NVIDIA Announces the GeForce Now. $25 for 20 Hours of GTX 1060 Gaming

[john_]

nvidia did not do this to replace high end gaming machine. Geforce Now for Shield TV still being offered at $8 for month. then why Geforce now for PC being charge so overly expensive? remember nvidia main butter and bread is still about selling gaming gpu.

It takes time to make something free, a subscription service. Decades. Things could change in the future, and see gaming becoming like the modern television, where you have to pay extra to see some premium content.

 

[yogurt_21]

another good concept with a bad price plan. If they just went with 50$ a month for standard detail 1080p gaming they would get more buy in which would in turn drive associated costs down. 100$ a month for high detail/fps.

people will easily pay a premium to keep their mobility while still being able to game.

How do my hours work though? Do you have a timer on the render or on the login? Managing inventory in an rpg just became really expensive. So does deciding on what game to play, managing logins between the services (Geforce Now + Steam, etc) steam updates? how would that work. Because I'm not paying 1.25$ an hour to watch a steam update loading screen. Speaking of, what about in-game loading screens? Am I paying for that?

flat rate monthly or no deal.

 

[Steevo]

I'm glad everyone has high speed internet with no wireless issues or old desktops/laptops to play PC games, cause if they did it would only explain the reason that small simple games sell a lot and most people don't have a computer powerful enough to mitigate the latency, have the screen resolution, and much else to make something like this remotely workable and enjoyable unless you love slideshow games.

 

[Prima.Vera]

How about 25$ for 25H of playing ANY game you want without paying for any of the games? And also 1440p and 2560p resolutions too please, not just upscaled 1080p for those with High res monitors.

 

[W1zzard]

First post updated with "The $25 for 20 hours price is for a GTX 1060-class graphics card. For GTX 1080 performance, the same $25 will buy you only 10 hours of playtime."

 

[64K]

I think the most played game today is Candy Crush, so it's all good regarding latency
Feel free to throw Angry Birds in there, too.

I must be missing something. Can't you play those types of games on anything? You wouldn't need a GTX 1060 GPU for that. I'm thinking this is intended for triple A games and then I wonder about the lag. The GPU Farm renders the screen and streams it to your PC and then your M/K input is sent back to the Farm and the Farm renders the next screen etc but depending on your net speed it seems there would have to be some lag. If the mobility of a laptop is a consideration then how would you get the bandwidth necessary wherever you go?

Even then I looked at what it would cost me. I game on average 15 hours a week and taking the 1060 tier pricing that would come to about $975 a year. I could buy a gaming PC for that much. If the games are cheaper to initially purchase then that would offset the yearly fee somewhat but that's unknown right now. I suppose Publishers would charge a little less if customers were merely renting their game but how much less?

 

[bug]

I must be missing something. Can't you play those types of games on anything? You wouldn't need a GTX 1060 GPU for that. I'm thinking this is intended for triple A games and then I wonder about the lag. The GPU Farm renders the screen and streams it to your PC and then your M/K input is sent back to the Farm and the Farm renders the next screen etc but depending on your net speed it seems there would have to be some lag. If the mobility of a laptop is a consideration then how would you get the bandwidth necessary wherever you go?

Even then I looked at what it would cost me. I game on average 15 hours a week and taking the 1060 tier pricing that would come to about $975 a year. I could buy a gaming PC for that much. If the games are cheaper to initially purchase then that would offset the yearly fee somewhat but that's unknown right now. I suppose Publishers would charge a little less if customers were merely renting their game but how much less?

I thought the big grin was clue enough for sarcasm...

 

[Prima.Vera]

I must be missing something. Can't you play those types of games on anything? You wouldn't need a GTX 1060 GPU for that. I'm thinking this is intended for triple A games and then I wonder about the lag. The GPU Farm renders the screen and streams it to your PC and then your M/K input is sent back to the Farm and the Farm renders the next screen etc but depending on your net speed it seems there would have to be some lag. If the mobility of a laptop is a consideration then how would you get the bandwidth necessary wherever you go?

Even then I looked at what it would cost me. I game on average 15 hours a week and taking the 1060 tier pricing that would come to about $975 a year. I could buy a gaming PC for that much. If the games are cheaper to initially purchase then that would offset the yearly fee somewhat but that's unknown right now. I suppose Publishers would charge a little less if customers were merely renting their game but how much less?

