Dum_Gen

TLD is removed from GeForce Now

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
46 minutes ago, GothSkunk said:

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.

That is correct because YouTube also sells and rents videos and music content and they have a licence to do so.   They get a set fee from YouTube ( should say Google. ) ,  this covers whatever blanket licence that is required to distribute and sell said content.  As they are directly profiting off the sale of the content. Eg : the music you listen to.  Granted people post copyrighted content they do not have access to and it does get taken down, slowly sometimes not for a long time.  Yes the system is not perfect.  I do understand and respect where you are coming from do not get me wrong.  However you cannot really compare the too.   One is a service that sells and distributes content, the other sells you access to a computer that lets you access the content you own.   I do understand you can listen to stuff on you Tube because people post stuff they should not . 

 

Nvidia does not make a dime off the content , they do not sell any games, they just sell you computer seat time.  Yes you can argue that the game may attract people to the service, however if they do not goto steam login to there account and Pay the devs for there game, they cannot just log into GFN and access the content because they do not legally have the rights to play the content, as there Steam account dictates what they do and do not have access to. 

 

As what was said before, they can dedicate where the content goes, rightfully so they made the game.  They want it PS4 only, Xbox Only , PC only by all means.   I am not disputing that at all .  I agree whole hardly,  however  no developer has the right to say what computer you can and cannot play your games on,  just like your Blueray Player cant say sorry bub, no sony tv no play.  Or your car says no  you cant drive on  highways as you have city only plan. 

Edited by JamieLinux
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest kristaok

@Admin Thanks for the explanation, I will be careful to not do this myself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since people are having posts removed for false information I will assume that hinterland is asking for money from nvidia for them renting their hardware to people. As much as I dislike nvidia generally I have to say I am in their side in this case.  Again, assuming that’s all true. I haven’t cared to look into it much

 

still, I am not so black and white that I am going to hate on hinterland for this. I *think* that the devs at hinterland are treated like human beings instead of torches to be spent and thrown away like at blizzard. This is a big thing for me. Also I am happy that they redid the episodes to make them better instead of just throwing some poop in our face once they had their money. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey guys. Long time forum stalker, but this topic only really finally made me to sign just for a short reply :

I am fully behind HL on this one.
Nvidias GFN stands and falls with availability of content. Without developers and their content GFN would not be viable.
Thus Nvidia IS making money only thanks to that content. If you were the IP owner, would you be fine with someone making money with it without your consent ( at least )?

Quite a few years back my friend ran an internet café. Regardless of whether i owned a legal physical copy he wouldnt let me install and play a copy of my games there.
Only allowed software was that for which he rented commercial licenses. As long as he charged people for using the rigs, using nonlicensed software was a nono.
I see no reason why this shouldnt apply to Nvidias business as well and would find it totally unfair in relation to what my friend had to comply with.

Still hope Nvidia will reach to HL with a reasonable offer and both can get along prosperously

Share this post


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

Nvidias GFN stands and falls with availability of content. Without developers and their content GFN would not be viable.
Thus Nvidia IS making money only thanks to that content. If you were the IP owner, would you be fine with someone making money with it without your consent ( at least )?

Game developers stand and fall with availability of hardware.

Companies that produce and just sell gaming hardware stand and fall with availability of content.

It is symbiosis, but you frame Nvidia as parasites.

Share this post


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

Game developers stand and fall with availability of hardware.

Companies that produce and just sell gaming hardware stand and fall with availability of content.

It is symbiosis, but you frame Nvidia as parasites.

 

And electronic music producers fall and stand with availability of speakers / headphones. Still i dont see Sony renting their headphones with music preinstalled.

yes, unfortunately the company that runs GFN is hardware supplier at the same time
I dont see this topic getting anywhere so far with any other company being involved - lets say Volvo

If Volvo took the money, bought all that hardware and ran that service instead, would you still be so defending the whole idea?
Its a shame that only the fact Nvidia is part of the production chain keeps the backlash at bay. Any other company would be dead at spot.

