GOG is short stuffed and low on resources. Perhaps CD Project top management can negotiate a partnership without the need to task GOG staff with anything extra.
A lot of customers want GOG website & forum to work better and offline installers to be always up to date and I don't see that GOG is really interested in that. I also don't see how GOG games link to GFN would undermine GOG staff work even more, its the same as playing the games from GOG Galaxy, nothing will change for them. False prioritization for more attractive and profitable store? Why the hell Steam and Epic games are available but not GOG? I don't see anything false in parity.

By a lot? I don't know. I don't think that GOG must pay for that even. That comment from GOG moderator is *very interesting* but in reality GOG Galaxy might be actually useful this time around. I agree GOG don't have that much new titles but I had to buy Metro: Exodusb on Steam to play it while having it on my GOG account, some other examples I provided in my previous post. Actually this could even bring more new AAA titles to GOG store in a long run unless of course they are tied to those nasty Origin, UPlay and Bethesda accounts. I was very disappointing at CDP's decision to bind CP2077 game to Galaxy launcher on Steam, so much for anti-DRM campaign.
Publishers actually limit the platforms for some games, for example Ubisoft does not provide all Far Cry games to be played from linked Steam accounts, at the same time they are fine with their own UPlay accounts. Electronic Arts previously removed all their games like some other big publishers but then added Apex Legends and now even more games for Steam and Origin linked accounts. So I don't know how exactly publishers *should* act. Something tells me they are not really interested in adding GOG and would rather sell more games on Steam (biggest sales) and on their internal storefronts (no fees).
GFN is a bit cheaper in some countries than £80 and it's still a bit hard to buy yourself a decent card for a decent price, and my point was to play games on something where this card could not be plugged in anyway.

I love the sheer arrogance every time one of these topics pop up, the arrogance that those of us critical of such practices just don't understand them. If only we understood, we'd see it's not a bad thing, right! No, we do understand; we see why they are bad in the long-term even if most people otherwise don't. If you give these companies an inch, they will take miles and miles. A lot of people said things a decade ago like "It's just microtransactions on a mobile game, that will never even affect 'PC master race' gamers!". How has that prediction worked out? Aren't we discussing this on a forum of a store where the company's flagship game was being prepped to have them in multiplayer (which itself would likely be locked behind Galaxy client DRM)?. These anti-consumer, anti-ownership practices need to be nipped in the bud yesterday.

Thanks for the opinions guys.

Just to clarify:
enabling a game to be used via Geforce Now does not chane it's DRM system (if any).

It goes like this:
1. start the GFN client
2. select a supported game (the game publisher, the strorefront and nvidia are involved to add it)
3. login to the store where you own the game
4. the game starts streaming via the internet

You can still play the game using said store in anyway you prefer (locally online or offline, offline copies etc.) + you get the option to stream the game via internet if your PC can't handle it for some reason.

I do it because my GPU is too low end and i don't have the HDD space to keep multiple games installed. (through GFN installation is almost instant and no disk space is used, ofc a stable net connection and good bandwidth is required)

To sum it up, GFN is basically a virtual hardware rental service and does not change game ownership/DRM in any way.

Very true!
But I understand the people who dislike every form of streaming very well. Right now, GFN is just an extra option/convenience... but what happens if/when* enough people start using it / it becomes popular enough?
* I can't predict the future, but the WHEN sounds more probable than the IF... whether I like it or not (I don't).
At one point in time, buying PC games online was just an extra possibility (next to buying it on disc). We all know what happened. Would that 'evolution' have been slower if less people embraced it? (like in the console world)

I can think of many other examples... but you're still right, RIGHT NOW Geforce Now doesn't change the DRM situation.

I agree. Using game streaming services only validate their existence and, upon reaching critical mass, publishers will begin releasing games as streaming only while CPU and GPU makers will stop selling consumer level hardware because they make more money off of renting remote resources. "Personal computers" will become proprietary dumb terminals, having just enough hardware to handle a network interface and media decoding, and will be useless unless connected to their respective manufacturers' processing servers.

This will introduce a host of issues relating to privacy/security, availability, latency, and poor visual quality (compression artefacts), affecting general computing just as much or more than games.

That's not the kind of future I can support.

