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
Chazore said:
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. 

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.

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.

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?



Around the Network
twintail said:

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.

Do you think it's anything else over money?.


This is Activision we're talking about here. 

Also, I don't see a fine print or a press conf where the other players stated "we will not ever be releasing these games on GFN".



                                       

Chazore said:
twintail said:

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.

Do you think it's anything else over money?.


This is Activision we're talking about here. 

Also, I don't see a fine print or a press conf where the other players stated "we will not ever be releasing these games on GFN".

I dont get the point of your question. I clearly stated that its a money move for all publishers, where you somehow seemed to suggest that it was something only the CEO of Activision would do. 

The same article from this thread even states that Blizzard has a license agreement that strictly forbids cloud streaming of their games. 

The other publishers I mentioned were in the beta programme, and dropped out before the official launch.You can find that info in the same article. I"m not saying nor suggesting the future might be different. I'm stating that there are other publishers who don't have their games on the service either. The present simpleness of my statement should have made it obvious that Iwas talking about the current situation. 



twintail said:
Chazore said:

Do you think it's anything else over money?.


This is Activision we're talking about here. 

Also, I don't see a fine print or a press conf where the other players stated "we will not ever be releasing these games on GFN".

I dont get the point of your question. I clearly stated that its a money move for all publishers, where you somehow seemed to suggest that it was something only the CEO of Activision would do. 

The same article from this thread even states that Blizzard has a license agreement that strictly forbids cloud streaming of their games. 

The other publishers I mentioned were in the beta programme, and dropped out before the official launch.You can find that info in the same article. I"m not saying nor suggesting the future might be different. I'm stating that there are other publishers who don't have their games on the service either. The present simpleness of my statement should have made it obvious that Iwas talking about the current situation. 

Because that's what it is. This is mainly about Activision pulling their plug, which directly holds it's link to it's CEO. The other known publishers also act the same, in the desire for all the money, rather than a slice, as deemed by Nvidia. It's become obvious over the years now with the whole self made storefront gig, and now self made sub game vault subs. I don't see why it would stop at streaming services, not when the other two are made evident that said companies want hardly any middle men that aren't going to pay them more (making the middle men with the worse off deal).

Blizzard has a lot of fine prints, but it fails to do a myriad of things (refunds being the most glaring of faults, that they should have been following to the code since day 1, hence why Australia is still wanting to take action, because Blizzard broke a code). The last thing I expect is a mere fine print holding them back from this.

We can talk all about law you and I, but they broke one before, and that's why they are in this mess with another country's government. Hell even EA is being sued in France for not complying with their laws, so you think a large company is going to always obey a little bit of fine print, when history has shown us that they break them whenever they feel like it?. 



                                       

They don't want their games to be seen in an inferior light. Simple as. Lets get everyone or at least well above the majority of gamers hooked up to as close yo gigabit internet as possible first before we go the cloud gaming root.



 

Around the Network
Chazore said:
twintail said:

I dont get the point of your question. I clearly stated that its a money move for all publishers, where you somehow seemed to suggest that it was something only the CEO of Activision would do. 

The same article from this thread even states that Blizzard has a license agreement that strictly forbids cloud streaming of their games. 

The other publishers I mentioned were in the beta programme, and dropped out before the official launch.You can find that info in the same article. I"m not saying nor suggesting the future might be different. I'm stating that there are other publishers who don't have their games on the service either. The present simpleness of my statement should have made it obvious that Iwas talking about the current situation. 

Because that's what it is. This is mainly about Activision pulling their plug, which directly holds it's link to it's CEO. The other known publishers also act the same, in the desire for all the money, rather than a slice, as deemed by Nvidia. It's become obvious over the years now with the whole self made storefront gig, and now self made sub game vault subs. I don't see why it would stop at streaming services, not when the other two are made evident that said companies want hardly any middle men that aren't going to pay them more (making the middle men with the worse off deal).

Blizzard has a lot of fine prints, but it fails to do a myriad of things (refunds being the most glaring of faults, that they should have been following to the code since day 1, hence why Australia is still wanting to take action, because Blizzard broke a code). The last thing I expect is a mere fine print holding them back from this.

We can talk all about law you and I, but they broke one before, and that's why they are in this mess with another country's government. Hell even EA is being sued in France for not complying with their laws, so you think a large company is going to always obey a little bit of fine print, when history has shown us that they break them whenever they feel like it?. 

Sure, I don't deny any of that.

I just think that being paid to have their games on a cloud service is really all there is to it. 



xl-klaudkil said:
Dont care about cloud gaming, physical for life

^ this.

That said, I'd gadly take digital, over haveing to "stream" concent.
Game streaming just isnt as good a idea, as it is with movies / tv.



JRPGfan said:
xl-klaudkil said:
Dont care about cloud gaming, physical for life

^ this.

That said, I'd gadly take digital, over haveing to "stream" concent.
Game streaming just isnt as good a idea, as it is with movies / tv.

I've played through Persona 5 (~150h) on PS Now and it worked like a charm, as should most/all turn based games - God of War was decently playable aswell, but the compression was a bit too evident for my taste, so I ended up playing through that one locally.



Many companies are adding to their eula a term which you can't stream their games without their permission.



Well any bad news to cloud gaming, GAAS and streaming is like a good new to me.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994