Activision Blizzard Pulls Out of NVIDIA GeForce Now Game Streaming Service

erek

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Dec 19, 2005
Messages
4,615
Oh no! And such a good initial start for GeForce NOW. A pity

"In other words, something here just doesn't add up here for us and the stench is foul. Was there some outside influence from another company; perhaps a competitor for GeForce NOW? Some seem to suggest that perhaps Google is throwing down the gauntlet to put its Stadia streaming service in a better position in the burgeoning cloud gaming arena. However, we have no evidence to suggest that this is actually the case, though we invite you to speculate wildly in the comment section below, of course.

Or perhaps it’s simpler than that. Maybe Activision Blizzard is working on its own game streaming service and wants to keep its cards close to the vest. At this point, we really don’t know what the motive was, but it sure would be stand-up of Activision Blizzard to explain what’s going on, if they really care about the community that supports them, that is. Rather than leaving gamers in a lurch – many of whom bought the publisher’s games specifically for use on GeForce NOW – how about at least explaining the reasoning behind the decision?

We think gamers deserve to know. What gives, Activision Blizzard?"


https://www.techpowerup.com/263807/...-of-nvidia-geforce-now-game-streaming-service
 

zrikz

Gawd
Joined
May 29, 2006
Messages
902
soon, every game will have its own streaming service...
Hadn't ever thought of an MMO company trying to take on cloud streaming, could open up the game to more people.. maybe? And they would have a good idea of the exact hardware needed to run their games smoothly I guess.

In a way, I suppose it could make sense. If they place their cloud streaming platform in the same data center as the game servers, you basically eliminate the latency that GFN would have reaching out to the blizzard servers.

I don't know what WoW costs a month.. $15? If instead it's $20 and you can stream the game from any device, could be a good move, to gain more customers.

I don't see the point in them pulling it from GFN or other services though, especially if you could tout lower latency as a benefit of utilizing their in house servers / services.

I don't foresee (I really hope not) that more companies would try to get into this business, but what do I know.. we've got a million TV streaming options now. When is the AT&T Game NOW service coming out.. /sigh
 

ManofGod

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
11,627
Heck, I did not even know what Geforce NOW was and for me it would be Geforce NEVER. ;)
 

GoodBoy

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Nov 29, 2004
Messages
1,747
If game streaming actually does well and takes off, it will turn into the same crap you deal with in Netflix vs Disney vs Prime. Shows will be available one day, no longer there the next. Shows will get pulled/cancelled from one service to become exclusive on another.

Really not a good thing for consumers...

The software purchase should let me choose what streaming service I want to use.

Anyway, fuck ActiBlizz. This is all about how they can monetize software and get us to pay for it over and over.
 

Darunion

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 6, 2010
Messages
4,011
If game streaming actually does well and takes off, it will turn into the same crap you deal with in Netflix vs Disney vs Prime. Shows will be available one day, no longer there the next. Shows will get pulled/cancelled from one service to become exclusive on another.

Really not a good thing for consumers...

The software purchase should let me choose what streaming service I want to use.

Anyway, fuck ActiBlizz. This is all about how they can monetize software and get us to pay for it over and over.
Agreed, the concept of this service is amazing. But when everyone will want to do their own they will bastardize it and it won't be until 'owned' versions of software is gone that we will all want to give up and go back to what we had. And it will be too late. That said, there is nothing more annoying than when you go to play a single player game and find that some server is down for maintenance and you cant play.
 

Stoly

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 26, 2005
Messages
6,536
Just last week I was playing Starcraft II terran campaign and it actually played pretty well. Not that I would use it for multiplayer, but for single player its fine.
BTW tried to use the gamepad just for kicks, its a nightmare. KB/M all the way.

Also last Sunday a friend of my kid played Fortnite on the shieldTV while my kid was doing it on the PC. He didn't complain of any lag or pixelation. And he told me it looked/played better than a docked nintendo switch.
 

