NVIDIA GeForce Now Loses More Publishers, Xbox Game Studios and WB Games Wave Goodbye

[AnarchoPrimitiv]

Who uses this service in the first place?
Maybe the "unknown" and "mystery" is just hidden behind lack of financial reason for this whole exercise?!
If no one uses the service, then the publishers don't get money, what's the point?

Thank you... I find it strange so a few vocal people in here, automatically go to the defense of Nvidia, when it's public knowledge how forceful they are with their "partners".. And yeah, it's probably that not enough people are using it...

The bottom line is that I'm certain, most gamers are also hardware enthusiasts (I'm more of a hardware enthusiast, personally), so it's not JUST about playing games, it's about owning n the hardware, personalizing your PC, tinkering with it, and for some, viciously arguing over hardware online... But it's a large part of the experience and I believe that's the big disadvantage of cloud gaming.

 

[notb]

The Game Studios don't really gain much from GeForce Now, not nearly as much as Nvidia at least...

But why would they gain?
It's hardware. They don't gain from you owning your PC. You don't have to pay them for gaming on it (yet!).
@TheLostSwede used the perfect wording for this. They forbid you to game on particular rented hardware.

I could still buy a VM with a GPU, setup something like Parsec and stream my games. I could also ask Parsec to automate this process for me.
Parsec doesn't pay game studios anything.

Nvidia is big and rich. And game producers try to monetize. It's basically blackmail.

Maybe Nvidia tried to force a 90%/10% profit split on them or something...

What profit? Do you actually know anything about GeForce NOW?
They provide the infrastructure. If you want priority, you pay. If you're OK with waiting in line and gaming on "leftover" VMs, you can use it for free.
You bring the game.

I see you like slopes. So here's an analogy.
GeForce NOW is like a skiing slope. You can wait in line and use the lift for free or pay a fee and get in a priority queue.
You bring your skis or snowboard.
Do you think the lift operator should pay a fee to Atomic or Fischer? On the basis that if there were no skis, no one would use the lift? Really?

Aren't the games themselves still on Nvidia's server locally?

Yes, there are installed on a server.

Essentially Nvidia is profiting from running 3rd party code from their servers.

In exactly the same way it's profiting from people running games on PCs. Because most wouldn't buy an expensive GPU otherwise. Same for AIBs, for gaming mouse makers and all that.
So should Nvidia pay gaming studios a fee because they create the market?

What technically makes it possible for studios to block NOW, is how the games are delivered.
It's an automated process. Nvidia creates a container image - a "base" that is cloned for each user who wants to play. That's why not every game is available immediately - Nvidia has to prepare it.
Nvidia does it like this because it's a lot more optimized and just works better. It also means your gaming VM doesn't have to be kept between games. Each time a new container is started and populated with your saves/settings.
And, of course, it means the servers can't be used otherwise. Like: for "free" mining.

Alternatively, Nvidia could offer us bare Windows VMs with GPU and just provide software that channels the video output. They would have to somehow block people from using them for other stuff.
You would have to log in, upload the installer, set everything up yourself. That would be extremely unattractive and slow. And a lot more expensive.

 

[TheLostSwede]

Aren't the games themselves still on Nvidia's server locally? (where those servers are located). So it is still cloud gaming. Just the ownership method is different and much more consumer friendly than Stadia's.
I think the problem may very well be that Nvidia has a paid tier. Essentially Nvidia is profiting from running 3rd party code from their servers. If it were free 4 all it would be much harder to build a legal argument against them.

But i agree that ultimately it ends up being a publisher greed issue. They want a new sale for every copy played on those servers. That's just unreasonable and double taxing would-be users.
So suprisingly i have to agree with notb's argument here.

The games are installed when you play them the first time, so yes, there is a copy somewhere in the cloud, but you still have to log in with whatever service you bought the game through and the service will install the game for you.
It's not cloud gaming in the sense that the game you pay for is only available through that service, so once the service goes bust, you lose the game.
I can still play all the games I paid for through Steam, Origin, Epic, etc. on my PC, even though I played them on GeForce Now as well. This is not the case if you pay up for Stadia etc. so huge difference.

As far as profiting, so is Amazon and Microsoft then, as they run a ton of third party software on their servers. What if RedHat or MySQL would say that they didn't have the right to run their software on their services? It would be an outrage on the internet never before seen.

 

[Tomorrow]

As far as profiting, so is Amazon and Microsoft then, as they run a ton of third party software on their servers. What if RedHat or MySQL would say that they didn't have the right to run their software on their services? It would be an outrage on the internet never before seen.

