Borderlands 3 Not Available in GeForce Now? Why?

[Axel]

So, yeah, as the title says I can't play my favorite game since it's no longer available in GFN.

I waited for the steam release(as you do... duh).
I waited for it to be on sale(cause I am broke).
I can't buy a high end PC in order to enjoy this masterpiece(again, I'm broke).
I have a GFN subscription and was hoping to play it there, but unfortunately 2k puled out all of their games from the platform.

I however, wonder why? I will buy the game to play it(so 2k will take their money), where I play it is my decision... I understand that they also can decide where their game will be published, but with this move they are crippling lots of fans of the game and also their own sells.

It's just stupid in my opinion. 2k probably wants money or whatever from nvidia for their game to be on the platform.

[Damsteri]

For me that looks a simple case. It was ok for 2K as long as GFN was free and NVidia was not benefiting from property owned by 2K. The situation changed when Nvidia started to charge about that content. Without content the GFN is nothing. Nobody will subscribe GFN if it's just for free games. NVidia is selling it using other companies IPs without an agreement.

The article[www.theverge.com] says that 2K Games “requested its games be removed from GeForce Now, as a commercial agreement is currently not in place with Nvidia.” They just need to sign a proper agreement (with or without payment) and the games are back. It's not about money, it's about using other company's IP to make money without permission.

[Jason]

Originally posted by Damsteri:

For me that looks a simple case. It was ok for 2K as long as GFN was free and NVidia was not benefiting from property owned by 2K. The situation changed when Nvidia started to charge about that content. Without content the GFN is nothing. Nobody will subscribe GFN if it's just for free games. NVidia is selling it using other companies IPs without an agreement.

The article[www.theverge.com] says that 2K Games “requested its games be removed from GeForce Now, as a commercial agreement is currently not in place with Nvidia.” They just need to sign a proper agreement (with or without payment) and the games are back. It's not about money, it's about using other company's IP to make money without permission.

That looks like a weird case because GFN is charging for hardware not the game, GFN is a streaming service provided by NVidia, not a platform. We are simply "renting" a computer from Nvidia to play the game. If this is the case, they should also ban Shadow from being able to install their games on their pc, because it's a similar service to GFN.

[zacharyb]

Originally posted by Jason:

Originally posted by Damsteri:

For me that looks a simple case. It was ok for 2K as long as GFN was free and NVidia was not benefiting from property owned by 2K. The situation changed when Nvidia started to charge about that content. Without content the GFN is nothing. Nobody will subscribe GFN if it's just for free games. NVidia is selling it using other companies IPs without an agreement.

The article[www.theverge.com] says that 2K Games “requested its games be removed from GeForce Now, as a commercial agreement is currently not in place with Nvidia.” They just need to sign a proper agreement (with or without payment) and the games are back. It's not about money, it's about using other company's IP to make money without permission.

That looks like a weird case because GFN is charging for hardware not the game, GFN is a streaming service provided by NVidia, not a platform. We are simply "renting" a computer from Nvidia to play the game. If this is the case, they should also ban Shadow from being able to install their games on their pc, because it's a similar service to GFN.

If you wanted to get even more technical with it, GFN could be potentially increasing game sales because it allows people with weak computers to play the game. So in reality game companies should probably be thanking Nvidia.

[-<{AfroBob}>-]

The "renting" a PC agrument is flawed because GFN also provides software. This seems like a tiny detail but does matter as they are not just renting out PC's.

That said, the decision not to support GFN seems mostly greed. People on GFN dont need to buy the game again and thus Gearbox doesnt make any extra money. People on Stadia[borderlands.com] do need to buy a new copy though.

[Kaldaien]

Originally posted by Jason:

Originally posted by Damsteri:

For me that looks a simple case. It was ok for 2K as long as GFN was free and NVidia was not benefiting from property owned by 2K. The situation changed when Nvidia started to charge about that content. Without content the GFN is nothing. Nobody will subscribe GFN if it's just for free games. NVidia is selling it using other companies IPs without an agreement.

The article[www.theverge.com] says that 2K Games “requested its games be removed from GeForce Now, as a commercial agreement is currently not in place with Nvidia.” They just need to sign a proper agreement (with or without payment) and the games are back. It's not about money, it's about using other company's IP to make money without permission.