Share this post


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

 

And electronic music producers fall and stand with availability of speakers / headphones. Still i dont see Sony renting their headphones with music preinstalled.

Because people keep stating that Geforce Now allows people to play games without paying for them.

No, they don't.
You have to buy the game on Steam for the regular price. Hinterland is getting paid the requested licence cost they asked.
So nothing is "preinstalled".

If the moderators are actually deleting posts with false statements in them, maybe they could take care of those that claim Nvidia is selling game license for Geforce Now.

 

 

 

Edited by Spottdrossel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Knedlozel said:

 

And electronic music producers fall and stand with availability of speakers / headphones. Still i dont see Sony renting their headphones with music preinstalled.

yes, unfortunately the company that runs GFN is hardware supplier at the same time
I dont see this topic getting anywhere so far with any other company being involved - lets say Volvo

If Volvo took the money, bought all that hardware and ran that service instead, would you still be so defending the whole idea?
Its a shame that only the fact Nvidia is part of the production chain keeps the backlash at bay. Any other company would be dead at spot.

GFN does not have the game pre installed, the only thing that is pre installed is the STEAM Client, it is no different then buying a pre built machine with Steam Pre installed.  

If you do not Own the Long Dark and you log into GFN with your account, guess what you CANT play The Long Dark.  Not sure how this is not a simple concept to understand.  Nvidia is NOT giving FREE access to there game.  You still need to Legally OWN it. 

 

All GFN does is allow people with weaker hardware that cannot run The Long Dark, or any supported Steam game to run the games they paid for. 

 

To use your Volvo Analogy,  it would be like buying a Car from Volvo and them telling you that you CANNOT drive on Highways, that you had to re-buy the whole car again to do so...

Share this post


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

Because people keep stating that Geforce Now allows people to play games without paying for them.

No, they don't.
You have to buy the game on Steam for the regular price. Hinterland is getting paid the requested licence cost they asked.
So nothing is "preinstalled".

If the moderators are actually deleting posts with false statements in them, maybe they could take care of those that claim Nvidia is selling game license for Geforce Now.

 

 

 

Someone get's it . Correct , if you do not own it, you do not get free access to it for  a monthly fee.   Honestly this model actually helps developers more , because you cannot do whatever you want on a managed gaming rig, so you cannot sale the 7 Seas to find it.   They are making sure that the customer owns a legal copy of the game . 

 

I am not sure if people do not understand it, or just do not want to acknowledge that fact to try and write a narrative that is not true. 

Edited by JamieLinux

Share this post


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

Because people keep stating that Geforce Now allows people to play games without paying for them.

No, they don't.
You have to buy the game on Steam for the regular price. Hinterland is getting paid the requested licence cost they asked.
So nothing is "preinstalled".

If the moderators are actually deleting posts with false statements in them, maybe they could take care of those that claim Nvidia is selling game license for Geforce Now.

 

 

 

I was under the impression ( as it was stated before ), that the games binaries are present on Nvidias hardware regardless of whether any virtual machine is rented by legal end user.

If thats not the case i apologise for misleading comparison.

At the end of day, i want to make clear that I am not convinced Nvidias are parasites or deliberately trying to abuse their market position to wrench IP rights from developers.
For now.
At this point all i would frame Nvidia for is being very very clumsy with handling the licensing framework.
What concerns me more though is the massive bias and the fact that if the above sentence was reality, it would be mainly ignored by the community it seems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, JamieLinux said:

GFN does not have the game pre installed, the only thing that is pre installed is the STEAM Client, it is no different then buying a pre built machine with Steam Pre installed.  

If you do not Own the Long Dark and you log into GFN with your account, guess what you CANT play The Long Dark.  Not sure how this is not a simple concept to understand.  Nvidia is NOT giving FREE access to there game.  You still need to Legally OWN it. 

 

All GFN does is allow people with weaker hardware that cannot run The Long Dark, or any supported Steam game to run the games they paid for. 

 

To use your Volvo Analogy,  it would be like buying a Car from Volvo and them telling you that you CANNOT drive on Highways, that you had to re-buy the whole car again to do so...

