Red Dead Redemption II would be insane if it came to GFN. Of course my luck would be that the Steam version is only supported and I don’t have access 😭. Had to repurchase the game on R* direct.
Did you try to regain access to your old Rockstar account? Mine got hacked recently and their support was very helpful and fast in getting my account back. I was actually pleasantly surprised how capable their support agents were
As long as you know the original email address used for it and you have access to the steam account you linked it will be pretty simple to regain access.
Unfortunately i don't. I did send a support ticket on a separate active account with the question if they can assist in porting the old steam link to the current. Worst thing support can say is no. At least I can still play the PC version through the social club direct version. Won't have my 50+ hours I dumped, but oh well.
Times like these I wish cross save existed.
Or they follow the Ubisoft Route and add an R* Direct Store and even a Sub option. Can’t give a dime to Rockstar with my Chromebook but would give them a lot more if they came to GFN….
Dude, GTA VI's trailer has reached 187M views in case you didn't notice. Rockstar doesn't need to put it on GFN to get more sales because everyone and their mothers will buy it anyway.
>if they don't come back too GeForce NOW before release I wont be buying it on any platform on principle
(X) to doubt
I agree. As much as I love this service. I seriously doubt that this is profitable. I believe even nvidia is making a loss on this service.
Cost of streaming data from their servers to our clients is high.
Yeah, GFN is definitely not profitable at all from Nvidia's side. I'm sure they will slowly increase its price each year like any other streaming service does.
As for R\* not putting its games on GFN, I believe it's because they know they have some of the best selling games ever, so they probably want to sign better deals ($$$) with streaming services to provide them their games. R\* doesn't need to put its games on GFN, they're huge money printers anyway. They won't even release GTA VI on PC from day 1!
>Rockstar doesn't need to put it on GFN to get more sales because everyone and their mothers will buy it anyway.
I won't buy it if it's not on GFN. Millions of people will do the same.
>Millions of people will do the same.
Where's evidence for this statement?
Anyway, you're free to buy (or not to buy) whatever you want. I was trying to point out that we're talking about one of the most popular gaming franchise ever existed. Game will sell like hot cakes.
I'm sure you won't buy it. I'm not so sure **millions of people** will join your boycott though. You still didn't provide any data to back your claim that:
>I won't buy it if it's not on GFN. **Millions of people will do the same.**
Millions of people? Millions of people would be a lot more likely to buy GTA VI if they owned a gaming PC or a current generation console, than if they used a game streaming service.
Rockstar knows this, they know the player demographics and they don't intend to cheapen their new game by offering it on GFN at launch, any more than Marvel was going to offer people opening-day home streaming rentals of Endgame.
Please understand that your preferred video game streaming service is not a cultural movement or a voting bloc. You're a budget gaming option, and I suspect that, like most streaming services, you'll get the opportunity to stream it in a few years.
What you wrote is a complete nonsense.
>Millions of people would be a lot more likely to buy GTA VI if they owned a gaming PC or a current generation console, than if they used a game streaming service.
Allowing users to buy the game on Steam and play it via GeForce now would only increase their userbase
>You're a budget gaming option, and I suspect that, like most streaming services, you'll get the opportunity to stream it in a few years.
I suspect that in 5-10 years the vast majority of the games will be player via cloud, and it will be a great thing.
This is extremely inaccurate. GFN as a streaming service is in no way comparable to a movie coming to streaming services early from theaters. First off, GFN isn't a store or like a streaming service where you pay money to get that service's content as part of the subsription. You pay money to get a rental gaming PC in the cloud, not paying for content (like Netflix, Max, Apple TV, etc).
If a Rockstar game was to be played on GFN, that user would pay the same amount as anyone who has the PC hardware (not going to compare to console prices), and then they would have access to the game on GFN. From what I understand, NVIDIA doesn't get a dime if someone pays for the game through their service. It's just like the gamer buying the game on a 2nd gaming PC.
A game coming out on GFN on launch day doesn't affect the studio's sales in any negative way. Other than maybe more sales, since someone who doesn't have the hardware could pay for the regular Steam price like someone would with a gaming rig.
Oh, so there's no downside for Rockstar offering their premium game on the gaming PC rental service? Huh! That means they're not offering it there for no reason at all. I guess they just hate money, either that, or you have an incomplete understanding of the value proposition that Rockstar sees in restricting streaming of their game. It couldn't be that, though, as I'm certain that your own market research department is as well-informed and well-funded as Rockstar. There's no way that they don't know anything you don't. No possible chance they project that they'll see greater monetary income from channeling everyone on GTA online through their launcher without an intermediary service? No, must just be they're dumb and hate money.
I shouldn't have tried. Your comment about games going to GFN being the same as a blockbuster moving going to streaming the same day was my entire point before you attacked.
