Dum_Gen

TLD is removed from GeForce Now

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
20 minutes ago, JamieLinux said:

The actual titles are not on there service, the service is still Steam

:D Then that begs the question... why then does it mater if TLD was removed from their service if that is true?
And if this is really the case, then none of the folks complaining have anything to complain about. :D

:coffee::fire:
This is getting ridiculous to the point of being hilarious.

Edited by ManicManiac
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am sure that Nvidia talked with their lawyers about what they were doing.  It would not be the first time for the lawyers for one party to assure that party that what they were doing was perfectly okay only to have lawyers for another party dispute that.    Nvidia could have been in the right legally under some interpretation of law and circumstances, but if a court case were to develop and the judgement went against them, then Hinterland could probably get some damages in addition to some court supervised agreement.  So, better safe than sorry.  Apologize, negotiate, try to come to an agreement, and go to court only as a last resort, since legal work is expensive whether you win or lose. 

By complying with Hinterland's request immediately, Nvidia shows that it is sorry, wants to cooperate, try to work out an agreement, and forestalls any significant possible damage awards. 

It is amazing how long a "simple" legally-binding agreement can take to hammer out.  The sides meet, lawyers present, work out an understanding. Then someone writes a draft agreement. It gets reviewed. Then the other side has to review it.  The lawyers get their hands on it and may suggest revisions.  Revisions by either side means it goes through another round of everyone reviewing it. Rinse and repeat until both sides are satisfied.  😅

  • Upvote 1
  • Like 1

Share this post


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

:D Then that begs the question... why then does it mater if TLD was removed from their service if that is true?
And if this is really the case, then none of the folks complaining have anything to complain about. :D

:coffee::fire:
This is getting ridiculous to the point of being hilarious.

Because they are not removing it from Steam , they are blocking your access to it on steam because a developer does not like that the system it is being played on is not geographically located in your home, it is a Managed Computer System.   Not trying to be difficult, how many different ways do I need to explain the same thing. 

 

You paid for the software, you legally in accordance to STEAMS EULA have the right to play any game you own on the computer you are logged into steam on, while you are logged into Steam.  


Not that hard to understand.  Pretty simple straight forward.  They do not just get to arbitrary dictate just because your pc happens to be Managed by Nviida that you legally cannot play it..  That 100 percent is a gross violation of customer rights, and 100 percent goes against the STEAM EULA.

Edited by JamieLinux
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


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

You paid for the software, you legally in accordance to STEAMS EULA have the right to play any game you own on the computer you are logged into steam on, while you are still logged into Steam.  

I don't think that's entirely correct... :D
The Steam EULA I read specifically states "on the local hard disk(s) or other permanent storage media of one computer, or, on one other game play device owned by you or under your legitimate control"   ... as in a device that particular individual personally owns, and those virtual machines are owned and controlled by Nvidia not the player.

Also, I'm fairly sure that developer/publisher EULA's also supersede Steam's EULA (in areas more stringent).

 

Edited by ManicManiac
quoting from the source.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, UTC-10 said:

I am sure that Nvidia talked with their lawyers about what they were doing.  It would not be the first time for the lawyers for one party to assure that party that what they were doing was perfectly okay only to have lawyers for another party dispute that.    Nvidia could have been in the right legally under some interpretation of law and circumstances, but if a court case were to develop and the judgement went against them, then Hinterland could probably get some damages in addition to some court supervised agreement.  So, better safe than sorry.  Apologize, negotiate, try to come to an agreement, and go to court only as a last resort, since legal work is expensive whether you win or lose. 

By complying with Hinterland's request immediately, Nvidia shows that it is sorry, wants to cooperate, try to work out an agreement, and forestalls any significant possible damage awards. 

It is amazing how long a "simple" legally-binding agreement can take to hammer out.  The sides meet, lawyers present, work out an understanding. Then someone writes a draft agreement. It gets reviewed. Then the other side has to review it.  The lawyers get their hands on it and may suggest revisions.  Revisions by either side means it goes through another round of everyone reviewing it. Rinse and repeat until both sides are satisfied.  😅

The thing about that is you are right, they will have to hammer out a legal agreement and probably pay  the devs even though legally they do no have to just to keep friction less operation .  If that happens Developers get to double dip and the cost of everything goes up.   Nvidia entered into a legal agreement with the subscriber of the service as all they do is rent hardware  for this case. Yes I know they make GPU's and SOC's so forth. 

