Live data from Hacker News

GeForce Now: A Review

whatever.scalzi.com

171–180 of 198 posts

Re: GeForce Now: A Review

#171
Cloud streaming will probably never be my preferred option, but the tech has gotten to an impressive place. Microsoft’s implementation is amazing. The thing I find less useful about it is that it requires a good internet connection. And where I have a good internet connection is home. At home, the advantages of a cloud streaming platform are minimal, so I am not sure if this will ever be for me, though I can see a world where this is preferred to many consumers because they have no up front cost of a device.

Re: GeForce Now: A Review

#172
This crap looks like the next step towards total personal computing annihilation by SaaS. I hope I'll be dead before computers will be turned into stupid terminals forced to download and store everything remotely, lacking even the hardware needed to render graphics in favor of capabilities that can be used only to show what is served from elsewhere. That will be the future if we don't leave that path asap.

Re: GeForce Now: A Review

#173

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 n…

> near-imperceptible network latency

> I play on a tablet

> Xbox controller

None of these instill any confidence in me that Stadia has tolerable input latency. Geforce Now certainly doesn't. A mouse has a much lower tolerable input latency than a controller. Then again gimped experiences like aiming on a controller are just as bad so you do you.

> 4K HDR

HDR could mean a lot of things. Geforce Now substantially cuts the color depth even when using only a small fraction of the available bandwidth. It's night and day. I'm sure Stadia does the same (otherwise adds more lag).

Re: GeForce Now: A Review

#174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is latency avoided? I've not paid attention to streaming games or looked how it works. If your mouse input needs to go via the internet to control the 3d character on screen, how is there not a noticeable lag compared to a local rendering of the game?

I think networks are simply that good now.

They aren't. The people who advocate stream gaming are precisely like this guy in the article who bought 400 games and never played any of them.

Re: GeForce Now: A Review

#175

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…

> my experience is that it's flawless and indistinguishable from native in twitch games like fortnite and counterstrike

This is just your opinion and it's wrong for at least 50% of humans. Nobody with a mouse will find fortnite or cs playable with 40ms added lag. 40ms lag is higher than the mere 16.66ms you get from going from 60 FPS to 60 Hz vsync (that is, running the monitor at 60Hz and enabling vsync. it will be the same framerate but much laggier). In the 60 FPS days, EVERYONE complained about this mere 16.66ms added difference. This included people who just started playing their very first video game one day ago. On Twitch, still everyone notices vsync and turns it off once they figure out that it is the cause of the shitty sluggy mouse feel.

Your next idea

> 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.

Is also utterly wrong. You don't need "le graphics pipeline" to make input lag noticeable. Just plug in a monitor with 16ms input lag to your computer and you will notice that the mouse is annoyingly difficult to position over anything in the Windows or Linux desktop.

OR another explanation: Make a program to move a small shape around the screen using the mouse position. It waits until the monitor is about to start scanning out a frame from the framebuffer and only then draws the shapes new position in the framebuffer where the mouse is at that time (since it's just a blank image with a small shape it's near instant to do this in the CPU, a few microseconds). If you use a monitor without lag (like a CRT) and it's running at 60Hz, that means there is now a total input lag of up to 16.66ms (accounting for the time between frames), and perhaps 1ms if you run the mouse at 1000Hz like you should be doing, then maybe some small delay from the OS. Now if you make this program render the slow vsync way, i.e, rendering the frame to temporary memory and doing nothing for the next 16.66ms then swapping it to the framebuffer once the monitor is about to scan out the next frame, this adds another 16.66ms of input lag. And it will feel terrible.

Ergo, getting far greater than 16.66ms lag caused by some network streaming service will NOT magically feel less laggy than native hardware. Also the idea that optimizing small isolated components randomly will fix input lag is laughable, it's all about timing. Almost no lag is caused by CPU (or GPU core) bottlenecks, aside from the straight up most basic problem of low framerate.