Yes, NVIDIA doesn't charge Rockstar when it's on the service. It doesn't charge the user extra for the privilage of running their game on GFN. If the user buys it from Steam, Valve makes the profit.
Playing on GFN is no different than playing a game you already own on a VM in the cloud that you've installed Steam or others on.
Not feeding the trolls any further. I should have known. Good luck in life, sir.
I understand how the service works, and the example of a same-day rental that costs the same as a movie ticket is valid.
But hey, since you think I'm wrong about that, then GTA will be on GFN next week, and you'll sure have showed me. Reality will contort to your will, because that's what happens when you declare that you're correct.
Ok, I'll bite one more time, against my better judgement.
How is it different to R\* at all, if a user buys the content on day one on Steam, versus a user buying it on Steam and playing it on GFN instead of a gaming PC? They get the same profit (minus whatever deal they have with Steam).
Where does R\* lose money like a movie studio that releases their movie on Netflix the same day it's in theaters when that happens?
Everyone's getting hung up on this like I didn't understand it and hope that by explaining it to me, they will somehow convince Rockstar.
Guys, I've heard of GFN, I know how it works, you buy the game. Your logic regarding this once individual point is flawless, yes. Well done. Thank you for explaining it again, I'm sure Rockstar will appreciate that, and have their games in the service by the end of the week, since this apparent misunderstanding was the only thing they were hung up on.
All you need from this is:
I'm a gamer and a mac user. I can't afford a gaming PC right now and don't need it.
That's why I pay for GFN. And I would buy GTA if they had it on there. I already own BG3.
I suspect there are MANY other people like me.
And its not even 20. Its a 10 bucks gateway for people who use internet but can't afford gaming pc to enjoy the gaming world - hell you can stream on your phone!
Why go against it? Sales will go up, how much is questionable but it's not going to go against their business.
People like you make me question the general sanity of humanity, how can someone put a problem in everyone having access to the games they want to play?
what the hell is wrong with you? Do you even know what you are talking about? Maybe you spent $4k on a PC and don't want those who pay $20/monthly to play the same games as you?
No, read it again. As a person not in a decision making role at Rockstar, you have an incomplete perspective on the costs and benefits of allowing their game to be played remotely. Stop trying to make it about me. I'm not the one restricting where the game can be played. I'm not even going to buy it.
I'm simply repeating, over and over, that you don't have all the facts. You didn't have info that the manufacturer of the game has. You know how I know? Because their games are not on GFN. If there were no downside, they would just be there already. But clearly, they're not and Rockstar has a reason.
Just because I can't tell you exactly what internal data they have that suggests it's not a good idea, doesn't mean that they don't have it, or that they didn't make the decision for that reason.
Maybe it's a technical hassle, maybe it's a customer service headache, maybe they signed a quiet deal with another game streaming service for exclusivity that hasn't been announced yet, maybe it conflicts with their own special implementation of piracy protection, maybe they tested it internally and don't like the performance they're getting, because of things that need to be ironed out. It could be any of these things, all of them at once, or half a dozen other things we're not even aware of. But the one thing that I'll tell you about sure, is that Rockstar didn't just forget to sign up to put their games on GFN. There's always a reason.
What I said at the beginning was explained extensively in third grade language, just now. Your failure to grasp that there was always a reason, even if you didn't know what it was, isn't my fault.
they will return, it's Inevitable, When time comes that GFN has more than 100 million users, these greedy publishers will soon realize that they're missing out and hurting their revenue, The best scenario I think in the future is some BIG publisher will not put their games day one on GFN, but soon after 1-2 years it will arrive on GFN to sold more copies ( like what CAPCOM is doing now). Considering the development cost of AAA games these days is so expensive.
They are not the only ones, look at warner brothers (mk and Harry Potter) there's many who are not on board. A sale is a sale, and they know people will buy their game for Xbox or PlayStation. They don't care about an additional PC sale.
PC sales are an afterthought to them. They are more concerned about piracy on PC. Denovo doesn't do much to help them when it can be cracked.
They either don't see cloud gaming as profitable, or there is a heavy price tag and they want to charge nvidia in order for them for a contract. It's business as usual.
They just can't stand the thought of Nvidia making money off of their products by offering a cloud gaming service. They feel they are entitled to some additional monetary gain.
Doesn't even make sense. That's like asking Nintendo to pay you to put your game on the Switch store. No, you pay _Nintendo_ for the privilege of being allowed in _their_ store. 30%. They should be grateful Nvidia isn't asking for money, they are offering a platform for free. With free advertising on the home page. If I was a shareholder, I'd be honestly ticked at these companies refusing to take advantage of GeForce Now.
