GeForce Now: a dream come true for familly members

P

PanzeR-

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jun 17, 2006
Messages
443
Really hyped about this. Taking my younger brother by exemple, at 25$ a month with no maintenance, someone like him that get access to cheap unlimited 60mbps would totally jump on this. Even if it introduce some input lag, I can see a lot of pc gaming non competitive peons moving toward this. This would make pc gaming feel more like consoles than consoles themselves nowadays.
 
criccio said:
To be clear, the pricing STARTS at $25 for 20 hours of gameplay, not a month. And that's just the base pricing...
Click to expand...
Taking into account a 1500$ pc (just for gtx 1080, high end cpu, ssd, enough ram and cooling for all of this) forking the same ammount toward GeForce now at a fixed 25$ for 20 hours of gameplay (no idea about deals or packages) will net you 1200 hours of game play but you are left with no lasting value.
Will have to see what packages are available, but its a lot less interesting now :(
 
PanzeR- said:
Taking into account a 1500$ pc (just for gtx 1080, high end cpu, ssd, enough ram and cooling for all of this) forking the same ammount toward GeForce now at a fixed 25$ for 20 hours of gameplay (no idea about deals or packages) will net you 1200 hours of game play but you are left with no lasting value.
Will have to see what packages are available, but its a lot less interesting now :(
Click to expand...
Plus parents can limit kids play time easily, it's a win win
 
Armenius said:
I honestly think buying a game console would be a better deal than GeForce NOW.
Click to expand...

Its just a matter of time before a console is a cloud service. While I hate this idea and setup. You are either on the train or off the train. MS, Amazon, Sony etc all wants this.
 
PanzeR- said:
Really hyped about this. Taking my younger brother by exemple, at 25$ a month with no maintenance, someone like him that get access to cheap unlimited 60mbps would totally jump on this. Even if it introduce some input lag, I can see a lot of pc gaming non competitive peons moving toward this. This would make pc gaming feel more like consoles than consoles themselves nowadays.
Click to expand...

Or you could just use this which is available now and is $10 for 80 hours..https://liquidsky.tv/
 
Shintai said:
Its just a matter of time before a console is a cloud service. While I hate this idea and setup. You are either on the train or off the train. MS, Amazon, Sony etc all wants this.
Click to expand...

But there's the very tangible benefit of not having to make large hardware investments that depreciate rapidly and to be able to scale up or down in capacity as needed.
 
So, 300usd a year, no lasting value, 20hrs a month. While you could get a (not high end) pc for 600usd, unlimited play time and it will still be worth something like 200-300usd after a year or two.
 
Just as a little note. Sony have used over half a billion $ in securing cloud gaming technology and knowhow. When OnLive failed that AMD attempted to invest in some 4-5 years ago it was because the infrastructure wasn't ready. you can say its still not entirely there. But look at the last 5 years how many datacenters have been build. Its completely insane. Alone here in Denmark we have 3 datacenters under construction with over 150000m2 area in average. (Locations: Viborg(Apple), Odense(Facebook) and Fredericia(Still a secret))

Its not a matter of if, but a matter of when.
 
The Shield is a much better deal for geforce now at $8 a month.
 
Sprayingmango said:
It needs to be the magical $9.99 / mo before mainstream adoption. $25 / mo is just stupid.
Click to expand...

It's $25 a month for 20 hours of game time. Last time I invited my nephew over to play the next to last Tomb Raider game, he beat the game with a 100% completion within 3 days. I'm not sure how much sleeping he did, but it wasn't much. Let's pretend that he slept 4 hours a day. My bill for him beating Tomb Raider would have been $60.

This service is so overpriced. It is pointless even if you rent server time for a family member to enjoy themselves over a weekend. Hate to see someone playing a casual game like Diablo 3 on it and get addicted to loot drops.
 
I dont like this model at all. you own nothing, time limits, etc. My 5 year old FX8320 can still play anything i throw at it and i dont have to worry about hiccups in my 60mbps cable connection either. Oh yeah, if i dont want to game anymore, i can sell my FX8320 rig for $250 easily.
 
