#STEAM SUBSCRIBED MODS NOT ING UPGRADE#
#STEAM SUBSCRIBED MODS NOT ING LICENSE#
#STEAM SUBSCRIBED MODS NOT ING WINDOWS#

The streaming service is a bad comparison because you're not paying for a subscription license to the content, you're paying a subscription for remote computer.

#STEAM SUBSCRIBED MODS NOT ING UPGRADE#

When I buy a new computer, that has been marketed to me as being able to play all my games at high framerates, should I play each and every developer a nominal upgrade fee for the fact that their content was used to sell me a device? What about when an independent gaming mag writes articles about a game and relies on those to sell copies? Computers are marketed to gamers and are predicated on the notion that gamers will be able to play their existing library on them. Games are used in benchmarks for and to sell gaming PCs. If developers should just be paid when their work is used to make money for someone else where does this reasoning stop? Ultimately I don't see renting hardware as making money off the back of developper any more than selling hardware, and in both case I see it as a benefit to develloper who end up having more potential consummer who need to buy their games to play it. when most of their cards are marketed for gaming ( where content is key too, which is why both amd and nvdia get deals with some dev so their specific hardware feature ( RTX etc ) has more value ). But ultimately I find it hard to argue that nvidia must pay developper for renting their GC to stream games people own, but not if they sell said GC so that people can play their own games and maybe other stuff. GeForce now is in competition with the act of buying a physical computer, and again like with the Shadow comparison, the only thing which differentiate one or the other in regard to videogames, is that one only allow you to play games while the other allow you to play and do other things.

#STEAM SUBSCRIBED MODS NOT ING WINDOWS#

Do they just need to also give access to windows virtual machine to instantly be in the clear ? So let's just agree to disagree and while doing so, not resort to just insulting others or questioning their intelligence because of their opinion, OK?Д¬lick to shrink.The point I don't understand is that ultimately it mean the nvidia must be punished compared to an extremely similar service like Shadow, just because it's more specialized. But I've thought it over while playing Cyberpunk and still come out on my original stance. While some of the responses have been toxic, I've almost been convinced to swap sides. If you don't think there should be a deal in the first place, that Nvidia is entitled to all revenue GeForce generates because the game is already paid for, I get it. And, while it's pure speculation on my part, the lack of 4/5ths of my Steam library on the service makes me doubt the deal Nvidia gives to devs/pubs is good, especially when half of my library is indies. or rooted in the 'toxic and dangerous mindset of the death of ownership', I just think developers should be paid in the opportunity their game is used to make money for someone else. It's not that I'm schilling for EA, Microsoft, etc. But that's how I feel and I don't think I can be convinced otherwise. It sucks, yes, and I almost came around to the otherside of the argument because of just that when I realized I couldn't play Borderlands 3 like I am Cyberpunk 2077 right now. are legitimate comparisons.ДЄnd no, I don't think the buck stops with the fact that folks bought the games. And I don't think comparing the service to Parsec, general cloud computer services, GPUs(?), computers you buy, keyboards, HDMI, advertisements(?), Apple repair policy, etc. where content is king and you have to pay for said content giving your service its real value. Look I've laid out my argument twice, practically repeating myself, because I do think the most apt comparison is services like Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Prime, etc.

Steam subscribed mods not ing