I used GeForce Now to play Valheim for months before deciding to plonk down to build a gaming PC in 2021. It's worth it if you want to dip your toes back into PC gaming!
GeForce Now: A Review
61–70 of 198 posts
Re: GeForce Now: A Review
#62>> 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.
Yeah, I'm surprised that anybody implementing a service like this doesn't have Linux machines available at least as an option for some games. It will never work perfectly for all games, but it works for a high enough fraction that the licensing and resource overhead should make it worthwhile.
Re: GeForce Now: A Review
#63> 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. Jesus Christ, how can it be that bad? Their servers are running Windows, right? I don't see how Nvidia's coverage can be that bad unless they're encumbered by licensing quirks. Even Valve's Proton manages to cover ~75-77% of the Steam store's titles...
Because game vendors think they can double dip. As mentioned in another post, all of the Firaxis games worked brilliantly on GFN, but despite the fact that it's my own copy that I'm playing, in my own Steam account, Firaxis decided that they would remove all of their games from GFN unless they get a payoff.
It's notable that legally Firaxis (and the other sleazy scumbags) largely have no legal basis, but nvidia decided not to make enemies and let them do this.
As a result, I have bought no additional Civ expansions, and will never buy another Firaxis game.
Re: GeForce Now: A Review
#64>> My rural internet connection is 40mbps/sec down in theory — in practice it’s between 25 and 40 depending which second you poll it, and the speed is affected by whether someone is downstairs watching Netflix while I’m upstairs playing a graphics-intensive game. I'm surprised he even bothered trying the service let alone he found it playable. A rural area with 25-40mbps with someone using the internet at the same ti…
25 Mbps is plenty for 1080p60 even for real-time video. Latency is more important. GFN says they can even cram 2560x1600 at 120 FPS into 35 Mbps.
Ultra-low latency is important, but zero packet loss and low jitter is even more important.
I have "on paper" great internet in the SF Bay Area (Monkeybrains), and while I can get 600mpbs symmetrical throughput, the jitter and 0.5% average packet loss (it's a microwave mesh network), game streaming is completely unplayable.
Re: GeForce Now: A Review
#65Earlier 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…
I said same as native console, not the same as the equivalent hardware on PC. If you look at the chart it's comparing different hardware not the same hardware.
The "trick" here is that native devices already have some amount of latency, just they are in an acceptable range for most people. However nvidia can optimize PC hardware to reduce the device's latency such that even with the network latency added it's still faster than the average person's native device. Hope that makes sense.
Re: GeForce Now: A Review
#66Earlier quoted context omitted.
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,…
I'm not entirely sure either but I just go with what Digital Foundry tells me https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jOcFSlniGrw&t=676s
Watch the video yourself.
Re: GeForce Now: A Review
#67Earlier 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…
You're both right. As some SLI/Crossfire enthusiasts found, high fps don't mean much when they're late. Latency is king
Nobody mentioned fps, my post was entirely about latency.
Re: GeForce Now: A Review
#68Re: GeForce Now: A Review
#69Comparatively, 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 n…
>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",
Not exactly encouraging that Googles cares about the service. Google IOT seemed like it had a lot more revenue promise (probably cheaper to host as well), and even that could not survive the graveyard.
Re: GeForce Now: A Review
#70I 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?
Xfinity == Comcast cable