Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

GeForce Now: A Review

whatever.scalzi.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 198 posts

Re: GeForce Now: A Review

#51

Post by blibble »

KaoruAoiShiho wrote: post #40
Quikinterp wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is a crazy amount of input lag 80ms on every single input doesn't sound fun to me for a game with constant motion

The chart I posted is tested using a very exacting tool and even the 3090 has a 30ms latency on 120hz and that's about as good as it gets. So you shouldn't take these numbers in a vacuum but more comparatively. GFN on 120hz is better than a 3060 on native in 60hz. The tool tests time from button click to muzzle flash. It's not a 80ms delay on every motion, this is the total latency including the time the game takes t…

only peasants are playing at 120hz in 2022!

Re: GeForce Now: A Review

#52

Post by beebeepka »

snarfy wrote: post #47

I might be a bit too hardcore for this product. I play FPS like Quake casually but somewhat competitively. Ever millisecond matters to me. It's probably quite compelling for games where latency is not as important.

I guess the experience would be comparable to playing Quake back in the olden days. Quake 3 prior to late CPMA netcode was quite bad even at 50ms.

Re: GeForce Now: A Review

#53

Post by keyle »

sylens wrote: post #48

>> While GeForce Now supports a large number of my games on Steam, it doesn’t support them all. It gives me access to 88 out of my over 400 purchased games, with the emphasis being on more recent and/or more popular games. This is going to be what ends up hamstringing the service in the long run. When GeForce Now first came out, you could play a much larger catalog of titles; publishers then caught wind of this and s…

When I started using the xbox cloud gaming, I thought it was wishful thinking, a gimmick. Boy was I wrong. It's absolutely mind blowing.

You do notice artefacts when you move fast in FPS type games but you even forget about it most of the time (fully wired internet) as it mostly occurs on the orbits of the screen, where you don't necessarily focus. For most games it's hard to notice unless you look for it.

Re: GeForce Now: A Review

#54

Post by boppo1 »

taftster wrote: post #45

I tried it over the end-of-year holiday break with my 3 boys to play Guild Wars 2 from our Macs. It sucked down over our 1.2 TB of Xfinity bandwidth within maybe just a day's worth of playing. If we would have continued, I would have easily hit the $100 additional bandwidth fee and decided we had better stop before I broke the bank. I couldn't figure out how to reduce the video stream bandwidth with any of the settin…

Who is your ISP?

Re: GeForce Now: A Review

#55

Post by aaomidi »

sylens wrote: post #48

>> While GeForce Now supports a large number of my games on Steam, it doesn’t support them all. It gives me access to 88 out of my over 400 purchased games, with the emphasis being on more recent and/or more popular games. This is going to be what ends up hamstringing the service in the long run. When GeForce Now first came out, you could play a much larger catalog of titles; publishers then caught wind of this and s…

This is also why nvidia should just give a Linux machine mode as well. No licensing fees, let people play whatever they want.

Re: GeForce Now: A Review

#56

Post by inerte »

sylens wrote: post #48

>> While GeForce Now supports a large number of my games on Steam, it doesn’t support them all. It gives me access to 88 out of my over 400 purchased games, with the emphasis being on more recent and/or more popular games. This is going to be what ends up hamstringing the service in the long run. When GeForce Now first came out, you could play a much larger catalog of titles; publishers then caught wind of this and s…

+1 for Xbox Cloud.

Easy to use and the games are already there. I am not a gamer anymore, I occasionally play here and there, perhaps couple hours once or twice a week. Sometimes nothing for days, then a Saturday playing 6 hours.

One thing that Xbox Cloud did for me is to eliminate buyers remorse or thinking I have to try a game a little bit more because I paid money for it. If I don't like something, I just move to the next - in fact, sometimes I think that's actually _too_ easy and I wonder if I stick for a while the gameplay won't actually get better.