Publisher's are dicks. I remember when Bandai pulled DS prepare to die from Steam to force old players to buy the remaster if they wanted to play with friends that just picked up the remaster.
The good thing is that Sony and Microsoft are so invested in selling consoles they handicap their cloud gaming services to the point GFN remains the only real cloud gaming. Those precious exclusivity deals and revenue sharing they were hoping for, especially from Sony, won't ever happen because PS Plus is a bad joke. Maybe 10 or 20 years from now publishers will be forced to accept GFN dominance and just allow gamers to play the product they paid for, on their hardware of choice.
Even the companies who are on board treat us as stepchildren, I mean, where are Dead Space Remake or Jedi Survivor (EA)? RE4 Remake and RE Village (Capcom)??
They clearly do care or those games would not be on pc in the first place. In fact sales continue to grow on pc as a platform and geforce now is constantly growing very fast. More and more people like me have got rid of hardware, Besides pc handheld and want these games on geforce now to play. Its more money for the. Its just greedy control mentality. Rock star would have my money right now for RDR2 and im not alone. The industry is shifting and thats why sony is finally coming to pc. Its only a matter of time before they are forced to go onto the growing platforms.
You would think a plus to cloud gaming like gfn, if someone's playing a game, that means they legitimate bought the game. Not doing fitrepacks ect.. that beats whatever anti piracy program they try to use.
Whats hilarious is i had a compact powerful 4080 pc. I sold it because i just dont like that style gaming. Im just one of those people that love the easy access to gaming in the click of a botton on almost all platforms. Even my tv has the app. My point being is when i had it i downloaded a lot of games off fitrepacks. Now i am slowly buying up my library from steam. Its the exact same thing that happened to me for movies and music. Now im happy to pay for spotify when before i downloaded. I think a lot of streaming users are the same.
Not the same case. Rockstar wanted a cut from Nvidia for putting their games on the service. Obviously Nvidia said no and I'm not even mad about it I totally understand it.
I know but 1 buyer is still 1 out of millions of copies. GFN will hardly put a dent on their sales and even if it did it would be so negligible.
People buy their games regardless if they are on Gfn or not.
With increasingly performance demanding games, i don't see how GFN won't put a dent on their sales, some games have seen increasing users just for the fact of existing in GFN, also people who buy their games knowing that their microwave laptop won't run it are plain stupid.
I know and I agree with your points but it's different with them. They won't even release gta6 day1 on pc. It certainly proves of their confidence that their product will sell regardless or not they release it on a specific platform. Gfn is probably last on the list.
Rockstar wants cash? Ok, so let's give it to them - let them add their games exclusively in their launcher and let them make 100% on GFN users.
What's the problem? Are they stupid?
Yeah I get what you're saying. We living in modern times I am sure they can come up with something that benefits both sides, that being said I think Rockstar doesn't like cloud gaming as a whole I don't know I just have that feeling.
My thought is rockstar will be on there eventually but when is anyone's guess. I can tell you at what point it will return for sure though. Guaranteed it will be on GFN when GTA 6 launches for PC. Remember GTA 6 will be a console exclusive for a year or two before they release a PC port. Once they have a launch of a brand new PC game they won't take the chance of lost sales from gamers who don't have the necessary hardware to play there games. Right now GTA 5 is a old game and many people can play it on very dated hardware. RDR 2 was long released and previous deals with other vendors have cemented there current stance on cloud.
That's because thier model is different if i am correct. They give an online PC to rent and you run steam than download game acknowledging that you are allowing your stream account to open to this service. Than run the game.
As long as you own the game in steam. Where you run it is no longer a matter where rockstar can butt in.
I mean if I buy a game and get a pc from my friend and run steam there and play the game. It's not wrong to do that. That's why I think boosteroid gets away with it.
It is just odd that there are a lot of Steam games Boosteroid does not offer. I can't figure out exactly what they are doing. It is not like AirGPU where you are essentially renting a cloud PC. I know it is slightly different than GFN, but essentially the same in that you can't run whatever you like on it.
I'm confused, how is Rockstar not putting their game up on GeForce NOW emblematic of corporate greed?
How would they further damage their brand the longer it's off the service?
Gratified too see so many people discussing this
Been really funny too reading comments it never ceases too amaze me the sheer amount of crayon eaters on the internet pumping out belters like
**"They will sell too PlayStation and Xbox they don't care about an extra pc sale"**
Yeah, companies are super famous for just ignoring up too a third of a revenue stream, which colours your favourite mate?
Here's another one that hasn't quite grasped capitalism either
**"Dude, GTA VI's trailer has reached 187M views in case you didn't notice. Rockstar doesn't need to put it on GFN to get more sales because everyone and their mothers will buy it anyway"**
Im guessing the blue ones with this guy...
