I'd like to see game streaming service get off the ground. Latency IS an issue and will continue to make reflex-based games a challenge and reflex-based games involving competition with other players a likely non-starter where competitive people are concerned, but the potential to replace local, relatively expensive gaming systems is certainly a possibility. I'm particularly happpyto see companies other than Google making an effort to compete because the idea of handing the Mothership even more of my personal data for them to store and mine is disturbing enough to move me toward inferior, more expensive competition just to keep Google's filthy grabby paws off my digital private bits.
I just logged into my free account and Tried Doom 2016, Overwatch, and Portal 2. Playing on a 15" 2014 MacBook Pro is not altogether bad - there is a slight mouse lag. I like the fact that you do not have to install your games taking up precious disk space on a laptop. But mobile gaming is likely going to be hampered by the internet connection you get ... which is never going to be great. I don't think this is worth $60 to play all my games on the go.
This kind of service might make sense in 3rd world markets where the price of gaming hardware is prohibitive. But in USA/Europe this makes no sense at all. People are spending upwards of $1k on their phones in these markets.
The latency and latency compensating techniques (e.g. predictive button pressing) will kill interest in this, particularly once the gaming companies start banning for cheating any service with predictives enabled.
I could see this being an attractive option for someone that only plays games with their desktop. So instead of spending $800 for mid range performance or $1600 for high end performance that is wasted outside of gaming, they could spend $60 per year for RTX2080 performance instead. Definitely not a bad option for single player gaming
the article mentions battle.net.. if that includes WoW.. there is NO way you can play that game for 1 hour on the free part.. 6 hrs on the paid.. maybe.. but why would you use this.. if you are already playing via battle.net ?? same with diablo 3.. SC2... 1 hour sessions ?? i dont think so... again.. 6 hrs.. maybe...
yojimbo.. i guess you dont play WoW,D3, SC2.. or any of blizzards games... none of them can be played in 1 hour sessions... and.. other then the cost of the game ( less WoW ) you can already play these via battle.net.. so there is no point of playing those games via this...
" you can already play these via battle.net" What? All of the games GFN supports also work on their own launchers, of course Blizzard games would also work on a local computer... The point is you don't need any sort of hardware to play them. And of course you can play them in 1 hour chunks, nothing in WoW except raids take over an hour to do.
heh been playing wow since almost release.. and you cant really play it in 1 hr chunks.. would be too annoying.. specially when some of them take you in an area where you have to fight your way into.. even getting getting kicked out can be a pita sometimes...
Being able to go to the auction house, take care of your mail on a Chromebook? Most of the time I log in to wow it's for less than an hour, most of the time I play is in much longer stretches, but handling my finances in game could be done by this quite nicely, even on the free account.
You need to have your own hardware to run the games. With geforce now you are using NVIDIA's hardware for free.
Anyway, the bigger problem for playing a game like WoW on the service, I think, is that you won't be able to ensure that you can get onto it at a particular time. The free users will be allowed on when there is spare capacity on the servers. NVIDIA will probably optimize the servers for the paid users. That means that the free service will be for people who think "hmm maybe i'll play something right now" and then if they can't get on just go watch a tv show, or for people who have an older computer than can play the game but use geforce now to play with better visuals. Perhaps there will be more spare capacity at off peak times where being able to get onto the service can be more assured.
Yojimbo not to mention... imagine playing, and you are fighting a mob, say a boss.. and about to kill him, and you realize your time is about to run out, or you get booted.. that could go for either service type.. no thanks..
In terms of the cost-benefit ratio, this is far more attractive than owning your own hardware. $60 per year vs a PC which depreciates $100-400 per year, depending on how high end the components are. And it's bring your own game so your games don't disappear even if the service shuts down
"Notably there is a maximum session limit of 6 hours, "
If I own my own game, plus hardware, I'm not likely to throw my money at this service. Ever. Sorry, but no matter how thinly someone justifies this, it just seems far too thin for me to consider.
Go on... give nVidia even more money. It's not like their cards are crazily overpriced or anything.
Overpriced as compared to what? AMD's non-existent high end cards?
To be fair, I neither like nor dislike AMD or Nvidia, it's just a simple matter of fact. Lack of competition means higher prices, due to lack of alternatives. That's all there is to it
Overpriced as compared with their own previous high-end cards, market expectations, and yes, compared with AMD's upper-mid-range cards on a performance-per-dollar basis. Even if there's not a direct competitor for their products, it's still fair to point out the unprecedented price increases.
