TLD is removed from GeForce Now


Recommended Posts

This whole situation is rubbish.  Hinterland may say its not about money but it is.  If this was only about protecting IP, then why didn't Hinterland remove the game way back in May 2019 when they became aware it was listed on the service?(See Milton Mailbag #32)  It was only when GFN started charging money that this whole thing became a problem.  Just tell the truth and say you either you want a profit from Nvidia's service or to take your title to an exclusive service.  Stop dancing around this stuff about "they didn't ask permission" or "we just want platform providers to ask permission first". 

People playing on GFN have already paid for your game.  They support you.  Why alienate your  customers over something you say is: "purely an oversight on Nvidia's part"?

 

Edited by Wade
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 279
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

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

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,

100% agree. It's this hubris that will one day get Jenson's smug leather jacket wearing backside fired. What I know are mechanical licenses - from making music. And while I understand HL's deci

Posted Images

11 minutes ago, Wade said:

 

People playing on GFN have already paid for your game.  They support you.  Why alienate your  customers over something you say is: "purely an oversight on Nvidia's part"?

 

Have they, though? My understanding is that they've paid to use Nvidia's GFN, and The Long Dark was in the library. Now it's not. No GFN customer actually owned a copy of TLD.

 

If I'm wrong and customers actually do own a copy of The Long Dark through GFN, then transfer it over to Steam. Problem solved.

 

UNLESS... Hinterland wasn't compensated as a result of that "purchase."

Edited by GothSkunk
Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not sure what you mean by that.  You can only "access" The Long Dark if you have already purchased it through Steam.  Nobody who logs on to the GFN has the option to play The Long Dark unless they have already purchased it through Steam.

Or are you saying as customers we own nothing?  That is exactly what people are upset about.

Edited by Wade
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

No, my understanding is that GFN users were logging into what is, in essence, a virtual library of games. The Long Dark used to be in this library. Anyone could subscribe to GFN and have access to this entire library of games, without ever having to pay for them individually, just the service. Kind of like EA's subscription service, or Microsoft's GamePass. Pay per month, have access to all the games in the library. Even download local copies to your PC/Xbox for faster, more improved play. But if you unsubscribe from the service, you'd lose access to all the games you previously had access to.

Thus, while TLD was in GFN's library, people who subscribed to GFN could play The Long Dark, without ever paying for a copy of it because they were essentialy playing Nvidia's copy, not their own. And, under this model, Hinterland was not making any money off the people playing their game.

Edited by GothSkunk
Link to post
Share on other sites

You can log into GFN and you will ONLY be able to play games you have bought through Steam ALREADY.  You always have to go through STEAM, EPIC, etc.  Its not like some netcafe license which the developer referred to where you log in and play any game you want.  You still have to purchase the game through Steam.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

People and the developer seem to be confused on what is actually happening.  When you log into GFN, you have to then log into your Steam account.  GFN is not letting you play any game you want.  They are simply streaming a game you already OWN and is in your Steam library to a remote device.  If you have not paid for the game you cannot stream it to your device.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Geforce Now is nothing more than a PC rental service.  Think of it as a way to stream the games you ALREADY OWN to any PC device you want.  Say for instance your laptop doesn't meet the specs to play The Long Dark, but you would really like to play it.  GFN rents you the hardware, then streams it to your screen.  You already bought the game, so what is the problem?

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest kristaok

@GothSkunk I have to agree with Wade, they've made some good points. 

Also not everyone can afford a gaming rig, and not everyone is into console gaming. So that's where I'm sure GFN would come into play. 

I have a gaming laptop myself, with that said... I'm not into console gaming really. But I've been there before where I couldn't afford a decent pc, I remember my first pc was a cheap garbage Dell. :/ 

So yea I can't fault anyone for going the GFN route, it's not like they're stealing TLD - they already bought it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

That is up to you and that is why people are upset.  Hinterland is trying to dictate, how, when and where they play.  If you don't want to use GFN's serivices, you don't have to.  If you want to play it in some airport you can say thanks to GFN, because you legally purchased their game.  If you don't, what loss is it to the Developer?  People are upset because its a basic consumer rights issue.  A developer trying to tell us when, where, and how we can play, even if their EULA covers it,  IT IS reprehensible.

Edited by Wade
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

:D I think most of this outrage is pure nonsense...

Are folks really trying to say that if they had invested years of their life working on something, that they would let someone else make money on their hard work - and what's more, without permission.

I think folks would feel stolen from in those circumstances.


:coffee::fire:
What I see here are folks complaining because of something they found convenient was "taken away" ...but I think the reality is, that Nvidia was in the wrong, they didn't ask permission... and Hinterland exercised their right to protect their property in the way they saw fit.  Folks don't have to like it, but I think it should be respected.

I think whether folks personally like Nvidia's service is neither here-nor-there... Nvidia should have done the right thing from the start instead of (as I see it) trying to capitalize on other people's intellectual property. 

so again:

7 hours ago, ManicManiac said:

Also since it's been brought up... if it's just a service supporting virtual machines to "run games"  ...then why would the actual titles need to be "on" their service?  (the answer is, they wouldn't need to be - so I don't think it's quite what some folks are trying to make it sound like)

 

Edited by ManicManiac
Link to post
Share on other sites

Has Hinterland made an official statement? There's been a great deal of back-and-forth discussion between here and the Steam forums, but I've not yet seen anything that could be considered an official statement by Hinterland.