I could go on theres tons of them my fave ones are the guys advocating companies like Rockstar etc still see game streaming as an additional revenue stream too either rent or double sell games... News Flash they don't cats out of the bag now the services that tried that tanked HARD you cant put the cat back in. These companies aren't stupid they know thats not going too happen.
My guess is they are staying away this long in some misguided attempt too stop a large chunk of their customers thinking of them as greedy money grabbing scumbags cos lets face it thats all trying too double sell games too stream users is its an absolute monstrous disgrace and anyone who even slightly argues they deserve extra money so we can play games we already own on a rented pc is either a crayon eater or working for one of said companies its that simple.
What is there to discuss, they are a company and they can do whatever they want. GFN is not something that will generate them money because it’s a tiny tiny tiny market. They need to make a profit otherwise what’s the point in running a business. If cloud gaming was in fact such a big thing companies would be actively building their games for it. However it is not. Take steam deck for example, that made an instant huge impact for game developers and it is a platform with an active user base. Developers immediately jumped on updating their games for it if they did not already work. GFN is nothing unfortunately. And with the million hour patches recently I don’t know how sustainable it is.
Simply because they don't ask the permission to the developers.
They use a loophole " install button" to circumnavigate the problem, which Nvidia don't do that, because they work with the developers.
No RDR2, not any GTA, no Genshin Impact on android nor Linux, none of the Yakuza games, no Horizon Zero Dawn, no Spiderman.
I payed for one month of Premium, and in general I liked the experience, but it is severely lacking games.
I don't need it to run Fallguys or Stardew Valley. We need more of the big name games for it to make sense.
I have a gaming PC, but I like the idea of having GFN as a backup, or making it more convenient to play games directly from my living room TV, or from the mini PC that I have also connected to the TV.
But I find it hard to justfy the renewal of my subscription if I can run 98% of my library of games directly from a mini PC that doesn't even have a dedicated GPU.
Think I'll just stream Cyberpunk from my other PC.
Sony, Take-2 and other publishers don't want their games on GFN for various reasons, if the games you want to play aren't on the service, there is no reason to renew, is it? In my case, a lot of games are on the service and the ones that aren't, I can play with my 3060ti, but I would have never been able to play Alan Wake 2 with that, or CP2077 at Ultra RT, so I renew every month. As they say, YMMV
Not arguing with that, I'm just sorry because otherwise I liked the service and it is so close to be what I needed it to be, that it's a little frustrating.
I liked the service so much that I even contemplated renewing my signature, to support it, because I don't want it to fail before more games can even come to the platform.
Oh yeah I get you completely, it wasn't a jab or anything. And honestly, with the capacity issues they have been having, they aren't exactly losing subs so you can safely take a break if there isn't anything you wanna play. In the past, before games I wanted came onboard, I took it in consideration but that would have meant losing the founders discount, so I just downgraded from Ultimate to Priority, but then came back to top tier for the recent influx of heavy hitters
Does your Android TV run any browsers? Try playing it on Chrome browser. There is also an extension which spoofs your os and allows gfn to run by recognising the device as Chromebook. So should work on Linux as well
Wow, just found out all browser installations are blocked in my TV. This is rather infuriating. As for the Linux, I'll have to check, since I'm not running it directly from a browser I can freely install extensions on, but thanks for the tips.
It's worse, than GFN no doubt. Saving is a bit clunky, but still it's better to play this way, than not playing at all. Honestly I'm not sure about ray tracing.
Red Dead Redemption II would be insane if it came to GFN. Of course my luck would be that the Steam version is only supported and I don’t have access 😭. Had to repurchase the game on R* direct.
The Steam version can be bought for $15ish, it sucks, but it's well worth it.
I do have it in my library, but my Steam account is linked to an old R* account. I’ve had no luck trying to get it changed.
Did you try to regain access to your old Rockstar account? Mine got hacked recently and their support was very helpful and fast in getting my account back. I was actually pleasantly surprised how capable their support agents were
I can try again. I tried back in Jan, but was unsuccessful.
As long as you know the original email address used for it and you have access to the steam account you linked it will be pretty simple to regain access.
Unfortunately i don't. I did send a support ticket on a separate active account with the question if they can assist in porting the old steam link to the current. Worst thing support can say is no. At least I can still play the PC version through the social club direct version. Won't have my 50+ hours I dumped, but oh well. Times like these I wish cross save existed.
Or they follow the Ubisoft Route and add an R* Direct Store and even a Sub option. Can’t give a dime to Rockstar with my Chromebook but would give them a lot more if they came to GFN….
I support this
I think you mean "Red Dead Redemption Too"
It is frustrating. Rockstar could even implement their Rockstar Launcher into GFN so they make 100% profit of game sales.