I'm one of those people... which is precisely why I'm not hating on Geforce Now. Game streaming is happening. There is no way it's going to go away. So I'd rather see the service that gives you an option to stream a game you otherwise own an offline, DRM free installer of succeed, than some other service based around the user not owning anything.

You are renting hardware. I never said anything about drm. Everything is moving away from the user. Music, film, tv, games, nobody owns anything anymore. Hardware renting is simply another methodology corporations use to monopolise their users. They will be taking your data and providing from that, as well as taking money from you, and eventually they might even sell you that hardware. It’s a scheme that has been running since the dawn of time, loansharks, credit, all make sure the end user never owns anything, nor can get out of the hole. Say nvidia turn off their system, you still do not have the ability to run the game even after paying that money over time. So save up and buy a new gpu.

In terms of storage, don’t have everything installed. I have a small ssd, and that holds windows and what I am playing. The saving is spent on a few big hdds to store offline installers, which are there ready to be installed whenever, stored as minimal size and easy to backup. It’s only this modern day need to have everything installed all the time which forces storage issues.

But yes, the ever onward March to take things out of users control goes on. Games are disappearing rapidly, I see AC is becoming an online only service as well now, soon we will all be at the total command of business.

Wow, this is exactly what I meant in my post by talking about the arrogant sort of response that we critics get. I understand full well how it works: the user is renting the hardware to play existing games they already own themselves, in order to experience better performance. What I am saying is that this is STILL an issue for ownership going forward into the future. The issue in the case of this particular service isn't "DRM"; it's in promoting the rental model (yes, even though this is renting hardware, not software...unless someone is using it to play a DRMed game in which case I would say it is a double rental, lol). These companies seem to have an incredibly strong interest in taking away the option to own, so the more that rental models of any kind get normalized, the less possibility of ownership will exist, again, in the future. I would like to keep my buying habits in the future, instead of being driven out of purchasing anything since I refuse to rent.
I think it's worth supporting services that emulate LAN/splitscreen or even simply stream a video feed of gameplay to where others can watch....essentially, what I'm getting at are services which replicate the home experience for players who are apart from one another but where if everyone was in the same location the experience would still be fully possible without the service (as, it would simply be a LAN/splitscreen party, or someone watching someone else play a game on the same monitor, or what have you). However, I would say my example is distinct from services that tempt users with prettier graphics or other such features. One could try to counterargue both are effectively renting hardware of some kind, but there is a definite difference in intent and effect on ownership.

I understand the slippery slope argument that supporting game streaming in any form has a chance of leading to further eroding of ownership, but at the moment I think Gog games on GFN would allow more people to play and therefore buy Gog games which hopefully would lead to more developers bringing their games over.

If you were the CEO of GOG, would you want to team up with Nvidia?

Quite the opposite. If publishers can simply stream games, then there is no point at all for gog. They will have their own storefront (most do now), or use one of the big stores, epic or steam. Why would they put extra effort into supporting and developing for a tiny market share platform who’s only purpose is offline drm free installers which they can’t data grab, control, or monopolise. If anything else games are going to disappear soon anyways, just become online services, that’s where the money is, so software and hardware as a service, no ownership at the user end at all, completely controlled by big business.

Ooh, ooh, I know! Pick me!

Because on GOG Galaxy 3.0, it will be so conveeenient to browse through a dozen different streaming services. Yeah, you won't be able to own the media and will keep paying subscriptions, but you'll "have" it all in one place!

Jeez, it’s so sad sad that people necro old posts where this has already been discussed and fail to read it. Streaming has not been stated as drm, streaming is worse than drm and is starting to, more and more become the norm. Drm is not needed if you don’t have the game. Sure for now you might get it through normal means, but that is not the end goal. The end goal is a system where the user has nothing but a portal to the content fully and totally owned by the company. It is the pinnacle of removing ownership from users. Do you own anything on Netflix, or prime, what about Xbox monthly pass, or humbles trove. This is everywhere and appearing in all forms hardware and software. How long until nvidia realise they don’t need to produce physical cards, easier to milk the rentals? Society now owns very little and is rapidly giving that away to tech companies above the law and country requirements. Money, if your banks app stops working, do you have any? Even our thoughts and memories and owned by social media companies. You just work to pay for your access to it all.

Is it actually possible?You can only add epic and steam officially