GEFORCE NOW SUPPORT?

[BatSithCrazy]

Will the game be supported by NVIDIA GeForce NOW ?

[B O R G]

the publisher doesn't have other games on GFN so probably not

[Tonus]

Originally posted by ＢＯＲＧ:

the publisher doesn't have other games on GFN so probably not

Yeah. I remember the publisher deliberatly revoke Outer Wilds from gfn.

[KillingArts]

I still don't understand why they even have the power to do so. It's a virtual PC. I should be able to install anything I own on there. Like it was during beta.

[Remo]

Any official word?

[envirovore]

Originally posted by KillingArts:

I still don't understand why they even have the power to do so. It's a virtual PC. I should be able to install anything I own on there. Like it was during beta.

Because it's *their* virtual PC you are paying to use, not *your* virtual PC.

That aside though, I doubt Sony wants another streaming service to compete with and I suspect the only reason we are getting this game on PC at all is because bluetwelve originally announced it as a PC focused release when development began in 2014 before Sony was involved in any way.

I haven't checked...but what's Nvidia's record with wanting to host AMD focused titles (being a PS5 exclusive) on their quasi streaming platform?

[KillingArts]

Originally posted by envirovore:

Originally posted by KillingArts:

I still don't understand why they even have the power to do so. It's a virtual PC. I should be able to install anything I own on there. Like it was during beta.

Because it's *their* virtual PC you are paying to use, not *your* virtual PC.

Doesn't make any sense, since it's not Nvidia that causes this, but the publishers. Think of Shadow. It's a virtual PC via streaming, and I can install anything on it. Geforce Now is essentially the same thing, but with a streamlined interface and limited to gaming. I don't see where the publishers even have a say in this. And from what I remember, the actual problem was supposedly that Nvidia used the available games to advertise their service. I can kind of get behind that, but I don't see why that would be a reason to allow publishers to avoid the service all together. Just don't use the games in ads, done.

[envirovore]

Originally posted by KillingArts:

Originally posted by envirovore:

Because it's *their* virtual PC you are paying to use, not *your* virtual PC.

Doesn't make any sense, since it's not Nvidia that causes this, but the publishers. Think of Shadow. It's a virtual PC via streaming, and I can install anything on it. Geforce Now is essentially the same thing, but with a streamlined interface and limited to gaming. I don't see where the publishers even have a say in this. And from what I remember, the actual problem was supposedly that Nvidia used the available games to advertise their service. I can kind of get behind that, but I don't see why that would be a reason to allow publishers to avoid the service all together. Just don't use the games in ads, done.

I'm going to guess that it's more Nvidia saying 'if you want your title available to users on our streaming platform, we want x dollars' which makes sense.
I imagine for titles that have since disappeared or were originally advertised as being supported and aren't that there was an increase in what Nvidia wanted from publishers and those not interested backed out.

Or I'm misunderstanding who pays whom here, and you can flip 'nvidia' and 'publisher' respectively above and it'll probably still be an accurate guess.

In short, someone didn't want to pay the amount someone else wanted in order for the game to appear on the service or remain on the service is best guess.
Next would be licencing rights/issues.
Because at theend of the day all that matters to a business is making money.

[KillingArts]

Originally posted by envirovore:

Originally posted by KillingArts:

Doesn't make any sense, since it's not Nvidia that causes this, but the publishers. Think of Shadow. It's a virtual PC via streaming, and I can install anything on it. Geforce Now is essentially the same thing, but with a streamlined interface and limited to gaming. I don't see where the publishers even have a say in this. And from what I remember, the actual problem was supposedly that Nvidia used the available games to advertise their service. I can kind of get behind that, but I don't see why that would be a reason to allow publishers to avoid the service all together. Just don't use the games in ads, done.

I'm going to guess that it's more Nvidia saying 'if you want your title available to users on our streaming platform, we want x dollars' which makes sense.
I imagine for titles that have since disappeared or were originally advertised as being supported and aren't that there was an increase in what Nvidia wanted from publishers and those not interested backed out.

Or I'm misunderstanding who pays whom here, and you can flip 'nvidia' and 'publisher' respectively above and it'll probably still be an accurate guess.