 

Here is another thought to think about because it is getting old to have to repeat the same thing I said all the time, not your fault.  

Nothing Nvidia has done you can't do yourself.  There is nothing stopping you or I from buying PC hardware and building a personal cloud unit that allows you to play your library wherever you have a internet connection.  Heck you can find step by step guides if you were not sure how to do it.  Does that mean you should have to pay the devs again because you are streaming the games you legally bout to a device you own?

Think about that for a min, just because it is Nvida entering into an agreement with you to rent you hardware does not somehow magically change the legality of it and or make one more right then the other.  They charge you cause servers cost money a lot of money to keep running. 

Share this post


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

I don't think that's entirely correct... :D
The Steam EULA I read specifically states "on the local hard disk(s) or other permanent storage media of one computer, or, on one other game play device owned by you or under your legitimate control"   ... as in a device that particular individual personally owns, and those virtual machines are owned and controlled by Nvidia not the player.

Also... developer/publisher EULA's would also superseded Steam's EULA (if more stringent).

 

Under legitment control , when you use a managed computer, you are the only one that can use that said computer, no one else not even Nviida could log in as you.  As far as owning the device, renting the device is not illigal, by that definition if you bought a prebuilt machine from Alienware, then you are in violation because you are paying for that machine monthly.  When you sign in to GFN you own that instance for the time you are playing it no one else, you log out you are no longer there, no one else can be you log in as you . 

 

Ownership does not change just because of geographical location, if that was the case. Any pc that definition is in violation .  As even if you built the pc you ordered the parts you had to assemble the parts , and or if you had a custom pc built someone else built it for you.  See you cant read the law one way and have it so, it can go both ways.  This is why Dev's do not control installation end points.  They only control what platform the game exists on. It exsits on PC, and Consoles.  Therefore it can be installed on any PC or Console you legally have access to and can play on.  

 

It does not mean you can share it with 6000 of your friends that is still wrong. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

when you use a managed computer, you are the only one that can use that said computer

I think that's fundamentally untrue...  that "managed computer" is still owned and controlled by someone other than the player.  I think it really is as simple as that.

11 minutes ago, JamieLinux said:

As far as owning the device, renting the device is not illigal, by that definition if you bought a prebuilt machine from Alienware, then you are in violation because you are paying for that machine monthly.

What you're trying to say doesn't make sense... you use the word "buy," and then go on to talk about paying monthly... that sounds like something purchased via credit or a loan.  That's not the same thing as renting/leasing.  :D

13 minutes ago, JamieLinux said:

When you sign in to GFN you own that instance for the time you are playing it no one else, you log out you are no longer there, no one else can be you log in as you

No... I'm fairly sure that Nvidia still owns their servers and infrastructure.  You also go on to say that no one else can log in as you... um, I don't think that's true either.  Their admins could if they chose to.  Just because they promise not to doesn't mean it's not possible.

 

Share this post


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

I think that's fundamentally untrue...  that "managed computer" is still owned and controlled by someone other than the player.  I think it really is as simple as that.

What you're trying to say doesn't make sense... you use the word "buy," and then go on to talk about paying monthly... that sounds like something purchased via credit or a loan.  That's not the same thing as renting/leasing.  :D

No... I'm fairly sure that Nvidia still owns their servers and infrastructure.  You also go on to say that no one else can log in as you... um, I don't think that's true either.  Their admins could if they chose to.  Just because they promise not to doesn't mean it's not possible.

 

 

1.  Yes they still physically own the hardware however, you are the only one logged into that instance of windows.  But for all intents and purposes you are the owner of that instanced VM while you are playing your game.

For the last part of that sentence because it applies.  Yes Nviida own the hardware data centers. No one else can log in as you still holds up,  Nvidia does NOT have access to your steam account credentials.  Here is where the logic falls apart, I feel you think that somehow Nvidia is just giving access to the games, they are not they are giving access to hardware only.    The whole just because they promise not to does not mean they wont.  You know how many privacy lawsuits that would open up if any company started doing that?  Now I feel you are just grasping.

