Dum_Gen

TLD is removed from GeForce Now

Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, Wade said:

Was it money or pride in your humble opinion?

Neither.

Money: Personally I don't see Hinterland losing money from being on GFN. Maybe I'm not aware, but to the best of my knowledge there is no software planned to bring TLD onto a different platform that would be floundered by this. (I know there was some testing regarding TLD on Nintendo Switch .... but I think that was mostly theoretical and discontinued as not feasible). So nah, it ain't greed.

Pride: Well if you define pride as in that you refuse to cooperate with a partner that has shown hostile intend before .... okay, maybe. But personally that's not "pride" .... that's actually understandable bias. 

As to anti consumer ..... well, in my opinion the anti-consumer part is on Nvidia, not Hinterland, as they offered that game on their platform without consent. If now people went ahead and bought the game because of that .... that's on Nvidia. Personally I would like to see those people refunded, yes, since they are the actual victims in this, and as always the ones with the least power to fight back, but again: I don't see Hinterland being the culprit here. And due to their distribution agreement with Valve they can't just refund their game because they are not selling it - valve is.

What's really missing in all of this is Valve's statement to this entire affair. Is Valve cool with GFN? If so why haven't they updated their Terms with game publishers / developers? Maybe they aren't and the big hammer is just around the corner. I know (as in "know know") Valve are working on their own streaming service. Is Valve going to pull Steam eventually? If so .... what do the people do then? Those are implications that exist when there is no legal groundwork.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For anyone, lets go over why Hinterland pulled the game?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

They are a business. Everything they do is about money, or they are doing it wrong. Just that in the case of Hinterland they have a history of not taking money for things they clearly could have - which is something I have voiced concern over multiple times, actually. If there is one developer that's not "greedy", it's them, and discarding that fact is just lazy on your part to keep your argument alive. There is literally no direct money to be made from pulling their game from GFN. So... where's the greed in that? If you rate them wanting to have control over their only piece of intellectual property as greedy ..... there really isn't much you and I can talk about.

2 minutes ago, Wade said:

For anyone, lets go over why Hinterland pulled the game?

Please just refer to the other 6 pages of this thread where others and I have explained this several times over.

Edited by jeffpeng

Share this post


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

They are a business. Everything they do is about money

This is exactly why people have a problem. They don't want Hinterland interfering in every gaming decision they make.  Where is the line?  Hinterland decides what sort of PC we play on now?  This sort of thing sets a bad precedent.  If Hinterland wants or needs money, just ask, I am sure the community would have provided.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not saying this to be mean, but there's already a mark against HL the way it is. That mark is the fact that it's been a few years now and we still only have 3/5 of the promised Episodes for TLD - that alone has irked so many. So that, and well Ralph's harsh replies to people plus the GFN issue could be the cherry on the top for everyone else idk. Ive seen people say they won't buy the game now because of this, the backlash isn't looking so good. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

If you rate them wanting to have control over their only piece of intellectual property as greedy ..... there really isn't much you and I can talk about.

They had control over their intellectual property and everyone knows it..  How many times must I refer to Milton Mailbag #32  They only pulled out when the service went live.   If Hinterland just admitted it was about money they could have avoided at tiny fraction of the the consumer displeasure.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ALL of this is sadly hurting the game... steam reviews are dropping - people are reviewing the game negatively. This definitely worries me. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah it is sad.  The need for money is blinding though.  They could have literally asked for any sort of money from the community and it would have been provided.

Its just such a terrible look for the company.

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


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

If Hinterland just admitted it was about money

About WHAT money? Please, present me the smoking receipt where Hinterland has made or will make any money out of that decision? It's not like GFN is going to pay them a quadrillion bucks so they can bring TLD back. If anything HL is losing money on this.

22 minutes ago, kristaok said:

I'm not saying this to be mean, but there's already a mark against HL the way it is. That mark is the fact that it's been a few years now and we still only have 3/5 of the promised Episodes for TLD - that alone has irked so many. So that, and well Ralph's harsh replies to people plus the GFN issue could be the cherry on the top for everyone else idk. Ive seen people say they won't buy the game now because of this, the backlash isn't looking so good. 

 

8 minutes ago, kristaok said:

ALL of this is sadly hurting the game... steam reviews are dropping - people are reviewing the game negatively. This definitely worries me. 

