Activision forces NVIDIA to remove all game from GeForce NOW

[Vorkreist]

You can build a pc for ~400 that will run even the newest games, let's not pretend that you have to drop 10k to get a pc that can play things.

400 would be the gfx card alone.

- - - Updated - - -

Lol, did you really use a $5 + $60 game as an example?
Who would buy one game and keep it forever?
I'm not saying that cloud gaming is not the future. I'm not saying the opposite either. I'm saying is that they are approaching it wrong.
There's Netflix streaming movies. Spotify streaming music. And tons of alternatives- You pay a monthly fee and have access to tons of shit. Not everything, but tons of shit.
Once gaming industry gets that through their thick, money grabbing heads, that's when cloud gaming will take off. Until then, not going to happen.

Also, piracy is not dying and it's not going away.
Here's one of the reasons why:
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019...y-is-back.html

Pirating Netflix? Lulz. Don't pay 8 bucks a month , go to some obscure malware filled tracker to see a few tv shows....

Go and pirate games if the few scene groups are in the mood to waste months trying to break the latest Denuvo DRM.

[cuafpr]

porbably combo of licensing issues, money, responsible parties for support/breaches, and many others. not shocking.

[nocturnus]

While macs aren't made for gaming, you can game perfectly fine on them. My Macbook Pro has a nifty Radeon 5500M on board, which handles most games - if not all - perfectly fine.

[StillMcfuu]

throwing money at technology doesn't just make it work.....

Clearly, but they have the resources and talent to make a project like this work, but they don't seem to care. The project looks like it's being choked for funding, which is ridiculous considering the company.

[Vash The Stampede]

They're both just renting hardware from the cloud. They both have the same technical problems. They're both pretty irrelevant and barely used by anyone. The only real difference is Google has their bases covered and properly authorized games and Nvidia is just logging into your steam or bnet or other accounts and getting told by publishers to block their games over and over again because it's unauthorized streaming of their IP.

Little history on Nvidia's Cloud Gaming service, as it was once called GRID and was released in 2008. So this is a really old service, used by no one. Originally Nvidia required you used Nvidia GPU's and or Tegra based Android devices to access GRID. That didn't go so well obviously, so they renamed it to Geforce Now and fixed it so when you bought a game from them, you would also get a Steam key to play on your PC. They fixed it yet again and now allow you to play the games you already own if the account is linked to Geforce Now. Can't say Nvidia isn't trying.

While macs aren't made for gaming, you can game perfectly fine on them. My Macbook Pro has a nifty Radeon 5500M on board, which handles most games - if not all - perfectly fine.

So long as you boot into Windows then yes you could. A very expensive and overpriced laptop that generally runs 90C+.

Clearly, but they have the resources and talent to make a project like this work, but they don't seem to care. The project looks like it's being choked for funding, which is ridiculous considering the company.

Maybe it has something to do with the fact that this project has been around since 2008 and nobody uses it? Even Nvidia's CEO says that the speed of light is an issue. Cloud gaming is a mistake, just focus on PC gaming.

[StillMcfuu]

Little history on Nvidia's Cloud Gaming service, as it was once called GRID and was released in 2008. So this is a really old service, used by no one. Originally Nvidia required you used Nvidia GPU's and or Tegra based Android devices to access GRID. That didn't go so well obviously, so they renamed it to Geforce Now and fixed it so when you bought a game from them, you would also get a Steam key to play on your PC. They fixed it yet again and now allow you to play the games you already own if the account is linked to Geforce Now. Can't say Nvidia isn't trying.


So long as you boot into Windows then yes you could. A very expensive and overpriced laptop that generally runs 90C+.


Maybe it has something to do with the fact that this project has been around since 2008 and nobody uses it? Even Nvidia's CEO says that the speed of light is an issue. Cloud gaming is a mistake, just focus on PC gaming.

I 100% agree with you, I still think we are 1 to 2 generational jumps from making this feasible and not even internet tech, I'm just talking basic i/o computer tech. But we've still seen better implementations. It seems odd to release such a half baked product, they should have just cancelled it and saved the embarrassment and loss of "street cred".

[Vash The Stampede]

I 100% agree with you, I still think we are 1 to 2 generational jumps from making this feasible and not even internet tech, I'm just talking basic i/o computer tech. But we've still seen better implementations. It seems odd to release such a half baked product, they should have just cancelled it and saved the embarrassment and loss of "street cred".