Don't you know? Game publishers are "special"
Conventional rules don't apply to them. Also if you find and exploit in their services or games and report it you will be banned and possibly sued. And god forbid selling used games or reselling digital versions (no way). Game publishers do a lot of things ass backwards compared to most companies.

 

[TheLostSwede]

Don't you know? Game publishers are "special"
Conventional rules don't apply to them. Also if you find and exploit in their services or games and report it you will be banned and possibly sued. And god forbid selling used games or reselling digital versions (no way). Game publishers do a lot of things ass backwards compared to most companies.

Hard to argue with that one.

 

[Vayra86]

Of course I absolutely understand Microsoft pulling out what they own or control (via Game Pass). Independent cloud service harms their Xbox and Windows sales.

But it's absolutely transparent to Bethesda or Blizzard whether I run in on a Windows, Linux or cloud service.
I still pay for the game.

But Nvidia isn't serving the software. It only provides infrastructure. You bring your own games.
Nvidia merely offers it in an optimized, deployable container, so you don't have to do any admin work.
They don't need the code and they don't recompile the games (although, obviously, that could make the system even more efficient).

And I don't agree with the no benefit part.
Cloud streaming would let more people play games (because they don't own the hardware).
So, by principle, there's no way this could lower game sales, while it could theoretically attract more consumers.

Of course I know you're anti-cloud. Well, it's your choice. Some people don't eat meat, some don't work on Sunday. I'm not trying to convince you to anything.

But you're making up arguments that are impossible to defent. You have to fall back to some "own the code" ideas.

And especially on this forum, with all the "competition is good", "pro-choice" and "freedom" nonsense - I find the anti-GeForceNow movement really disturbing.
I mean: I would expect the Nvidia haters to do this, but it goes further.
Game studios effectively FORBID you to play a game on a particular platform.

As I said earlier: if Mathworks said Matlab can't be run on servers, users would make a huge WTF.


Exactly. This is pure greed.

Paid streaming services are around the corner anyway. I'm 100% sure game studios won't pull their titles from xCloud and PS Now. Because MS and Sony will pay them.
And Nvidia will have to as well, which means the free option probably won't last. Hurray.

It makes me wonder... what if studios started billing us for gaming on local PCs. What do you think @Vayra86 ? Still great?

It is pure greed. I'm not denying that. But that argument goes both ways - both Nvidia and publisher are greedy. So is it 'greed' or is it defending your IP and ownership. Nvidia found a loophole created by technological progress, and it tries to exploit that. Publishers now slap Nv on the hand for that, as if they've seen the light. One by one.

In terms of advantage for end users, I can see that, but one does not exclude the other here. I agree it can be an advantage much like @TheLostSwede is saying... but that does not remove the long term effect and goal of this service. It doesn't exist for your pleasure. It exists because Nvidia gets another USP, and it gets that by eating from the food tray of publishers. Its not strange to me that publishers don't allow this and I don't see it as damaging to customers either. You've never had this, so you're not losing a thing. But... once you have it, will you accept going back to NOT having it? And who is to blame for you not having it? The publisher? How does that work with brand image, for example?

And as for the argument about what can or cannot run on servers... how many games nowadays allow you to have your private servers? That reality is history for quite some time now. Why would NOW be different?

Its also wrong to compare consumer grade gaming to enterprise grade cloud. Different markets with different realities. Its quite strange to understand why for example MS pulls out 'because they have game pass', when in fact cloud services for gaming are popping up left and right and allow publishers new ways to monetize their content. Nvidia is simply trying to get their piece of that pie in their own way.

Sorry, but when did you last "buy" a game? Anything you buy today, you don't own. In fact, if the publishers/developers servers are down, you can't even play it, even if it's a game that can be played locally. A lot of games become unplayable after the developer drops support for the game. This was never the case in the past, as if you bought a game, you owned that copy outright. These days, you're seemingly only committing to a long-term rental, which imho is fraud, as that "agreement" is hidden somewhere in the EULA.

I take it you never even tried GeForce Now though? I used it for about a month, as I'm stuck abroad. It's become pointless to use by now, as so few of the games I have paid for (I'm not going to say own), are no longer usable with the service. However, it worked beyond my expectations for most of the time. I was lucky to manage to get a loaner PC, since I think I will be stuck here for at least another couple of months and if I hand't been that lucky, GeForce Now would've been the only way for me to play some games, as my notebook is a few years old and doesn't have a dedicated GPU.