 

And I don't consider Raph's musing's on Twitter to be an official statement.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Frankly, the company needs to hire someone to do PR, and NOT rely on his twitter musings as you would call them.  I would call them, the feelings of someone who is way to close to their product and has no idea how his customers feel.  Right or Wrong he continues to fight this out on twitter, and its a bad look.

 
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, ManicManiac said:

What I see here are folks complaining because of something they found convenient was "taken away" ...but I think the reality is, that Nvidia was in the wrong, they didn't ask permission... and Hinterland exercised their right to protect their property in the way they saw fit.  Folks don't have to like it, but I think it should be respected.

Nvidia has asked for permission.  What you should be asking is why Hinterland said NO.  Is it a source of pride, or is it about money?  Customers are upset because it seems like a trivial pride thing, unless its about money.  Is it about money??

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, kristaok said:

@ManicManiac if I was an indie dev I'd feel honored to be on GFN, free advertisement! If anything GFN would help someone's sales. 

I haven't seen any Indie Devs pull out, only the companies that are already known for greed and anti-consumerism.  I fear that Raphael thought a bunch of Indie Devs would follow his lead.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, GothSkunk said:

And I don't consider Raph's musing's on Twitter to be an official statement.

What would you consider from the Head of a company?  Oh right musings.  Nothing more.  No indication on which the company might proceed?

What HE is doing is anti-consumer and no one should support that kind of behavior even if their product is good.  Personally I love The Long Dark.  I just can't support anti consumer decisions like this.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree and remain unconvinced, until I've heard an official statement from Hinterland.

 

See, I don't use GFN, so I don't care about this decision. If people are threatening to demand refunds for their copy of Long Dark over this, that's just over-the-top ridiculous entitlement. To say it's "anti-consumer" is a wildly disproportionate assertion based on what would be a truly anti-consumer practice, like requiring a player to be online in order to play a single-player game (Ubisoft).

Edited by GothSkunk
Link to post
Share on other sites

Consumer rights are at the heart of this issue.  Hinterland would like to dictate what hardware you play your game on, because Nvidia is doing nothing but renting you a PC.

Valve\Steam doesn't seem to have a problem with it, because Nvidia isn't selling any games.  When you want to play a game Nvidia makes you buy the game from Steam.

Nobody loses.  Nvidia rents hardware to stream a game to your device.  Steam sells the game which developers get a percent based on their Steam contract.  Gamers pay Nvidia to rent their hardware so they can stream a game to a screen of their choosing.  Gamers still have to buy the game at full price via steam in order to even play it.  What developers want?  They want money from that streaming service.  They feel they are entitled to how you play your game and where.  It is a dangerous precedent and that is why consumers are upset.  Consumers expect the right to play the game they bought on any PC device that supports it..  Greedy Developers would tell you otherwise.

 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm well aware of your position, Wade. I just disagree with it. And you throwing around things like "greedy developers" is doing nothing to win me over to your way of thinking. In fact, it's entrenching me further onto Hinterland's side.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't expect to sway you.  I am only telling you what the Creative Director, says and how some community members feel about it.

If you think the Developer is in the right, continue to support them.  If you think you have the right to play where and when you want. then support consumer rights.  The fact is:   People using GeforeNow have already paid for the game.

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Wade said:

Geforce Now is nothing more than a PC rental service.

Not it's not. They argue it to be, but you don't rent a PC as in that you have reasonable control over what you are doing on your "machine".

What you rent in a "slice" of resources on a server (in some cases even the entire server), that is specifically configured to run one game and one game only. When you play another game, you land on a different instance, with different settings, and possibly even completely different hardware. If you were renting a PC or just a remote Desktop on a Virtual Machine (that's how Shadow does it), you could run most every software you want to run on this machine. But you can't. You can run exactly one game on any machine you log onto at any given time, and only the games GFN offers you to play in the first place.

So, what you actually rent is to run a specific set of Softwares as a Service, and you are required to have purched each software prior to running it. The big catch 22 is that you don't purchase the software from GFN, but actually from the actual publisher or redistributor, in this case Steam / Valve. I know this might be confusing, but it's a different thing entirely, at least legally.

Another important part of this is that GFN doesn't advertise "run any game on a remote PC". Because that's not what they offer. They advertise "run this game" on GFN, because that's what they offer. They advertise their service with something they don't even own. And if that's legally viable is actually yet to be seen. What it definitively is, is hostile. Hostile towards the owners of these games. Hostile as in that Nvidia simply assumed that game developers would want to offer their game on their platform.

If you aren't convinced yet: look at the GFN software. That's not a Citrix login to some remote windows desktop. That's a gaming portal offereing you to play games.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@jeffpeng  So you wouldn't even see this as an anti-consumer thing by the dev?  I get your legalities, because I felt Hinterland had every right to pull the game from the service.  What is the problem.  Was it money or pride in your humble opinion?  Customers don't seem to care, so feel free.

 

Edited by Wade
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Admin locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.