While this is all very right and good (or: not good), would it have been the "right" decision to just roll over? And about the missing episodes: valid, absolutely. I can't say I'm happy about it (in fact I'm so not happy about I publicly declared not to give a poop about story mode anymore). But then again: would it have been better to get 5 episodes akin to one of the many, many games out there that shit unfinished, and are patched up later to some degree and get eventually abandoned? While, yes, Episodes 3,4 and 5 are late, really late and probably too late, at least these people are (so far) comitted to make them work.

What many people don't get is the precedent (procedural and legal) this kind of behavior from Nvidia sets. If you don't act against that now, it's going to be the norm. And trust me: this kind of stunt wouldn't have worked in any other IP driven industry.

Edited by jeffpeng

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it not about money?  Who are you joking?  The developer would have you believe that its all about IP rights Since we already proved that form Milton Mailbag #32.

Just admit that this thing as about money. Clearly it has nothing to do with IP control since you left it open for months on end;.  Admit it has everything to do with money and ppl will partially understand.  This might be the worst customer PR i have ever witnessed.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While it is fine to debate the issue, as has been happening reasonably well thus far, using this as an opportunity to call us liars or use other ad hominem attacks is not allowed. This is a generalized warning, but warnings will be given and posts removed. Please continue to follow the Guidelines so that this thread can continue.

  • Upvote 1
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

People make good points however, Hinterland Studios is 100 percent wrong.  While I understand there maybe some confusion with GFN, how ever it is nothing more then a Virtual PC with Steam Big Picture as a front end, you can actually check this yourself by actually launching the steam app from the GFN  client.  Not sure if they removed it during the Beta we could just install our steam games into the VM without having to use the pre-made shortcuts provided by Nviida. (that may have been changed.) 

 

However, Nvidia is not selling any software , they are not actually making any money off the developer as the developer has already been paid when the sales transaction happened on steam.  Nvidia is just renting you hardware use, really it is not much different then you renting a Gaming PC from your local Rent to Own store.  The only difference is that GFN is not geographically located in your home.   As far as advertising goes do you think that every TV manufacture has to pay Netflix to say hey our Smart TV works with there service?  No they don't the same reason why when you do reviews of products so forth to advertise say your YouTube channel or Twitch so forth,  there is applicable fair use. 

 

Nvidia does not have to ask the Developer for permission, however they do allow them to opt out even though they could tell them to fluff off, the reason why is Nvidia still has to work with them on driver bugs and so forth with there games.  In essence even though they do not see eye to eye, they still are a partner with them in other aspects , unlike a Netcafe , since Nvidia is just providing hardware and not the actual games to play, they do not need a Bulk Licence agreement , as your Steam agreement already covers installation of said product on any computer that is capable of running steam, the only difference is this Developer wants to dictate the geographical location where it can be installed.  Which ironically volates the Steam Terms of Service  and actually opens them up to non time gated refunds on there product, as the EULA for steam expressly forbids this from developers.  Reason for that is it violates quite a few customer rights.  While you may not own the software , however the developer cannot tell you what hardware and where the hardware is located to run it. 

 

Sadly  this comes down to money,  the developer wants you to just pay more for a game you already paid for and are legally entitled to play on your hardware of choice, the easiest way to describe this is you buy a book, now the author of said book wants you to buy the book again because you want to read it on the buss.   Same principle if we do not stand up to this kind of anti customer behavior now what next? Do we need to pay for the game again because your GPU died or CPU died and you need to buy a new one, or your HDMI cable is from Monster, and they feel it is a Radio-shack Exclusive? 

 

Or hey you need to re install the game you gotta rebuy the game again because you need to re install.  I know developers want you to re buy the game over and over again anytime you need to change locations and or go anywhere, however this is would be in violation  of customer rights .  Irony is the Developer is not even trying to defend it they are just saying hey Nvidia pay us.  In reality Nvidia does not owe them a dime. 

 

I am all for the Developer wants to product there IP, and if there was a IP infringement by all means, I would call Nvidia out on it.   However,  it is not as if they were taking the PS4 Version of this game and making it work on PC, that would be in fact a volation of it.).  The only thing that is happening here is the PC people are renting are not geographically located in there home,  and are paying Nvidia 5 a month to play a game they bought from the developer.  Honestly , they should be thrilled as more people can play it, cause with GFN even chromebooks  etc would be able to play it which opens your game to more people to play vs not playing.

 

250 - 500 a year for a VM Gaming rig that is always up to date,  per year is a lot cheeper then trying to keep up with the latest GPU, CPU so forth. 

