There is one truth about streaming that companies are hoping consumers do not pick up on before it is too late to do anything about it: That being the simple fact that you own nothing, you have rights to nothing, and if the content owner wishes to pull their game(s) because they don’t want to compete with themselves you the end user are flat out of luck.
Tuesday presented consumers with a practical example of this in action as Nvidia announced Activision had requested their games be pulled from the GeForce streaming service. Effectively consumers who were enjoying Activision’s titles were immediately and without recourse for remediation stripped of their ability to continue playing said games.
Thursday Nvidia issued a statement that was later picked up by Bloomberg News wherein both attempt to tell two different stories at the same time.
The first being the cover story that a misunderstanding regarding the specific terms of the contract between Activision/Blizzard and Nvidia had occurred. Where Nvidia believed the contract permitted the continued use through the initial trial for the beta, but in fact didn’t.
That excuse is somewhat of a bad joke considering terms written in contracts are negotiated for some time by teams of lawyers who pore over every word to ensure they both understand what the contract specifies in exact terms. Contracts are not vaguely written documents, well they aren’t if your legal team isn’t comprised of noobs. They are documents where each word is defined either under Black Laws Dictionary or special provisions inside the contract itself. Beyond terms, contracts express limits, breach clauses, termination windows, expectations of all parties, along with the duration of the contractual period. To name a few provisions.
Basically there is no way a “misunderstanding” occurred over contractual terms. If this had occurred either the lawyers or management would be given their two weeks notice or fired on the spot for gross incompetence. Likely what occurred — and this is purely speculation — is Activision either definition lawyered the contract terms or activated an escape clause Nvidia didn’t believe they would be capable of using or wouldn’t.
This is more likely given the second story both Nvidia and Bloomberg tell is the truth where Activision pulled their games because they want more money. A sentiment that is expressed by their desire for a commercial contract, which means they likely want terms that vary the amount they’re paid out per game, per circumstance rather than a set rate for any and everything.
Either way, consumers should take this opportunity to realize this is what awaits them in a streaming-only future. Where because you are paying for a service, not the product you are entitled to, any and everything can be taken away from you at the discretion of the service provider and IP owners.
