Monday, February 24th 2020

Bethesda Removes Games from GeForce NOW Game Streaming Service

by
AleksandarK
 Discuss (44 Comments)
NVIDIA's GeForce NOW game-streaming service had been hit or miss lately depending on how you look at its current situation, given the fact that Activision-Blizzard removed its game catalog from the GeForce NOW service and the fact that CD Projekt RED announced that Cyberpunk 2077 will be present on the platform. Some moves like the one coming from Activision-Blizzard are taking a tole on the new game streaming platform, while others like the addition of Cyberpunk 2077 are giving the platform users hope to see it become a viable option.

To add to the pain, Bethesda Softworks, a maker of many popular titles such as the DOOM, Fallout, Wolfenstein, and The Elder Scrolls series, has decided to pull a big part of its game library from the NVIDIA GeForce NOW game streaming service. In another surprising turn of events, a part of NVIDIA staff announced that Bethesda Softworks will pull most of its games form the GeForce NOW platform, excluding Wolfenstein Youngblood, which will remain playable to give users a chance to experience it with "RTX on". We do not know why big publishers are pulling their game libraries form this platform, so we have to wait for more information in the future.

Related News

Add your own comment

44 Comments on Bethesda Removes Games from GeForce NOW Game Streaming Service

#1
dinmaster
its fun having a gaming service isnt it? becoming more and more like streaming shows and movie services..
Posted on Reply
#2
lexluthermiester
This is a streaming service. Until ISPs and service providers can get latency to sub-millisecond ranges, streaming can not replace local installation.
Posted on Reply
#3
medi01
lexluthermiesterThis is a streaming service. Until ISPs and service providers can get latency to sub-millisecond ranges, streaming can not replace local installation.
Well... my old TV had about 90ms of latency, just for what was going on between console and TV via HDMI.
The only time I ran into problem was boss fights in God of War. Still made it though.

If you exclude super fast paced games, or just limit audience to non-competitive players, 30ms is more than bearable.

Motivation of Betheda is interesting in this case.
Did they ask NV to pay for it?
Posted on Reply
#5
lexluthermiester
medi01Well... my old TV had about 90ms of latency, just for what was going on between console and TV via HDMI.
The only time I ran into problem was boss fights in God of War. Still made it though.
For streaming non-interactive content 90ms is acceptable, but for gaming? Forget about it... How did you play like that? I had a screen once that had 8ms pixel timing and it was unbearable, replaced it within a month.
medi01If you exclude super fast paced games, or just limit audience to non-competitive players, 30ms is more than bearable.
For you maybe. I can't agree.
Posted on Reply
#6
Dracius
I feel a big reason for pulling out of Geforce NOW is because these companies want their own streaming platform.

Won't be surprised if Besthesda and Activision Blizzard announces their very own streaming platforms. Hypothetically speaking, no matter where you log on from, local PC/Browser/Mobile/etc, you'll have access to your games progress and all attached DLC's. The difference being local or internet based gaming.

Why give Nvidia more money when the developers can get the money themselves..
Posted on Reply
#7
Xaled
Another "misunderstanding" case? :)
Posted on Reply
#8
sutyi
The one reason that companies do anything for: Money.

nVIDIA is either asking too much from these publishers or they deemed that it ain't worth the investment.
Posted on Reply
#9
renz496
PerfectWavebig failure
I don't like cloud gaming either but i think in case of geforce now publisher just don't like gamer to play the game they already bought instead of having to re buy the game once again like stadia. Or they probably thinking they can generate the money themselves if they are the one to offer the service. Ubisoft for one probably like this idea where even if you buy the game from steam you still need stream the game from them. 100% streaming no local file needed to be downloaded. Ubisoft for years tried to convince gamer that every game needed to be always online. They failed only to re try them again in the future again and again.
Posted on Reply
#11
XL-R8R
I do not want to have 292 different services/apps all offering me a portion of the same market space just because 32 executives behind the scenes cant agree on a percentage cut of profits from the lucrative gaming segment.



I doubt anyone else wants that either.
Posted on Reply
#12
Dracius
XL-R8RI do not want to have 292 different services/apps all offering me a portion of the same market space just because 32 executives behind the scenes cant agree on a percentage cut of profits from the lucrative gaming segment.



I doubt anyone else wants that either.
Yea.. Unfortunately that's what we'll end up with. Every 'major' company will have their own streaming service, whether its gaming or video. From the company's perspective, why split the profits when its possible to keep all of them?
Posted on Reply
#13
XL-R8R
DraciusYea.. Unfortunately that's what we'll end up with. Every 'major' company will have their own streaming service, whether its gaming or video. From the company's perspective, why split the profits when its possible to keep all of them?
Unfortunately, that is the truth to it all.