Even if they make the service to include ANY game for free (including game rent), is still too much for 1$/H

 

[64K]

I thought the big grin was clue enough for sarcasm...

My bad.

Even if they make the service to include ANY game for free (including game rent), is still too much for 1$/H

I doubt that Publishers would go for that. If the GPU Farm charged $1 an hour and there was no up front cost to purchase the game then the revenue would have to be split in some way between the Farm and the Publisher. I don't have access to data on how much the average person plays a game but let's assume it's around 20 hours and they generate $20 revenue per game. If the Farm and the Publisher split that 50/50 then the Publisher gets $10 for their triple A game. Right now if they sell it on Steam for $60 and Valve takes their 30% cut then the Publisher makes $42 on the game. It might be argued that more people would buy the game if they were risking only $20 rather than $60 but I doubt it would make up the difference for the Publisher.

I just don't see the incentive for the Publisher to involve themselves in this model at all so I'm just looking at the GPU Farm as an add on cost and for me that would be around $975 a year for the 1060 tier or $1,950 a year for the 1080 tier for my average 15 hours a week gaming.

 

[bug]

Even if they make the service to include ANY game for free (including game rent), is still too much for 1$/H

Well, most single player games go for $60 and offer about 30 hours of game play (some with replay value, some without). And online games either require a subscription or come with microtransactions. Imho $1/h may make sense to some.

Now, some additional food for thought: if I buy a game to play at home on my desktop, will I need an additional license to play through GeForce Now on my laptop when I'm on the move?

 

[kruk]

Well, most single player games go for $60 and offer about 30 hours of game play (some with replay value, some without).

Really? Maybe RPGs, but for the rest I would say the average length of modern SP campaigns is way less than 10 hours.

 

[Xzibit]

First post updated with "The $25 for 20 hours price is for a GTX 1060-class graphics card. For GTX 1080 performance, the same $25 will buy you only 10 hours of playtime."

Judging by the GeForce Now Shield service requirements

Connectivity Requirements

GeForce NOW streaming quality automatically adjusts to the speed of your broadband connection.
10 Megabits per second – Required broadband connection speed
20 Megabits per second – Recommended for 720p 60 FPS quality
50 Megabits per second – Recommended for 1080p 60 FPS quality
< 60ms ping time to one of six NVIDIA datacenters world-wide

I'm guessing

GTX 1060-Class graphics card = 720p
GTX 1080 performance = 1080p

UPDATE:

That should start around March, and will be limited to the continental US at first. It will run on Windows and Mac. A 25Mbps download connection is needed to play the games.

The more you play PC games, the better it becomes to simply buy a gaming-capable system than it is to pay for GeForce Now. At best, this is a system for enthusiast players on the go, but generally when you're traveling, your bandwidth isn't good enough for normal video streaming, let alone what GeForce Now likely requires.

 

[bug]

Judging by the GeForce Now Shield service requirements



I'm guessing

GTX 1060-Class graphics card = 720p
GTX 1080 performance = 1080p

I fail to see the connection between resolution and video card type.

 

[kanecvr]

this is dumb on so many levels.

 

[Prima.Vera]

this is dumb on so many levels.

For now yes, but in the future....
And starting with US only first, now that's dumb on so many level.
IMO they should have start in with North/Eastern European or East Asian countries like Japan, S. Korea, Hong Kong, where the infrastructure is ready and 200Mbps is mainstream for years, and 1Gbps getting cheap fast. I mean for people rocking 1440p monitors, or more, they don't want to pay those kind of money for lower res gaming.

 

[kanecvr]

For now yes, but in the future....
And starting with US only first, now that's dumb on so many level.
IMO they should have start in with North/Eastern European or East Asian countries like Japan, S. Korea, Hong Kong, where the infrastructure is ready and 200Mbps is mainstream for years, and 1Gbps getting cheap fast. I mean for people rocking 1440p monitors, or more, they don't want to pay those kind of money for lower res gaming.

Well I like owning my own hardware and software and tinkering with it - so this subscription based crap is of no interest to me. And it's also pretty expensive. For 20-29$ you can get many of these games on sale from steam, and play them whenever you want, providing you own the hardware.