Edited by JamieLinux
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What, i only got banned once for that?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They seem to want to control conversations in chat.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People have a right to their opinion.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, they want to allow\disallow my comments to make me seem like a crazy idiot.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did I deserve to be banned or warned? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wish you and every TLD player good wishes.  Its a great game..........................................................

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I wish you and every TLD player good wishes.  Its a great game..........................................................

 

Same :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I would be very careful in making statements about Hinterland being 100 percent wrong. I don't think they are. Really, it all hinges on how GFN operates.

 

Clearly, people are upset about not being able to play The Long Dark on GFN, and in their anger they are lashing out at Hinterland. But, I do not believe that is an entirely fair course of action. Personally, I'm not concerned; I don't use GFN and never would, so Hinterland's decision does not impact me at all. I recognize that those who do use it no longer can and that's upsetting, but it is unfair to call Hinterland "greedy developers" or "anti-consumer" for this decision. After all, Hinterland is not asking for more money from their customers/players, they are asking for money from Nvidia.

  1. Is GFN an online streaming library like Netflix, something that any GFN user can access at any time? If so, then they absolutely should be paying Hinterland an enterprise license to host The Long Dark in their library. Based on my earlier conversations in this thread, this does NOT sound like what GFN is.
  2. Is GFN a remote virtual machine that you access remotely to play your games? If so, how do they do this? Presumably, Steam is probably pre-installed on every hosted machine, and all it takes at that point is for someone to log in to the machine remotely, then log in to their steam account and they'd have access to their entire library of purchased games. Any game not already installed on the Nvidia machine would have to first be installed before it could be streamed to the GFN user. In this manner, GFN now becomes a hosting service, but they're only granting the user access to the software they have a license to use, managed entirely by their Steam account. In a manner of speaking, this is SIMILAR to the Big Picture feature on Steam, but it is not LIKE Big Picture. Big Picture relies on a host machine that YOU own to stream to another device (while you may be playing The Long Dark down in the basement on your home-theater, it's your Gaming PC upstairs doing all the legwork.) In GFN's case, THEY host the gaming PC/server/whatever that you're streaming from. It is not a device that you own. You own the game, but not the device you're streaming off of. Based on earlier conversations in this thread, it sounds like this is the model that GFN is using as a business platform.

 

Where this gets dicey is whether or not GFN is providing the service free of charge. Wade has repeatedly cited back to Milton Mailbag #32. Now admittedly I've not gone back to read it, so I'm just going to give him the benefit of the doubt and say that back then, Raphael acknowledged that Long Dark was on GFN. It sounds to me like something about how Nvidia runs GFN has recently changed, that they're now charging their users a monthly fee to use GFN, presumably to recuperate operating costs from such an endeavour.

  1. If GFN is free of charge, then it is essentially a convoluted -- but possible and workable -- form of Big Picture streaming of a user's games from their digital library. Nvidia is not making any money being a host for the games they are streaming over their service.
  2. If GFN costs a monthly fee, it can be argued that they are now more like a hosting service in the same manner that Netflix is, but how they differ from Netflix is that instead of being a general library all users can access, they now host each users own private little library. And so in this manner, you are accessing your copy of the Long Dark, but you are not accessing it from a device that you own; you are accessing it remotely from a device that Nvidia owns, and Nvidia is making money by providing you the service. Money that Hinterland could otherwise be making if they had the resources to set up their own remote access machines.

Hinterland provides a good (The Long Dark). You have a license to access The Long Dark. Hinterland is responsible for providing you access to The Long Dark, but you are responsible for providing yourself the means to access it. No problem, that's what a gaming PC is for. But suppose you find yourself unable to do so (your PC bricks, for example), and you are now unable to access The Long Dark because you don't have the means to do so. Nvidia comes along and says "Because you purchased one of our GPUs, we can offer you a service that will allow you to remotely access a high-powered rig free of charge. From there, you can access your Steam Library and play The Long Dark." You sign up for it, and now you are able to play The Long Dark again. In this manner, Nvidia replaces your PC and becomes the means by which you're accessing the game that you've paid for. Hinterland is okay with this. But now, Nvidia starts charging their users a monthly fee for the service. NOW Hinterland is saying "Wait a minute... we've provided a good so valuable, that people are willing to pay money to Nvidia to use their GFN hosting service in order to play it remotely. We should be getting a cut of that, because The Long Dark is one reason among many that people are using this service."