Darunion

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 6, 2010
Messages
4,011
Shadow aims to solve this problem by giving you your own dedicated cloud PC with Windows 10.
Except it you would still need to utilize the services in the end. You would just be streaming to shadow and then to you.
 

DukenukemX

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 30, 2005
Messages
4,687
Oh no! And such a good initial start for GeForce NOW. A pity
You mean the 3rd time Nvidia released a streaming service and failed? This time people will surely use a service that's worse than a PS4 and XB1.
We think gamers deserve to know. What gives, Activision Blizzard?"
Considering most games they make are online and the input lag introduced will put players at a disadvantage, it maybe done to avoid issues of players complaining over something Activision Blizzard and even Nvidia has no control over? Did you ever consider this maybe a quality control issue?
 

Stoly

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 26, 2005
Messages
6,536
You mean the 3rd time Nvidia released a streaming service and failed? This time people will surely use a service that's worse than a PS4 and XB1.

Considering most games they make are online and the input lag introduced will put players at a disadvantage, it maybe done to avoid issues of players complaining over something Activision Blizzard and even Nvidia has no control over? Did you ever consider this maybe a quality control issue?
3rd time is a charm? :D :D :D

I wouldn't say it failed already. IMO its better than STADIA, since you can play the games you already own. Too bad activision/blizzard bailed.
 

DukenukemX

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 30, 2005
Messages
4,687
3rd time is a charm? :D :D :D

I wouldn't say it failed already. IMO its better than STADIA, since you can play the games you already own. Too bad activision/blizzard bailed.
OUYA is better than Stadia, so that isn't saying much. When Nvidia released GRID they required that you buy games from them and it would only work on Nvidia GPU's or Tegra devices. Eventually it became Geforce Now and the games you bought from them would also generate a Steam key so you'd own the game on Steam as well. Now they let you play the games you already own so long as the service is tied to Geforce now. PS Now had a similar start where the only way to play PS Now was on a PS4. These services have certainly gotten better but that won't get people to jump onto cloud gaming. Eliminating the latency by 100% would though.
 

Stoly

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 26, 2005
Messages
6,536
OUYA is better than Stadia, so that isn't saying much. When Nvidia released GRID they required that you buy games from them and it would only work on Nvidia GPU's or Tegra devices. Eventually it became Geforce Now and the games you bought from them would also generate a Steam key so you'd own the game on Steam as well. Now they let you play the games you already own so long as the service is tied to Geforce now. PS Now had a similar start where the only way to play PS Now was on a PS4. These services have certainly gotten better but that won't get people to jump onto cloud gaming. Eliminating the latency by 100% would though.
Yeah, I remember. I really enjoyed the Geforce Now beta. At one point it was possible to install games from the epic store because of a bug, I managed to install aquanaut. There was also a time you could access your own virtual machine, but both of those things went out quickly.
 

Master_shake_

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 9, 2012
Messages
11,113

Derangel

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 31, 2008
Messages
18,793
OUYA is better than Stadia, so that isn't saying much. When Nvidia released GRID they required that you buy games from them and it would only work on Nvidia GPU's or Tegra devices. Eventually it became Geforce Now and the games you bought from them would also generate a Steam key so you'd own the game on Steam as well. Now they let you play the games you already own so long as the service is tied to Geforce now. PS Now had a similar start where the only way to play PS Now was on a PS4. These services have certainly gotten better but that won't get people to jump onto cloud gaming. Eliminating the latency by 100% would though.
GRID never released. It was only a proof of concept with limited testers.
 

horrorshow

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Dec 14, 2007
Messages
7,575
Shame, cuz CoD on the office network was shockingly legit....

Oh well, plenty of other games for me to stream (y)
 

M76

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 12, 2012
Messages
10,439
Piracy is a service problem, not a price problem.
If that ever happens then piracy will be an attractive alternative. Do people really think that $5-$10 per service is going to sit well with others?
Try $5-$10 per game, that's where we're heading at. You won't own any game, just pay a monthly fee. And if they are gracious enough they might even let you play it on your own computer, but probably not.
 