 

For the Alienware,  because when you buy a computer form Alienware or Ibuypower so forth most people pay monthly for the computer instead of outright paying for it, I should have reworded that statement to be more clear. How ever they also lease computers along with a few other companies as well. 

 

No compermise gaming leases computers, alienware, best buy , ibuypower. How is leasing a computer from there any different then leasing time from Nvidia or Shadow PC?   It's not  the only difference is , geographical location. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

Yes they still physically own the hardware however, you are the only one logged into that instance of windows.  But for all intents and purposes you are the owner of that instanced VM while you are playing your game

I think you've contradicted your own position here.  If Nvidia owns it... then the player doesn't.  If we have to start using language like "for all intents and purposes" that's pretty shaky as an argument. :D

Also, I don't think VMs would qualify as "permanent storage media of one computer" by the very definition of Virtual Machine...

46 minutes ago, JamieLinux said:

Yes Nviida own the hardware data centers. No one else can log in as you still holds up,  Nvidia does NOT have access to your steam account credentials

:D they have access to it if it's stored on their systems... again just because they promise they won't doesn't mean it's not possible.  How can you personally claim they don't have access?  I don't think you can, I think that's an assumption you're making.  I'm not grasping at anything... you seem to be making an absolute statement that I doubt you have any way of proving.  I on the other hand, am just talking about possibility. 

46 minutes ago, JamieLinux said:

For the Alienware,  because when you buy a computer form Alienware or Ibuypower so forth most people pay monthly for the computer instead of outright paying for it

Right, what you are describing is credit... and again, that's not the same thing as renting or leasing.  I'll try to explain in similar terms.  If you own a car, you may repaint it and install whatever aftermarket crap you want to.  If you lease/rent a car... you can't really do that (unless you get permission from the actual party that owns it), because you don't own it.


:coffee::fire:
Look, I can "point - counterpoint" you indefinitely. :)
At this point it would probably be best to agree to disagree.

Edited by ManicManiac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, ManicManiac said:

I think you've contradicted your own position here.  If Nvidia owns it... then the player doesn't.  If we have to start using language like "for all intents and purposes" that's pretty shaky as an argument. :D

Also, I don't think VMs would qualify as "permanent storage media of one computer" by the very definition of Virtual Machine...

:D they have access to it if it's stored on their systems... again just because they promise they won't doesn't mean it's not possible.  How can you personally claim they don't have access?  I don't think you can, I think that's an assumption you're making.  I'm not grasping at anything... you seem to be making an absolute statement that I doubt you have any way of proving.  I on the other hand, am just talking about possibility. 

Right, what you are describing is credit... and again, that's not the same thing as renting or leasing.  I'll try to explain in similar terms.  If you own a car, you may repaint it and install whatever aftermarket crap you want to.  If you lease/rent a car... you can't really do that (unless you get permission from the actual party that owns it), because you don't own it.


:coffee::fire:
Look, I can "point - counterpoint" you indefinitely. :)
At this point it would probably be best to agree to disagree.

Yes for all intents and purposes you own it, it holds up.  If you were to lease a computer, or rent to own, buy one and make payments on it, you don't pay guess what they take the product back.   Same thing applies if you do not pay for your vm instance monthly guess what , you do not get access, granted with GFN you get reduced access and wait times.

 

As far as them not logging in and looking we are just going to agree to disagree on that, it would be like saying Valve will use your steam account.  So we will drop that one and not go down that rabit hole. 

 

As far as the lease vs own for the car .  You still have to buy the game, however just like you have to buy or lease the car.  However the dev is trying to say  where you can or cannot drive the car.. Umm that is NOT up to them, that is up to Steam, and that was already covered in Steam EULA, and the partnership Steam / Nvidia have, they do not need to consult the developers as Nvidia does not rent games, they rent hardware so you can run  your library of games.

 

Yes we can do this all day, we wont see eye to eye.  I respect your belief even though I do not agree with it and feel it is anti customer. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

Yes for all intents and purposes you own it, it holds up.

