GeForce now, take2?

Does gearbox have any comment on why Take2 decided to remove all their stuff from GeForce Now?

Now I can’t play Borderlands 3 (the way I was used to).

Just blatantly removing a platform with active players sounds like a dumb busjness decision.

1 Like

Word on the street is that Nvidia failed to properly secure agreements with numerous publishers who have since pulled their games. So… ask Nvidia why they dropped the ball?

GeForce Now isn’t really a “platform”, it’s just renting out off-site hardware to run the games which isn’t the same as a different platform.

Removing it, however, isn’t necessarily a bad business decision if they’re going to make more money elsewhere through an alternative streaming solution.

Of course this reply ignores any morality factors and/or legal aspects of GeForce Now servers having and running a copy of the software.

1 Like

This article explains why publishers are pulling their games from GeForce Now

tl;dr: GeForce Now feels that it doesn’t need to work out specific agreements with publishers since its acting as a hardware rental service and users need to purchase the games they play to use on GFN in the first place, some publishers disagree and so pull their games from the platform.

1 Like

Shame on 2k, Geforce now isn’t a platform like steam or epic, but maybe they just want take money and don t give a s**t about gamers

1 Like

I know Nvidia dropped the ball, only creating agreements for the beta period.

But it’s still the publishers choice to remove the games while a new agreement is made. They choose the hurt players and users of their product. That is always a bad business decision.

If no agreement can be made, yeah you remove them. But I wonder why that would ever be the case.

Nvidia could always switch to a remote desktop method with an epic launcher and steam installed and be done with it :).

But I can’t imagine why publishers remove their game now. They are OK with a beta period in which people could sign on for free to GFN. But now that suddenly isn’t anymore?

Maybe they want a piece of the lowly 5 euros a month Nvidia gets (and have to host everything for). Maybe Nvidia wants to pay a bit based on which games actually get played.

We will never know I guess.
But I do call it a platform as long as publishers can remove their game from it.

And I’m pissed that now the only game I used it for is gone.

There is some stuttering when the game is just launched (slow disk i/o on Nvidia side?) but the quality and feel was clearly a step up from what my gtx 1060 can do with Moonlight.

1 Like

Likewise, I was playing borderlands 3 last night (my pc does not run it … So I bought it for that …) And this morning surprised more borderlands … I am so disgusted. …

I’ll say this:

I play BL3 on “medium settings” despite my rig being (supposedly) able to play it on Ultra.

But BL3 was breaking my GPU…and NVIDIA card, so I toned it down.

Sure would be nice if geforce could recognize it and tailor it to specific settings to not cause hardware issues.

(EDIT TO ADD: I do have a post in the PC support forums about how BL3 was frying my GPU and the related fan, and crashing my computer that is older than the OP’s post BTW, in case anyone thinks I’m being less than forthright.)

From what I hear it’s all on Nvidia. Now that they’re out of beta and charging for the service, they didn’t set up any licensing agreements with the publishers. None of that money they’re making is going back to 2k, Activision, Bethesda, or any of the other publishers who have been pulling their games.

So yea. It’s all about the money.

1 Like

This doesnt make any sense to me. Geforce Now is a hardware rental service. Even if they charge users to use it, you’re renting hardware from them, thats it. They dont get any percentage of game sales through Steam or Epic. And now Take Two is saying you, the consumer, cant play their game unless Nvidia pays us? That’s like if you rented a computer from Best Buy, and then 2K said Best Buy has to pay us or well hurt you, the consumer, and you dont get to play the game for which you paid. That doesn’t make sense. I dont even use Geforce Now, but I’m definitely not buying any more games from this publisher in the future, and I’ve bought every borderlands, civ, and nba title. Not anymore.

It’s more like a sports bar having to pay extra licensing fees to show a PPV to a crowd.

But in a sports bar, the bar itself pays for the cable and hence the license. In this, the consumer owns the game themselves, so its a little different. Not quite the same.

If you read the PC Gamer article linked in a post above ^^^ you’ll see the analogy to the sports bar is not a particularly good one.

Yes, GFN will only allow you to stream a game you already own from their servers. But you’re not uploading your copy of the game - you’re using one that GFN has stored on their end in a virtual instance. Which makes things a little more complicated from a legal perspective due to the exact provisions in a game’s EULA. I can’t immediately think of any good analogy for that specific situation, so :man_shrugging:

On a more practical note: I don’t know if it’s still the case that sessions are limited to 1 hour at a time, but that would be an absolute deal-breaker for me personally. Guess I’ll just stick to my ancient console for now…

Maybe an analogy of seeing a movie at the theatre. You pay a fee to see the movie that is running on the theater’s equipment. But that analogy only works if you’re also paying to take a copy home with you.

It is a weird legal conundrum at the very least.

Not the same, but “more like.” Language ain’t as precise as a bullet, but it can be just as dangerous in the right hands.

The bar will attract more customers depending on the event much like the Nvidia service would attract customers based on the games they can offer. The bar likely offers more services independent of the event, but again - “more like” rather than the same.

Kinda? I think the situation Nvidia was envisioning was like buying a DVD for a movie which also came with a code to stream the same movie to a device. Except the actually physical examples of that I’ve seen always came with restrictions on streaming (such as number of times or duration of availability).

In those cases, though, the streaming licence was included in the price of purchase for the physical media by the same publisher, which is clearly not how GFN is set up. GFN seems to be trying to imply that a streaming licence for owned content is implicit, and a number of publishers are saying ‘Oh no it isn’t!’ I expect the pantomime to continue for a while before we get to the finale.

1 Like

Basicly that thing people don’t know about called stadia there’s your reason try real hard to remember I know it was dead on arrival so no one remembers but just try lol

I like how the only people getting screwed are the players. You could argue otherwise but the amount of people who stopped playing games because they got booted off of GFN are no joking matter. It was nice to play games with my friend too bad he’s screwed.

Does gearbox have any comment on why They removed Borderlands 3 from Geforce Now?
I purchased Borderlands 3 Super Deluxe edition because it was supported by GFN and played normally with bad PC .but after few months Gearbox Removed their games from Nvidia servers.
Now I can’t play Borderlands 3 .
Removing a platform with active players sounds like a Dumb Decision.
I’m not only one who uses GFN for gaming.

i think that question should be asked at Nvidia…

contracts end… so you’ll probably never get the answer you want.