That looks like a weird case because GFN is charging for hardware not the game, GFN is a streaming service provided by NVidia, not a platform. We are simply "renting" a computer from Nvidia to play the game. If this is the case, they should also ban Shadow from being able to install their games on their pc, because it's a similar service to GFN.

The bigger problem by far, is Denuvo activation limits. Each time you login to GeForce Now you get a new virtual host, and that burns through 1 Denuvo activation. You can very quickly hit your 5 activation limit for a certain period of time and then you've got a paper weight on your hands for 24-48 hours.

[Jason]

Originally posted by -<{AfroBob}>-:

The "renting" a PC agrument is flawed because GFN also provides software. This seems like a tiny detail but does matter as they are not just renting out PC's.

Explain what software they provide pls

[davidb11]

Originally posted by Kaldaien:

Originally posted by Jason:

That looks like a weird case because GFN is charging for hardware not the game, GFN is a streaming service provided by NVidia, not a platform. We are simply "renting" a computer from Nvidia to play the game. If this is the case, they should also ban Shadow from being able to install their games on their pc, because it's a similar service to GFN.

The bigger problem by far, is Denuvo activation limits. Each time you login to GeForce Now you get a new virtual host, and that burns through 1 Denuvo activation. You can very quickly hit your 5 activation limit for a certain period of time and then you've got a paper weight on your hands for 24-48 hours.

THat's not on all DEnuvo systems though, I would imagine, like all DRM, it is not a sledgehammer, it's more like a laser saw.
I would imagine Denuvo is very customizable.

[Kaldaien]

I do not know the logistics, I suspect there is an activation limit defined for 99% of Denuvo-protected software whether the store page explicitly lists the limit or not. I have never seen the limit, when disclosed, be anything but 5 activations per-24 hours and it is listed as such here.

[-<{AfroBob}>-]

Originally posted by Jason:

Originally posted by -<{AfroBob}>-:

The "renting" a PC agrument is flawed because GFN also provides software. This seems like a tiny detail but does matter as they are not just renting out PC's.

Explain what software they provide pls

Whats there to explain, you need a client to connect. Again this seems small, but does make it so they dont only rent out "PC's":
https://www.nvidia.com/nl-nl/geforce-now/download/

GeForce Now includes an app and interface for selecting games, including art and descriptions of those games.

Also, nobody on steam bought "the game". Everybody only bought a LICENSE to the game, in agreement to the EULA. (Although EULA's might not be binding in your country.)

[davidb11]

Originally posted by Kaldaien:

I do not know the logistics, I suspect there is an activation limit defined for 99% of Denuvo-protected software whether the store page explicitly lists the limit or not. I have never seen the limit, when disclosed, be anything but 5 activations per-24 hours and it is listed as such here.

You can only load this game 5 times a day? That doesn't make any sense.

Seriously, please explain how that even works.
I'd like to know what you mean by 5 activations a day.

[Qetu]

To the OP, looks like Borderlands series went to AMD. Guess they were the highest bidder.

[davidb11]

To be fair, if you looked up the history of the Geforce Now thing, it's more than that, it's because of the money that Nvidia was charging for their service.

2K pulled their games because of that. I think AMD wouldn't have cared at all if they did use the Geforce Now thing.
AMD probably had better things to do with it's time than worry about that. :P

[Kaldaien]

Originally posted by davidb11:

Originally posted by Kaldaien:

I do not know the logistics, I suspect there is an activation limit defined for 99% of Denuvo-protected software whether the store page explicitly lists the limit or not. I have never seen the limit, when disclosed, be anything but 5 activations per-24 hours and it is listed as such here.

You can only load this game 5 times a day? That doesn't make any sense.

Seriously, please explain how that even works.
I'd like to know what you mean by 5 activations a day.

You can only activate the game on 5 machines a day.

The problem with GeForce Now is that each time you login to the service, you run from a different machine. If you experience multiple disconnections from the service, you will hit that 5 activation a day limit and the 24 hour cooldown is not a pleasant thing to have happen to you :-\

[davidb11]

OH. OKay. Sorry, I always get confused by the whole activation thing.

[LordOfTheBread]

Because 2K is 2K and they are greedy af.