Legally, I still buy all the games as a product and not as a service. The fact that product is licensed and has numerous non-legally binding BS in a EULA is no factor of importance. Its an owned license and with it comes a legal obligation. Publishers will need very good reasons to breach that contract. You're damn right it is fraud, and that is why this nonsense is pushed into EULAs and not into the actual purchase contract. And it is also the reason pubs are very very conscious about when they officially drop and lock game support. Its also a headline piece and will create shitstorm and maybe even legal action. These headlines are very rare, for those reasons.

So I'm not worried about that at all.

What worries me, is that a cloud based gaming service is not even ownership of the license at all. THAT is where you lose all your rights as a buyer of a product, and where you are reduced to a user that gains access to something, hopefully, as long as it is deemed necessary for reasons unknown. I know that NOW is something different, but that answers your idea about when I last bought a game. I actually did a week or so back on EGS. Purchase with receipt, of a digital product. Not a membership of some weird game club

Note also that even with the big push to online gaming, its still very possible to play almost every half decent game (that is not a yearly cash grab-) without an internet connection. It works offline, just fine. If you are about single player you can have a near infinite offline backlog, even. And that includes games that really like to introduce online components, too. The amount of devs cocky enough to force always online is extremely low, and mostly found among the big publishers where the quality of games is not exactly improving. Not my loss...

 

[TheLostSwede]

Legally, I still buy all the games as a product and not as a service. The fact that product is licensed and has numerous non-legally binding BS in a EULA is no factor of importance. Its an owned license and with it comes a legal obligation. Publishers will need very good reasons to breach that contract.

So I'm not worried about that at all.

What worries me, is that a cloud based gaming service is not even ownership of the license at all. THAT is where you lose all your rights as a buyer of a product, and where you are reduced to a user that gains access to something, hopefully, as long as it is deemed necessary for reasons unknown. I know that NOW is something different, but that answers your idea about when I last bought a game. I actually did a week or so back on EGS. Purchase with receipt, of a digital product. Not a membership of some weird game club

Doesn't matter what you do legally, if a game service shuts down and the game requires a connection to that service to function, you're SOL...
Good luck taking the publisher to court.

You mean just like Netflix, Prime Video, etc? People don't seem to mind too much, as long as it's cheap enough.

Still, you most likely need to install some third party game launcher software on your computer to even install that game. Besides, most "retail" copies of games seems to be a code on a sticker, not a disc with content any more.

 

[Vayra86]

Doesn't matter what you do legally, if a game service shuts down and the game requires a connection to that service to function, you're SOL...
Good luck taking the publisher to court.

You mean just like Netflix, Prime Video, etc? People don't seem to mind too much, as long as it's cheap enough.

Still, you most likely need to install some third party game launcher software on your computer to even install that game. Besides, most "retail" copies of games seems to be a code on a sticker, not a disc with content any more.

Legal is all you have in this digital world. Everything is fleeting if not for legally binding contracts. There is good reason the EULA is not considered legally binding. In the very same way, the legal barrier also stops publishers from doing what you think they might do. They have to provide continuity of service, because it is inherent to their agreement with us. Its their choice to create an ecosystem where they have to provide that continuity.

A class action is never far away and we've already seen how gamers can literally destroy game sales even with just a public outrage. I'm not worried that there is broad consensus when suddenly a popular or mildly popular game is no longer delivered... Even that is a force no publisher wants to fight.

All of this also highlights the importance of piracy, and how it helps protect our rights. The gist of it: once we have the code, rest assured we will access it no matter what DRM you deploy. That message is loud and clear and no single DRM has managed to really stop it.

As for the comparison to video streaming. Different beast. How many people are keen to watch the same stuff over and over again? That is what games do: run the same stuff over and over again. For hundreds of hours perhaps. No new seasons, no problem. So the apparent benefit of streaming quickly evaporates. We don't need new content delivered to us, we just want the same content every time.

 

[notb]

As for the comparison to video streaming. Different beast. How many people are keen to watch the same stuff over and over again? That is what games do: run the same stuff over and over again. For hundreds of hours perhaps. No new seasons, no problem. So the apparent benefit of streaming quickly evaporates. We don't need new content delivered to us, we just want the same content every time.

But game streaming is about hardware, not software.

Netflix is mostly about the content, but there's a hardware aspect as well: storage and exposing to multiple clients. You don't have to keep all these huge files, you don't have to move them between devices and transcode. That's all part of the service.
Gaming streaming doesn't have to include the actual content. Nvidia isn't selling you the game. They only provide the infrastructure.