Re: GeForce Now: A Review

#176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>GAME YOU OWN You can't own games. You can only get a license to play one.

I have no idea why you are being downvoted. As much as I wish otherwise, what you say is entirely correct. In some limited sense it is kind possible to own some games, the ones that exist on physical media and play on devices that do not require online connectivity. But even in the case of GOG, which sells DRM free games you can download, you aren't really the "owner" of anything tangible - you have a license to use…

Owning physical media is not the same. You still need a license to be able to play it.

Re: GeForce Now: A Review

#177

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.

That’s true, but this is an easy cognitive dissonance for me to resolve, since I can think of it like paying to recover the handful of weeks I would have lost playing Civ over the past two years :)

Besides, I’m mad at 2K, not Nvidia. And I already bought the license for Civ, so it’s not like I can withhold money from 2K (I’d even pay for another license if it was an option to run it on the cloud - just let me do it).

GeForce Now itself is outstanding, and the technical quality of its product is exceptional. I suppose I could be mad at them for respecting questionably legal opt-out requests from publishers, but I understand their strategic reasons for cooperating with those.

And I suppose I’m only assuming 2K is the party at fault. I wish 2K would share its side of the story - maybe Nvidia tried a shakedown and asked 2K to pay for inclusion in its catalog? I doubt it though – the nature of GeForce Now means it supports any game by default, and requires effort to prohibit one. Given the obscure titles available in the GeForce Now library, I assume inclusion is opt-out by default, and 2K made their choice for whatever misinformed reason.

Re: GeForce Now: A Review

#178

I've used it for about 14 months extensively - I wasn't able to upgrade my rig when cyberpunk 2077 came out. It was brilliant - I played the game at max settings, looked beautiful, not a care in The world. Then I used it too for some turn based / strategy / rpg games as I could play them on laptop, desktop etc, and it was easy to try games without bothering with downloading and local storage. It was sufficiently exce…

How is latency avoided? I've not paid attention to streaming games or looked how it works. If your mouse input needs to go via the internet to control the 3d character on screen, how is there not a noticeable lag compared to a local rendering of the game?

Partially it's modern speedy networks; but partially it's also the player.

There are people who need (and people who believe they need) 165HZ or heck 240HZ screen, 8000Hz Mouse, and notice every millisecond of lag. And there are people like me and apparently Scalzi :-).

My experience with GeforceNow was perfect. I'm sure somebody with better reflexes and more into competitive multiplayer would find it complete unacceptable.

Re: GeForce Now: A Review

#179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>GAME YOU OWN You can't own games. You can only get a license to play one.

I own a game called "Project Rito". It's a VR prototype where your arms are wings and you use them to sail on updrafts, occasionally allowing yourself to drop freely to fire your bow. I just need to improve the graphics a bit as it's mostly place-holder stuff for now. It's not a great game(yet), but god's damnit it's mine! .... Wait, it's made in unity, I don't really own that game either, do I?

You're also using concepts and tradmarks from Zelda and the Youtube channel for "Project Rito" appears to be for somebody else's cosplay, so it sounds like you own a little slice of a game.

I'd like to play it though. Maybe "Project Birdperson"? Nobody would name a character "Birdperson".

Re: GeForce Now: A Review

#180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have no idea why you are being downvoted. As much as I wish otherwise, what you say is entirely correct. In some limited sense it is kind possible to own some games, the ones that exist on physical media and play on devices that do not require online connectivity. But even in the case of GOG, which sells DRM free games you can download, you aren't really the "owner" of anything tangible - you have a license to use…

Owning physical media is not the same. You still need a license to be able to play it.

Indeed, but on non-connected pieces of physical hardware that use physical media, the experience is similar enough to "owning" something that generally thinking about such things in terms of "ownership" makes sense (even if it's just a convenient fiction).

In the modern era though, with DRM and phoning home etc, it's much more obvious that you "own" nothing.

Post reply on HN