Quantcast
Nvidia's GeForce Now is losing all Activision Blizzard games, a bad sign for cloud gaming

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Nvidia's GeForce Now is losing all Activision Blizzard games, a bad sign for cloud gaming

Tagged games:

What do you think

Yes it's a bad sign 9 75.00%
 
No 3 25.00%
 
Total:12

https://www.theverge.com/2020/2/11/21133793/nvidia-geforce-now-no-more-activision-blizzard-games-carriage

" Today, Nvidia is revealing that Activision Blizzard is no longer playing ball, pulling down its catalog of games including Overwatch, WoW, and the Call of Duty series.

That means one of the service’s biggest publishers, as well as its Battle.net catalog of games, will no longer be available just a week after the service’s formal launch — a launch that was already missing many games from Capcom, EA, Konami, Remedy, Rockstar and Square Enix, all of which seemed to have pulled out after Nvidia’s beta period ended.

Nvidia wouldn’t tell us why this is happening now, but it’s strange, because Nvidia previously told us it was contacting every publisher ahead of launch to make sure they were OK staying on. Did Activision Blizzard reneg on a deal, or did Nvidia fail to get permission? We’re waiting to hear back on that from Nvidia; Activision Blizzard didn’t respond to a request for comment.

GEFORCE NOW WAS SUPPOSED TO BE WIN-WIN-WIN

And it’s frustrating, because the whole premise of Nvidia’s GeForce Now service is theoretically win-win-win: you get to take your existing game library anywhere, game publishers get the same money and much the same relationship with the customer (who’s buying those games from the same Steam, Epic, UPlay and Battle.net stores), and Nvidia gets to rent out access to a computer that simply lives in the cloud instead of on your desk at home.

In a statement, Nvidia says it hopes to work with Activision Blizzard to bring the games back, but the company confirmed to us that things are pretty cut-and-dried for now — you shouldn’t expect them to magically reappear after a few days (or even a few weeks). Nvidia also declined to tell us whether it’d be open to sharing a slice of its subscription fees with publishers, citing the quiet period before its earnings.

It’s true that Blizzard, at least, has an EULA that specifically prevents users from playing a game on cloud gaming services, but that doesn’t seem to explain this move. Activision’s EULA doesn’t contain anything of the sort, and again, Activision Blizzard didn’t seem to have any problem with it during the GeForce Now beta.

Regardless of the reasons, it’s worrying for those of us who are excited by cloud gaming’s potential to see a service like this hobbled because one party, or the other, didn’t want to work out a deal. It makes me wonder if we should expect nasty carriage negotiations to play out regularly in gaming like they already do in the pay TV world, holding our favorite programs hostage until one party or the other provides a slightly bigger piece of the action. "



Around the Network

as the article says this move doesn't make sense from the view of ActiBliz current relationship with the consumer, as geforce nows cloud gaming approach only could increase the reach of their games

the only way this makes a lick of business sense to me is, if they either
1. want to open a game streaming platform themselves (very unlikely)
2. or want to be payed for making their games available on such a service (maybe they even already made such a contract with one of them)



Why cloud gaming can eat shit. Publishers have all the control. Fuck that. It's just going to turn into the BS that steaming films/TV had. Everyone will ask for your $10 a month and instead of an all in one. Every publisher will make their own. Pull shit like this when they feel like it. De-list games forever (Still pissed about X-Men and Afterburner on XBL)

Keep encouraging those pirates.



Bite my shiny metal Cockpit!

Lafiel said:
as the article says this move doesn't make sense from the view of ActiBliz current relationship with the consumer, as geforce nows cloud gaming approach only could increase the reach of their games

the only way this makes a lick of business sense to me is, if they either
1. want to open a game streaming platform themselves (very unlikely)
2. or want to be payed for making their games available on such a service (maybe they even already made such a contract with one of them)

#2 screams Bobby's decision. I mean the guy is only about making more money. He doesn't care one bit about the games at all, so #2 sounds far more likely to me, and well, Nvidia also likes making a boatload of cash, so I guess they didn't play dice with Acti, and I guess R* as well (another company who just wants more cash).

This also makes me wonder if Stadia is doing anything behind the background in terms of making deals with them that outweigh Nvidia's.


Either way it's pretty shitty to see this happen for something that appears to be objectively better than Stadia, for the end user. 



                                       

Cloud gaming is not going to go anywhere.



Around the Network

makes sense that companies will try to get the best out of it - financially, possibly be resolved in a few weeks?

the worst that could happen is companies making their own service, which wouldn't work as well for most, so very unlikely

now that Google has entered the cloud race, it is a matter of time until they dominate, like they did with every area they got in....



Dont care about cloud gaming, physical for life



 

My youtube gaming page.

http://www.youtube.com/user/klaudkil

I think xCloud is gonna be a big step forward for cloud gaming and set a standard.

PC gaming in general seems kinda complicated given many companies want to operate their own stores and access to their games. Down the road several may run their own cloud streaming service.



Recently Completed
Mortal Kombat 11
for X1X (5/5) - Doom 64 for N64 (emulator) (3/5) - Crackdown 3 for X1S/X1X (4/5) - Infinity Blade III - for iPad 4 (3/5) - Infinity Blade II - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Infinity Blade - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Wolfenstein: The Old Blood for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Origins for X1 (3/5) - Uncharted: Lost Legacy for PS4 (4/5) - EA UFC 3 for X1 (4/5) - Doom for X1 (4/5) - Titanfall 2 for X1 (4/5) - Super Mario 3D World for Wii U (4/5) - South Park: The Stick of Truth for X1 BC (4/5) - Call of Duty: WWII for X1 (4/5) -Wolfenstein II for X1 - (4/5) - Dead or Alive: Dimensions for 3DS (4/5) - Marvel vs Capcom: Infinite for X1 (3/5) - Halo Wars 2 for X1/PC (4/5) - Halo Wars: DE for X1 (4/5) - Tekken 7 for X1 (4/5) - Injustice 2 for X1 (4/5) - Yakuza 5 for PS3 (3/5) - Battlefield 1 (Campaign) for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Syndicate for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: MW Remastered for X1 (4/5) - Donkey Kong Country Returns for 3DS (4/5) - Forza Horizon 3 for X1 (5/5)

I don't understand the reason to limit the titles. You are literally remote desktoping a virtual desktop set-up in a farm, you can already buy the games from their respective stores... so they make their money and cut that way. It's NVIDIA who is adding the costs of setting up the farm, the publishers get the money from their stores, this only has positives of increasing their userbase.



@Twitter | Switch | Steam

You say tomato, I say tomato 

"¡Viva la Ñ!"

TomaTito said:

I don't understand the reason to limit the titles. You are literally remote desktoping a virtual desktop set-up in a farm, you can already buy the games from their respective stores... so they make their money and cut that way. It's NVIDIA who is adding the costs of setting up the farm, the publishers get the money from their stores, this only has positives of increasing their userbase.

To quote a famous philosopher:

"It is not enough for companies to make some money. They need to make all of the money."



If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.