  Accept that I don't think it really holds up at all (otherwise I don't think this conversation would have taken place)...  Perhaps it does in your opinion, but I think I've already clearly covered why I don't think it does (I'm not super enthused about going over it again). 

42 minutes ago, JamieLinux said:

and that was already covered in Steam EULA

Indeed, and I already also covered why I think Nvidia's service does not qualify.  (I'm not super enthused about going over that again either)

42 minutes ago, JamieLinux said:

Yes we can do this all day, we wont see eye to eye.  I respect your belief even though I do not agree with it and feel it is anti customer.

And I certainly do respect your personal opinion of the situation.  However, I think our discourse aptly demonstrates that we're not talking about an issue that is clearly "black & white" but instead, seems to be situated in a "murky gray area."


:coffee::fire::coffee:
True we're on different ends of this particular topic, but I do appreciate the discussion.  :)

Edited by ManicManiac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm really tired of this conversation and people throwing around "anti consumer" like they are fighting the good fight. Let me tell you: you are not. You're doing the dirty work of a big corporation surpressing small companies. And please refrain from PM'ing me about that subject. If I don't want to talk to you here, I certainly don't want to talk to you in private.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/8/2020 at 3:12 PM, kristaok said:

Just because other companies pulled their games doesn't make nvidia the bad guy, it just shows that there's lots of greedy companies out there. 

NVidia is totally the bad guy in this. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regardless of what side of the issue you're on let's refrain from insults.

Thank you.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

I'm really tired of this conversation and people throwing around "anti consumer" like they are fighting the good fight. Let me tell you: you are not. You're doing the dirty work of a big corporation surpressing small companies. And please refrain from PM'ing me about that subject. If I don't want to talk to you here, I certainly don't want to talk to you in private.

So anyone who disagrees with the removal of GFN is a bad guy?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

So anyone who disagrees with the removal of GFN is a bad guy?

No. Being a bad guy requires intend. You think you're doing yourself and fellow gamers a favor by making the shortcut assumption that this will help protect your rights in a increasingly corporate driven world. And on the surface this thought seems to hold merit. It's almost too intuitively logic to contest it. But you are being instrumentalized by a corportation with stakes rangeing in the billions to prey on companies with stakes often times hardly in the millions .... without realizing it. The corporate landscape, the power disparity is skewed by an order of magnitude, and people flock to the ones holding all the power and none of the right to protect their - in this discussion mostyl hypothetical - 20 dollar claim. It's genius, I'll admit that. But it's also a ruse as old as kings and conquerors, and it's also vicious, ruthless, and accusing Hinterland of all companies of being "greedy" is frankly ... preposturous, and shows how little people really understand how hard it is to break even on intellectual property, let alone build a business on top of it.

But that's where consumers come back in a few years and ask: where have all the great games gone? Frankly, we are already at that point - or people wouldn't have to rely on indie studios like Hinterland to make games that aren't just reiterations of one and the same game we've been playing for a decade. It's like with the movies, where we only see what is guaranteed to make a profit, because making a profit in a world dominated by streaming services is a damn hard proposition. Or with music, where we only get to hear what is guaranteed to make a profit, because making a profit in a world dominated by Spotify and iTunes, where someone downloading your song is worth a fraction of what radio airplay used to be worth, is basically impossible. It's a world in which I chose to be a software developer, because playing lead guitar in a band with a record deal wouldn't pay half of the bills at twice the work and none of the security of a reliable income.

This is one and the same ploy, one and the same plot of people taking away power from the artists, and giving it to their share holders, and "us" consumers applauding this process of disempowerment of the people doing the actual work, this process of disowning the people providing the actual value. And it will continue to happen as long as the small guy flocks to the big guy to prey on their fellow neighbour for the promise of a whip of cream on their pathetic piece of the pie.

And yes, this makes me sad, and it frustrates me beyond what most people seem to be able to comprehend.

So no, you're not the bad guy. But you're not fighting the good fight, either.

Edited by jeffpeng
Freezing Typos
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

There are instances of this all around the world and people are pretty okay with that.