 

I think it should be made very clear who Hinterland is asking money from. They are not asking money from us; they are asking for money from Nvidia. This is where the dispute lies. And, until that dispute gets resolved, Hinterland does not want Nvidia making money providing access to their product without giving them a cut of the proceeds. Think like so: If a customer subscribes to GFN, and in a month uses it for 100 hours, 5 of which are spent playing The Long Dark, Hinterland wants to be partly compensated by Nvidia for those 5 hours. And honestly, I don't think that's unreasonable.

 

Unfortunately, it's the consumers who use GFN who end up being the collateral damage as a result of this dispute. But do not make the mistake of thinking Hinterland is trying to milk you further.

 

Quote

I did nothing wrong.  This is just them trying to silence anyone who shows dissent.

This is an unfair misrepresentation of Hinterland's actions and it is out of line. You later on state that you have been nothing but civil. I submit that making such arguments like the one I quoted above is absolutely uncivil. You are projecting onto Hinterland what YOU believe their intentions to be, and that is fallacious. From my perspective, Hinterland has been patient and tolerant, and do not deserve these kind of character attacks. Additionally, you're spamming the forum.

 

Clearly you're upset by this decision, but temper your anger.

Edited by GothSkunk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GothSkunk let me  answer these for you.  

Is GFN an online streaming library like Netflix, something that any GFN user can access at any time? If so, then they absolutely should be paying Hinterland an enterprise license to host The Long Dark in their library. Based on my earlier conversations in this thread, this does NOT sound like what GFN is.

1.

No , they are not, if you were to subscribe to GFN or even use the Free version and you own 0 supported games on Steam, Uplay or any other supported launcher, you can play 0, nata zip zilch.  You have to own the game.  Nviida just rents you managed PC time noting more nothing less.  You own nothing you get nothing. 

 

2.

Is GFN a remote virtual machine that you access remotely to play your games? If so, how do they do this? Presumably, Steam is probably pre-installed on every hosted machine, and all it takes at that point is for someone to log in to the machine remotely, then log in to their steam account and they'd have access to their entire library of purchased games. Any game not already installed on the Nvidia machine would have to first be installed before it could be streamed to the GFN user. In this manner, GFN now becomes a hosting service, but they're only granting the user access to the software they have a license to use, managed entirely by their Steam account. In a manner of speaking, this is SIMILAR to the Big Picture feature on Steam, but it is not LIKE Big Picture. Big Picture relies on a host machine that YOU own to stream to another device (while you may be playing The Long Dark down in the basement on your home-theater, it's your Gaming PC upstairs doing all the legwork.) In GFN's case, THEY host the gaming PC/server/whatever that you're streaming from. It is not a device that you own. You own the game, but not the device you're streaming off of. Based on earlier conversations in this thread, it sounds like this is the model that GFN is using as a business platform.

 

GFN is a remote machine that when you login you have access to supported games on the service, some games are not supported for various reasons.   Steam is pre loaded in the VM much like how you buy a PC and it may be preloaded there,  For intent and purposes, Valve allows this. 

As far as the hosting goes, not all games are content cached on the Nvidia servers, even if they were it is not illigal to content cache even copyrighted material . Since these are web caches and not torrents so forth and Nvidia is not itself altering the cache, they can legally cache said content.  This is just how the internet works, if it was illigal your web browser , your isp, internet backends would all be in copyright infringement status with everyone as  comment requested content is typically cached so local servers to you can serve you the content faster without having to contently refresh non refreshed content.   This is just how the internet works. 

 

As far as Rented computer vs local, it would not matter and it is moot point, there is nothing in there EULA, and Steams that prohibits you to play your games on a virtual pc.  Developers can in fact dictate the platform.  Platform being PC, Xbox. PS4 so forth that is a platform.  A virtual PC is still that a PC.   Just because your computer is not geographically located in the same physical space does not give any developer rights to relocate your ability to play  the game as you legally have the entitlement on steam to play it.   It would be no different then you going down to your local rental place and renting a PC.  

Nviida does not need to make any formal agreement with any developer only steam, unlike cyber cafe, or net cafe, that use bulk licence, aka you can go in and play a game without having to own the game.  See above, the content is controlled 100 percent by what you already own.  You get no more  no less.   

The other issue now that comes into play is , the Steam User Agreement, specially states you are allowed to play your library on any machine that is capable of running it.  However you have to keep your account logged into steam.  So if I was logged in, no one else could use my legally owned copy of any game to play it while I was playing.  There is no sharing etc none zip  at all.  Since Steam has NO other EULA for this game I checked there is no secondary EULA, it all re directs to the Steam EULA, since Developers give up any end rights to a EULA when they sell there games on STEAM.  Meaning they are subject to STEAM'S subscriber agreement.