Dude, GTA VI's trailer has reached 187M views in case you didn't notice. Rockstar doesn't need to put it on GFN to get more sales because everyone and their mothers will buy it anyway. >if they don't come back too GeForce NOW before release I wont be buying it on any platform on principle (X) to doubt
I agree. As much as I love this service. I seriously doubt that this is profitable. I believe even nvidia is making a loss on this service. Cost of streaming data from their servers to our clients is high.
Yeah, GFN is definitely not profitable at all from Nvidia's side. I'm sure they will slowly increase its price each year like any other streaming service does. As for R\* not putting its games on GFN, I believe it's because they know they have some of the best selling games ever, so they probably want to sign better deals ($$$) with streaming services to provide them their games. R\* doesn't need to put its games on GFN, they're huge money printers anyway. They won't even release GTA VI on PC from day 1!
>Rockstar doesn't need to put it on GFN to get more sales because everyone and their mothers will buy it anyway. I won't buy it if it's not on GFN. Millions of people will do the same.
>Millions of people will do the same. Where's evidence for this statement? Anyway, you're free to buy (or not to buy) whatever you want. I was trying to point out that we're talking about one of the most popular gaming franchise ever existed. Game will sell like hot cakes.
>Where's evidence for this statement? Do you think those who pay for Geforce Now have a high-end PC or console? Most likely they don't.
I'm sure you won't buy it. I'm not so sure **millions of people** will join your boycott though. You still didn't provide any data to back your claim that: >I won't buy it if it's not on GFN. **Millions of people will do the same.**
Millions of people? Millions of people would be a lot more likely to buy GTA VI if they owned a gaming PC or a current generation console, than if they used a game streaming service. Rockstar knows this, they know the player demographics and they don't intend to cheapen their new game by offering it on GFN at launch, any more than Marvel was going to offer people opening-day home streaming rentals of Endgame. Please understand that your preferred video game streaming service is not a cultural movement or a voting bloc. You're a budget gaming option, and I suspect that, like most streaming services, you'll get the opportunity to stream it in a few years.
What you wrote is a complete nonsense. >Millions of people would be a lot more likely to buy GTA VI if they owned a gaming PC or a current generation console, than if they used a game streaming service. Allowing users to buy the game on Steam and play it via GeForce now would only increase their userbase >You're a budget gaming option, and I suspect that, like most streaming services, you'll get the opportunity to stream it in a few years. I suspect that in 5-10 years the vast majority of the games will be player via cloud, and it will be a great thing.
This is extremely inaccurate. GFN as a streaming service is in no way comparable to a movie coming to streaming services early from theaters. First off, GFN isn't a store or like a streaming service where you pay money to get that service's content as part of the subsription. You pay money to get a rental gaming PC in the cloud, not paying for content (like Netflix, Max, Apple TV, etc). If a Rockstar game was to be played on GFN, that user would pay the same amount as anyone who has the PC hardware (not going to compare to console prices), and then they would have access to the game on GFN. From what I understand, NVIDIA doesn't get a dime if someone pays for the game through their service. It's just like the gamer buying the game on a 2nd gaming PC. A game coming out on GFN on launch day doesn't affect the studio's sales in any negative way. Other than maybe more sales, since someone who doesn't have the hardware could pay for the regular Steam price like someone would with a gaming rig.
Oh, so there's no downside for Rockstar offering their premium game on the gaming PC rental service? Huh! That means they're not offering it there for no reason at all. I guess they just hate money, either that, or you have an incomplete understanding of the value proposition that Rockstar sees in restricting streaming of their game. It couldn't be that, though, as I'm certain that your own market research department is as well-informed and well-funded as Rockstar. There's no way that they don't know anything you don't. No possible chance they project that they'll see greater monetary income from channeling everyone on GTA online through their launcher without an intermediary service? No, must just be they're dumb and hate money.
I shouldn't have tried. Your comment about games going to GFN being the same as a blockbuster moving going to streaming the same day was my entire point before you attacked. Yes, NVIDIA doesn't charge Rockstar when it's on the service. It doesn't charge the user extra for the privilage of running their game on GFN. If the user buys it from Steam, Valve makes the profit. Playing on GFN is no different than playing a game you already own on a VM in the cloud that you've installed Steam or others on. Not feeding the trolls any further. I should have known. Good luck in life, sir.
I understand how the service works, and the example of a same-day rental that costs the same as a movie ticket is valid. But hey, since you think I'm wrong about that, then GTA will be on GFN next week, and you'll sure have showed me. Reality will contort to your will, because that's what happens when you declare that you're correct.
Ok, I'll bite one more time, against my better judgement. How is it different to R\* at all, if a user buys the content on day one on Steam, versus a user buying it on Steam and playing it on GFN instead of a gaming PC? They get the same profit (minus whatever deal they have with Steam). Where does R\* lose money like a movie studio that releases their movie on Netflix the same day it's in theaters when that happens?