Parking lots only make sense because people have cars that need to be parked somewhere.
They advertise their service and demand money for using them.
Would it seem fair for a car manufacturer to try to prevent their customers from parking there because the parking lot is making money without sharing it with the manufacturer or because it limits the manufaturer's ability to provide a paid parking service themselves?
 

Gyms advertise with people wearing sports wear,
Campsites advertise with your ability to have a BBQ,
Hotels advertise their indoor pools with people wearing swim wear,
Some restaurants advertise their views of famous sights and buildings.

None of them get to pay a share for that or get told to stop doing it or that certain brands are banned.
Can you imagine the reaction if people were told they couldn't wear a certain brand of suits because the opera requires people to wear one, but didn't ask permission or gives a "fair cut" to the people selling them?

 

Game licenses are only treated differently because some people want them treated differently. It's not a natural quality of software licenses.

Whenever someone repeats the "oh, but you didn't buy the *game*, you just bought a *license*" he's adding to and strengthening this artifical difference.
And the reason is always the same: I want that money and no one else must be allowed to have it.

Edited by Spottdrossel
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

I want that money and no one else must be allowed to have it.

Because if you don't get that money you're not going to make more of that stuff, and your people are out in the streets. You people think that making software is like printing money because you've heard how Bill Gates made a fortune on exploiting an entire market over decades. Now ask yourself who's still buying Microsoft Windows.

Be a software developer for a year, write up licenseing agreements, and try to make ends meet in a market where people think creating software is like clicking a few boxes and boom - product - while your own costs range in the tens of thousands just to write up a concept you may or may not sell. (Not even touching liabilites or down the line grievances for things your customer thinks he paid for, but you think he didn't - but the contract doesn't state this clear enough, and you go to court twice a month for two years for something no normal person would even consider - and end up losing even though the lawsuit was ruled in your favor.)

You are selling something you can replicate for free at the click of a button. Try doing that with any of your above examples.

Try walking in those shoes before passing judgement about something you don't even grasp the concept of.

Edited by jeffpeng
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

@jeffpeng How could Hinterland lose money or be hurt by GFN? I figured it would do nothing but help bring them into the limelight more. That's a sincere question. 

I don't use GFN so it doesn't affect me in that sense. I just want fairness for the fans is all. I've seen too many bad Gaming Companies like EA mess up games I've liked, that's why I'm on edge. 

Youre right though about things changing within the music, game, and movie industries. I don't know how you feel exactly, but I've noticed a decline in quality pertaining to that... the music all sounds the same, I miss the 80s and 90s. There's been some decent games, but I do feel like the quality has went way down compared to the past. Same with the movies, the market is all dominated and saturated with remakes (not saying all remakes are bad) there's just nothing original. 

I feel like the control runs deep, contracts with the devil are signed for money, that's why I don't trust too easily. I will say this, GFN would be more likely to sign that contract than Hinterland, I just hope they haven't signed as well. 

I'm a wack conspiracy theorist though. 

Ps. I admit in a bid to fight greed, perhaps I'm inadvertently supporting that with GFN... I just don't want to support that. Sigh. I've been honestly torn on this issue, that's the honest truth. 

EDIT to add;

I just now talked to someone more knowledgeable than me in real life about the issue. For instance with Raphs view on GoG 30 Days... at first I thought why would you not care about the playerbase? I mean I've never returned a single game I bought on Steam even if I realized I done goofed in buying it (didn't like the game). I thought that was cruel either way, until I chatted with someone who explained it better how those returns that long after could hurt someone etc. 

Also they explained the GFN better that using someone's logo for the games, and not asking permission isn't good etc. 

Im still torn, but I can say I shifted from one side more to the middle? I shouldn't have let myself get swayed without understanding better, I guess I thought I was doing the right thing....

ps. I do still and I did then believe GFN should have asked permission, I definitely agree with that. 

Another EDIT to add;

Now that I think about it... it's a good disguise for GFN, get everyone focused on the playerbase and what they feel they need / deserve... while they are using someones logos to sell their Streaming Service. Even though they're not really selling any games, they're still making money from said products by using those logos, and the affiliation they have with said Devs. So perhaps it is a sneaky way to make money... I mean yea it could bring exposure to said games and their devs, but still these devs have a right to say NO - no matter the reason. Also both parties need to be protected, not just the consumers but the devs need protection. 

