Support NeoGAF

[feynoob]

If the users already bought and paid for their game on Steam the publishers/devs have already been paid, why would they be entitled to a cut from GFN? What's the difference if their game is played on Steam or GFN cloud?

GFN is a platform. It's not steam.
In essence, they are benefiting from steam games on their service, since they don't have to sell anything.

 

[ReBurn]

You give too much faith in the system that has been broken for quite some time.

How is it broken?

 

[DeepEnigma]

How is it broken?

Not going to get into it without going down the corruption in politics rabbit hole.

 

[ReBurn]

Not going to get into it without going down the corruption in politics rabbit hole.

Be that as it may, it's the system we have and it's very active. The DOJ is actively pressing competition related lawsuits all the time. The thing in the US is that the government has to prove that what a company is doing is illegal and that's always been a high bar.

 

[CatLady]

GFN is a platform. It's not steam.
In essence, they are benefiting from steam games on their service, since they don't have to sell anything.

So what? Why are devs and publishers entitled to a cut from GFN since they've already been paid for their game?

 

[feynoob]

So what? Why are devs and publishers entitled to a cut from GFN since they've already been paid for their game?

If I put your house for rent, don't you need a cut of that money?

 

[acm2000]

If I put your house for rent, don't you need a cut of that money?

GFN is more like offering you a different way to access the contents of your house, its just a virtual pc at the end of the day.

 

[feynoob]

GFN is more like offering you a different way to access the contents of your house, its just a virtual pc at the end of the day.

It's still renting.
They don't own the license of those games. They need to pay the license for streaming rights.

 

[gothmog]

Be that as it may, it's the system we have and it's very active. The DOJ is actively pressing competition related lawsuits all the time. The thing in the US is that the government has to prove that what a company is doing is illegal and that's always been a high bar.

Thanks for going into details as to why the system is broken. That high bar along with pretending that regulators are tough when they traditionally have been corporate shills at best are why many industries are piled high with the corpses with small and medium businesses that got choked out by competition.

 

[Topher]

It's still renting.
They don't own the license of those games. They need to pay the license for streaming rights.

And Nvidia knows this. That's why devs can opt out and Nvidia will remove the game from their service. I'd be interested to know what the economics is of all this though. Nvidia could be telling devs that this service will increase sales of their game so that should be enough. Also, is Valve getting a cut? I can see where the margins here could get really small very easily.

Be that as it may, it's the system we have and it's very active. The DOJ is actively pressing competition related lawsuits all the time. The thing in the US is that the government has to prove that what a company is doing is illegal and that's always been a high bar.

It is indeed a high bar, but a lawsuit in itself is not appealing with the subpoena power that can uncover so many things that Microsoft probably does not want uncovered. MS may have to make some hard choices to avoid all that including selling off parts of ABK.

 

[feynoob]

And Nvidia knows this. That's why devs can opt out and Nvidia will remove the game from their service. I'd be interested to know what the economics is of all this though. Nvidia could be telling devs that this service will increase sales of their game so that should be enough. Also, is Valve getting a cut? I can see where the margins here could get really small very easily.

I can see Nvidia bringing increase sales argument, since users would have to buy the game from steam. This way, publishers and developers would be able to sell their games. valve also gets a cut from those games, and a fee from Nvidia for using their launcher.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Thanks for going into details as to why the system is broken. That high bar along with pretending that regulators are tough when they traditionally have been corporate shills at best are why many industries are piled high with the corpses with small and medium businesses that got choked out by competition.

A lot of these "regulators" are ex executives, and a lot of board of directors are ex regulators and politicians. The machine stays greasing them wheels.

 

[feynoob]

Sony mind games might cost them, if regulators catch up their act.

 

[feynoob]

A lot of these "regulators" are ex executives, and a lot of board of directors are ex regulators and politicians. The machine stays greasing them wheels.

As long as lobbying exist, nothing is fair.
Pay upfront and you can get what you want most of the time.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Sony mind games might cost them, if regulators catch up their act.

This is a silly take. They both have enough loose lips in their public comments, and this won't be the sole reason.

 

[feynoob]

This is a silly take. They both have enough loose lips in their public comments, and this won't be the sole reason.

It's like hide and seek game. Whoever makes funny act would get in to trouble.

 

[Pelta88]

This is a silly take. They both have enough loose lips in their public comments, and this won't be the sole reason.

I stopped engaging with silly a while back In reality, it's difficult to imagine any company engaging regulators without stats, figures, projections, demographics, along with anything they deem negative to their market share.

Enter a gaf thread and the "mind games" Sony is playing with the regulators might backfire...

 

[ReBurn]

It is indeed a high bar, but a lawsuit in itself is not appealing with the subpoena power that can uncover so many things that Microsoft probably does not want uncovered. MS may have to make some hard choices to avoid all that including selling off parts of ABK.

