this post was submitted on 07 Nov 2024
75 points (98.7% liked)

PC Gaming

8556 readers
425 users here now

For PC gaming news and discussion. PCGamingWiki

Rules:

  1. Be Respectful.
  2. No Spam or Porn.
  3. No Advertising.
  4. No Memes.
  5. No Tech Support.
  6. No questions about buying/building computers.
  7. No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
  8. No Let's Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
  9. No off-topic posts/comments.
  10. Use the original source, no clickbait titles, no duplicates. (Submissions should be from the original source if possible, unless from paywalled or non-english sources. If the title is clickbait or lacks context you may lightly edit the title.)

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
all 24 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] circuitfarmer@lemmy.sdf.org 24 points 6 days ago

The endgame of all these subscription services is always the same. They make you reliant, and then they jack prices and reduce service.

At this point, there are enough exemplars that anyone still buying in is just not paying attention.

[–] NOT_RICK@lemmy.world 22 points 6 days ago (2 children)

My buddy was toying with investing in this service. I cautioned him that he’d be a the mercy of a company that isn’t at all consumer friendly. Case and point

[–] callouscomic@lemm.ee 4 points 6 days ago (1 children)

An expense or purchase is not an investment.

[–] hedgehog@ttrpg.network 3 points 6 days ago (1 children)

How so? The games aren’t purchased on GeForce Now and he could just cancel his subscription if they changed the service in a way he didn’t like.

[–] NOT_RICK@lemmy.world 12 points 6 days ago (1 children)

He doesn’t have the hardware to support non-streaming so he’d effectively have no way of playing them if the service continued to get worse. I suggested he pay upfront for hardware that can play the games he wants without being dependent on nvidia

[–] hedgehog@ttrpg.network 5 points 6 days ago (1 children)

That’s fair, but he would be able to play the games in the meantime. And since hardware generally gets cheaper as time passes, if he could set aside more than the subscription fee each month to save for his own hardware, he’d be able to game in the meantime. And if he ever had to cancel it, he’d be closer to being able to buy his own hardware than he is today - meaning more time total spent gaming.

[–] NOT_RICK@lemmy.world 3 points 6 days ago (1 children)
[–] vulgarcynic@sh.itjust.works 2 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Worth considering he could also use GeForce now while saving for a Steam Deck. Used ones go on sale for under $300 pretty frequently.

[–] NOT_RICK@lemmy.world 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

I actually suggested he get a deck instead, which he is considering.

[–] vulgarcynic@sh.itjust.works 2 points 4 days ago

It's a fantastic option at this point. I've been a GeForce Now user since 15 or 16 (whenever they launched the ShieldTV beta) and it's.... ok? You can still run it on deck as well of there's any concern.

[–] 9point6@lemmy.world 13 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Genuinely when there was actually some competition in this space, GeForce NOW was actually the consumer friendly one

Guess we have another case study in why competition results in worse outcomes for the customer in its eventual conclusion

[–] Dudewitbow@lemmy.zip 1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

i mean its not like Microsofts XCloud is an unusable service. they just have a completely different monetization approach.

[–] 9point6@lemmy.world 4 points 6 days ago (1 children)

The big win for GeForce NOW was you could fire up games from your steam library—you didn't need to directly invest in a service which might die for your ownership of a game

[–] Dudewitbow@lemmy.zip 1 points 6 days ago

more or less yes, that was its main advantage, but most of the cloud doesnt really compete there.

Shadow cloud gaming is an example that competes with nvidia on that front if game ownership is part of your concern, but its not the main concern for all cloud services.

[–] Sunshine@lemmy.ca 8 points 5 days ago

This is why I dont care about game streaming. These corpos want us more reliant on them so they can suck out more money.

[–] breakfastmtn@lemmy.ca 9 points 6 days ago (1 children)

This fucking sucks, even if 100 hrs/month isn't crazy unreasonable.

[–] Sunshine@lemmy.ca 2 points 5 days ago

It will be 90 eventually.

[–] sunzu2@thebrainbin.org 4 points 6 days ago

deny the parasite profit. exhibit 2109325897

[–] Fizz@lemmy.nz 1 points 6 days ago

This could be reasonable depending on the limit. I think 1 hour limit for free tier is generous, 6 hour limit for medium tier is reasonable if most users play less than 6 hours per session. But 8 hours for the top tier sucks balls and is a major scam.

[–] SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world -1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

There’s probably a small portion of people that just leave it on so they never have to wait in queue to get back on.

[–] MangoPenguin@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 6 days ago (1 children)

An AFK kick seems simple enough to stop most of those situations.

[–] SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world 1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Mouse wiggler, auto clicker, not hard to bypass any of those.

Yeah some people would do that.