https://www.theverge.com/2020/4/20/21228792/nvidia-geforce-now-microsoft-xbox-game-studios-warner-bros-remove-games

Starting April 24th, GeForce Now will no longer be able to play titles from Microsoft’s Xbox Game Studios, Warner Bros. Interactive Entertainment, Codemasters, and Klei Entertainment

 Nvidia’s model has been controversial because it does not involve publishers selling separate licenses of games for access in the cloud. Yet due to agreements Nvidia has with those game publishers and likely out of caution for licensing disputes, Nvidia does not support games on GeForce Now without the express permission of the publisher that owns the intellectual property.

This was a non-issue when GeForce Now was free in beta form, but since its public trial launch in early February, Nvidia started charging $4.99 a month. Publishers, including Activision Blizzard and Bethesda Softworks, then began pulling their libraries. 2K Games also removed its titles early last month.

“As we prepare for commercial service in June, we’ll be adding and removing games through the end of May,” Phil Eisler, Nvidia’s vice president of GeForce Now, writes in the blog post. “Behind the scenes, we’re working with digital game stores so publishers can tag their games for streaming on GeForce Now, right when they publish a game. This will help us bring more games to the library, quicker, as well as provide a more stable catalog. We’re transitioning as many games to GeForce Now as possible over this time. For those leaving, we’ll give gamers as much notice as possible.”

“Ubisoft fully supports Nvidia’s GeForce NOW with complete access to our PC games from the Ubisoft Store or any supported game stores,” Chris Early, senior vice president partnerships at Ubisoft, said in a statement. “We believe it’s a leading-edge service that gives current and new PC players a high-end experience with more choice in how and where they play their favorite games.”

Everyone practically wants their own slice of pie, fenced off, completely within their control, and gaining 100% of the profits. It's no wonder in this day and age, that the games industry wants less and less middle-men in their way. Problem is, is if you spam hundreds of services, all doing the same thing, in the same market, you either fold, annoy customers, or just muddy up the market with lesser services. (I'm still waiting for Uplay, beth.net, Battlenet, Origin to catch up to Steam/GoG Galaxy, because the former are muddying the waters with lesser services).

I don't really understand why publishers object to having their games on the service. I don't see what they lose.

Think about this. Would you think that Ms could pick ps5 hardware, plug them in their azure infrastructure and claim a monthly fee so you can log you Psn account in it?

Shame cause I actually liked the implementation of it. One of the things I fear with the whole cloud thing is what happens to your library if the service dies? Lets say the worst comes to worst and steam, playstation, xbox and every other gaming services dies at the same time. Because the files are in someone's computer/console/device, people can still download and play those games through other means. With cloud, if the company/service dies, there's no way to play them because all anyone has access to is the launcher. All the files are saved onto their servers and of course, you lose your progress and everything since there isn't a way to back anything up.

With GeForce now, if I buy a game on steam, it would allow me the option of being able to stream over the cloud. This way if Nvidia cancels GeForce Now, I don't have to worry about losing anything. And also that fact that I don't have to re-buy any of my existing games or have to wait until the publishers port their games onto the service.

That's not a good analogy. This is more like the publishers of PC games taking their games off the internet because ISPs are able to charge end users for the internet service used to play the games.

how to save this:
put it on switch or something

It's rather disapointing to see the best cloud service so far being picked up by publishers who want the profits all by themselves. Haven't they learned anything from the tv streaming wars?

If you still have to pay 60$ to play a game and you wanna add 5$ more to play how it suits you (or even to have a chance to play that 60$ game), why a developper would have a word to say to that ? He still gets all the money he would get without the extra paid service

It feels really weird that Nvidia has apparently not asked any publishers for permission. Don't they have a legal department?