 

This means currently even though Nvidia allowed them to remove the game from being Streamed, because they still have to work with the Developer.  They are actually in violation of the Steam EULA.   Which can open them to a whole lot of issues . Including up to non time-gated refunds.  

 

As far as the last part, the difference between Netflix is you pay a monthly fee and can access any content that Netflix has a Bulk licence agreement to.  With GFN you pay a monthly fee for hardware access only.  The Ability to play any game is 100 percent dependent on what you paid for.   It would be like paying for a pc on a payment plan.   Yes Hinderlands is asking money from Nvidia for what?  They are not a third party retailer, they are not selling there game, they are selling people access to a  centralized managed computer,  the publisher has already been paid when they bought the game.  They are not entitled to payment agan just because the computer you are paying for is not geographically located in your home.  

It wold be like your Blue Ray player not working just because the TV is Samsung and not Sony.   

 

If you have any other questions feel free to ask.  I have no problems debating.  If I am then I wold admit it. If Nvidia was wrong I wold slam Nviida however in this case they are not wrong.  We saw this ages ago with going to digital distribution.  Publishers just want you to pay over and over again for the same content.  However that is gross negligence of consumers rights.   You do have the right to play the game on the hardware of your choosing, as they have the rights to put it on PC. Xbox , Ps4 so forth. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree strongly with the assertion that Hinterland wants us to pay over and over again; I maintain the position that Hinterland wants Nvidia to pay, since Nvidia is making money from people who subscribe to GFN for the purpose of playing Hinterland's game..

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

The issue with that is they are trying to profit on a system that they should not legally be profiting on.  Nviida is renting hardware, the developer has already been paid.   They cannot collect again just because your pc of choice is not in your home.  That is where the problem comes in,  They can control where there game is bought yes, or if it is on PC or not .  However they cannot tell you where and how to install said software. 

 

In that statement there, should Intel have to pay them cause it runs on there processors ?   People buy gaming computers to play games, the developer has already been paid.  

 

Honestly , if they do not want to have the game streamed, and want to block Nvidia from streaming it, even though they are providing the hardware however you are using your steam account to access it, they should for all intents and purposes remove the game from steam.   As I said before they are currently in violation of the Steam EULA.  They will continue to be in volition of that EULA until it's re instated or removed from Steam. 

 

Look I get it they are a business they want to make money, cool I am down with that, however I am not cool with  any developer or company trying to make money off violating any customer rights.   You said it best does not matter, its the users that are going to suffer.   You are right about that. 

Edited by JamieLinux
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I can browse YouTube right now and not only listen to virtually any song that has ever been commercially recorded in studio, I can also watch music or lyric videos to them too, even if I've never paid for the privilege of owning that music to play on a device I own. I can only assume that I'm allowed to do this because the copyright owners/record companies have a deal with YouTube that means they get compensated every time someone views/listens to the track.

However, neither the copyright holder nor YouTube has any idea how much music I have licence to privately play. So even if I'm on YouTube listening to music I already have a licence to listen to, the copyright holder/record company is still going to get a royalty from me listening to it on YouTube. By your argument, they shouldn't be able to do that. They've already profited from me once by buying licence to play the track unlimited times, they shouldn't profit from it a second time when I queue it up on YouTube. But they are.

So, why should it be any different with video games?

Granted, there is a clear distinction to be made here; in the above example, the record company/copyright holder is not profiting a second time from me, but rather, from YouTube, that platform that hosts the product. I think what Hinterland is trying to do is the same thing, in principle.

Edited by GothSkunk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Wade has been removed from these forums. Originally we were going to give him a third chance, as he has been a generally positive member of the community, but his reaction to getting two warnings, with no suspension or "block" was to claim that we swore at him and then email us a screenshot of his very tame warning asking him to try using the edit button rather than double posting so much and swear at us. 

This has indicated that his interest in continuing on the forums is minimal.

Please stay on topic, follow the Guidelines and don't make things up about our actions or motivations just to support your argument or claim you were victimized by being asked to follow said Guidelines.

For @kristaok, an ad hominem attack is when you insult someone instead of making your own argument. "Calling other people names" is basically what it means. There's been very little of it in this thread, but Wade was getting close by continually suggesting we were lying and greedy, which was why he was not suspended, banned or "blocked" but asked politely to stop it. 

1438104733_Screenshot2020-03-0904_27_52.thumb.png.367140735d25e0eb6370ea35de031024.png

 

  • Upvote 1
  • Like 1

Share this post


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