I absolutely agree that no end user should pay for the game twice in order to access it on GFN. Nvidia arranging a licensing agreement with IP owner is a different story though. I still stand behind that.
As i said in my original net café analogy, I was owner of legal copy, noone was asking me to buy a new one, but my friend who run the café would have to rent a commercial license and thus pay ( i have no idea what the price tag on that would be though ).

By the way how did the giving FREE access thought came to your mind, did someone mention it here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Knedlozel said:

I absolutely agree that no end user should pay for the game twice in order to access it on GFN. Nvidia arranging a licensing agreement with IP owner is a different story though. I still stand behind that.
As i said in my original net café analogy, I was owner of legal copy, noone was asking me to buy a new one, but my friend who run the café would have to rent a commercial license and thus pay ( i have no idea what the price tag on that would be though ).

By the way how did the giving FREE access thought came to your mind, did someone mention it here?

That is the thing, Nvidia should NOT have to arrange any agreement with them, as Nvidia is just proving the hardware, the the net cafe is moot , as Nviida requires you to own the copy, where a NetCafe assumes the customer does not own a copy therefore they rely on bulk agreement / licence to cover it.  If you were to log into your account at a net cafe and run your copy of the game, it does not actually count against the net cafe usage as you own a copy of the game legally therefore your copy is already covered by your own agreement. 

As far as free access goes, people on here before removed, and on Twitter , keep saying well they are letting them play the game free.  It making it sound like GFN covers the cost of the game, which it does not. 

You can even read Steams net-cafe policy it actually covers this exact usage:

What if a customer brings their own laptop into my location?

If a user with a laptop comes into the location and you allow them to join the network running the Steam PC Café Server, then their laptop will also be able to access the games in your license pool. Any games they own on their personal Steam account will not count against your license pool.

Share this post


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

Was it money or pride in your humble opinion?

Neither.

 

Looks like it was about "commercialise ports for new platforms" and "negotiate exclusivity deals".
That's money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am going to say  that is a load of bull, they may say that however, a mobile port would be competently different then logging into GFN on your phone .  Try playing TLD or any mouse keyboard driven game on an android screen with a lot of text or iPhone, yeah  let that sink in for a min,  as the game already has a Mac and Linux port I am not buying that.  

As far as exclusivity deals.  That is more for PS4 / Xbox exclusivity or timed exclusivity.  Does that mean they will go after Sony and Microsoft because they allow remote play from the PlayStation Remote play app?  Or how about the Xbox companion app that allows remote play from your Xbox  to PC or Android / iOS.  What about xCloud streaming app since it allows local game streaming.    

Amd Gpu's also allow remote streaming from the GPU to any connected device on your network, also anyone with a Geforce card and Moonlight can stream any pc game to any device ?   For that intent and purposes so what does everyone owe devs money ?  

To sum this up,  devs control does the game play on PC, or Xbox, Ps4 so forth absolutely.  However they do not control where the game gets installed once it is on said platform.   If your platform allows you to legally stream content you own to your own device, and or if you do not have  a powerful enough PC To run it, and you buy time on a managed server, it is still a PC.  The hosting company does not somehow magically owe you money because they are supplying hardware.   

The devs do not magically get more money because geographically your pc is not in the same room as you. 

Share this post


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

That is the thing, Nvidia should NOT have to arrange any agreement with them, as Nvidia is just proving the hardware, the the net cafe is moot , as Nviida requires you to own the copy, where a NetCafe assumes the customer does not own a copy therefore they rely on bulk agreement / licence to cover it.  If you were to log into your account at a net cafe and run your copy of the game, it does not actually count against the net cafe usage as you own a copy of the game legally therefore your copy is already covered by your own agreement. 

As far as free access goes, people on here before removed, and on Twitter , keep saying well they are letting them play the game free.  It making it sound like GFN covers the cost of the game, which it does not. 

You can even read Steams net-cafe policy it actually covers this exact usage:

What if a customer brings their own laptop into my location?

If a user with a laptop comes into the location and you allow them to join the network running the Steam PC Café Server, then their laptop will also be able to access the games in your license pool. Any games they own on their personal Steam account will not count against your license pool.