You're borrowing a computer - just like you would rent a car or a hotel room.
Unless of course you're now going to say renting rooms makes no sense and the bad hotel corporations want us to own less stuff. And that we should buy a house for each holiday and sell it afterwards. Do you?

 

[TechLurker]

I feel it probably has more to due with private vs public/corporate(?) licenses; per machine or something (the rare few games that still limit installations to 3-5 PCs). The publishers would likely want Nvidia to pay up for a new game license each time a game is installed or a hefty rental/special license fee, since it counts as a new machine with each installation. Either way, not cheap. Stadia "works" on a similar principle only because Google makes users buy the license outright in order to play the game, and said license costs more than on other storefronts because some of it is Google's own service fee.

It's one thing if it was a private server-like game rig owned by the user and the user just connecting to it to stream their game to their current platform, but it becomes a different story when it's a company doing the same thing and hoping to profit off of renting the hardware. If one noticed; while GFNow was still in trial, and truly free (no money to Nvidia), the publishers had no issue with letting them serve as borrowed gaming hardware. But the moment Nvidia started trying to charge, many publishers nope'd right out.

At this point, it looks like the only way for GFNow to survive is to straight-up charge for "Basic, Advanced, Elite, and Founder" tiers, with a major portion of the fees being used to pay for whatever special licensing/agreements are worked out with the publishers. Something like:

• Basic costing 7 USD = 2060-level hardware + 2 Hour time limits
• Advanced costing ~15 USD = 2070-level hardware + 6 Hour time limits
• Elite costing ~30 USD = 2080-level hardware + 12 Hour time limits + priority service
• Founder costing ~60 USD = 2080 Ti-level hardware @ + 24 Hour time limit + priority service

It gets steep fast, but it might be the only way for it to work unless Nvidia wants to return to being a free rental rig service and make no profit. For many, paying only their ideal tiering fee on top of whatever big name games they buy off Steam and being able to play it on a toaster that can at least run GFNow is a steal, since they're only renting out the hardware when they need it and it lasts a full 30 days.

 

[notb]

I feel it probably has more to due with private vs public/corporate(?) licenses; per machine or something (the rare few games that still limit installations to 3-5 PCs). The publishers would likely want Nvidia to pay up for a new game license each time a game is installed or a hefty rental/special license fee, since it counts as a new machine with each installation.

And we go on and on...
User brings the license. When you start a game on NOW, it asks a game distribution service you've linked (like Steam) for the necessary license.
So:
- Nvidia doesn't own any license,,
- each active user has a separate license - the one he bought on another platform.

So it's transparent to the game producer whether you play on NOW or on your PC. You paid for the game and you play one session at a time. You can't share the license with someone else.
Game studios make the same amount of cash. Nothing changes for them.

You, instead of buying an Nvidia GPU, buy a cloud service that replaces it.
Similarly to how you can buy a workstation or rent a VM in the cloud. You can install your Oracle DB, Photoshop or Matlab on either. It makes no difference to the software producer. You paid for the license.

It's one thing if it was a private server-like game rig owned by the user and the user just connecting to it to stream their game to their current platform, but it becomes a different story when it's a company doing the same thing and hoping to profit off of renting the hardware.

So what if NOW was about actually renting physical computers? You call them, they ship you a PC for $5/month, you log into your Steam account, install games and play.
Would you still say that it's OK for game producers to ban this?

 

[renz496]

publisher want cloud gaming exist as a completely different platform that will compete directly with console and pc (so they can sell more copies) not as a way to play your existing pc games in a different way. i don't like cloud gaming itself but what nvidia are doing probably the best way to promote cloud gaming. once it become mainstream some people probably don't really mind if their games are tied to one specific provider as long as that provider can satisfy their needs. remember those "no steam no buy" that we always hear? millions of pc gamer are comfortable with what valve is doing that we pc gamer for the majority of us no longer care if we own the physical copy of our game or the ability to resell our "used" games. so what all the publisher are doing right now they did not even want to let cloud gaming becoming into a mainstream first. they want their control and profit ASAP. maybe better this way. i don't like cloud gaming but it doesn't mean i hate people that use it and seeing it fits their needs. i just don't like when publisher starts assuming this is a way to go and you as our consumer need to accept it like how they kill LAN gaming.