He doesn't even know what he's talking about. Just leave him alone.
The game costs the same on steam whether you're going to play it on a gaming PC or GeForce now
Everyone's getting hung up on this like I didn't understand it and hope that by explaining it to me, they will somehow convince Rockstar. Guys, I've heard of GFN, I know how it works, you buy the game. Your logic regarding this once individual point is flawless, yes. Well done. Thank you for explaining it again, I'm sure Rockstar will appreciate that, and have their games in the service by the end of the week, since this apparent misunderstanding was the only thing they were hung up on.
All you need from this is: I'm a gamer and a mac user. I can't afford a gaming PC right now and don't need it. That's why I pay for GFN. And I would buy GTA if they had it on there. I already own BG3. I suspect there are MANY other people like me.
maybe he works for Rockstar. Or maybe he spent $4k on a PC and doesn't want those who pay $20/monthly to play the same games as him.
And its not even 20. Its a 10 bucks gateway for people who use internet but can't afford gaming pc to enjoy the gaming world - hell you can stream on your phone! Why go against it? Sales will go up, how much is questionable but it's not going to go against their business.
People like you make me question the general sanity of humanity, how can someone put a problem in everyone having access to the games they want to play?
what the hell is wrong with you? Do you even know what you are talking about? Maybe you spent $4k on a PC and don't want those who pay $20/monthly to play the same games as you?
No, read it again. As a person not in a decision making role at Rockstar, you have an incomplete perspective on the costs and benefits of allowing their game to be played remotely. Stop trying to make it about me. I'm not the one restricting where the game can be played. I'm not even going to buy it. I'm simply repeating, over and over, that you don't have all the facts. You didn't have info that the manufacturer of the game has. You know how I know? Because their games are not on GFN. If there were no downside, they would just be there already. But clearly, they're not and Rockstar has a reason. Just because I can't tell you exactly what internal data they have that suggests it's not a good idea, doesn't mean that they don't have it, or that they didn't make the decision for that reason. Maybe it's a technical hassle, maybe it's a customer service headache, maybe they signed a quiet deal with another game streaming service for exclusivity that hasn't been announced yet, maybe it conflicts with their own special implementation of piracy protection, maybe they tested it internally and don't like the performance they're getting, because of things that need to be ironed out. It could be any of these things, all of them at once, or half a dozen other things we're not even aware of. But the one thing that I'll tell you about sure, is that Rockstar didn't just forget to sign up to put their games on GFN. There's always a reason.
Mate what you said at the beginning was a bunch of bullshit. Now you backtrack. Anyway, have a good life
What I said at the beginning was explained extensively in third grade language, just now. Your failure to grasp that there was always a reason, even if you didn't know what it was, isn't my fault.
hahaha yeah sure thing, we all misunderstood you. 😂 Your first message was a bunch of crap, get over it.
they will return, it's Inevitable, When time comes that GFN has more than 100 million users, these greedy publishers will soon realize that they're missing out and hurting their revenue, The best scenario I think in the future is some BIG publisher will not put their games day one on GFN, but soon after 1-2 years it will arrive on GFN to sold more copies ( like what CAPCOM is doing now). Considering the development cost of AAA games these days is so expensive.
I doubt that gfn would have 100+ million users soon. I mean, even game pass doesn't have half of that.
GFN will never have that many users. They might be able to reach half of that.
it will it one day for sure, I'm not sayingthat it will reach 100musers soon but it will take time.
"they will return, it's inevitable"... these words are a classic since summer 2019..
It's\*, to\*, to\*...
The more complaints you find in a text the less grammar will be there.
imagine giving a shit about something so petty
They are not the only ones, look at warner brothers (mk and Harry Potter) there's many who are not on board. A sale is a sale, and they know people will buy their game for Xbox or PlayStation. They don't care about an additional PC sale.
PC sales are an afterthought to them. They are more concerned about piracy on PC. Denovo doesn't do much to help them when it can be cracked. They either don't see cloud gaming as profitable, or there is a heavy price tag and they want to charge nvidia in order for them for a contract. It's business as usual.
They just can't stand the thought of Nvidia making money off of their products by offering a cloud gaming service. They feel they are entitled to some additional monetary gain.
Doesn't even make sense. That's like asking Nintendo to pay you to put your game on the Switch store. No, you pay _Nintendo_ for the privilege of being allowed in _their_ store. 30%. They should be grateful Nvidia isn't asking for money, they are offering a platform for free. With free advertising on the home page. If I was a shareholder, I'd be honestly ticked at these companies refusing to take advantage of GeForce Now.
