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

71–80 of 198 posts

Re: GeForce Now: A Review

#71

Post by sylens »

keyle wrote: post #53
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.

I first tried it with my iPhone and iPad last year and wasn’t impressed. They supposedly did some big update in the spring as well as lord of optimization work for Edge on the Steam Deck, where it feels great.

Re: GeForce Now: A Review

#72

Post by jeffybefffy519 »

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…

It seems strange that some games dont support GeForce Now because in theory it takes a PC game and makes it more like a console, which is to say it makes it harder for people to cheat. This would be huge in certain titles whereby cheating is rampant and hard to control.

Re: GeForce Now: A Review

#73

Post by theptip »

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…

If they can get this platform right it seems like this model solves one of the major complaints about Stadia, that you don't own the games.

I made a quick search and GFN seemed to have all of the recent major new games and most of the old classics (4/5 old indie games I searched for); is it really that bad?

Any game more than 5 years old runs fine on my existing rig, if this service lets me avoid buying a new GPU while still owning the games in my Steam library then it's pretty amazing in my book.

I can see the other use-case is "play any game on a laptop" in which case the holes in the back-catalog could be more problematic, but I think they will go far just enabling people to play AAA and new indie games without a dedicated rig.

Re: GeForce Now: A Review

#74

Post by blibble »

KaoruAoiShiho wrote: post #66
nordsieck wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I suspect it's an unfair test

they should be comparing the same input/output hardware with the xbox

then only switching out the xbox for a PC connected to the same inputs/output

what would be terrible: comparing xbox plugged into TV+controller with geforce now running on a PC with keyboard+mouse+PC monitor

the numbers don't make sense otherwise

Re: GeForce Now: A Review

#75

Post by boltzmann_brain »

sp332 wrote: post #28
cmeacham98 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have vouched for this comment, but you should be aware your account is shadowbanned and every single comment you make is automatically marked dead.

And it's been that way since their very first comment was flagged dead in 2017. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15858411 If you write to the contact email address (at the bottom of the page here), maybe they'll unban you.

No post body was provided.

Re: GeForce Now: A Review

#76

Post by akkartik »

chatmasta wrote: post #31

GeForce Now is great for simulation games like Factorio or Civilization. Unfortunately 2K Games decided to arbitrarily restrict users of GeForce Now from playing Civilization VI, even with a licensed copy from the Steam store. In the beginning, it worked great. I could play on a giant map with 13 AI civilizations who completed their turns in a few seconds. And my laptop didn’t sound like an airplane. I’m still bitter…

Sounds like they don't need to care what you think :) The only way to influence these companies is to vote with your dollars.

Re: GeForce Now: A Review

#77

Post by Aeolun »

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…

I don’t really understand this though. I bought the games. What does a publisher have to say about where and or how I play them afterwards? If Nvidea wants to provide me with a cloud computer at a certain price then they should have any say in that.

Re: GeForce Now: A Review

#78

Post by sascha_sl »

gherkinnn wrote: post #36

I played a couple of slowish action games like the Metro series on GeForce Now and couldn’t be happier. Tons of games from my old Steam library, all on my MBP. No more separate gaming rig required. A CoD campaign should work just as well, but I don’t trust it to be fast enough for competitive MP or Doom 2016. Stadia does not exist and Shadow PC had an eternal waiting list.

Shadow is now available the same day, probably because they almost doubled the price.

Re: GeForce Now: A Review

#79

Post by rdtwo »

KaoruAoiShiho wrote: post #21
rdtwo wrote: post #10

I found that it worked really well on the free tier. There are hiccups and i can’t tell why my isp gives me 1-5% packet loss but I really like that it kicks me out after an hour so I have to have reasonable play sessions. Wait times are rare the service is too good for a free tier

It's true, I agree, the 1 hour limit is a feature not a pain point lol.

It’s one of the reasons I didn’t upgrade I like that it cuts me off and at least makes me decide if I want to continue.

Re: GeForce Now: A Review

#80

Post by bschwindHN »

KaoruAoiShiho wrote: post #19

GFN is tested to be faster than native consoles in terms of input latency. https://imgur.com/TzPnCLs People are talking about turn based games but my experience is that it's flawless and indistinguishable from native in twitch games like fortnite and counterstrike. But then again I live on the East Coast pretty close to a datacenter and I'm on fiber, so obviously this won't be the case for people in rural areas. But…

I'm having trouble understanding this part - GFN being faster than a console for latency. Is it simply the particular game delaying actions in an arbitrary way? Are the GFN machines just _that_ much beefier that they simulate and render a frame significantly faster than a console?

It would be interesting to see a pipeline diagram of some sort, breaking down the total time for each stage of the test, to see where the console is falling behind.

Post reply on HN