Cloud Gaming will never be feasible, because it has two factors working against it. One is input lag from speed of light, and the other is cost. Geforce Now's website show's stipulations that not many people are aware of. Firstly the $5 per month is offered for a "limited time" which suggests this isn't the real price of the service. Secondly, they say "Priority Access" which suggests if the service is at max then people will have to wait in line to use it. Finally there's "Extended Session Length" which means there's a limited amount of time you can stay logged in playing your games.

The cost of running servers that play games is not cheap, so therefore shortcuts are essential. Stadia upscales 4k while Geforce Now doesn't even have 4k. GN will have 4k eventually but I figure it'll use DLSS to do it. They are using Xeon 2.7Ghz CPU's with Tesla P40's or something like that to play games. That hardware makes a 9900K with a RTX 2080 Ti look cheap in comparison. Somehow Nvidia has to make this profitable so there's stipulations. There's a reason why Shadow offers Cloud Gaming at $13 per month annually or $35 per month without annual. They give you more hardware for your money compared to Geforce Now and Stadia.

[Onikaroshi]

400 would be the gfx card alone.

We're not building a 4k machine, so no, 400 would not be the gfx card alone.

[Mojo03]

Cloud Gaming will never be feasible, because it has two factors working against it. One is input lag from speed of light, and the other is cost. Geforce Now's website show's stipulations that not many people are aware of. Firstly the $5 per month is offered for a "limited time" which suggests this isn't the real price of the service. Secondly, they say "Priority Access" which suggests if the service is at max then people will have to wait in line to use it. Finally there's "Extended Session Length" which means there's a limited amount of time you can stay logged in playing your games.

The cost of running servers that play games is not cheap, so therefore shortcuts are essential. Stadia upscales 4k while Geforce Now doesn't even have 4k. GN will have 4k eventually but I figure it'll use DLSS to do it. They are using Xeon 2.7Ghz CPU's with Tesla P40's or something like that to play games. That hardware makes a 9900K with a RTX 2080 Ti look cheap in comparison. Somehow Nvidia has to make this profitable so there's stipulations. There's a reason why Shadow offers Cloud Gaming at $13 per month annually or $35 per month without annual. They give you more hardware for your money compared to Geforce Now and Stadia.

It works very well in my experience. So well, in many games I can’t even tell I’m cloud gaming. It very well could be feasible to a large demographic, but competitive gamers will never embrace it and why would they? It’s also not intended for them.

The “extended play session” is 6 hours and when it’s done you can just start another if you want. There is a potential que, but there is also limited machines and I’ve literally never had an issue or waited, though if the service got popular enough I potentially could, but not a huge deal.

They’re also using a Nvidia I10 or something along those lines that’s unreleased that’s for the beefier and RTX games, though you could get it if demand is lower. I got it in playing WoW one day and it was giving me 100+ FPS in Boralus on at 7ish settings.

Shadow also offers access to an entire computer running Windows, not just games. I’m confused why you say you get more hardware. It runs a 1080. They will be getting 2080 TI, but not until 2021 and it’s $50 a month for that rig. It also, in my experience, doesn’t stream nearly as well, though I haven’t tried it in a while and it’s not officially supported where I am now.

[nocturnus]

So long as you boot into Windows then yes you could. A very expensive and overpriced laptop that generally runs 90C+.

You only need to install Windows if that particular game doesn't support Mac OS. Wow does, so you don't need to pollute your Mac with Windows.

My MBP doesn't even reach 90°C when I'm rendering a video, never mind under 'general' use. Nor did I find it expensive, or overpriced; similar notebooks were similarly priced and often more expensive.

[Edge-]

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...ision-faux-pas

Yup, nvidia fucked up. More details from them, they never had actual approval for ActiBlizz titles to be a part of the live service.

[breadisfunny]

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...ision-faux-pas

Yup, nvidia fucked up. More details from them, they never had actual approval for ActiBlizz titles to be a part of the live service.

why did they think this was going to be ok?

[Seranthor]

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...ision-faux-pas

Yup, nvidia fucked up. More details from them, they never had actual approval for ActiBlizz titles to be a part of the live service.

Think our OP will finally admit they were wrong?