I guess I never let it sink in... perhaps I have been seflish? Indie Devs like Hinterland trying to make it in this world is a struggle, especially in a world where everyone can be so selfish, I don't want to be selfish. Since coming into the light on this situation, I can now say I am beginning to see more clearly so to speak... I am beginning to see Hinterlands point.

Thank you all here for being patient and trying to explain to me in kindness.

Thank you Hinterland for giving me a chance to learn about this, and for not shutting down the thread before my eyes could be opened.

Edited by kristaok
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What an awful thread, but I'm here!.  It's full of just straight out sainting and demonizing.  A lot of taking up the mantle of crusading for consumer rights and even a little bit of Hinterland - even Nvidia? (wow).  "It's about the money" thrown out like some scarlet letter of greed.  It's about the money for everyone, to some extent, so that line of moralizing is just straight up silly.  These are pragmatic actors trying to control their lives and livelihood.

"Control of IP" is even partially "about the money", at least partly.  Because, yeah, money is sort of needed to exist in this world sadly (except for Great Bear where you burn it!).   It's complex and about the software/hardware landscape and lot of it has to do with control (or loss of control) and precedents for different actors in the industry.  I'm really not an expert on the whole thing so I'm going to take the fresh approach that many these days don't seem to take and not speak on expertise that I don't have but apparently my common sense, sense of human nature, and respect that I don't know make me more knowledgeable than most.  I think it's important to trend impressions of things and from different POVs.  I know that I paid 8 bucks for the game I've spent 500 hours on and I bought another copy for a friend since I got it on sale and spent so much time with it.  I've seen a lot of free updates for the game and no DLC.  

I mean there so many other causes to fight in this world.  I'm flabbergasted that somehow fighting big, bad Hinterland and it's anti-consumer rights becomes really important.  The world is full of video games now freaking everywhere you can play at the drop of a hat.  Just get over it.  Now, if the currency of this discussion suddenly became the buying and selling of time to play said games (and other things), then your reactions could never be enough.  (but as it is, good lord.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps someone can explain it to me in a  way that makes sense from the perspective of the customer who bought the game on Steam..... and in a way that makes it sound like this is good for the industry. 

There are people who bought the game on steam and they played it on GFN because they were ion the test program. Have it installed nowhere else. Do not own a gaming PC and don't plan on buying one. They can no longer play the game they bought the permission to play. 

I use the word "permission" because that is Hinderland's position -- that Nvidia didn't "ask permission". 

But each customer not only asked but BOUGHT that permission. 

I fail to see how Hinderland is hurt in this. They got the game revenue from these customers. These customers can't use the game in tow places at once as the DRM works on Steam on GFN the same way it works on anyone's PC. 

GFN is not competing with Steam or any other digital store. They once were building that out but divested it -- probably because of the issues they would have ran into -- such as right here. 

There is no harm whatsoever to Hinderland by these customers using their purchased, licensed product on Steam on GFN. But you sure can see the harm this causes those customers. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, TomC2012 said:

There is no harm whatsoever to Hinderland

I don't think folks have the kind of knowledge or credentials necessary to make these kind of assertions.  Just because they don't "see" the possible harm does not mean there is no harm.

:coffee::fire:
I think it's irresponsible for folks to try and make those kind of absolute statements, or try to pass off their personal perspective as fact (when by definition it's just a subjective point of view).

Edited by ManicManiac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@TomC2012 The Company is called "Hinterland, not Hinderland". -- I was torn in the beginning, sort of on the side of nvidia you could say?... but in reality again nvidia never asked permission (they should have at least done that much). They were using TLD's images etc. to advertise TLD on their GFN streaming services. Yea they were not really charging for TLD game, but they were making a proft so to speak. So whether we the players like it or not... Raph made his decision, and we don't have to agree with it... but we need to respect it. I don't think what I have seen towards Raph and the Team are called for, I've seen them called names, I've seen people threaten to boycott them... it's crazy. And after thinking it through I can't support that kind of attitude that some of the playerbase is directing towards the Team, even though I must admit some of Raphs replies in times past were too kind either... I couldn't imagine the stress he and the Team endures either though... under that kind of pressure perhaps even a saint could crack? 