You're right about the lack of competition being the main reason for that, though.
This is stupidly cheap, unless you already own a highend PC, there's no reason to not have this service. $60/yr is nothing, and will allow ppl to not need a desktop. You can have a nice portable laptop and get rid of a giant PC, which is important in Asia and cities where ppl in apartments. Also lower power bills.
Please, I beg you, don't do it! the $4.99 is to sucker you in and then... . There will probably, eventually, be a 'pro' tariff once they get enough subs. Please... we've spent years getting to a certain performance level, for 60fps+ gaming. Don't let nVidia take it away. nVidia does not care AT ALL about you or what you like. They're a business that really, really wants your cash.
We've been drip fed performance increases for years and, if you look back, we usually end up getting 10fps extra from the previous gen. Wow, thanks for that, capped increases in performance to milk customers over and over again. This is business.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
33 Comments
Back to Article
liquidh20 - Tuesday, February 4, 2020 - link
Not working, does not allow you join. Tried two different PC's and three browsers. Not a good sign for the service...Alistair - Tuesday, February 4, 2020 - link
I def. like the bring your own games model. Stadia's idea was silly, buy $80 games that you can't use anywhere else.1080p won't fly though, I'm honestly not interested in game streaming until it hits 1440p.
TEAMSWITCHER - Tuesday, February 4, 2020 - link
So... the resolution of a 2009 Apple iMac is where you draw the line?surt - Tuesday, February 4, 2020 - link
In fairness, it's easily the most popular gaming resolution today.frenchy_2001 - Friday, February 7, 2020 - link
The steam survey says "hi" and disagrees:https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/Steam-Hard...
66%+ have a main monitor resolution of 1080p.
reuthermonkey1 - Tuesday, February 4, 2020 - link
Great point about this free service. Definitely doomed.No doubt the signup database is pulling double-duty hosting the gaming servers as well.
/s
It definitely let me join btw. Standard day-1-signup-woes that affect just about everything in the gaming industry.
PeachNCream - Tuesday, February 4, 2020 - link
I'd like to see game streaming service get off the ground. Latency IS an issue and will continue to make reflex-based games a challenge and reflex-based games involving competition with other players a likely non-starter where competitive people are concerned, but the potential to replace local, relatively expensive gaming systems is certainly a possibility. I'm particularly happpyto see companies other than Google making an effort to compete because the idea of handing the Mothership even more of my personal data for them to store and mine is disturbing enough to move me toward inferior, more expensive competition just to keep Google's filthy grabby paws off my digital private bits.TEAMSWITCHER - Tuesday, February 4, 2020 - link
I just logged into my free account and Tried Doom 2016, Overwatch, and Portal 2. Playing on a 15" 2014 MacBook Pro is not altogether bad - there is a slight mouse lag. I like the fact that you do not have to install your games taking up precious disk space on a laptop. But mobile gaming is likely going to be hampered by the internet connection you get ... which is never going to be great. I don't think this is worth $60 to play all my games on the go.surt - Tuesday, February 4, 2020 - link
This kind of service might make sense in 3rd world markets where the price of gaming hardware is prohibitive. But in USA/Europe this makes no sense at all. People are spending upwards of $1k on their phones in these markets.The latency and latency compensating techniques (e.g. predictive button pressing) will kill interest in this, particularly once the gaming companies start banning for cheating any service with predictives enabled.
