Nvidia rolls out game streaming on a GTX 1080 cloud for $2.50 an hour

[Bacon1]

customers get eight hours free on a GTX 1060 stream or four hours on a GTX 1080 stream. After that, it will cost $25 for 20 hours on the 1060 or 10 hours on the 1080.

http://www.polygon.com/2017/1/5/14176032/geforce-now-1080-1060

Note: You have to own the games to play

 

[Det0x]

GeForce Now, which formerly only worked on Nvidia’s Shield devices, is now compatible with most Windows- and Mac-based desktop PCs and laptops, according to the press release.

To use the service, a customer just has to download the GeForce Now app to their local machine and connect to a GeForce GTX virtual PC.

Once connected, they can install games from “popular digital game stores -- like Steam, Battle.net, Origin, Uplay and GOG -- and start playing.” Free-to-play games like League of Legends or World of Tanks can also be installed directly from their respective websites.

No thanks, i will rather play with my drum

 

[HurleyBird]

Hahahaha. No.

 

[MrTeal]

It'd be interesting to give it a try. If it actually does produce results similar to having a GTX1080 in your own machine, it would be pretty attractive to someone who just wants to play the occasional game on Ultra, but doesn't game enough justify the cost or the hassle of maintaining and upgrading a system.

 

[Ken g6]

$10/month, any game, any time, no extra charges, or no deal. (Oh, and I'd demand the ability to play on Linux too.)

Looks like they have none of my bases covered.

 

[thilanliyan]

If it was like $20 per month and you didn't have to own the game, that might be attractive.

 

[crisium]

Steep price.

Enjoy the input lag, and compression if your/their internet is bumbling. Won't the compression sort of defeat the point of better graphics, especially those on low bandwidth connections? I.e, if I'm paying double for 1080 over 1060, I expect to clearly see the higher settings and not compression artifacts. I guess someone who has used the service will have to chime in.

 

[MrTeal]

Wow, you guys are a tough crowd. $20/month or less for unlimited play and you don't have to own the games? That'd be a sweet deal in a lot of cases even if you needed to provide the gaming PC yourself.

 

[faseman]

Wow, you guys are a tough crowd. $20/month or less for unlimited play and you don't have to own the games? That'd be a sweet deal in a lot of cases even if you needed to provide the gaming PC yourself.

Did you even bother to read? You need to already own the games. You're paying the good old nvidia tax to play games you already own.

 

[HurleyBird]

And it's $25 dollars per 10 hours for the GTX 1080 equivalent (20 hours for GTX 1060), not per month.

This is so laughably dead on arrival that I have no idea how Nvidia can think they can succeed with it. Are they actually that arrogant? Do they think consumers are stupid enough to go for this?

 

[MrTeal]

Did you even bother to read? You need to already own the games. You're paying the good old nvidia tax to play games you already own.

Did you?

$10/month, any game, any time, no extra charges, or no deal. (Oh, and I'd demand the ability to play on Linux too.)

Looks like they have none of my bases covered.

If it was like $20 per month and you didn't have to own the game, that might be attractive.

 

[DidelisDiskas]

So if you already own a high requirement game, you probably already have a pc that can play it. To top it off, one can forget about leisurely play sessions, at least not when your money is trickling down like that. I'm not sure how this makes sense, but there seem to be a lot of people who buy in game items for much more than this, so nvidia probably figured that there are enough suckers for this to be profitable. I'm also pretty sure they will find some way to include advertisements in the gameplay sessions as this service gets more broad appeal.

 

[Erenhardt]

We had that already. In fact, we had batter, but it was still not good enough.
http://www.geek.com/games/onlive-pricing-announced-and-its-expensive-1264822/

$5 a month + $4 to $6 for a weekend (3 days) access to a game ( or $7 to $9 for 5 day access?) You could get 20+ hours in 3 days during weekend. So event if you only play two weekends in month, it costs you 5+6+6=$17.

NV money grab is 50% more expensive than that, even if you will play free to play games. Add the actual game cost and the value is simply terrible.

 

[zinfamous]

It's not April, is it?

 

[Insomniator]

Haha, games don't even look that much better on ultra. Would rather own a 1050 and play everything on medium...

What a joke.

 

[zinfamous]

Did you?

Wat? you are quoting comments that suggest alternatives to this offer that "might" be reasonable to the people suggesting them. What you are criticizing people (eh, for criticizing) is not the actual service here. You need to read the details.

 

[Rifter]

The bandwidth requirements to get uncompressed video would be out of this world. Cause no one in their right mind is going to pay these prices for compressed sub par video. You would need fiber to make this even slightly feasible.
And chances are good if you are paying for a fiber internet connection you probably can spring for a $200 GPU.

Not to mention the input lag will make most games unplayable

 

[MrTeal]

Wat? you are quoting comments that suggest alternatives to this offer that "might" be reasonable to the people suggesting them. What you are criticizing people (eh, for criticizing) is not the actual service here. You need to read the details.

I'm not criticising anyone, it was a lighthearted comment saying it's a tough room. I know it's not the actual service, as I said even outside of nVidia's service it would be a sweet deal if for $10 or $20 a month I could get unlimited play on any game on Steam.

 

[Bacon1]

Not to mention the input lag will make most games unplayable

People don't even like the input lag from streaming inhouse using steam link or similar.

But yes Onlive and one other company tired and failed this. Sony ended up buying Onlive iirc not sure what ever happened to it.

 

[thilanliyan]

Playstation Now happened I think.

 

[psolord]

So in order to play Witcher 3 with all DLC's side missions etc, you must pay the equivalent of three GTX 1080s, one GTX 1080ti, a Vega BD, one Ryzen, one Kaby and one week paid vacation in Dubai with three hookers per night.

Good deal.

 

[cfenton]

I could see this being good for people who only play a few games a year or people who have no interest in owning a desktop. You could pay $50 and play through most games on a 1080 or $25 and play through one on a 1060. I would have done that to play Starcraft 2 back when I didn't have a gaming PC for a while. Of course, I haven't used their streaming service, so that could be a major deal breaker if it's not good.

 

[tviceman]

If you travel for work with an IGP and only need 10-15 hours a month to access your steam/origin library or if you're a few months without a gaming PC it's a good stop gap alternative.

As an every day service it'd be very expensive.

 

[Arachnotronic]

Don't like streaming. Just build a proper gaming PC, it's not that expensive.

 

[zinfamous]

I could see this being good for people who only play a few games a year or people who have no interest in owning a desktop. You could pay $50 and play through most games on a 1080 or $25 and play through one on a 1060. I would have done that to play Starcraft 2 back when I didn't have a gaming PC for a while. Of course, I haven't used their streaming service, so that could be a major deal breaker if it's not good.

$50 gets you 20 hours of play on a 1080.

But you also have to buy the game. ...so that's well, anywhere from $51-120 to play a modern, new game....for 20 hours. There aren't a lot of games out there that you can complete in under 20 hours. there's a few, sure, but twenty hours @ $50 isn't going to get you more than 2 games with any kind of salvageable playtime.

...I guess I just don't get what this is supposed to serve. That travel option with always-spotty hotel WiFi? ...I guess?