#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.
I mean, do you think other publishers are just allowing this to happen with no financial gain? cause it is is extremely unlikely that other big publishers are not being paid to have their games on the service? EA, Konami, Capcom, SE, Remedy and Rockstar don't have their games available for this service either.
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.
You dont understand how a company doesn't want their games on a service, which offers paid subscriptions, without any monetary gain from it?
Do you think it is weird that there are clearly games missing from Gamepass, PS Now and Stadia? Or how some games are not permanent on these services?