If it comes down to regulators wanting to force a breakup of the company then I imagine Microsoft will just pay the breakup fee to ABK and walk away.

 

[acm2000]

It's still renting.
They don't own the license of those games. They need to pay the license for streaming rights.

does twitch pay for a license for every game?

 

[feynoob]

does twitch pay for a license for every game?

You dont play games on twitch.

 

[gothmog]

This is a silly take. They both have enough loose lips in their public comments, and this won't be the sole reason.

I like Hoeg's content but he's really starting to get a big head around this topic. The constant worship from Xbox fanboys looking for validation must be intense.

 

[ReBurn]

Thanks for going into details as to why the system is broken. That high bar along with pretending that regulators are tough when they traditionally have been corporate shills at best are why many industries are piled high with the corpses with small and medium businesses that got choked out by competition.

Nothing I said proves that this system is broken. The bar should be high because the federal agencies shouldn't have power over the enforcement of anything other than what the law states, the FTC and DOJ included. That's why regulatory bodies in the US can't block acquisitions by their own power. They have to defer to the courts. An individual judge can be paid off, sure, but through the system of appeals it's possible to have bad rulings reviewed and overturned.

That's why companies spend so much money to buy Congressional representatives on both sides of the aisle and feed them insider information that they can use for their own personal enrichment. It's easier to pay Congress to change laws than it is to get Federal judges to ignore laws.

 

[DeepEnigma]

That's why companies spend so much money to buy Congressional representatives on both sides

That right there is why the system is broken.

 

[ReBurn]

That right there is why the system is broken.

I agree in principle. It doesn't mean antitrust suits don't work.

 

[feynoob]

From idas
"ABK updated from neutral to outperform by Baird (one of the largest privately held, full-service investment firms in the US), price target is 95$ and the update is in part due to the sale to MS closing next year."

Activision upgraded to outperform at Baird on Microsoft deal, product launches

Activision (ATVI) was upgraded to outperform at Baird at least partly as its planned $69 billion sale to Microsoft (MSFT) is expected to close next year. "Following the strong launch...

seekingalpha.com

"It's interesting how the market seems so positive about the transaction in the last 2-3 weeks. I guess that the success of COD and Overwatch is also helping."

 

[GHG]

If the users already bought and paid for their game on Steam the publishers/devs have already been paid, why would they be entitled to a cut from GFN? What's the difference if their game is played on Steam or GFN cloud?

Well that was the sticking point when all of this first happened, a bunch of publishers instructed Nvidia to remove their games from the service. They felt they were entitled to further fees (or to sell the games again but with cloud permissions) for whatever reason despite the fact that customers who want to use GFN already own the licences for the games they want to play. For customers looking to use services like this they just want to play the games they own digitally on PC via a powerful cloud PC.

Thankfully many publishers/developers have since realised how ridiculous/greedy they were being. If a person is primarily going to use GFN or a similar cloud solution rather than local hardware then the publishers who have decided to withdraw themselves lose out entirely - the person likely doesn't buy the game at all in this situation where they are being restricted.

The sticking point here is especially with publishers who have their own cloud solution for their games. They don't want people buying their games elsewhere (GFN is compatible with pretty much all PC storefronts with the exception of Microsoft and Activision's storefronts) and then using a 3rd party's streaming service when they have the opportunity to funnel people towards buying on their own storefront and using their own streaming service. In that situation it of course means less freedom for the customer (GFN might be a better solution than Xcloud for example dependant on the users location and Internet capability, or even just due to the fact that GFN's PC's are very powerful) but they don't care, it's about exercising control where they can.

I believe the situation is now one where Nvidia just reach out to publishers/developers regarding games on an individual basis to get permission for owners to be able to use GFN to play those games. I've not seen anything conclusive to suggest Nvidia offers revenue sharing deals to anyone, it wouldn't make sense for them to do so, especially now there are just a couple of holdouts.

It's a shame that some publishers are refusing to come to an agreement with Nvidia but at the end of the day they are just making decisions that they believe are best for their own businesses. But from a users perspective if you own a PC version of a game you should be free to play that on any hardware you want to, even if said hardware happens to be a rented PC on the cloud.

 

[reksveks]

does twitch pay for a license for every game?

Twitch is seen as advertising, streaming a game to just yourself isn't.

Publishers do have a free license that's in place for game streaming and there are restrictions in certain cases about charging a viewing fee but this is a real detour.

 

[CatLady]

Well that was the sticking point when all of this first happened, a bunch of publishers instructed Nvidia to remove their games from the service. They felt they were entitled to further fees (or to sell the games again but with cloud permissions) for whatever reason despite the fact that customers who want to use GFN already own the licences for the games they want to play. For customers looking to use services like this they just want to play the games they own digitally on PC via a powerful cloud PC.

