of gives you an idea what kind of guys this man is. And if one agrees with him or not .... it deserves respect.

6 minutes ago, ManicManiac said:

and no, I won't be arguing with anyone about it...

😢:fire: :coffee:

Share this post


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

kind of gives you an idea what kind of guys this man is. And if one agrees with him or not .... it deserves respect.

Well, no, it actually really depends on if you agree or not. People who disagree with him lost a lot of respect to this guy.

I think many people understand that what he did was ok from the legal standpoint. However, if you check answers to his original tweet, like 95% out of 1000+ responses are not positive. Which means, that they disagree from at least ethical standpoint, whether whom his dicision affects more.

And if you mean that bravery to stand against a large company deserves respect, well maybe. But I would say that humility to help regular people to enjoy his game would be much more respectable. And pro-player.

Share this post


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

Well, no, it actually really depends on if you agree or not

Yeah because standing up for what you believe in depends on if the general, uninformed, self-centered conscensus to agree with you to get some respect. Man, this world has changed so much since I last watched Braveheart.

Edit: Ah well I really should have kept out of this. It's hopeless. :D

Edited by jeffpeng

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest kristaok
1 hour ago, jeffpeng said:

kind of gives you an idea what kind of guys this man is.

Yea.. yea it kind of does... 

1 hour ago, jeffpeng said:

And if one agrees with him or not .... it deserves respect.

No.. no... not really... respect in my book is earned. 

9 minutes ago, Dum_Gen said:

Well, no, it actually really depends on if you agree or not. People who disagree with him lost a lot of respect to this guy.

Yup, this. I don't hate Raph or the Team one bit... but there has been some things said that have made me lose some respect which sucks because it's not something that I wanted to happen.

10 minutes ago, Dum_Gen said:

I think many people understand that what he did was ok from the legal standpoint. However, if you check answers to his original tweet, like 95% out of 1000+ responses are not positive. Which means, that they disagree from at least ethical standpoint, whether whom his dicision affects more.

Exactly. I agree he has the right legally, but that does not make it morally okay to pull the game from Geforce. My opinion on that matter won't ever change no matter what anyone says or thinks, and this is coming from someone who has in times past taken up for the Team etc.

11 minutes ago, Dum_Gen said:

And if you mean that bravery to stand against a large company deserves respect, well maybe. But I would say that humility to help regular people to enjoy his game would be much more respectable. And pro-player.

I have to agree here. I love to see developers compassionate about their games and their players, but I cannot stand greed in any form... and no offense this screams GREEEED.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest kristaok
5 minutes ago, jeffpeng said:

Yeah because standing up for what you believe in depends on if the general, uninformed, self-centered conscensus to agree with you to get some respect.

Uninformed? I actually don't think it's us the players that are uninformed here, I think it's the Team no offense - It seems that they don't quite get how Geforce works. Nobody is stealing anything, in order to play TLD on Geforce the people would have had to already own it on Steam.

As for being self-centered, I am sure there are some self-centered individuals out there, but in this situation I don't think it's the players who are being self-centered here.

Now for Respect... that's a two way street, Respect works both ways. You cannot treat your playerbase like poo poo and not expect some sort of backlash. 

6 minutes ago, jeffpeng said:

 Man, this world has changed so much since I last watched Braveheart.

Please don't compare this to Braveheart! LOL smh.

The real William Wallace legit died a horrible death for freedom etc... these two things don't compare at all! William Wallace didn't stand for freedom so he could be greedy, no he died for freedom for his people. HUGE difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the last thing I'm going to say about this:

You guys don't realize what's at stake here, and this kind of attitude is nothing short of hammering down the nail into every Indie Developer's coffin. With this kind of backlash no small studio will ever dare to refuse big companies doing to their games whatever they feel like - and when you can't protect your games then there is no point in making them. Let's see how pro-player that is.