[Metta World Peace]

I don't see anything wrong with this as Blizzard has $160 million reasons to use youtube, and most likely Google Stadia.

[Onikaroshi]

why did they think this was going to be ok?

reminds me of a video i watched of a kid stealing his mothers CC to buy v-bucks.

"she let me spend $20 on roblocks one time, so I'm sure she'll be fine with me buying v-bucks"

[Vash The Stampede]

It works very well in my experience. So well, in many games I can’t even tell I’m cloud gaming. It very well could be feasible to a large demographic, but competitive gamers will never embrace it and why would they? It’s also not intended for them.

As long as you don't give cloud gamers aim assist like console users during online play.

The “extended play session” is 6 hours and when it’s done you can just start another if you want.

Yea, that doesn't sound appealing at all.

There is a potential que, but there is also limited machines and I’ve literally never had an issue or waited, though if the service got popular enough I potentially could, but not a huge deal.

Probably because Geforce Now isn't very popular right now.

They’re also using a Nvidia I10 or something along those lines that’s unreleased that’s for the beefier and RTX games, though you could get it if demand is lower. I got it in playing WoW one day and it was giving me 100+ FPS in Boralus on at 7ish settings.

100+ FPS through a video feed limited to 60fps? You also get color banding as this link shows.
https://hardforum.com/data/attachmen...2/323430_1.png

Shadow also offers access to an entire computer running Windows, not just games. I’m confused why you say you get more hardware. It runs a 1080. They will be getting 2080 TI, but not until 2021 and it’s $50 a month for that rig. It also, in my experience, doesn’t stream nearly as well, though I haven’t tried it in a while and it’s not officially supported where I am now.

They get more hardware because you don't get an entire computer but a slice. The Xeons and Nvidia GPU's are sharing their resources just like Stadia does. Which means multiple users maybe using the same CPU+GPU. When it comes to 4k then either Nvidia charges more or they upscale 1080p or 1440p just like Stadia.

- - - Updated - - -

You only need to install Windows if that particular game doesn't support Mac OS. Wow does, so you don't need to pollute your Mac with Windows.

WoW isn't the only game Blizzard makes. OverWatch is a game that'll never get ported to Mac.

My MBP doesn't even reach 90°C when I'm rendering a video, never mind under 'general' use. Nor did I find it expensive, or overpriced; similar notebooks were similarly priced and often more expensive.

Most computers under general use don't go above 50C, but Macs with the new Intels are known to cook. If you do actual video rendering and using all cores then 95°C+ is not unusually.

[Mojo03]

As long as you don't give cloud gamers aim assist like console users during online play.

Yea, that doesn't sound appealing at all.

Probably because Geforce Now isn't very popular right now.

100+ FPS through a video feed limited to 60fps? You also get color banding as this link shows.
https://hardforum.com/data/attachmen...2/323430_1.png

They get more hardware because you don't get an entire computer but a slice. The Xeons and Nvidia GPU's are sharing their resources just like Stadia does. Which means multiple users maybe using the same CPU+GPU. When it comes to 4k then either Nvidia charges more or they upscale 1080p or 1440p just like Stadia.

- - - Updated - - -


WoW isn't the only game Blizzard makes. OverWatch is a game that'll never get ported to Mac.

Most computers under general use don't go above 50C, but Macs with the new Intels are known to cook. If you do actual video rendering and using all cores then 95°C+ is not unusually.

They aren't giving aim assist. The whole point of what I just said was that I can't really tell I'm cloud gaming in most scenarios when I have solid internet.

Ya, it's limited to 60 fps in its default mode. It did have 120 previously, but it was moved to "competitive" settings from what I gathered (I don't know specifics or details about that setting). The context of my post is referring to the fact that the hardware is quite good and better than you thought.

That's a terrible example screenshot, but I think I get what you're trying to show me. Yes, the color can look 5-10% washed out depending on the game. It's a con, but hopefully it will improve. Thats an area that Stadia does a better job on.

I'm not trying to sell it, but for $5 a month it fits my needs and is dirt cheap. Is it going to be the same experience as that hardware locally? No, but why would it when that hardware is 300+ times more expensive to own than access to it by cloud for a month subscription. It's an option that essentially works for my needs and for those of us who don't want to spend that kind of money to own the hardware.

