Wednesday, February 12th 2020

Activision Blizzard Pulls Out of NVIDIA GeForce Now Game Streaming Service

NVIDIA recently launched its GeForce Now game streaming service, where you could stream any game from your digital library on some capable hardware. However, it seems that the service is not receiving good acceptance from some game makers, specifically Activision Blizzard. In a surprising turn of events, Activision Blizzard has pulled out its entire game library from the GeForce Now game streaming service. Being a provider of many popular titles like Call of Duty series, Overwatch, World of Warcraft, etc. this makes a big blow to the GeForce Now service.

Underlying reasons for this move are unknown. Activision Blizzard has been a part of the GeForce Now Beta program, with its games being readily available. What made them pull out now, when the streaming service began operating just a few days ago, is the possibility that Activision Blizzard seeks more profits. Some speculations indicate that they are switching the streaming platforms or making their own. The sheer size of players utilizing Activision Blizzard games is astonishing, and if they decide to make their service, it could turn out to be very profitable.
Source: HotHardware
Add your own comment

46 Comments on Activision Blizzard Pulls Out of NVIDIA GeForce Now Game Streaming Service

#26
notb
eidairaman1
Id rather the game be localized than fed over a connection that can be unstable at times and that goes across the entire spectrum of internet service
And, at least for the time being, you'll still be able to do that.

But mainstream gaming is expected to move to shared infrastructure (cloud or edge) - just like pretty much any other task we use computers for.
phanbuey
$60 for cable then $15 for Netflix, $15 for HBO Go, $15 for Disney+ and then an Amazon prime acct for streaming + whatever game pass ($15) + GeforceNow $5 or whatever cloud provider you use and after fees and taxes you're north of $150 a month just for games + movies.
Cable as in what? Cable TV? $60? :o

Sure, game streaming will cost you a few USD a month. Maybe more if you game a lot and tariff is based on usage.
But you save a lot on hardware. You save space at home. You can game everywhere, on almost everything (even beyond what gaming laptops offer).
Posted on Reply
#27
phanbuey
Xaled
They may earn a little, before people learn about the lag and the unplayeability
Only single player games may not feel horrible
Yeah the main issue is that the lag is so inconsistent among players -- if they come out with a set of their own multiplayer servers (or figure out some way to strike a deal with the game company to consistently match-make based on lag as a factor.) then it might be doable. If everyone has a 100ms lag across the board then the game can still be fun, even if it feels a bit mushy.

notb
Cable as in what? Cable TV? $60? :eek:
Internet only; assuming best case scenario there of a cable tv - cut household with streaming services.
Posted on Reply
#28
Dante Uchiha
IMHO This is all a joke. Ok, of course, it's going to capture some consumers...
However there is no infrastructure to support 50% of the gamers in the world at the same time. Netflix alone consumes half the world's bandwidth.
Btw They don't know that streaming games will revolutionize and replace regular stored games. They just want and twist it, just like AMD cheers for HBM. :cool:
Posted on Reply
#29
Xaled
phanbuey
Yeah the main issue is that the lag is so inconsistent among players -- if they come out with a set of their own multiplayer servers (or figure out some way to strike a deal with the game company to consistently match-make based on lag as a factor.) then it might be doable. If everyone has a 100ms lag across the board then the game can still be fun, even if it feels a bit mushy.
There are at least millions of people who even doesn't know what ping or lag is. And people who knows and want to play under better circumstances would pay more and buy a grapcihs card instead. So it would be a win-win situation for nivida anyway.
Posted on Reply
#30
notb
phanbuey
Internet only; assuming best case scenario there of a cable tv - cut household with streaming services.
But people use Internet access for other things, so counting it into "just for games + movies" is a bit of a stretch. :)

At this point we don't know how much game streaming will cost.
How much do most people spend on gaming PCs? Let's say: $500/year.
As such, $50/month should still be an acceptable price and at least today it looks like services will be quite a bit cheaper.

Honestly, next to that, movie streaming seems like a rip-off. It offers a lot less added convenience.

We pay $10-15 a month per service, with most people going for at least 2 platforms (I use 3).
But essentially it's just a TV signal replacement. You still get a choice of movies - (usually) some time after the cinema premiere.
TV decoders often came with easy to use recorders, so you weren't limited by the TV schedule.
Even before Netflix etc. arrived we already had VOD services - often available for free with TV plans.

Dante Uchiha
Netflix alone consumes half the world's bandwidth.
I see this a lot. Does anyone know the original source? Or do people come up with this independently?
Then again... we still have flat-earthers in 2020...