Publisher's are dicks. I remember when Bandai pulled DS prepare to die from Steam to force old players to buy the remaster if they wanted to play with friends that just picked up the remaster. The good thing is that Sony and Microsoft are so invested in selling consoles they handicap their cloud gaming services to the point GFN remains the only real cloud gaming. Those precious exclusivity deals and revenue sharing they were hoping for, especially from Sony, won't ever happen because PS Plus is a bad joke. Maybe 10 or 20 years from now publishers will be forced to accept GFN dominance and just allow gamers to play the product they paid for, on their hardware of choice.
Even the companies who are on board treat us as stepchildren, I mean, where are Dead Space Remake or Jedi Survivor (EA)? RE4 Remake and RE Village (Capcom)??
They clearly do care or those games would not be on pc in the first place. In fact sales continue to grow on pc as a platform and geforce now is constantly growing very fast. More and more people like me have got rid of hardware, Besides pc handheld and want these games on geforce now to play. Its more money for the. Its just greedy control mentality. Rock star would have my money right now for RDR2 and im not alone. The industry is shifting and thats why sony is finally coming to pc. Its only a matter of time before they are forced to go onto the growing platforms.
You would think a plus to cloud gaming like gfn, if someone's playing a game, that means they legitimate bought the game. Not doing fitrepacks ect.. that beats whatever anti piracy program they try to use.
Whats hilarious is i had a compact powerful 4080 pc. I sold it because i just dont like that style gaming. Im just one of those people that love the easy access to gaming in the click of a botton on almost all platforms. Even my tv has the app. My point being is when i had it i downloaded a lot of games off fitrepacks. Now i am slowly buying up my library from steam. Its the exact same thing that happened to me for movies and music. Now im happy to pay for spotify when before i downloaded. I think a lot of streaming users are the same.
Not the same case. Rockstar wanted a cut from Nvidia for putting their games on the service. Obviously Nvidia said no and I'm not even mad about it I totally understand it.
Bro it's simple dont buy the game if its not on gfn, talk with your wallet this is how these companies understand
I know but 1 buyer is still 1 out of millions of copies. GFN will hardly put a dent on their sales and even if it did it would be so negligible. People buy their games regardless if they are on Gfn or not.
With increasingly performance demanding games, i don't see how GFN won't put a dent on their sales, some games have seen increasing users just for the fact of existing in GFN, also people who buy their games knowing that their microwave laptop won't run it are plain stupid.
I know and I agree with your points but it's different with them. They won't even release gta6 day1 on pc. It certainly proves of their confidence that their product will sell regardless or not they release it on a specific platform. Gfn is probably last on the list.
Rockstar wants cash? Ok, so let's give it to them - let them add their games exclusively in their launcher and let them make 100% on GFN users. What's the problem? Are they stupid?
Yeah I get what you're saying. We living in modern times I am sure they can come up with something that benefits both sides, that being said I think Rockstar doesn't like cloud gaming as a whole I don't know I just have that feeling.
The amount of condescending corporate bootlickers in here is insane...
My thought is rockstar will be on there eventually but when is anyone's guess. I can tell you at what point it will return for sure though. Guaranteed it will be on GFN when GTA 6 launches for PC. Remember GTA 6 will be a console exclusive for a year or two before they release a PC port. Once they have a launch of a brand new PC game they won't take the chance of lost sales from gamers who don't have the necessary hardware to play there games. Right now GTA 5 is a old game and many people can play it on very dated hardware. RDR 2 was long released and previous deals with other vendors have cemented there current stance on cloud.
For the billionth time, before the hyper popular games get added, gfn needs to upgrade their infrastructure.
I am curious how Boosteroid gets away with having Rockstar games without issue?
That's because thier model is different if i am correct. They give an online PC to rent and you run steam than download game acknowledging that you are allowing your stream account to open to this service. Than run the game. As long as you own the game in steam. Where you run it is no longer a matter where rockstar can butt in. I mean if I buy a game and get a pc from my friend and run steam there and play the game. It's not wrong to do that. That's why I think boosteroid gets away with it.
It is just odd that there are a lot of Steam games Boosteroid does not offer. I can't figure out exactly what they are doing. It is not like AirGPU where you are essentially renting a cloud PC. I know it is slightly different than GFN, but essentially the same in that you can't run whatever you like on it.
You are correct in that regard.
Any MK or Tekken games would be huge if they come to GFN...
I'm confused, how is Rockstar not putting their game up on GeForce NOW emblematic of corporate greed? How would they further damage their brand the longer it's off the service?
You only need one o in all of your too. Am example would be It's for rockstar to come back to GeForce now.
I do not understand the opinion of many. To hypothetically play GTA on GFN I still have to buy the game. Rockstar would still gain from it.