I remember playing some games with OnLive service right before it kicked the bucket. It was funny to play demanding games even on a netbook but the horrible lag killed any real enjoyment and actually made me queasy.
 
Napoleon said:
Plus parents can limit kids play time easily, it's a win win
Click to expand...

Doesn't really seem any easier than limiting play on a PC locally if the parents take a few minutes up front and have some rules and fun (play with) with the kids. Strange concept for most parents to actually be parents these days but hey, worth a try for em.
 
misterbobby said:
I remember playing some games with OnLive service right before it kicked the bucket. It was funny to play demanding games even on a netbook but the horrible lag killed any real enjoyment and actually made me queasy.
Click to expand...

OnLive was a head of its time. Today and specially in the future having close datacenters and fast infrastructure is the norm.

I think the future gaming platform will be multi usage.

The resources can obviously be moved on a demand based speed. However I think it will come down to this.
Gaming at evening/weekends/holidays.
Business oriented at work days.
HPC and data processing loads at nights.
 
This needs to be a straight monthly cost of $25 or less, not limited by hours. The $25 price is not bad IF there was not a limit on hours, which I think will push many users away from paying. Seems like a gimmick that NVIDIA just to add something to the CES announcement and to add more "stuff" to the Geforce experience branding.

You can easily lock down a PC to limit your child's playtime by limiting the time at which they are allowed to sign onto the PC.
 
Shintai said:
Just as a little note. Sony have used over half a billion $ in securing cloud gaming technology and knowhow. When OnLive failed that AMD attempted to invest in some 4-5 years ago it was because the infrastructure wasn't ready. you can say its still not entirely there. But look at the last 5 years how many datacenters have been build. Its completely insane. Alone here in Denmark we have 3 datacenters under construction with over 150000m2 area in average. (Locations: Viborg(Apple), Odense(Facebook) and Fredericia(Still a secret))

Its not a matter of if, but a matter of when.
Click to expand...
That is just one part of the problem, though. On the consumer end people have to be cognizant of their bandwidth cap, plus the aggregate speed of broadband at least in the US still isn't fast enough to provide an adequate experience.
 
Armenius said:
That is just one part of the problem, though. On the consumer end people have to be cognizant of their bandwidth cap, plus the aggregate speed of broadband at least in the US still isn't fast enough to provide an adequate experience.
Click to expand...

But it is in Europe, China, Japan and Korea. 2.5 and 5Gbit Ethernet was even added because internet speed is outpacing Ethernet (10Gbit cost is still too high).
 
This was tried with OnLive and it was terrible. The idea is great for people that want to play pc games but not own a gaming pc, but since the US internet infrastructure is terrible it will never take off.
 
nvgrim said:
This was tried with OnLive and it was terrible. The idea is great for people that want to play pc games but not own a gaming pc, but since the US internet infrastructure is terrible it will never take off.
Click to expand...
For people near major data center/fiber infrastructure it works well enough. But most areas do not have that luxury that places like IAD and Dallas have.
The pricing kills this too as a true gaming PC would be far better investment.
 
I don't think $25 is too expensive if you keep on getting x70 levels of performance every upgrade cycle. Which seems to be implied.
 
trandoanhung1991 said:
I don't think $25 is too expensive if you keep on getting x70 levels of performance every upgrade cycle. Which seems to be implied.
Click to expand...
Honestly if its going to be a service provided to you then I would expect x80 levels at the bare minimum. Anything beyond that is a bs attempt.
 
{NG}Fidel said:
Honestly if its going to be a service provided to you then I would expect x80 levels at the bare minimum. Anything beyond that is a bs attempt.
Click to expand...

It's cheaper to roll your own dedicated server, but the maintenance costs is what drives people to use PaaS'es. Same thing applies here I think. Some people just can't be arsed to learn all that and just want to play games at decent settings. Simplicity trumps cost sometimes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top