- - - Updated - - -

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...ision-faux-pas

Yup, nvidia fucked up. More details from them, they never had actual approval for ActiBlizz titles to be a part of the live service.

Sounds like Activision wanted a piece of the action for the "live service", but Nvidia assumed they were fine continuing their partnership (meaning they had authorization and all that EULA argument was nothing, like I said) as it had been going in beta, since they still aren't actually charging anything to consumers for three more months (IE no piece of the action to give til then).

So greed. I still say F Activision. It's a sh... move to leave their consumers in the cold that were relying on the service to access their games. No statement, warning, nothing.

Nvidia could have done better too, which they are admitting at least, and communicating.

[Edge-]

Sounds like Activision wanted a piece of the action

Did you read the article? Nvidia never got their approval to have their games on the live service. Period. What Activision wants or doesn't want is irrelevant, their games were improperly on the service because nvidia fucked up.

but Nvidia assumed they were fine continuing their partnership as it had been going, since they still aren't actually charging anything to consumers for three more months (IE no piece of the action to give til then).

Then they need to start hiring better staff with functional brains. This should have never been an issue. Approval for limited access during testing is one thing, but that would never extend to the launch version when they're charging money. Even if they're not charging yet.

So greed.

You seem to be choosing to believe your own narrative here.

Nvidia. Didn't. Have. Approval. Why they didn't is irrelevant. The point is, they didn't have the right to have those games on their.

Nvidia could have done better too, which they are admitting at least, and communicating.

As they should be. It's their fuckup, not Acti-Blizz. This should have been communicated that day, not on a Friday after almost a full week of speculation.

We get it, you want continued access to their games through the service. But you are not entitled to that, and that doesn't mean that Acti-Blizz is "greedy".

I mean they are, just not for this specific reason.

[Mojo03]

Did you read the article? Nvidia never got their approval to have their games on the live service. Period. What Activision wants or doesn't want is irrelevant, their games were improperly on the service because nvidia fucked up.



Then they need to start hiring better staff with functional brains. This should have never been an issue. Approval for limited access during testing is one thing, but that would never extend to the launch version when they're charging money. Even if they're not charging yet.



You seem to be choosing to believe your own narrative here.

Nvidia. Didn't. Have. Approval. Why they didn't is irrelevant. The point is, they didn't have the right to have those games on their.



As they should be. It's their fuckup, not Acti-Blizz. This should have been communicated that day, not on a Friday after almost a full week of speculation.

We get it, you want continued access to their games through the service. But you are not entitled to that, and that doesn't mean that Acti-Blizz is "greedy".

I mean they are, just not for this specific reason.

Jesus christ, did you read the statement the article was interpreting or did you just read the headlines? You know kind of like you did with all those ban links that had nothing? Did you miss the part where Nvidia said, “Activision Blizzard has been a fantastic partner during the GeForce Now beta". The big word there is PARTNER.

They backed out because they aren't getting a piece of the subscription fees it sounds like, even though there literally is no revenue from subscription fees for 3 more months. How is that not greedy? How is it not anti-consumer to leave their consumers in the cold?

[Edge-]

Jesus christ, did you read the statement the article was interpreting or did you just read the headlines? You know kind of like you did with all those ban links that had nothing? Did you miss the part where Nvidia said, “Activision Blizzard has been a fantastic partner during the GeForce Now beta". The big word there is PARTNER.

The other word is BETA. Which indicates that the partnership was limited to that period only, and as we'd already seen other beta partners had partial lineups pulled.

They had an agreement...for testing. Now for the live service.

They backed out because they aren't getting a piece of the subscription fees it sounds like

Where do you get that from?

even though there literally is no revenue from subscription fees for 3 more months

When billing starts doesn't matter in this case. It's a live service.

How is that not greedy?

Because they never gave their approval to allow their games to be freely played on this service, which is in violation of existing rules. Also, because they likely have a cloud partnership with Google.

How is it not anti-consumer to leave their consumers in the cold?

Because it was never a part of the launch lineup to begin with. That was a mistake on nvidias part, and isn't the fault or problem of Activision.

Would they score a ton of points by staying on despite lacking that agreement? Yes, absolutely.

Would it be in their best interests as a company? No, it wouldn't be, especially since it very likely violates any exclusivity clauses in their partnership with Google. That potentially has big financial and legal ramifications for them if they violate it.