Retycint - Wednesday, February 5, 2020 - link
I could see this being an attractive option for someone that only plays games with their desktop. So instead of spending $800 for mid range performance or $1600 for high end performance that is wasted outside of gaming, they could spend $60 per year for RTX2080 performance instead. Definitely not a bad option for single player gamingQasar - Tuesday, February 4, 2020 - link
the article mentions battle.net.. if that includes WoW.. there is NO way you can play that game for 1 hour on the free part.. 6 hrs on the paid.. maybe.. but why would you use this.. if you are already playing via battle.net ?? same with diablo 3.. SC2... 1 hour sessions ?? i dont think so... again.. 6 hrs.. maybe...Yojimbo - Tuesday, February 4, 2020 - link
Hard to complain too much about something that's free...Qasar - Tuesday, February 4, 2020 - link
yojimbo.. i guess you dont play WoW,D3, SC2.. or any of blizzards games... none of them can be played in 1 hour sessions... and.. other then the cost of the game ( less WoW ) you can already play these via battle.net.. so there is no point of playing those games via this...ArmedandDangerous - Tuesday, February 4, 2020 - link
" you can already play these via battle.net" What? All of the games GFN supports also work on their own launchers, of course Blizzard games would also work on a local computer... The point is you don't need any sort of hardware to play them. And of course you can play them in 1 hour chunks, nothing in WoW except raids take over an hour to do.GreenReaper - Tuesday, February 4, 2020 - link
Maybe they just do raids in WoW?Qasar - Wednesday, February 5, 2020 - link
heh been playing wow since almost release.. and you cant really play it in 1 hr chunks.. would be too annoying.. specially when some of them take you in an area where you have to fight your way into.. even getting getting kicked out can be a pita sometimes...BenSkywalker - Wednesday, February 5, 2020 - link
Being able to go to the auction house, take care of your mail on a Chromebook? Most of the time I log in to wow it's for less than an hour, most of the time I play is in much longer stretches, but handling my finances in game could be done by this quite nicely, even on the free account.Yojimbo - Wednesday, February 5, 2020 - link
You need to have your own hardware to run the games. With geforce now you are using NVIDIA's hardware for free.Anyway, the bigger problem for playing a game like WoW on the service, I think, is that you won't be able to ensure that you can get onto it at a particular time. The free users will be allowed on when there is spare capacity on the servers. NVIDIA will probably optimize the servers for the paid users. That means that the free service will be for people who think "hmm maybe i'll play something right now" and then if they can't get on just go watch a tv show, or for people who have an older computer than can play the game but use geforce now to play with better visuals. Perhaps there will be more spare capacity at off peak times where being able to get onto the service can be more assured.
Qasar - Wednesday, February 5, 2020 - link
Yojimbo not to mention... imagine playing, and you are fighting a mob, say a boss.. and about to kill him, and you realize your time is about to run out, or you get booted.. that could go for either service type.. no thanks..damianrobertjones - Monday, February 10, 2020 - link
"With geforce now you are using NVIDIA's hardware for free." - If you pay a monthly fee, it is not free.coburn_c - Wednesday, February 5, 2020 - link
This will never be as good as owning your own hardware, but NV seems to have done it right.Retycint - Wednesday, February 5, 2020 - link
In terms of the cost-benefit ratio, this is far more attractive than owning your own hardware. $60 per year vs a PC which depreciates $100-400 per year, depending on how high end the components are. And it's bring your own game so your games don't disappear even if the service shuts downbrunis.dk - Wednesday, February 5, 2020 - link
"Global Availability" they said and excluded 4 continents. Marketing == lies!damianrobertjones - Wednesday, February 5, 2020 - link
"Notably there is a maximum session limit of 6 hours, "If I own my own game, plus hardware, I'm not likely to throw my money at this service. Ever. Sorry, but no matter how thinly someone justifies this, it just seems far too thin for me to consider.
Go on... give nVidia even more money. It's not like their cards are crazily overpriced or anything.
Retycint - Wednesday, February 5, 2020 - link
Overpriced as compared to what? AMD's non-existent high end cards?To be fair, I neither like nor dislike AMD or Nvidia, it's just a simple matter of fact. Lack of competition means higher prices, due to lack of alternatives. That's all there is to it
Spunjji - Wednesday, February 5, 2020 - link
Overpriced as compared with their own previous high-end cards, market expectations, and yes, compared with AMD's upper-mid-range cards on a performance-per-dollar basis. Even if there's not a direct competitor for their products, it's still fair to point out the unprecedented price increases.You're right about the lack of competition being the main reason for that, though.
SydneyBlue120d - Wednesday, February 5, 2020 - link
Can we expect to have the application on LG OLED 2020 TV too?baskiria - Thursday, February 6, 2020 - link
Does this support RGB LEDs?webdoctors - Thursday, February 6, 2020 - link
This is stupidly cheap, unless you already own a highend PC, there's no reason to not have this service. $60/yr is nothing, and will allow ppl to not need a desktop. You can have a nice portable laptop and get rid of a giant PC, which is important in Asia and cities where ppl in apartments. Also lower power bills.damianrobertjones - Monday, February 10, 2020 - link
Please, I beg you, don't do it! the $4.99 is to sucker you in and then... . There will probably, eventually, be a 'pro' tariff once they get enough subs. Please... we've spent years getting to a certain performance level, for 60fps+ gaming. Don't let nVidia take it away. nVidia does not care AT ALL about you or what you like. They're a business that really, really wants your cash.We've been drip fed performance increases for years and, if you look back, we usually end up getting 10fps extra from the previous gen. Wow, thanks for that, capped increases in performance to milk customers over and over again. This is business.