I would read it in completely opposite way though. This assumes that some kind of bulk agreement is in place already ( as otherwise that café would not be able allowed to run Steam PC Café Server ).

And as far as i am concerned this is my only problem with the topic - the fact Nvidia didnt bother with negotiating any legal agreement before putting TLD on the list.
There is still a big difference between allowing someone to use your IP without additional fees ( which i think might be appropriate in this case, but still HLs decision ) and ignoring the fact it is being used freely.
 

Share this post


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

I would read it in completely opposite way though. This assumes that some kind of bulk agreement is in place already ( as otherwise that café would not be able allowed to run Steam PC Café Server ).

And as far as i am concerned this is my only problem with the topic - the fact Nvidia didnt bother with negotiating any legal agreement before putting TLD on the list.
There is still a big difference between allowing someone to use your IP without additional fees ( which i think might be appropriate in this case, but still HLs decision ) and ignoring the fact it is being used freely.
 

That would be like saying every PC manufacture would have to ask TLD Publisher, hey is it ok that the game runs on Intel Processors or Nvidia GPU's what about AMD.  Or is it ok that my Samsung Monitor displays your game?  They are just supplying hardware,  why do they need permission again from the developer to rent you managed pc time?  Steam is still the one you have the agreement with as far as your game library goes. Nvidia does not have to have an agreement, as they are just giving you a PC to run your Steam library on.

 

Here I will make this simpler because maybe being to specific is actually causing the issue.   GFN rents you a pc to run Steam on, nothing more nothing less.  It does not matter what game because Nvidia is entering an agreement with you to borrow a PC for x amount of time.  You supply money they supply hardware that is it.   Steam comes pre installed on said computer, which you can log into and play your games.  Nviida does not have an agreement with any publisher as that is beyond the scope of there agreement with you.  Your agreement with Steam allows you to play any Steam game you legally own on your hardware of choosing so long as you do not violate any of the Steam user agreements you agreed to.  Steam allows you to log into your library anywhere that can run Steam.   When you log in you have all rights and privileges to run your games.  Provided you stay logged into Steam while playing.  

Does that make it easier to understand. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if hinterland is violating steam's TOS?

Share this post


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

I wonder if hinterland is violating steam's TOS?

Actually they are , by blocking GFN they are violating part of the TOS that allows you to play your steam games while logged into your Steam account, the Steam TOS does not state that games cannot be ran on VM's  the devs have no secondary EULA, when asked Valve to give me a copy of the Developers TOS, for TLD they just refer you back to the Steam EULA which superceeds any EULA that the Developer may have.  That is part of that whole thing with selling things on Steam etc, ya know that debate. 

However though Nvidia complied not because they are wrong but because they need to still work with the Publisher on different projects.  So they have to maintain a working relationship.  However them blocking your Steam Library Access by the Developer request, the Developer is breaching Steam TOS.  It also opens them up to all kinds of other issues,  if they do not want it on GFN, so be it we cannot stop them.  However they should also remove the game from Steam as well, also since they want to block Steam Access to your legally bought game, they are also open now to non time gated refunds regardless of time and play time. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please avoid making factual claims that you do not know to be true, but feel to be true. Instead phrase your arguments more about what you think.

Thank you.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I imagine this will likely end up in court in various countries. Not specifically for hinterland, but just generally with companies trying to control which PC people play their games on.

Share this post


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

Looks like it was about "commercialise ports for new platforms" and "negotiate exclusivity deals".
That's money.

But not money from us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I'd say Nvidia was/is definitely being parasitic (in this particular case)... or at least very very exploitative, and I don't think they should be allowed to get away with it. 

Because again (and somehow a lot of folks keep missing this little detail):

On 3/8/2020 at 11:18 PM, ManicManiac said:

if it really is just a service [letting folks rent] virtual machines to "run games" [through Steam and other regular distributors]  ...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)


:coffee::fire:

Edited by ManicManiac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm, Nvidia pulling out for the sake of frictionless cooperation would make the only sense. Because otherwise Jamie, and don’t take me wrong, you make it all seem so legally sound I see no other reason why they would do that. I mean you go for a multimillion venture in renting hardware, you surely tie up all the loose ends before you go live, right?

