Game Streaming Platforms and Technology (xCloud, PSNow, GeforceNow, Luna) (Rip: Stadia)
- Thread starter lefantome
- Start date
-
- Tags
- cloudwars f facebook
I'm curious what Nvidia's operating costs are for this service, because the last time I launched Destiny2 on GFN it showed I had 16GB VRAM, so presumably that means I'm occupying a 16GB variant of a Tesla (T4?). The idea that for $5/mo I could be tying up that hardware 24/7 doesn't make much sense, especially when contrasted with what it would cost to rent that GPU from the cloud for doing machine learning. If Nvidia mailed that GPU to me for free it would probably be more expensive just from the added cost of electricity by running it locally.
edit: I mean... If this service actually is profitable for what they're charging then I feel like this service would be incredibly valuable even without the game catalog. Being able to remote to a system and use it for things like CAD, UE4/Unity development, QA testing (how does my game work on X/Y/Z GPU?), etc seems like it would be wonderful.
edit: I mean... If this service actually is profitable for what they're charging then I feel like this service would be incredibly valuable even without the game catalog. Being able to remote to a system and use it for things like CAD, UE4/Unity development, QA testing (how does my game work on X/Y/Z GPU?), etc seems like it would be wonderful.
Last edited:
Of course it doesn't, you're only using it for small portions of time. So you have lots of users paying $5/month that are sharing that same GPU at different times.
Frenetic Pony
Veteran
That is indeed the idea behind the economics of it. But it turns out that with console costs so low, subscriptions lasting indefinitely, and the sub costs including costs like needing nearby hardware due to latency and all that bandwidth, streaming isn't really that competitive with consoles *unless* you include the stupid online play costs. In which case it can actually be cheaper.
Thus it's overall good for the consumers as usual, though they'll have to start pricing in that ridiculous online service cost. But once consumers catch on hopefully it'll force console makers to ditch it so they can cost less than streaming.
Dude, stop shitting yourself in the pants while gaming. And at least go shower every once in a while. Destiny may be fun, but there is more to life.
Nvidia returning something of value to pubs. Top games list for each genre that gets displayed within the interface when you are navigating. A time limited demo feature. Allow gamers to watch streams.
Basically do things that can drive game sales through the app.
If pubs can see it’s beneficial to them to have the apps on the service they will have no reason to opt out.
oddly enough, I agree with him. Geforce Now is the best of them all and now they are killing it. Some colleagues of mine who were using it are seeing how the games library is almost non-existent now, when it was incredible when it started.
I could see a service like GFN helping reduce the amount of refunds that occur due to poor performance or stability, especially at the initial launch of new games. This would be useful to the big studios because it would soften some of the perceived risk from pre-ordering PC games sight unseen, especially considering all the premium SKUs they want to upsell. For example, I had nothing but problems with RDR2 after launch and the only thing that prevented me from refunding it was that the time spent troubleshooting took me over the 2 hour limit. The result is that they have a customer left feeling burnt, which not only kills the chance I'll give Rockstar more money with Red Dead Online, but creates a lingering friction for other studios trying to sell me their next big title (Fool me twice... You can't get fooled again.)
Also, I don't think this has been mentioned before but publishers could easily implement IP blocks or implement other identification measures in their "anti-piracy code" to prevent unauthorized access to their games so people have no choice but to comply with the developers since they have full access to the game's source code and can do absolutely anything they wish with it.
tongue_of_colicab
Veteran
I doubt they can do with the source code whatever they want after purchase. E.g. they can't push an update to renders a game unplayable just because they want you to buy the new version of their game. Could they built in VM detection? Probably. Can they tell if its Geforce game streaming or somebody running the game in a VM at home? Maybe. Is there any point in this? doubtfully. If it turns out it is legally now allowed to run a game you purchased on cloud hardware you rent, there is no need to built in any protection as nobody would be using such services. If it turns out running your game on a remote VM is allowed, then blocking that is basically asking to be sued into oblivion.
I still have to hear any solid arguments why running a game in a remote VM would not be allowed/legal. No dev/pub is coming up with any real arguments and the takeaway is its just another money grab because they rather see you double dip for a "local" version and a "cloud" version.
As somebody on some other board put it: "It would be like Netflix telling you to get a separate subscription for each device you want to watch on".
I still have to hear any solid arguments why running a game in a remote VM would not be allowed/legal. No dev/pub is coming up with any real arguments and the takeaway is its just another money grab because they rather see you double dip for a "local" version and a "cloud" version.
As somebody on some other board put it: "It would be like Netflix telling you to get a separate subscription for each device you want to watch on".
Netflix does limit the number of devices at least on some subscription levels.
I doubt users are ever handed down the original source code. It's industry practice to obfuscate the source code to protect the work of authors.
Considering some productivity software like Adobe products transitioned into a subscription model, corporations reserve the right to change their terms and conditions of their software at any given moment.
Developers can implement this since they have access to the original source code and GeForce NOW is also assigned to an IP address to operate on the internet so a developer can definitely detect if a copy is running within an IP address range assigned to Nvidia thus they can easily be blocked. There is a point in this which is until Nvidia can give developers a cut of their fair share then they might as well go to the extreme of implementing a technical solution to prevent Nvidia or the others from unduly benefiting their work.
The rest of what you said is for Congress or the Supreme Court to decide regardless of your legal opinion.
That's a bad analogy, doesn't fit here. It would be close to Netflix only being available on desktop and someone else starts selling service which lets you watch your netflix on other devices too. And doesn't pay Netflix for it.
Actually, there are many 3rd party devices supporting Netflix. Netflix does require some sort of license, but mainly for maintaining quality and copyright enforcement of the video, not necessarily for payment. Netflix wants to be available on as many devices as possible.
Furthermore, Netflix does not require their users to have different subscription plans for using Netflix on multiple devices, as long as it's not being used simultaneously. For example, I can logged in to as many as devices as I like, but I can only watch on four devices at the same time with my subscription plan.
Other services do, though. I know Vudu has a registered device cap. I think Amazon Video does as well. You can deactivate devices pretty easily in those cases, though.
The ~40k Steam games should all be getting their fair share cut of the $5/mo. Nvidia should be getting payment from developers for devrel and driver updates that allows their games to work well. Both Nvidia and developers should be getting a cut of what I pay my ISP, given that the ISP is charging for a service designed expressly for the purpose of transmitting third party IP.
Or... developers could be enthused with the prospect that a third party company is offering a service at no charge (to them) that can grow their available customer market by an order of magnitude or more.
Or... developers could be enthused with the prospect that a third party company is offering a service at no charge (to them) that can grow their available customer market by an order of magnitude or more.
tongue_of_colicab
Veteran
I don't understand why some people keep claiming devs/pubs should get their "fair share". Do they pay Intel/AMD/Nvidia for building hardware their customers can play games? Do they pay Intel/AMD/Nvidia/MS for drivers and driver fixes that fix their games (because they don't)?
Why should they be entitled to money Nvidia or any other company earns by renting out compute time on a remote pc instead of selling the hardware to you directly?
What exactly is "fair" about devs/pubs feeling they have a right to a part of Nvidia's earnings?
Why should they be entitled to money Nvidia or any other company earns by renting out compute time on a remote pc instead of selling the hardware to you directly?
What exactly is "fair" about devs/pubs feeling they have a right to a part of Nvidia's earnings?
Similar threads