 

[TechLurker]

And we go on and on...
User brings the license. When you start a game on NOW, it asks a game distribution service you've linked (like Steam) for the necessary license.
So:
- Nvidia doesn't own any license,,
- each active user has a separate license - the one he bought on another platform.

So it's transparent to the game producer whether you play on NOW or on your PC. You paid for the game and you play one session at a time. You can't share the license with someone else.
Game studios make the same amount of cash. Nothing changes for them.

You, instead of buying an Nvidia GPU, buy a cloud service that replaces it.
Similarly to how you can buy a workstation or rent a VM in the cloud. You can install your Oracle DB, Photoshop or Matlab on either. It makes no difference to the software producer. You paid for the license.

Except there are different kinds of licenses, and clearly not all the game publishers agree that your personal game license includes "usable on a rental PC". And let's be fair here, game licenses aren't treated like Photoshop or Matlab licenses, which cost far more per license but allow usage across VM or workstation and to some extent, sharing (depending on package).

As someone else mentioned elsewhere, Nvidia found a legal loophole, and hoped to legally exploit it. If anything, this loophole might encourage game publishers to offer yet another sales tiering, a "rental license" that's only usable with GFNow. That license could come either in the form of a cheaper game that is locked to GFNow, thereby effectively turning GFNow into a "console" players rent (like the good old days of renting a Playstation or Super Nintendo from Blockbuster), or as a 5$ "DLC Unlock" that adds cost to the base game but also unlocks use on GFNow in addition to the home user's PC.

Or, the game publishers can take a page from the corporate software world and force Nvidia to pay up for a kind of usage permit, regardless of the fact that the user has their own license. It'd be like how universities pay up for software like Matlab, Photoshop, Office365, and then offer access to students and faculty either for a reduced fee than a regular private license, or free. In both offerings, the individual private license-keys are usually locked to 2 PCs/tablets, and the devices registered with the assigned university email to discourage multiple installations.

So what if NOW was about actually renting physical computers? You call them, they ship you a PC for $5/month, you log into your Steam account, install games and play.
Would you still say that it's OK for game producers to ban this?

They likely wouldn't only for the reason that Nvidia's forced to ship you the hardware, at the risk of it being lost, stolen, or totaled, and is physically present in your home (and would likely cost far more than 5$ a month to rent). Basically, it's become a physical part of your private life, much like your phone, console, or home theater, and would not violate whatever nebulous concept of a personal license they have for their games. Same way PC games can be installed on several PCs at your home and they don't bat an eye (most of the time).

All that said, I'm all for a game streaming service like Steam's own streaming capability or GFNow, but Nvidia's loophole exploit is likely to be "patched" by game publishers looking for a bit more $$$, especially if Nvidia is using the publishers' games to advertise their own rental/streaming service (which in retrospect, could be another part of it; wanting Nvidia to pay up in order to use their games to advertise GFNow, as that's what GFNow does rely on to sell itself).

 

[HisDivineOrder]

Thing is, I feel like this whole Geforce Now experiment is really about proof of concept to a certain big name console company currently using nvidia hardware that is incapable of 4k gaming. Imagine Nintendo watching Geforce Now and thinking, "We could offer 4k in the home by streaming said games and 1080p in portable mode, all using relatively cheap hardware, Nintendo accounts, and call it Nintendo Switch 4KXL."

Do you think nvidia will be TOO sad if all this effort for Geforce Now nets them a Nintendo contract for the next Switch hardware? I doubt nvidia cares too much about the niche market that streaming games people already own would have been.

Everything about Geforce Now screams testbed for big companies to use to market their own solution.

Nintendo Now, Uplay Now, Epic Game Store Now, etc.

 

[watzupken]

If Nvidia don't do anything to entice publishers to stick around, very soon Geforce Now will become Geforce Later. While Nvidia can be very hard on the game publishers, if the game publishers gang up together as one, Nvidia will be the one that will suffer. Nvidia needs to know they have a huge market share advantage due to most games being highly optimized for Nvidia cards. Basically they need each other and should not be a one way street.

 

[notb]

Except there are different kinds of licenses, and clearly not all the game publishers agree that your personal game license includes "usable on a rental PC".

Point to a license that doesn't and we're have something to analyze.
"clearly" - so you've clearly seen it. I haven't.

And let's be fair here, game licenses aren't treated like Photoshop or Matlab licenses, which cost far more per license but allow usage across VM or workstation and to some extent, sharing (depending on package).

They aren't different.