Anyway, for $15 a month you have an Xbox ready in 10 seconds and dozens (hundreds?) of games at your fingertips... the value is ridiculously high. I can't see myself actually buying a console and paying $10-$60 for just one single game.

edit: Think about it: you have $60 and a game you want to play is on Xbox Cloud. You can either buy the game (supposing you already have the console) or have access to ALL of cloud games for 4 months. It's a no-brainer!

Also when I have bouts of extended hours at work or when I travelled to Brazil to stay there for a few weeks with my family, I just cancelled the membership and re-started it later. It's so convenient.

Re: GeForce Now: A Review

#57

Post by FrostKiwi »

beebeepka wrote: post #52
snarfy wrote: post #47

I might be a bit too hardcore for this product. I play FPS like Quake casually but somewhat competitively. Ever millisecond matters to me. It's probably quite compelling for games where latency is not as important.

I guess the experience would be comparable to playing Quake back in the olden days. Quake 3 prior to late CPMA netcode was quite bad even at 50ms.

Not really. Input latency is what matters here. Even with great netcode, streaming games just doesn't fit certain genres.

With how many technologies get caked unto the rendering pipeline and CRTs being replaced by slower response time LCDs (unless you pay a premium), you might even argue it got worse compared to the olden days.

Re: GeForce Now: A Review

#58

Post by AceJohnny2 »

Comparatively, I play a fair bit on Google Stadia, a similar Gaming-in-the-cloud service powered by Google.

My experience with Stadia has been pretty great. Since November 2020 I've been playing Destiny 2, an MMO FPS, so perhaps the worst-case latency-requiring kind of game, and it's been pretty great, at least for PvE activities. (PvP has been less great, but perhaps that's more the fault of my aging reflexes than near-imperceptible network latency)

When traveling, I've been playing Destiny on Stadia on an iPad (!) with an Xbox controller paired, using the host Wifi.

That, alone, was enough to sell me on the value of Stadia. I'm gladly paying the $10/mo (half that of GeForce Now) for the Pro tier, which gives me 4k HDR, and a bunch of games free each month.

People like to harp on Stadia, and it's true that their player numbers are low. In fact, a couple of days ago Destiny announced availability on the Epic Games Store, and apparently on Day 1 the number of players via the Epic Games Store outnumbered the number of Stadia players by 10x. There was a promotion on Epic which helped, but still, 10x!

Google has certainly tarnished their brand by killing well-loved products, but I also feel like they're under-promoting what they have. For example, if I try to go to stadia.com right now from this mac/safari, I'll just get a page that says "Stadia requires Chrome", with no promotional content to entice the user.

Re: GeForce Now: A Review

#59

Post by ramesh31 »

It’s almost good enough. Much better than Stadia. I can imagine if your geographical location was close enough, and with fiber gigabit, it would be good enough to never need a gaming rig again (for noncompetitive single player gaming).

Re: GeForce Now: A Review

#60

Post by nordsieck »

blibble wrote: post #49
KaoruAoiShiho wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, it won't match the requirements for very high end competitive gamers. I was just talking empirical results found by Digital Foundry matching consoles. > mouse travels maybe 30-40ms behind my hand That sounds awful. But it reminds me that the chart I posted is tested using a very exacting tool and even the 3090 has a 30ms latency on 120hz and that's about as good as it gets. So you shouldn't take these numbers i…

given GFN is running the same software as you'd run locally (the game), and using the same local hardware (keyboard, mouse, etc) to send the inputs, and then the same local hardware to display the server rendered output (your monitor/TV)... how can be true that GFN doesn't add at least the same input latency as running it locally? unless there's some trick I'm missing it's going to be at least the same (plus the netw…

> and using the same local hardware (keyboard, mouse, etc) to send the inputs, and then the same local hardware to display the server rendered output (your monitor/TV)... how can be true that GFN doesn't add at least the same input latency as running it locally?

Something is a little weird with the numbers as shown. 120hz to 60hz only gains 18ms on PC, but it gains 45ms on xbox. Presumably with the same peripherals, tv, network connection, etc. Not really sure what's going on there.

Post reply on HN