I have almost no knowledge of the legal stuff, apart of the observations I have offered originally, so no reason for me to keep arguing. Still interested to see how this plays out though, regardless of my unchanged opinion about the matter :)

 

Share this post


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

I'd say Nvidia was/is definitely being parasitic (in this particular case)... or at least very very exploitative, and I don't think they should be allowed to get away with it. 

Because again (and somehow a lot of folks keep missing this little detail):


:coffee::fire:

The actual titles are not on there service, the service is still Steam, I do not understand how people do not understand that.  If you own no games on steam and rent a GFN service for 5 a month and create a Steam Account, guess what you do not have anything to play.  Except for whatever F2P title maybe on there.  As far as data caching goes, there is nothing inherently illegal about that.  Your Isp's do it , Steam does it Netflix does it. That is how the internet works.

A Content Delivery Network (CDN) is a critical component of nearly any modern web application. It used to be that CDN merely improved the delivery of content by replicating commonly requested files (static content) across a globally distributed set of caching servers. However, CDNs have become much more useful over time. For caching, a CDN will reduce the load on an application origin and improve the experience of the requestor by delivering a local copy of the content from a nearby cache edge, or Point of Presence (PoP). The application origin is off the hook for opening the connection and delivering the content directly as the CDN takes care of the heavy lifting. The end result is that the application origins don’t need to scale to meet demands for static content.

 

1. The user must request content from one of Steams Servers. This is done by pointing users at Steam's Edge Address or to there IP address.

2. The nearest Server checks for the website's stored file in its cache.

3. If found, the content is delivered from the Nvidia Sever to the requester

4. If not found, the content is requested from the Origin server registered with Steam

5. Steam returns the response from there Origin Server to the Steam User .

6. If the file is cachable, the response is stored in the local Nvidia Server's cache

Any new content to be cached will follow steps 1-6 on the first request. Once the response is stored in the local Nvidia Server cache, every request for the same content will terminate at Step 3.

This is just how the internet works , this just does not apply to steam this applies to the internet as a whole with the way dynamic load balancing works.    Example New Doom game is releasing soon, if every user or even  half the users on Steam was to download the same game on the same day at the same time , without local content caching, you would never finish a download.   The servers could not keep up with that much independent traffic  hitting there servers.  When you download a game, see above this even applies to your local ISP.

Edited by JamieLinux
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

Hmm, Nvidia pulling out for the sake of frictionless cooperation would make the only sense. Because otherwise Jamie, and don’t take me wrong, you make it all seem so legally sound I see no other reason why they would do that. I mean you go for a multimillion venture in renting hardware, you surely tie up all the loose ends before you go live, right?

I have almost no knowledge of the legal stuff, apart of the observations I have offered originally, so no reason for me to keep arguing. Still interested to see how this plays out though, regardless of my unchanged opinion about the matter :)

 

This is correct, as I re stated 1000x million times, regardless of the outcome of GFN .  Nvidia still has to work with the developers on there games and optimizing there drivers with the publishers game.  So while Nvidia legally can ignore the request and allow it go to legal proceeding and or whatever outcome legally they can attempt to do.   It is not in Nvidia's best interest to do so as they still have a working relationship on other fronts.   It does not mean Nvidia is doing any wrong like you said its for Friction-less Cooperation, and I am sure if this was not 100 percent Legal , do you think Nvidia's team of Lawyers, would even let them turn the on button on this service?   You do not need to answer that, it was rhetorical. 

 

Look I am not bashing TLD, I am sure they mean well, I just am passionate about protecting customer rights, Steam  and other companies worked really really hard to get Digital Distribution to where it is today.  Now it seems with this right to dictate where and where you cannot install software you legally bought in good faith, then are told you cannot use it, because some developers do not like the windows machine it is being played on, feels like they are trying to undo the years of work that got it this far. 

Edited by JamieLinux
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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