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

#26
Schmuckley
candle_86meh 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
Gaming's going backwards anyways.
Who said "secret OS and hardware"? LMAO! More like an iPad running the whole show!
Why buy killer hardware when the only available software will run on a potato?
I'm seriously miffed at AMD drivers, they're lagging my system right now. Gonna rip all the invasive garbage out of my HD here in a minute.
Posted on Reply
#27
eidairaman1
The Exiled Airman
Good, Game streaming needs to be killed with fire
Posted on Reply
#28
Cheeseball
Not a Potato
Sad really. I was going to stick with the subscription so I can do HPB-training with Doom (2016). Activision-Blizzard and Bethesda probably wants a bigger cut of the revenue, especially since the majority of the game titles reflect the licensing of the ones in Steam.

Technically this is not NVIDIA's call, but on the publishers.
Posted on Reply
#29
Super XP
We don't need streaming game services. And it seems more and more game developers are pulling out.
Posted on Reply
#30
rtwjunkie
PC Gaming Enthusiast
DraciusI hate having tons of software idling on my system that has one specific use case..
Why would you have tons of things running, idle or not, on your system? Just start one up when you need it. Until then enjoy quicker startups, more RAM and more CPU cycles.
Posted on Reply
#31
chrcoluk
Greed really, this is a rent hardware service and the publishers want to make revenue for games that have already been purchased by those playing it.
Posted on Reply
#32
BiggieShady
Super XPWe don't need streaming game services. And it seems more and more game developers are pulling out.
Publishers are pulling out, developers have no say. Devs understand what cpu/gpu virtualization on the cloud is, they get what hardware rental service is. Publishers see opportunity for stadia business model.
What I want to know, do they have any legal right to deny anyone to own a virtual machine on the cloud, have licensed game installed on it, run it on the cloud and stream it back to the living room via remote desktop/teamviewer running on a potato? Because that's what this essentially is ... spiced up with real time mp4 gpu encoding on the server.
Someone will write an open source windows driver that maps DirectInput/XInput over TCP/IP socket, that and nvidia shadowplay should enable anyone to "roll their own" virtual machine with gpu on AWS cloud.
Posted on Reply
#33
Super XP
BiggieShadyPublishers are pulling out, developers have no say. Devs understand what cpu/gpu virtualization on the cloud is, they get what hardware rental service is. Publishers see opportunity for stadia business model.
What I want to know, do they have any legal right to deny anyone to own a virtual machine on the cloud, have licensed game installed on it, run it on the cloud and stream it back to the living room via remote desktop/teamviewer running on a potato? Because that's what this essentially is ... spiced up with real time mp4 gpu encoding on the server
I get GeForce Now, as it's totally better over Stadia and 99% cheaper. But is there a cost or profit incentive for game publishers to allow there games on GeForce Now?
Posted on Reply
#34
medi01
lexluthermiesterFor 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.
Well... tightly timed boss fights aside, where even 1/10th of a second made a difference, I would not even notice it.
It is also notable that under 30ms lag was considered decent for a TV not so long ago (perhaps it still is).

Seriously, what would happen within 8ms in a game like, say, Witcher 3?
Posted on Reply
#35
Cheeseball
Not a Potato
Super XPI get GeForce Now, as it's totally better over Stadia and 99% cheaper. But is there a cost or profit incentive for game publishers to allow there games on GeForce Now?
Probably not. Because most players that already own the games on Steam can just jump on Geforce Now and use their existing license. If anything, they don't gain much unless NVIDIA is not giving a good chunk of that $5.

Like others have said, they probably want to start their own streaming service, which is probably not going to fly well considering NVIDIA's business model made the most sense.
Posted on Reply
#36
BiggieShady
Super XPBut is there a cost or profit incentive for game publishers to allow there games on GeForce Now?
When you invest zero, anything you earn is infinity percent profit. That's right, publishers don't pay your bandwidth or nvidia data centers, they already sold you the game and they would sell countless more to macbook users and similar, but no they will segment the market once again, same as with netflix/hulu/others, steam/origin/uplay/others, and to do that they will need to buy server gpus from nvidia in bulk. Funny how that works out for nvidia... and opens up bargaining opportunities
Posted on Reply
#37
Fluffmeister
Yeah publishers want the money.... yesterday, hence why many games are often released well before they are actually ready.
Posted on Reply
#38
Super XP
OK.
Well my point was those that make the game need to profit from the game or there wouldn't be games anymore.
Posted on Reply
#39
Xzibit
Here is an interesting review
Digital TrendsThe most significant seems to be the resolution. GeForce Now claims up to 1080p, but that’s not what I experienced in many situations, even on connections superior to what Nvidia says is ideal. Image quality was often muddy compared to 1080p rendered on a local GPU, suggesting my stream was below the target resolution. A dive into the advanced diagnostics (accessible through the Ctrl-Alt-F6 shortcut) revealed a stream that was often at 720p, not 1080p.

Macroblocking, a result of video compression, was visible more often than I’d prefer. It was most noticeable in high-contrast scenes with significant movement. Any game that makes liberal use of light shafts or bloom is likely to bring this issue to the fore. Yet I could also notice it, at times, when scrolling across the map in Age of Wonders: Planetfall.
Posted on Reply
#40
lexluthermiester
medi01Seriously, what would happen within 8ms in a game like, say, Witcher 3?
Ok, I'll concede, you do have a good point. Sub 30ms would be great as long as it is kept consistent 99.9999% of the time. When server lag causes problems is when games get unacceptably laggy.
Posted on Reply
#41
windwhirl
lexluthermiesterOk, I'll concede, you do have a good point. Sub 30ms would be great as long as it is kept consistent 99.9999% of the time. When server lag causes problems is when games get unacceptably laggy.
This kind of posts always bring me back to my teenage years when I often played Serious Sam in multiplayer co-op mode and I tolerated a 300/360 ms lag, while 150/180 ms was like a really good day :laugh:

Today I don't tolerate anything beyond 200 ms, though.
Posted on Reply
#42
Prima.Vera
lexluthermiesterThis is a streaming service. Until ISPs and service providers can get latency to sub-millisecond ranges, streaming can not replace local installation.
Until "we" discover something faster that the speed of electric current, or light, those 300K Km/s are not going anywhere not to mention the latencies.
Posted on Reply
#43
bug
Super XPOK.
Well my point was those that make the game need to profit from the game or there wouldn't be games anymore.
Well, their point is when they profit $1mn, there's always a bean counter pointing out they could have profited $2mn.

I don't think profits are a problem within the industry, as much as bad planning. You know, studios that do well, but put all their eggs in one basket and a misstep puts them out of business.
Posted on Reply
#44
BiggieShady
Prima.VeraUntil "we" discover something faster that the speed of electric current, or light, those 300K Km/s are not going anywhere not to mention the latencies.
Until we can use quantum entanglement connections, we would benefit from faster routing and overall internet topology with less hops to destination node.
Case in point, try tools.keycdn.com/traceroute and put google.com to test from all over the world how many times data packets get routed on the way to google data centers. For some countries that's 7 hops, an 18 hops for others - huge latency variation
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment
Dec 22nd, 2024 08:27 EST change timezone

Latest GPU Drivers

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

Controversial News Posts