Hinterland has offered over half a decade of free updates for a game most every other developer would have either declared done or at least would have taken money for in form of DLCs. And you have the freezing nerves to call forth GREEED as the motivation when there wasn't an official word that this is about money?

It is about respect.
It is about ownership.
It is about legal obligations.
It is about the freedom to create.

Afreezingmen.

Share this post


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

This is the last thing I'm going to say about this:

You guys don't realize what's at stake here, and this kind of attitude is nothing short of hammering down the nail into every Indie Developer's coffin. With this kind of backlash no small studio will ever dare to refuse big companies doing to their games whatever they feel like - and when you can't protect your games then there is no point in making them. Let's see how pro-player that is...

...

It is about respect.
It is about ownership.
It is about legal obligations.
It is about the freedom to create.

Afreezingmen.

IMO, the main point is not about that speculation about greed. It is more about Braveheart-like confrontation, lack of negotiation.

Lets say Nvidia made legal mistake. Lets say HL made people angry by their tweets or their actions, in combination with Nvidia actions. In result - regular players are harmed.

I don't believe that the main goal of small indie studios is to confront big ones. Why not negotiate? Why those "freedom!", "respect!", "ownership!" ? Especially when in collaboration they can reach better results for all parties. Organize it properly, make some kind of agreement, communicate your intentions properly. Make it pro-player, pro-consumer, pro-people.

I almost sure that the would not be such a backlash is the were no tweet but announcement on this forum only. And even if we assume that it is who people react poorly, there is a history of such reactions with coundowns, story mode, deadlines. Why repeat it?

It became a question of pride, which is NOT bad, but at the same time not always good.

1 hour ago, jeffpeng said:

Hinterland has offered over half a decade of free updates for a game most every other developer would have either declared done or at least would have taken money for in form of DLCs.

Half of the updates was promised at Kickstarter, half was advertised after official release. I paid for those episodes, the price that was asked by HL. So they are NOT free, they are prepaid.

Edited by Dum_Gen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest kristaok
1 hour ago, jeffpeng said:

Hinterland has offered over half a decade of free updates for a game most every other developer would have either declared done or at least would have taken money for in form of DLCs. And you have the freezing nerves to call forth GREEED as the motivation when there wasn't an official word that this is about money?

Woahhhh woaaaaahh WOAH! how is it free updates if it's things that were promised? Better yet it's things that we kind of deserve at this point for being so patient considering the Storyline is far from finished... Just saying.

20 minutes ago, Dum_Gen said:

Half of the updates was promised at Kickstarter, half was advertised after official release. I paid for those episodes, the price that was asked by HL. So they are NOT free, they are prepaid.

EXACTLY!

Share this post


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

it's things that we kind of deserve

We deserve all these things? Hinterland took my money...like...some pocket change really...5 years ago, and they continue to throw amazing new updates my way....for free...because they are so greedy? Speaking for myself,  it doesn't matter what they said. It matters what they deliver...and so far, we got the goods... NVidia knew exactly what they were doing too anyway...

 

Edited by Lohaan
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

While I don't agree with the article in general (read it before, but thanks for linking), I agree that Nvidia shouldn't have to compensate game developers. But afaik that isn't really the issue. The issue is that Nvidia does not have the legal right to host those game on their Platform (and yes, Mr. Erik Kain, it is a platform) without acquiring a permissive agreement in advance. 

1. Why do you think it is a platform and not a service? Nvidia is not selling any games, they just rent hardware for gaming on cloud.

2. Why would Nvidia need legal rights from developers? Nvidia is not in business with developers. Nvidia have contract with users that allows users to play games on Nvidia hardware and the users have contract with a developer to use their game (intellectual property - IP). Users are the one who use the IP (they paid for this right), not Nvidia. If the developers wants their game out of GeforceNow, they should ask me (as user) and I would tell them, that they sold me the right to play the game whenever and wherever I want. If developers want their game be tied to a specific device, they should have changed the Steam agreement before they sold the game to me.

Share this post


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