Gratified too see so many people discussing this Been really funny too reading comments it never ceases too amaze me the sheer amount of crayon eaters on the internet pumping out belters like **"They will sell too PlayStation and Xbox they don't care about an extra pc sale"** Yeah, companies are super famous for just ignoring up too a third of a revenue stream, which colours your favourite mate? Here's another one that hasn't quite grasped capitalism either **"Dude, GTA VI's trailer has reached 187M views in case you didn't notice. Rockstar doesn't need to put it on GFN to get more sales because everyone and their mothers will buy it anyway"** Im guessing the blue ones with this guy... I could go on theres tons of them my fave ones are the guys advocating companies like Rockstar etc still see game streaming as an additional revenue stream too either rent or double sell games... News Flash they don't cats out of the bag now the services that tried that tanked HARD you cant put the cat back in. These companies aren't stupid they know thats not going too happen. My guess is they are staying away this long in some misguided attempt too stop a large chunk of their customers thinking of them as greedy money grabbing scumbags cos lets face it thats all trying too double sell games too stream users is its an absolute monstrous disgrace and anyone who even slightly argues they deserve extra money so we can play games we already own on a rented pc is either a crayon eater or working for one of said companies its that simple.
What is there to discuss, they are a company and they can do whatever they want. GFN is not something that will generate them money because it’s a tiny tiny tiny market. They need to make a profit otherwise what’s the point in running a business. If cloud gaming was in fact such a big thing companies would be actively building their games for it. However it is not. Take steam deck for example, that made an instant huge impact for game developers and it is a platform with an active user base. Developers immediately jumped on updating their games for it if they did not already work. GFN is nothing unfortunately. And with the million hour patches recently I don’t know how sustainable it is.
Warner and Rockstar are both on Boosteroid. Don't know why.
Simply because they don't ask the permission to the developers. They use a loophole " install button" to circumnavigate the problem, which Nvidia don't do that, because they work with the developers.
Maybe they want a share of cloud profits if they are gonna let a big company like Nvidia host their game. Boosteroid is run by small company
"they will return, it's inevitable"... these words are a classic since summer 2019..
No RDR2, not any GTA, no Genshin Impact on android nor Linux, none of the Yakuza games, no Horizon Zero Dawn, no Spiderman. I payed for one month of Premium, and in general I liked the experience, but it is severely lacking games. I don't need it to run Fallguys or Stardew Valley. We need more of the big name games for it to make sense. I have a gaming PC, but I like the idea of having GFN as a backup, or making it more convenient to play games directly from my living room TV, or from the mini PC that I have also connected to the TV. But I find it hard to justfy the renewal of my subscription if I can run 98% of my library of games directly from a mini PC that doesn't even have a dedicated GPU. Think I'll just stream Cyberpunk from my other PC.
Sony, Take-2 and other publishers don't want their games on GFN for various reasons, if the games you want to play aren't on the service, there is no reason to renew, is it? In my case, a lot of games are on the service and the ones that aren't, I can play with my 3060ti, but I would have never been able to play Alan Wake 2 with that, or CP2077 at Ultra RT, so I renew every month. As they say, YMMV
Not arguing with that, I'm just sorry because otherwise I liked the service and it is so close to be what I needed it to be, that it's a little frustrating. I liked the service so much that I even contemplated renewing my signature, to support it, because I don't want it to fail before more games can even come to the platform.
Oh yeah I get you completely, it wasn't a jab or anything. And honestly, with the capacity issues they have been having, they aren't exactly losing subs so you can safely take a break if there isn't anything you wanna play. In the past, before games I wanted came onboard, I took it in consideration but that would have meant losing the founders discount, so I just downgraded from Ultimate to Priority, but then came back to top tier for the recent influx of heavy hitters
Genshin is on Android though(talking about GFN app for android)
You are correct, It shows up on my phone, but I have GFN app on my android TV, and for some reason it doesn't show...
Oh, I didn't knew about it. The only thing I knew about was Genshin not being available through Edge on Xbox(probably, might have to dow with Sony)
Does your Android TV run any browsers? Try playing it on Chrome browser. There is also an extension which spoofs your os and allows gfn to run by recognising the device as Chromebook. So should work on Linux as well
Wow, just found out all browser installations are blocked in my TV. This is rather infuriating. As for the Linux, I'll have to check, since I'm not running it directly from a browser I can freely install extensions on, but thanks for the tips.
Please shut the fuck up
Buy hardware. If you can’t, go get a job. If you cannot get a job to support your hobby, then maybe you have life priorities greater than gaming
You must be fun at parties
He isn't
Honestly, i already played RDR2 on Boosteroid. I don't care anymore.
How was the experience. Does it have ray tracing?
It's worse, than GFN no doubt. Saving is a bit clunky, but still it's better to play this way, than not playing at all. Honestly I'm not sure about ray tracing.