So yea... basically I need to think things through before I speak, but that isn't easy for someone who is on the spectrum but whatever... It'll be okay... I just don't want to see this game and the Team suffer under this. We all need to not be so selfish, myself included, I just hope Hinterland has a legit reason for pulling the plug - that's all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've appreciated your perspective krista. 

It's a bad deal all around and the people who got stuck being able to play the game and now they cant due to their hardware deserve empathy.

Though there's no way to verify I would think if someone now has a computer that can't run the game now.  And if they get an updated machine it's not solely for the game.  It's hairy.

Share this post


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

 How could Hinterland lose money or be hurt by GFN? I figured it would do nothing but help bring them into the limelight more. That's a sincere question. 

Immediately ... as I said .... they don't lose money. But in the event that, for example, Hinterland decided to make a port of TLD for the Nintendo Switch or any other Android device .... they would technically compete with their own product that PC gamers own, run on Geforce now and stream .... onto their Android phone. In which case... making such a port would be a lot less financially viable - probably up to the point that they wouldn't make it.

The other point is the legal and procedural precedent. If Hinterland has knowledge about their game being on a streaming service without their consent, but fails to take action, the next streaming service can do the same thing and claim "yeah, but Nvidia did it, and Hinterland did nothing, so we can do it, too" and wouldn't have a half bad case. They would probably lose, but it would be sufficent to make a lawsuit out of it Hinterland might be inclined to settle even being in the right, just to avoid the off chance of a devastating ruling against them.

6 hours ago, kristaok said:

it's a good disguise for GFN, get everyone focused on the playerbase and what they feel they need / deserve... while they are using someones logos to sell their Streaming Service. Even though they're not really selling any games, they're still making money from said products by using those logos, and the affiliation they have with said Devs. So perhaps it is a sneaky way to make money...

So you took the red pill afterall. Welcome to wonderland.

In general serious kudos @kristaok .... seeing anyone adjust their stance on anything is a rare thing these days, because it's a hard thing .... and it requires character. I failed at that more often than not. 🙇‍♂️

4 hours ago, TomC2012 said:

But you sure can see the harm this causes those customers. 

I think nobody disputes that. And seeing that HL knew of GFN since MM#32 .... which is May'19 ... I'm a bit confused why they didn't act earlier, and it makes the initial reasoning seem disingenuous. Then again .... it's not like it's Hinterland's due diligence to check what streaming platform is running their game. It's the platforms due diligence to ask for permission. But 🤔 .... further emphasizes the Hinterland seriously needs to work on how they communicate to players. I know that's a hard thing to get right, but this charlie foxtrott could have been mitigated with the right communication. Seriously, Hinterland people .... hire a community manager. If Coffee Stain can do it (they got big with a game about a homicidal goat) ... you can do it!

18 minutes ago, dbmurph22 said:

Though there's no way to verify I would think if someone now has a computer that can't run the game now.  And if they get an updated machine it's not solely for the game.  It's hairy.

I sorta mentioned this initially .... that the people expected to pay the dues for this are the customers. And that I don't like it. Personally I would like to see Nvidia and Hinterland come to terms on this on a sound legal basis, so that people that have bought the game can play it.

If there really is concern about cross platform streaming .... maybe Nvidia can make sure the IP owner retains control over what kind of device a software can be streamed  to. So you can stream the Steam version of TLD  - which is a PC game - to a PC, meaning a laptop or desktop PC in the traditional sense, but not a smartphone or console. Aside from the lack of actually acquiring permission, I understand this to be the biggest concern. It's feasible for Nvidia to realize such restrictions in a rather short time frame. Maybe this is the middle ground Nvidia and Hinterland can meet on. 

I also think many misunderstand my stance as being against the consumer's rights and their need for protection. I personally would like nothing more for people that paid for the game to be able to play it. I just think the party to blame in the entire mess is not Hinterland - and least not primarily - but Nvidia. The victim, to make this abundandantly clear, is the consumer.

Edited by jeffpeng

Share this post


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