However, I wont be getting 2048 different platforms and I dont think I'm alone in that notion.
Posted on Reply
#14
Dracius
XL-R8RUnfortunately, that is the truth to it all.




However, I wont be getting 2048 different platforms and I dont think I'm alone in that notion.
Same here, I definitely agree. I hate having tons of software idling on my system that has one specific use case..
Posted on Reply
#15
Octopuss
I still haven't understood why the F would anyone pay for this. Seeing low quality picture that's lagging behind keyboard/mouse input, I guess I'd have better things to throw my money away on.
Posted on Reply
#16
TheDeeGee
DraciusYea.. Unfortunately that's what we'll end up with. Every 'major' company will have their own streaming service, whether its gaming or video. From the company's perspective, why split the profits when its possible to keep all of them?
Hopefully release groups can manage to hack such services then so we can still own the games.
Posted on Reply
#17
lexluthermiester
XL-R8RI doubt anyone else wants that either.
True.
DraciusYea.. Unfortunately that's what we'll end up with.
Not if we all refuse to use them.
Posted on Reply
#18
DeathtoGnomes
TheDeeGeeHopefully release groups can manage to hack such services then so we can still own the games.
probably the dumbest thing to say. This isnt Neflix or a Roku service. It will require a login/password, there are no files to download.
Posted on Reply
#19
windwhirl
TheDeeGeeHopefully release groups can manage to hack such services then so we can still own the games.
A few things: First of all, it's illegal. Second, it seems unlikely, since you'd be getting only a AV stream most of the time. Third, for all we know they could be using a special OS or special libraries that are not publicly available or even special hardware like non-x86 CPUs or GPUs with extra capabilities.
Posted on Reply
#20
candle_86
meh these streaming services are a horrible idea, i'll take my copies local, and if they ever switch to online streaming only, well ive got enough of a back cataloge to keep me happy
Posted on Reply
#21
lexluthermiester
windwhirlA few things: First of all, it's illegal.
No, it isn't. It's called fair use.
windwhirlor even special hardware like non-x86 CPUs or GPUs with extra capabilities.
Extremely unlikely.
candle_86i'll take my copies local, and if they ever switch to online streaming only, well ive got enough of a back cataloge to keep me happy
Right there with you. However, GOG.com is rockin strong!
Posted on Reply
#22
efikkan
lexluthermiesterThis is a streaming service. Until ISPs and service providers can get latency to sub-millisecond ranges, streaming can not replace local installation.
Big players like Google and Nvidia, along with many smaller ones have tried and failed with game streaming, and it's time that we address the elephant in the room; it simply can't ever work (for real-time gaming). Even if we managed to approach "zero" overhead in routing, switching, protocols etc. (which we wouldn't), we would have to defy physics to overcome the main component of latency; distance. And even then there is the problem of reliability; packet loss, out of order packets, buffering, delays, etc.

Game streaming (for playing) will remain a niche for non-interactive or non-realtime gaming.
Posted on Reply
#23
springs113
medi01Well... my old TV had about 90ms of latency, just for what was going on between console and TV via HDMI.
The only time I ran into problem was boss fights in God of War. Still made it though.

If you exclude super fast paced games, or just limit audience to non-competitive players, 30ms is more than bearable.

Motivation of Betheda is interesting in this case.
Did they ask NV to pay for it?
No it ain't, not when you're used to a lower latency. Latency in the 30s is highly noticeable for me.
Posted on Reply
#24
Voluman
The reason is probably, the money.
Nvidia thinks about it as a rentable hardware, publisher(s) think about it as a new platform, so they want to make commercial contracts with nv as other gaming/drm platform (steam, uplay, etc. Publishers wants that nv pay for them for their games. But if it is a service (as nv consider it itself) maybe the gaming stores can request some kind of money.
Time will tell which side win.
Posted on Reply
#25
bug
DraciusI feel a big reason for pulling out of Geforce NOW is because these companies want their own streaming platform.

Won't be surprised if Besthesda and Activision Blizzard announces their very own streaming platforms. Hypothetically speaking, no matter where you log on from, local PC/Browser/Mobile/etc, you'll have access to your games progress and all attached DLC's. The difference being local or internet based gaming.

Why give Nvidia more money when the developers can get the money themselves..
Either that or they want a cut of the $5 Nvidia gets from users.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment
Dec 22nd, 2024 13:12 EST change timezone

Latest GPU Drivers

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

Controversial News Posts