DukenukemX

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 30, 2005
Messages
4,687
Good to know you don’t care about facts. You’d think actually knowing what the hell you are talking about would be important
Don't worry, in 5 years Geforce Now will be called Geforce Yesterday and Nvidia will claim that Geforce Now was a proof of concept.
 

Aix.

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Sep 30, 2010
Messages
1,831
Ran into this recently when I tried to watch the fourth season of Mr. Robot. S01-S03 on Amazon Prime. S04 on...some random extra service called StackTV that they expected me to add to Amazon Prime. These companies are insane if they think I'm going to pay for cable, pay for internet, pay for streaming services, and now start paying for extra channels for my streaming services, especially for individual seasons of individual shows.
 

Derangel

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 31, 2008
Messages
18,793
Don't worry, in 5 years Geforce Now will be called Geforce Yesterday and Nvidia will claim that Geforce Now was a proof of concept.
Yes I'm sure the service that actually works (at least as well as any game streaming service can work right now) is going to be written off. Jesus Christ man, learn to think about things better before running off half-cocked and making a fool of yourself.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zrikz
like this

DukenukemX

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 30, 2005
Messages
4,687
Yes I'm sure the service that actually works (at least as well as any game streaming service can work right now) is going to be written off. Jesus Christ man, learn to think about things better before running off half-cocked and making a fool of yourself.
You see any game streaming services doing well? They're all experiments to see if there's enough idiots to use something that will always have input lag. A bunch of script kiddies can DDOS your single player game if they want to. Why you think Activision/Blizzard pulled out of Geforce Now?
 

Derangel

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 31, 2008
Messages
18,793
You see any game streaming services doing well? They're all experiments to see if there's enough idiots to use something that will always have input lag. A bunch of script kiddies can DDOS your single player game if they want to. Why you think Activision/Blizzard pulled out of Geforce Now?
You really like to prove you know nothing about what you are talking about, don't you? You clearly don't give anything any thought and assume the entire world thinks like you.

Every major company wouldn't be getting into game streaming if there was no future in it. You're like the fools that said video streaming would never take off back in the early days. These are not "experiments". It's setting up for the future. Of fucking course there will always be input lag. You realize that most people play consoles on shitty TVs with massive input delay already, right? There is a time where the delay will reach a point where it is "good enough" for most people. Hell, even with some, minor, noticeable delay I can have fun playing Doom 2016 on my tablet over Geforce Now (using 4G at least). It pales in comparison to actually playing it on my PC, but it's cool that it actually works well enough to be totally playable.

ActiBlizz pulled out either because they're going to do their own service or because they're fucking assholes and don't like the idea of players having any freedom to play games on multiple platforms without buying them multiple times.
 

Stoly

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 26, 2005
Messages
6,536
You see any game streaming services doing well? They're all experiments to see if there's enough idiots to use something that will always have input lag. A bunch of script kiddies can DDOS your single player game if they want to. Why you think Activision/Blizzard pulled out of Geforce Now?
Well, apparently they are going Stadia.
 

Sycraft

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Nov 9, 2006
Messages
4,590
Every major company wouldn't be getting into game streaming if there was no future in it.
That's not necessarily so. Execs are very prone to chasing the "next big thing" often without proper analysis of if it will be the next big thing. So you will see companies rush on to a bandwagon, only to abandon it later. Good example from gaming? Motion control. The Wii came out and was very popular. Part of its popularity was people were interested in its novel gimmick of motion control. So everyone started rushing to that. Sony got the move, MS got the Kinect. Now a few years later where are we? The Kinect is dead, MS discontinued all videogame Kinect products in 2018. The Move still exists... but is hardly used. You don't see it around much, and few games support it. The switch does have motion control, and most games completely ignore it, its traditional controls being used as the primary.

