Geforce now doesn’t directly offer games. You need to pay to buy those via Steam or another store; you effectively login to a remote Windows desktop and get that streamed.
So, I don’t understand publishers’ complaints, people could only play games they paid for, and Nvidia provided the streaming service. It’s probably technically correct on the publisher side, but I feel Nvidia did nothing wrong there.
I don't understand this line of thought. What difference to the publisher does it make if I buy a PC or rent a Nvidia VM to play their game? They get paid through a sale, not based on what computer I play it on.
And those games are still playable on Shadow, Airgpu, etc., just as bigger headaches.
There are many titles I've purchased because they were available on GFN. (And many I didn't because I don't have a machine to play them on otherwise).
The publisher could, theoretically, double dip: Require a user to buy the game on Steam, and also require Nvidia to cough up the cash to list the game for streaming.
I am cynical enough about the games industry to say this is possible, even probable.
This is probably the “technically correct” part, but it still makes no sense. The publisher is taking away my rights as somebody who bought the game. How is that model impacting a publisher’s bottom line?
What’s next? Should I pay 2x a game for a SLI config with two cards on my PC?
So, I don’t understand publishers’ complaints, people could only play games they paid for, and Nvidia provided the streaming service. It’s probably technically correct on the publisher side, but I feel Nvidia did nothing wrong there.