Xaled
There are at least millions of people who even doesn't know what ping or lag is. And people who knows and want to play under better circumstances would pay more and buy a grapcihs card instead. So it would be a win-win situation for nivida anyway.
Exactly. Nvidia, being very dependent on gaming industry, has to make money from streaming - either by supplying GPUs or directly - by running a service.

It's a similar move to what AMD did with consoles.
Posted on Reply
#31
TechLurker
Streaming may be the future for many, but given how crappy rural and some suburban internet still is even in America (to say nothing of 3rd world countries), physical games won't entirely go away for at least another 10 years. It'd require an act of God or competent governments to seriously put in the effort to really connect everyone everywhere.
Posted on Reply
#32
FreedomEclipse
~Technological Technocrat~
DeathtoGnomes
Actually I do.
And that is totally fine. Theres nothing wrong with not liking something. But when you say things like "I dont like it, so others shouldnt either" Then that bugs me. if you dont want to support any of those services theres always piratebay. You can choose to support them or not.

Xaled
What about people who already have 300 games or people who plays only 1, 2 or 3 games? What are their options?
Whatever is available in the library. This service ticks a lot of boxes because how many millions of people have browsed through steam and thought "Yeah, id kinda like to play that. It looks interesting..." but cant because thats $10-60 out of their pocket?? They gotta pay to play and if they decided they didnt like the game??? getting a refund is difficult.

With this one off subscription fee, you have access to whatever is in their library so long as it aint as bone dry as stadia's. You might own 300 games on steam. but there are more than 300 games on steam and for filthy casuals that maybe game 3-5hrs per week mainly on weekends being able to play whatever game they want in a library ticks a lot of boxes and thats what people dont seem to be understanding.

At the end of the day, Stadia's business model was bad because you had to pay for the service then pay for the games. Google has a history of shit canning things that dont work properly for them or just arent super successful. Meaning that if stadia were to kick the bucket you'd absolutely lose out because you cant get refunds for the games you bought and i doubt Google will send out hardcopies or gamekeys for the games you paid for on their service.

That was a terrible model. but theyve changed the system now. Nvidia's system is a lot easier to swallow. if they announced they were shit canning the project and shutting shop the next day. You only invested a few dollars a month to get access to it its not a huge loss. You paid a few doillars to play their games. on stadia you pay full RRP to OWN any game on their platform thats highly at risk of being shutdown.

Imagine if steam came out with a subscription service where you paid $10-15 a month to access their entire library. Now that would be truely amazing.
Posted on Reply
#33
Super XP
FreedomEclipse
Because you're wishing for the platform to offer less player choice for people who might actually want to use the service. You're kind of projecting that "I don't like this service, so I don't want others to like it too" kind of ethos. That's kinda selfish

So you're subbed to netflix and amazon prime but video streaming is okay? :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Smh

::EDIT::

Your opinion is that "I dont like gaming streaming services" - thats fine but you were like "THATS FINE" -- Like "great, i hope they choke on it too"

or

Me: "My friend has cancer..."
You: "This is GREAT NEWS, because i dont like him, but cancer bad yes. cancer very bad..."

Its like you're wishing ill will on someone because you personally dont like them because of one reason for another, maybe it was because the style of his hair, but at the same time the same guy ran marathons in aid of and raised money for loads of charities.

-- You might not be what i said you were above, but you are most definitely petty - Petty was the word i was looking for but i was half asleep.
Does it even matter what I think? It's my opinion and a platform which I can express my opinion in a open forum.
You have opinions as do everybody else. Our opinions won't align with each others all the time.

SamuelL
Hmmm... based on Activision-Blizzard's piss poor decision-making as of late, I fully expect GeforceNow to become hugely successful in the next year.
Not with game makers.
Not with developers.
Only time will tell though,
Posted on Reply
#34
FreedomEclipse
~Technological Technocrat~
Super XP
Does it even matter what I think? It's my opinion and a platform which I can express my opinion in a open forum.
Not really. But what matters is the way you worded it irks me the most and triggers me to no end.

Like i said to DeathtoGnomes - You are free to hate it. You can hate it as much as you want. I aint got a problem with that, But when you go spreading your hate and telling other people to hate it because you hate it, then It becomes toxic and thats something im trying to combat.

Nvidia's service might be a great way for people to discover new games and play games they otherwise wouldnt of played because they dont have the time and money to invest.
Its not perfect and cloud gaming has its own set of problems but the price you pay to subscribe to it is really such a non issue compared to the model that Stadia was going for.