Thankfully many publishers/developers have since realised how ridiculous/greedy they were being. If a person is primarily going to use GFN or a similar cloud solution rather than local hardware then the publishers who have decided to withdraw themselves lose out entirely - the person likely doesn't buy the game at all in this situation where they are being restricted.

The sticking point here is especially with publishers who have their own cloud solution for their games. They don't want people buying their games elsewhere (GFN is compatible with pretty much all PC storefronts with the exception of Microsoft and Activision's storefronts) and then using a 3rd party's streaming service when they have the opportunity to funnel people towards buying on their own storefront and using their own streaming service. In that situation it of course means less freedom for the customer (GFN might be a better solution than Xcloud for example dependant on the users location and Internet capability, or even just due to the fact that GFN's PC's are very powerful) but they don't care, it's about exercising control where they can.

I believe the situation is now one where Nvidia just reach out to publishers/developers regarding games on an individual basis to get permission for owners to be able to use GFN to play those games. I've not seen anything conclusive to suggest Nvidia offers revenue sharing deals to anyone, it wouldn't make sense for them to do so, especially now there are just a couple of holdouts.

It's a shame that some publishers are refusing to come to an agreement with Nvidia but at the end of the day they are just making decisions that they believe are best for their own businesses. But from a users perspective if you own a PC version of a game you should be free to play that on any hardware you want to, even if said hardware happens to be a rented PC on the cloud.

Good explanation, thanks. I still don't see why publishers are entitled to a cut from Nvidia for games people have already paid for, users are NOT renting the games as others have suggested.

Publishers have already been paid for their game, and gamers are using Nvidia's infrastructure. Why are publishers entitled to be paid twice for their game and how is playing on Nvidia any different than playing on Steam?

 

[gothmog]

Nothing I said proves that this system is broken. The bar should be high because the federal agencies shouldn't have power over the enforcement of anything other than what the law states, the FTC and DOJ included. That's why regulatory bodies in the US can't block acquisitions by their own power. They have to defer to the courts. An individual judge can be paid off, sure, but through the system of appeals it's possible to have bad rulings reviewed and overturned.

That's why companies spend so much money to buy Congressional representatives on both sides of the aisle and feed them insider information that they can use for their own personal enrichment. It's easier to pay Congress to change laws than it is to get Federal judges to ignore laws.

Pointing out how the US system is supposed to work via due process does not prove that the system is working either.

 

[reksveks]

I still don't see why publishers are entitled to a cut from Nvidia for games people have already paid for, users are NOT renting the games as others have suggested.

Publishers have already been paid for their game, and gamers are using Nvidia's infrastructure. Why are publishers entitled to be paid twice for their game and how is playing on Nvidia any different than playing on Steam?

Fundamentally the Steam license that gamers pay for is for you to play on hardware that you 'own'. I put 'own' in question marks because it gets weird, the thing around shadow and ios always feels off.

You can rent a pc on the cloud and get full access to your games if you want to.

I think a cross store licensing world seems like a fun idea and would maybe resolve this.

Obviously as a consumer, you may not give a fuck about licenses.

 

[feynoob]

Give a read for this twitter thread. He breaks down everything.
"Disclaimer. There is vgz chart. So becareful about some data".

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

Give a read for this twitter thread. He breaks down everything.
"Disclaimer. There is vgz chart. So becareful about some data".

Just put the bullet points.

 

[Banjo64]

Give a read for this twitter thread. He breaks down everything.
"Disclaimer. There is vgz chart. So becareful about some data".

Man really pulled this out of his hat

 

[Banjo64]

Also can't take a man seriously who gives his console vent 2cm to breath

 

[DeepEnigma]

I like Hoeg's content but he's really starting to get a big head around this topic. The constant worship from Xbox fanboys looking for validation must be intense.

He's definitely falling down that rabbit hole. Have not seen him so vocal about a topic, even when there is no new info.

 

[feynoob]

Just put the bullet points.

I am Working. I would get fired if I do that. Can't use my phone alot.

 

[OmegaSupreme]

Also can't take a man seriously who gives his console vent 2cm to breath

Weird to spend all that money on the tv and speakers then pair it with an S.

 

[Topher]

He's definitely falling down that rabbit hole. Have not seen him so vocal about a topic, even when there is no new info.

I think most lawyers who discuss these things in the media or on youtube tend to back the side they would typically be representing. In this case, Hoeg would be representing Microsoft and his arguments reflect that. I'm not saying he is biased really*. Just saying that's how lawyers are wired.

*Edit: Well, I guess I am saying he is biased, but my point is he is supposed to be. No one hires a lawyer for them to be objective.

 

[pasterpl]

Also can't take a man seriously who gives his console vent 2cm to breath

He is not a gamer, he admits this. But he is

Director of Competition Policy
@LawEconCenter
. Adjunct Professor
@LCII_ULg
&
@UCLouvain_be
. Antitrust law, economics, digital markets & innovation.