In short, someone didn't want to pay the amount someone else wanted in order for the game to appear on the service or remain on the service is best guess.
Next would be licencing rights/issues.
Because at theend of the day all that matters to a business is making money.

All we know leads me to believe it's actually the other way around. Meaning, publishers would like to get money for allowing Nvidia to use their games on GFN.

https://www.pcguide.com/news/geforce-now-why-games-are-going-missing/

As I said, I don't even see any basis for such a demand. I understand they probably see GFN as sort of a competitor as far as streaming goes. But I still think it's a virtual PC and people should be allowed to install anything on there. Just like it's possible with other virtual PC streaming services, where no such demands are made.

[envirovore]

Originally posted by KillingArts:

Originally posted by envirovore:

I'm going to guess that it's more Nvidia saying 'if you want your title available to users on our streaming platform, we want x dollars' which makes sense.
I imagine for titles that have since disappeared or were originally advertised as being supported and aren't that there was an increase in what Nvidia wanted from publishers and those not interested backed out.

Or I'm misunderstanding who pays whom here, and you can flip 'nvidia' and 'publisher' respectively above and it'll probably still be an accurate guess.

In short, someone didn't want to pay the amount someone else wanted in order for the game to appear on the service or remain on the service is best guess.
Next would be licencing rights/issues.
Because at theend of the day all that matters to a business is making money.

All we know leads me to believe it's actually the other way around. Meaning, publishers would like to get money for allowing Nvidia to use their games on GFN.

https://www.pcguide.com/news/geforce-now-why-games-are-going-missing/

As I said, I don't even see any basis for such a demand. I understand they probably see GFN as sort of a competitor as far as streaming goes. But I still think it's a virtual PC and people should be allowed to install anything on there. Just like it's possible with other virtual PC streaming services, where no such demands are made.

Ah, thanks for clearing it up, how it works at least.

Fwiw, you're right that it's really just a virtual PC you're renting from them.
My suspicion on why you can't just put whatever you like on it is that Nvidia ultimately pays for the storage and all, so they see for to run it as a streaming only service for whatever titles they want to shell out for.

Realistically, you'd think that they'd realize they could charge more for the service if they wanted to include an option that allowed users to do that, and work on getting that rolled out asap.

[KillingArts]

I think it's just a shame. GFN seems to be the best PC streaming service, since you can use your existing libraries. The fact that you can't do that with Stadia makes that service completely uninteresting to me. On top of that GFN has decent performance and lag, and it's a lot cheaper than Shadow. So sad that some publishers are now - well, basically sabotaging it.

[envirovore]

From a few comparison breakdowns I've seen, it does look like they're leading in the streaming games front.
They're a big name with a huge market value, s publishers know that they can try to strong arm or take their business elsewhere.
If anything I guess the take away is that Nvidia really wants to keep that bottom line on the incline, but we already knew that anyway.

Maybe that whole space will have a huge shake up after Lovelace launches.

[KillingArts]

Originally posted by envirovore:

They're a big name with a huge market value, s publishers know that they can try to strong arm or take their business elsewhere.

Maybe that whole space will have a huge shake up after Lovelace launches.

Yeah, that's most likely it. A shame nonetheless.

Don't know anything about Lovelace, actually, but I'm going to read up on it.

[envirovore]

Ada Lovelace is the die code name for the 4000 line of gpus

[KillingArts]

Originally posted by envirovore:

Ada Lovelace is the die code name for the 4000 line of gpus

Oh, right. Yeah, very much looking forward to those. I didn't get a 3080 for a reasonable price all that time. And now that it's basically back to MSRP, I think I might just wait for the new ones instead. A colleague actually told me today they will be delayed to next year. But I haven't read up on that yet. Would be a shame. I was hoping to get a new PC with something like a 4080 and a 7950X later this year.

[krubble]

I don't understand publishers not wanting their game on GeForce Now. It's more money for them! We have to purchase the game on Steam in order to play it on GeForce Now. So what do they have to loose??? I was waiting for this game for so long, only to find out that it's not on Xbox, and I can't even play in on my iMac via GeForce Now.