VM is just a way to run software on a computer. You can buy a single-user Photoshop license and install it on whatever you want: on your PC (bare metal OS or in a VM/container) or on a server (bare metal OS or a VM/container). They don't care. You paid for it. You just mustn't share it (which would make them sell less).

You've confused that with server licenses that let you run multiple instances and give them to multiple users. It's a totally different being.

As someone else mentioned elsewhere, Nvidia found a legal loophole, and hoped to legally exploit it.

Someone did somewhere - not a great argument.
There is no "legal loophole".

If anything, this loophole might encourage game publishers to offer yet another sales tiering, a "rental license" that's only usable with GFNow.

Once again: Nvidia isn't the license holder. Seriously, I'm unable to add anything here.
You, as a user, bring a license. They just let you use their machine.

Or, the game publishers can take a page from the corporate software world and force Nvidia to pay up for a kind of usage permit, regardless of the fact that the user has their own license.
It'd be like how universities pay up for software like Matlab, Photoshop, Office365, and then offer access to students and faculty either for a reduced fee than a regular private license, or free.

What you're describing here doesn't exist.
Universities use volume licensing - they join a program (paid or not) and redistribute licenses to students and employees.
GeForce NOW doesn't hold the license and doesn't distribute it. License comes from a license distributing platform (like Steam). You pay for it.

I can take my student Matlab license and install it on my PC. But I can also run a VM on Google Cloud and install my Matlab there. And Google doesn't have to pay for my Matlab. I brought my license.
And identically, I'm bringing my game license to GeForce NOW. Nvidia just provides a VM.

 

[Vayra86]

As far as profiting, so is Amazon and Microsoft then, as they run a ton of third party software on their servers.

That is correct. You can look at their balance sheets for confirmation. These companies get filthy rich running cloud for end users. Note how none of that really goes to developers creating that software though. Instead, the money is used by Amazon and MS to create THEIR OWN software. Amazon is making games now and MS has been slaving away at it for quite some time.

Its the same with cloud based video. Netflix, Amazon Prime... the tentacles reach deep into these industries. But they were just cloud services, right... wtf happened?

What is happening is that middle men are becoming new content providers, and the overall trend is taking power away from the original content providers that got those services their success in the first place. Netflix only provided infrastructure and series we used to access in other ways. Their market share exploded when they went abroad and brought much wanted content to other continents, while also fleshing out the local/regional content. They created a service we can't get around too easily, and then they started producing their Netflix Originals.

Do you see the trend? In the meantime, Netflix monthly fees are now rapidly exploding as quickly as their market share used to do. Easily over +10% increases per year.

I'm questioning whether those ways of doing business are going to benefit us in the long run, and we're already seeing the problems, slowly but surely.

Cloud offers a loophole just like many other internet based developments have in the past, and people/companies exploit them. NOW Is another example. The other movement in the market for gaming, being EGS and competition in digital distribution, perhaps now we can understand why publishers are so eager to join that little club now. Its a safe haven where they can keep their business as usual, and not into these strange deals that cannibalize their business. For a publisher the basics are simple: invest in game, maximize its profit. They don't need all that other crap on top, in fact, we gamers also don't.

 

[BSim500]

Sorry, but when did you last "buy" a game? Anything you buy today, you don't own. In fact, if the publishers/developers servers are down, you can't even play it, even if it's a game that can be played locally. A lot of games become unplayable after the developer drops support for the game. This was never the case in the past, as if you bought a game, you owned that copy outright. These days, you're seemingly only committing to a long-term rental, which imho is fraud, as that "agreement" is hidden somewhere in the EULA.

^ That's true for multi-player, but for single player games this is why I always try and get the GOG version where possible. No compulsory client, DRM-Free (100% offline functionality with no remote kill-switches) and as Section 17.3 of GOG's EULA basically states "If we go out of business, then you continue to own all your backed up offline installers regardless of what the publishers say or do in future" (when questioned what "You buy it, You own it" would mean in practise "post GOG", someone at GOG previously pointed out that it's a legal requirement of the contract that publishers sign with GOG to allow GOG customers to download and use offline installers in-perpetuity as a condition for their games being on GOG in the first place).

They're probably the last store "keeping it real" regarding tangible consumer ownership rights in a post physical-disc world and given the ongoing "future direction" push for 100% ownerless rentware4life the industry is heading in with streaming / online DRM / Games As A Service, I'm sure glad I have a NAS full of a few hundred offline installers of the best of the past 30 years classics triple backed up regardless of what happens to future lootbox-saturated rent4life multi-player cheat-fests.