He got more knowledge on the topic than 162 pages of our discussion.

 

[feynoob]

He's definitely falling down that rabbit hole. Have not seen him so vocal about a topic, even when there is no new info.

Because this is a big topic. Not just some random company buying another random company.

This deal has big players.
MS
Xbox
Sony
COD
Activision
68b deal
Regulators
MS side of business
Mobile
Apple
Google

There is so much to cover.

 

[Banjo64]

He is not a gamer, he admits this. But he is

Director of Competition Policy
@LawEconCenter
. Adjunct Professor
@LCII_ULg
&
@UCLouvain_be
. Antitrust law, economics, digital markets & innovation.

He got more knowledge on the topic than 162 pages of our discussion.

Just goes to show that people can be academically gifted, but still dumb as a brick.

 

[Topher]

He is not a gamer, he admits this. But he is

Director of Competition Policy
@LawEconCenter
. Adjunct Professor
@LCII_ULg
&
@UCLouvain_be
. Antitrust law, economics, digital markets & innovation.

He got more knowledge on the topic than 162 pages of our discussion.

He owns an Xbox though. Thus, he is biased and cannot be trusted.

 

[DeepEnigma]

I think most lawyers who discuss these things in the media or on youtube tend to back the side they would typically be representing. In this case, Hoeg would be representing Microsoft and his arguments reflect that. I'm not saying he is biased really*. Just saying that's how lawyers are wired.

*Edit: Well, I guess I am saying he is biased, but my point is he is supposed to be. No one hires a lawyer for them to be objective.

I just chuckle when he's propped up as a judge or jury or "the final litigated say." He is a lawyer, lawyers are partial by nature.

 

[Three]

If the users already bought and paid for their game on Steam the publishers/devs have already been paid, why would they be entitled to a cut from GFN? What's the difference if their game is played on Steam or GFN cloud?

So what? Why are devs and publishers entitled to a cut from GFN since they've already been paid for their game?

Because streaming subscription services from Google and MS were paying the publishers for the privilege. It became a subscription based war that publishers wanted to benefit from




Terraria confirmed to be a bigger franchise than CoD confirmed. Clearly he does not know about the yearly releases, brand or financial power of it.

 

[pasterpl]

Because streaming subscription services from Google and MS were paying the publishers for the privilege. It became a subscription based war that publishers wanted to benefit from




Terraria confirmed to be a bigger franchise than CoD confirmed. Clearly he does not know about the yearly releases, brand or financial power of it.

That's the problem, you are looking at this from gamers perspective, he is looking at cold facts/stats and from the antitrust law and competition law perspective. He is an expert in that field and not in gaming, he admits it. He shares his perspective based on his experience in the field of law.

But let's discredit a professor of law because he set his series s in not optimal way and he is using stats from the internet.

 

[Banjo64]

Because streaming subscription services from Google and MS were paying the publishers for the privilege. It became a subscription based war that publishers wanted to benefit from




Terraria confirmed to be a bigger franchise than CoD confirmed. Clearly he does not know about the yearly releases, brand or financial power of it.

Also does he realise Call of Duty Modern Warfare is actually in that chart?

 

[Bonsaibäumchen]

Give a read for this twitter thread. He breaks down everything.
"Disclaimer. There is vgz chart. So becareful about some data".

He's comparing the sales of single titles instead of Activisions entire portfolio.

 

[Three]

That's the problem, you are looking at this from gamers perspective, he is looking at cold facts/stats and from the antitrust law and competition law perspective. He is an expert in that field and not in gaming, he admits it. He shares his perspective based on his experience in the field of law.

Even from a competition law perspective it would be flawed. Could Apple argue that the iphone isn't dominating it doesn't have the best selling phone of all time because the Nokia 1100 and Nokia 1110 outsold any iphone they release yearly?

Also does he realise Call of Duty Modern Warfare is actually in that chart?

Does he realise that Overwatch is there higher? As is Skyrim, as is Diablo. Clearly from that list we should be more worried about overwatch and not CoD.

 

[Bonsaibäumchen]

He is not a gamer, he admits this. But he is

Director of Competition Policy
@LawEconCenter
. Adjunct Professor
@LCII_ULg
&
@UCLouvain_be
. Antitrust law, economics, digital markets & innovation.

He got more knowledge on the topic than 162 pages of our discussion.

And yet he can't see all those titles in his list that belong to activision.

 

[Topher]

That's the problem, you are looking at this from gamers perspective, he is looking at cold facts/stats and from the antitrust law and competition law perspective. He is an expert in that field and not in gaming, he admits it. He shares his perspective based on his experience in the field of law.

Doesn't change the fact that a bunch of non-law gaming nerds on a gaming forum can spot the massive flaws in his argument in a matter of minutes.