Just because companies are really hyped about game streaming doesn't mean it'll be the next big thing. It could be... or it could be the next big bust that they spend a bunch of time and money on and consumers ignore. We'll have to see how it goes.
 

Derangel

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 31, 2008
Messages
18,793
That's not necessarily so. Execs are very prone to chasing the "next big thing" often without proper analysis of if it will be the next big thing. So you will see companies rush on to a bandwagon, only to abandon it later. Good example from gaming? Motion control. The Wii came out and was very popular. Part of its popularity was people were interested in its novel gimmick of motion control. So everyone started rushing to that. Sony got the move, MS got the Kinect. Now a few years later where are we? The Kinect is dead, MS discontinued all videogame Kinect products in 2018. The Move still exists... but is hardly used. You don't see it around much, and few games support it. The switch does have motion control, and most games completely ignore it, its traditional controls being used as the primary.

Just because companies are really hyped about game streaming doesn't mean it'll be the next big thing. It could be... or it could be the next big bust that they spend a bunch of time and money on and consumers ignore. We'll have to see how it goes.
Motion control is the backbone of VR these days. Sony transitioned Move to PSVR.

A lot of the problem with these "big things" isn't that they don't have the potential to be "the next big thing" it's that companies handle it poorly. 3D is a great example. Avatar led to a 3D boom and had studios and television manufacturers handled it properly, it really could have taken off at home. Game streaming is in the same boat right now. If companies handle it properly (and look at the long game, not short term) it has a ton of potential and everyone sees this. Of course, the game industry isn't known for playing the long game so......
 

Darunion

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 6, 2010
Messages
4,011
Try $5-$10 per game, that's where we're heading at. You won't own any game, just pay a monthly fee. And if they are gracious enough they might even let you play it on your own computer, but probably not.
Part of me is not opposed to this. Often I play a game for a good month or so and either beat it or get distracted. I still have a notebook of owned pc game discs I couldnt even tell you what games are in it it has been so long since I opened it. Maybe as long as I can easily turn the service on and off as needed, i might be okay with this
 

jfreund

Gawd
Joined
Sep 3, 2006
Messages
984
it maybe done to avoid issues of players complaining over something Activision Blizzard and even Nvidia has no control over? Did you ever consider this maybe a quality control issue?
Activision...quality control....does not compute


Part of me is not opposed to this. Often I play a game for a good month or so and either beat it or get distracted. I still have a notebook of owned pc game discs I couldnt even tell you what games are in it it has been so long since I opened it. Maybe as long as I can easily turn the service on and off as needed, i might be okay with this
You know it will be auto-renewing with a 30 day notice to cancel.
 

Sycraft

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Nov 9, 2006
Messages
4,590
Motion control is the backbone of VR these days. Sony transitioned Move to PSVR.

A lot of the problem with these "big things" isn't that they don't have the potential to be "the next big thing" it's that companies handle it poorly. 3D is a great example. Avatar led to a 3D boom and had studios and television manufacturers handled it properly, it really could have taken off at home. Game streaming is in the same boat right now. If companies handle it properly (and look at the long game, not short term) it has a ton of potential and everyone sees this. Of course, the game industry isn't known for playing the long game so......
VR is another example of something that people rushed in to en masse and as of yet, it remains to be seen if it'll take off. So far it has been very niche. 3D movies/TV are an even better example: While you may think it is cool (and you aren't the only one) most people don't, they don't like the technology because you have to wear glasses, which is particularly a pain if you already do wear glasses. It also doesn't solve any of the other issues you need for real 3D (parallax and depth of field) and thus feels off to many people and even causes discomfort in some (like me). It's failure is not a surprise as this is, by my count, the 4th time they've tried for glasses based 3D and while each iteration has been an advance over the previous, it still has the same fundamental problems and thus has not been big on the market.

Like I said, a bunch of companies rushing after something doesn't mean it is going to stick. I'm not writing game streaming off at this point, but I'm not confident it'll take off either.
 
Top