Not only that - There should be something for the entire family in the library which means if you got a family. you dont need to keep forking out cash for individual games for each family member, when everything is available for one flat monthly fee.


Its not what you said. its how you said it.

Plus more player choice is always a bonus. You dont subscribe to netflix because it has a small handful of movies - you sub to them because they have a bucket loads of movies - otherwise nobody would buy into the service.
Posted on Reply
#35
Super XP
FreedomEclipse
Not really. But what matters is the way you worded it irks me the most and triggers me to no end.

Like i said to DeathtoGnomes - You are free to hate it. You can hate it as much as you want. I aint got a problem with that, But when you go spreading your hate and telling other people to hate it because you hate it, then It becomes toxic and thats something im trying to combat.

Nvidia's service might be a great way for people to discover new games and play games they otherwise wouldnt of played because they dont have the time and money to invest.
Its not perfect and cloud gaming has its own set of problems but the price you pay to subscribe to it is really such a non issue compared to the model that Stadia was going for.

Not only that - There should be something for the entire family in the library which means if you got a family. you dont need to keep forking out cash for individual games for each family member, when everything is available for one flat monthly fee.


Its not what you said. its how you said it.

Plus more player choice is always a bonus. You dont subscribe to netflix because it has a small handful of movies - you sub to them because they have a bucket loads of movies - otherwise nobody would buy into the service.
If I had a choice I would go with GeForce Now over Stadia only because you can utilize it with your own purchased games off Steam and hard copies. But I don't think GeForce Now is developer friendly as Nvidia would have almost total control over game purchases, at least that's how I see it.

Anyhow I like the classic retro style PC Gaming, buy the game either a hard copy or digitally through Steam, and choose if you want MMO or Single Player gaming, no streaming required.
Posted on Reply
#36
v12dock
Bummer, I was using GeForce Now to play wow it worked fanstically with fiber optic internet.
Posted on Reply
#37
Dante Uchiha
notb
I see this a lot. Does anyone know the original source? Or do people come up with this independently?
Then again... we still have flat-earthers in 2020...
Just a correction: **conbinated video streaming services consume 50~60% of the planet's internet.

Source: "Global Internet Phenomena Report"
Posted on Reply
#38
mechtech
I guess they didn't get the black leather jacket they wanted ;)
Posted on Reply
#39
Xzibit
v12dock
Bummer, I was using GeForce Now to play wow it worked fanstically with fiber optic internet.
I would hate to be in the middle of a raid and time expire.

Loot drops, Oh I been looking for that item for sooooo long. Raid leader can i have it? You have been disconnected from your session. Man that was only the first boss. :banghead:
Posted on Reply
#41
Xzibit
[quote=Engadget]Rumors suggest that Activision Blizzard might be taking its games to one of NVIDIA's biggest game streaming rivals: Google Stadia. Last month]
Posted on Reply
#42
notb
Dante Uchiha
Just a correction: **conbinated video streaming services consume 50~60% of the planet's internet.

Source: "Global Internet Phenomena Report"
It's good to give a link, especially when source isn't obvious nor popular.
The name you gave points to a series of reports by Sandvine, e.g.:
https://www.sandvine.com/hubfs/Sandvine_Redesign_2019/Downloads/Internet%20Phenomena/Internet%20Phenomena%20Report%20Q32019%2020190910.pdf
I won't focus on whether this report is reliable and the methodology (which is largely unknown to me).
First and foremost: we don't know much about the sample. Given their profile, I assume this is mostly about consumers, not business-to-business Internet traffic.

But more importantly: your comment is still wrong.
What the report says is: video is responsible for 50-60% of downstream transfer.
Basically: Sandvine checked a group of users and 60% of data they downloaded was video. This has absolutely nothing to do with total bandwidth of "planet's internet".
In fact, it would be really hard to define the total available bandwidth of Internet - it's not centralized.

Does the 60% figure make sense? I think it does - on average, globally. I bet it's much higher in my case.

And lastly: you should not be worried that game streaming won't "fit" next to video streaming. It won't be run next to video. It will be run instead of it, i.e. most consumers will either watch movies or play games - seldom both at the same time.
Posted on Reply
#43
Vayra86
robal
It's always the customer that suffers in the end.
Its a streaming service. Nobody is suffering here. You unsub and you're done.
Posted on Reply
#45
Xzibit
In short.

Misunderstanding = Public release requires more money to be exchanged
Posted on Reply
#46
Fluffmeister
I'm sure it will get sorted, like AMD will eventually sort out their drivers.

You pay your money, and you get your product, ready or not.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment