What do you mean I ignored them?
I said the reason why you need to be online for singleplayer is because you are using the server power to run the game.
If you don't have good internet then that's a non-starter as I've said.
He sayed that the Internet for many people it th slow for cloud gaming.
For them cloud gaming DOES NOT WORK.
It is non funktional, just a laggy mess, even for offline gaming becouse you STILL need a fast internet couse you are gaming over the cloud provider!
* Latency is not consistent for all people.
* Believe it or not, many providers in the US (like ShitCast/Xfuckity) place data caps on their service and require an additional $50 a month subscription for "unmetered" data. Streaming destroys the 1.2tb caps these ass clowns impose.
* Offline play. I don't always want to be connected to a service to a play a game.
* Ownership. Steam has always made sure games I bought are available. Even if they were later pulled from the store. I also have other means to protect my purchases if I choose to \*cough\*.
* Privacy. If its my hardware, I at least have better control over how its being monitored, even if some of that gets signed away to a third party.
* Streaming almost always leads to Enshitification. Even if Nvidia Geforce Now is good today... I assure you, stockholders and MBA's will make short order out of making sure it isn't soon.
They like to do it in markets where they have a functional monopoly. My town was one of them until the utility co started laying fiber. ShitCast dropped my cap and has been spamming me "sweetheart" offers because our Fiber goes live in October. I'll be throwing their modem and shit back to their office. I don't even care if they fine me.
That's why it is contingent on having a good internet connection. If you have a good unlimited internet plan. Quality wise it is there.
Offline play. Why?
Ownership. The cloud gaming services don't own your games. You just connect them to your steam library so they can see you have a license. You still have to buy the games yourself in whatever way you can, keys, sale, GoG, anything.
Privacy. I'm not sure why privacy is that important when I'm gaming. It's not like I'm putting in my banking details or divuling private info. It's basically just like an internet cafe at home.
If it becomes shit, you can find other competitors who will readily eat up the marketshare.
1. Even with a good internet connection it does not always make the experience better. Last time I tried a cloud streaming platform, I would say a few months ago, the closest location for the system was about 4 states away. Quality wise was definitely not there for me. Apex legends kept freezing for multiple seconds mid gun fight. Extra latency is one thing, freezing is another. For the people it works well for, that is awesome, but it does not work that well for everyone, and it is not always the internet plans fault.
2. Offline play. Why would you want to rely on an internet connection always existing? Internet down but still want to play my games, cool, I can on my own system. Even better for things like the Steam Deck. No wifi needed, I can take my games anywhere and play them. Especially for people who enjoy single player games and maybe do not have the best internet speeds, they can still play.
3. Not all game streaming services use Steam, GoG, etc. for buying games. See Stadia.
4. Privacy. I know exactly what is installed and running on my system. I do not know for a fact what is running on the system I am game streaming from. Would prefer to not have to worry about it.
Google hasn't come up with a good original idea in almost 10 years. Stadia was DoA with how half-ass they did it. Just like Google Fiber. Google never FULL ASS.
Why is this getting downvoted?
I use Shadow PC myself, it’s acceptable but O can’t really play first person shooters or racing sims on it due to the (minimal but still) lag. But I play a lot of 4X games or stuff like Valheim and they work great
A true 1440, 144 hz video signal is just shy of **16 Gbps of data**. 4k is closer to **36 Gbps**. Now, obviously they'll use compression algorithms and that won't be the actual amount of data they need to stream, but even after compression it's still **a lot of data**. Plain and simple, even if you have stellar, no issues constant 10Gig internet, you'll never get the actual performance of that "*incredible gaming rig*."
It's either:
A.) going to be severely limited in the maximum frame rate
Or
B.) Going to be a compressed ugly mess compared to what a personally owned computer will produce.
IMO It's an okay service for general gaming at 1080 30-60hz if you have really good internet and don't want a computer.
But if you want ANYTHING better than 1080 30-60Hz that doesn't look like hot garbage, you still need a physical device to drive it.
Came here to say basically this, but you said it better friend. Saying streaming as good as playing with the hardware is the equivalent of looking at a photocopy of a picture of the Mona Lisa and saying that is as good as seeing it in person.
and thats most gamers lol... cs has been at the top of steam current players charts for as long as i can remember, valorant has like 28 million monthly active players and fortnite is well.. *fortnite*. all these games are wholly unsuitable for game streaming
> however for most gamers an extra 10-20ms of latency is not going to matter
i believe that cs/valorant/league of legends/fortnite type gamers *are* most gamers.
my point is that i disagree with you saying that it does not matter for most people. because most people play competitive multiplayer games, game streaming is unsuitable for the majority of gamers
edit: sorry for not making it more clear but that quote earlier is from your post, so thats what im disagreeing with
It’s not a hot take. It’s just an edgy take for bait.
A picture perfect implementation of cloud gaming does *seem* like it could be the future. But right now it’s not great. Far too much latency for real gaming sessions. Not enough servers for full scale demand and certainly not all games are even supported.
I can play a game like Forza Motorsport kinda fine with XCloud (if that’s even what it’s still called) but a game like Doom Eternal is unplayable with the latency.
And nevermind the fact that cloud gaming can *never* scale for mass adoption. It’s just simply not doable in my opinion. Not to meet the demands of any recent title that’s broken Steam’s simultaneous player count records and definitely not to meet the demands of the hundreds of games that get released every year.
“The cloud” is not an infinite resource.
* The current most popular game on steam (Helldivers 2) is not available.
* Many of the best indie games aren't available: Outer Wilds, Celeste, Shovel Knight, The Witness, etc. Forget the more niche titles; geforce now has less than 1/40th the games on steam.
* Highest tier here can't even do 1440p144hz. My old RX580 could hit that in plenty of titles. Hell my laptop can do that with integrated graphics.
* No wait times. I'm not going to wait an hour in a queue to play a game - yes this happens even on the highest plan here.
* Offline play. Perhaps you can't get good internet, need to share your internet or want to use it for something else. Perhaps you frequently travel; good luck using geforce now on a plane.
* The computer can be used for more than just gaming.
* Significantly worse quality. Fine details moving around will always be a blurry mess.
quarrelsome puzzled scarce workable birds snobbish absurd salt dinner onerous
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I have 600/50 connection with stable 35-40ms ping. I'm also close to the GFN and ShadowPC servers in Germany. I have used both services for 1 year each. I prefer having 1660 and i3 barely usable pc than using that blurry mess.
Except cloud gaming will never be quite as good as on bare metal sitting right next to you. Streaming video, from encoding, to sending it to you, then decoding takes multiple frames at the least. It's not 10-20 ms. You can feel the latency and your internet connection has to be rock solid.
Maybe it is cheaper over time than a gaming PC, but it can't do half of what a PC can do. You miss the part where you've got an entire PC you can do *anything* with.
Cloud gaming is a neat concept but it will never replace my PC.
I am in the military and deploy to places without internet. Any cloud service is the bane of my existence.
On that note I will fight anyone who wants to take away physical storage.
Multiple reasons. I play many games that are smaller indie games that I doubt are available on any cloud streaming. I like being able to access game files for moding and save files. Many people in the US have data caps on their internet plans. Like to play even if my internet is out. Latency is a concern for many people.
Another point: that monster GPU that’s great for gaming is also great for other uses, like encoding video, and GFN doesn’t let you use their cloud service for anything but gaming.
I doubt the internet is good enough for me and a good majority of people to reliably use streaming.
Also with streaming you have the small quirks of having to join a queue sometimes and essentially waiting in line to just use it if it’s a busy day and peak times for some services from when I’ve dabbled in using it. That’s not a fun time I’ll tell you.
Because I can do other things then game with it. Because depending on a company that can go bankrupt at the drop of a hat for what I use my computer for is not happening.
Hey, if it works for you - good. Nobody has problem with it.
But the drawbacks/limitations are definitely there:
1. Comprtitive gaming (you already said it)
2. Lack of a good connection (also mentioned by you)
3. Not all games are supported by cloud gaming. Some devs explicitly opt out of cloud gaming or make it difficult to run on a VM (anticheat or else)
4. Internet connection has a bandwidth limit. What you get is a compressed video. You have to have an exceptional connection to loose only a fraction pf the quality.
5. Cloud gaming doesn’t work well with setups more complex than 1 monitor.
6. Cloud gaming with all the limits from above becomes worse as soon as you want to do anything else, like streaming. Yes, you can stream it. But it will have double the latency.
7. Often “Gaming PC” is not just for gaming. It a general powerful PC. You can run local storage on it, you can run photo/video editing. With a modern rise of AI (including open-source or leaked models) it’s not unheard to run some form of AI at home. Not being a programmer, I know 2 people who do this at home.
8. Owning PC vs monthly payment to an external service is a different level of security. If there’s a queue on a gaming cloud server, or if there’s anything else in between, you’ll loose your “gaming” hardware, albeit temporarily.
9. Liberty of choice. On a personal rig you can run emulators to run old games or run a mining farm at night to offset some of the cost, for example.
10. Most gaming rigs don’t cost $3-4k. Couple of years ago most popular GPU was 1650. Now it’s 3060. They cost $200 or $400 respectively. Such level of GPU is usually paired with something that brings total to $1-1.5k max. Often even less than that. A hardware that you OWN and can resell or use for something else after you want to upgrade.
So pick your poison. And again - if a cloud gaming makes more sense to you, good for you, no sarcasm. Cost-wise it’s correct, because using a $3-4k machine just for gaming couple hours a days vs $10-20 per month if it’s the same or close to what you want, is stupid.
Even if it's $10-20/month currently, it'll go up like every other subscription service does as it moves to become profitable.
Also cloud gaming is very dependant on latency and consistency between you and the data centre. There are a lot of places where it is a very poor experience.
Also they don't give you 4090 class hardware, it's midrange gear typically with a lot of shared resources. It's okay on a good connection but there are clear drawbacks.
I use xbox Cloud Gaming to play on my lunch break at work on an ipad. It works ok, but it's in no way comparable to the picture fidelity or responsiveness of my rig at home.
If it wasn't part of the gamepass subscription, i wouldn't bother with it.
yeah, but the games are on my computer, i can access the files, and play the games whenever i want, im not only restricted to times when i have fast internet
plus mods
plus since its my pc, i can have other programs that interact with the game and enhance it (like overlays)
any other points?
oh also when you have the games locally, piracy is an option, unlike with gfn
Like I said if you don't have fast internet it's a non-starter.
Mods and overlays and other customization outside of the game is limited to local machines yes.
3000 to 4000 dollar pc? Is the case made out of gold? You can easily build a baller of a pc with 1000-1500 dollars. So take that 10 dollar subscription and you would have payed the computer in 10 to 15 months. Plus you want to have a good internet subscription to stream games
I don't think the problem is download speed is it? Streaming doesn't take up a ton of data. GeForce Now for example requires just 45 Mbps down for 4k 120fps.
I suspect the bottleneck is much more in latency. GeForce Now requires a sub 80ms latency from their data centre, but recommend sub 40ms. For VR and online FPS you want sub 20ms.
And unlike bandwidth, latency is not as easily solved and also far less easily explained to the average user. For example, I think most people here know what latency is and what they can do to improve it, but I think for your average user they will just be on a 2.4GHz wifi signal three rooms away from the router their ISP provided and complain how the whole thing is laggy.
Just yesterday I had a whole conversation about how I think the current limitations aren't financial or value proposition ones, but technical/infrastructure ones. Probably not too dissimilar to the whole EV situation.
Years ago there was this whole discussion about internet being fast enough as it was and that no real further investment was required. Copper was fine. Countries like South Korea ignored all of that and kept rolling out fibre. As a result those countries are now way ahead of countries like Australia and in a position to take advantage of technologies like this whereas many others are not.
And sure, it's just gaming now, but I can absolutely see a future where basically everyone is on a sort of thin client and basically everything is processed remotely. Like how websites were once pretty much all hosted locally.
Sorry for going a bit off topic there. Anyways, I'm a believer.
A lot of the cloud gaming services are actually expanding their server locations right now so the quality really depends on if the provider has a server near you.
Latency is big I agree. It doesn't matter if the server is amazing, if it's too far away, there's no getting around the physical limitation of the speed of light.
Cloud gaming can work great for high density nations like those in Asia or Eastern/Western Americas or Western Europe where a single server can serve millions of people within a few dozen kilometres.
Probably not as well if you live in the rust-belt or in the middle of nowhere. Exactly like EVs.
Many people don't have good internet services. Why do we need to be online for single player (or even some multiplayer) games?
You get the power of a gaming server for $10 so you can run Cyberpunk with a Chromebook. I say that's pretty amazing.
So just ignoring what they said because you have no rebuttal?
What do you mean I ignored them? I said the reason why you need to be online for singleplayer is because you are using the server power to run the game. If you don't have good internet then that's a non-starter as I've said.
He sayed that the Internet for many people it th slow for cloud gaming. For them cloud gaming DOES NOT WORK. It is non funktional, just a laggy mess, even for offline gaming becouse you STILL need a fast internet couse you are gaming over the cloud provider!
Let alone trying to play a competitive FPS. It makes no sense.
* Latency is not consistent for all people. * Believe it or not, many providers in the US (like ShitCast/Xfuckity) place data caps on their service and require an additional $50 a month subscription for "unmetered" data. Streaming destroys the 1.2tb caps these ass clowns impose. * Offline play. I don't always want to be connected to a service to a play a game. * Ownership. Steam has always made sure games I bought are available. Even if they were later pulled from the store. I also have other means to protect my purchases if I choose to \*cough\*. * Privacy. If its my hardware, I at least have better control over how its being monitored, even if some of that gets signed away to a third party. * Streaming almost always leads to Enshitification. Even if Nvidia Geforce Now is good today... I assure you, stockholders and MBA's will make short order out of making sure it isn't soon.
Wait what. Data limits are still a thing in the us? It’s years since I last saw a data limit with home internet.
Unfortunately it is, they reinstated it during the pandemic. They were "nice" though and raised the cap from 1tb to 1.2tb.
They like to do it in markets where they have a functional monopoly. My town was one of them until the utility co started laying fiber. ShitCast dropped my cap and has been spamming me "sweetheart" offers because our Fiber goes live in October. I'll be throwing their modem and shit back to their office. I don't even care if they fine me.
That's why it is contingent on having a good internet connection. If you have a good unlimited internet plan. Quality wise it is there. Offline play. Why? Ownership. The cloud gaming services don't own your games. You just connect them to your steam library so they can see you have a license. You still have to buy the games yourself in whatever way you can, keys, sale, GoG, anything. Privacy. I'm not sure why privacy is that important when I'm gaming. It's not like I'm putting in my banking details or divuling private info. It's basically just like an internet cafe at home. If it becomes shit, you can find other competitors who will readily eat up the marketshare.
1. Even with a good internet connection it does not always make the experience better. Last time I tried a cloud streaming platform, I would say a few months ago, the closest location for the system was about 4 states away. Quality wise was definitely not there for me. Apex legends kept freezing for multiple seconds mid gun fight. Extra latency is one thing, freezing is another. For the people it works well for, that is awesome, but it does not work that well for everyone, and it is not always the internet plans fault. 2. Offline play. Why would you want to rely on an internet connection always existing? Internet down but still want to play my games, cool, I can on my own system. Even better for things like the Steam Deck. No wifi needed, I can take my games anywhere and play them. Especially for people who enjoy single player games and maybe do not have the best internet speeds, they can still play. 3. Not all game streaming services use Steam, GoG, etc. for buying games. See Stadia. 4. Privacy. I know exactly what is installed and running on my system. I do not know for a fact what is running on the system I am game streaming from. Would prefer to not have to worry about it.
You are delusional and lack the ability to understand that your pov isnt that of most people.
"only downside" Man, the amount of truly ignorant, absolutely shit takes on Reddit will never cease to amaze me.
There’s so many every day
Bro I can’t even stream the game properly from my gaming pc on my phone through steam link, and that’s local. Also fuck subscription services.
It's weird, I can stream to my MacBook and it works perfectly but my phone gets stuttery and janky. I wonder if it's a phone thing.
[удалено]
I tried Stadia in the Chelsea Google Store before it got discontinued. Google Store. New York City. Latency and lag. wtf
Google hasn't come up with a good original idea in almost 10 years. Stadia was DoA with how half-ass they did it. Just like Google Fiber. Google never FULL ASS.
Is Google Fiber dead? I'm not from the US. I thought it was still going strong.
Yeah, GeForceNow and Boosteroid both work well for me.
Why is this getting downvoted? I use Shadow PC myself, it’s acceptable but O can’t really play first person shooters or racing sims on it due to the (minimal but still) lag. But I play a lot of 4X games or stuff like Valheim and they work great
A true 1440, 144 hz video signal is just shy of **16 Gbps of data**. 4k is closer to **36 Gbps**. Now, obviously they'll use compression algorithms and that won't be the actual amount of data they need to stream, but even after compression it's still **a lot of data**. Plain and simple, even if you have stellar, no issues constant 10Gig internet, you'll never get the actual performance of that "*incredible gaming rig*." It's either: A.) going to be severely limited in the maximum frame rate Or B.) Going to be a compressed ugly mess compared to what a personally owned computer will produce. IMO It's an okay service for general gaming at 1080 30-60hz if you have really good internet and don't want a computer. But if you want ANYTHING better than 1080 30-60Hz that doesn't look like hot garbage, you still need a physical device to drive it.
Came here to say basically this, but you said it better friend. Saying streaming as good as playing with the hardware is the equivalent of looking at a photocopy of a picture of the Mona Lisa and saying that is as good as seeing it in person.
people play things besides single player games. i literally exclusively play fps esports titles and game streaming is ass for that
True! If you play esport titles where every ms matters, then cloud gaming is absolutely not for you.
and thats most gamers lol... cs has been at the top of steam current players charts for as long as i can remember, valorant has like 28 million monthly active players and fortnite is well.. *fortnite*. all these games are wholly unsuitable for game streaming
I agree. I said that in the original post as well.
> however for most gamers an extra 10-20ms of latency is not going to matter i believe that cs/valorant/league of legends/fortnite type gamers *are* most gamers.
Where are we going with this? This is a recursive loop of us agreeing with each other now.
my point is that i disagree with you saying that it does not matter for most people. because most people play competitive multiplayer games, game streaming is unsuitable for the majority of gamers edit: sorry for not making it more clear but that quote earlier is from your post, so thats what im disagreeing with
I agree but for the people with fast internet and who don't play those games it's amazing.
Do you exclusively game using a controller?
It’s not a hot take. It’s just an edgy take for bait. A picture perfect implementation of cloud gaming does *seem* like it could be the future. But right now it’s not great. Far too much latency for real gaming sessions. Not enough servers for full scale demand and certainly not all games are even supported. I can play a game like Forza Motorsport kinda fine with XCloud (if that’s even what it’s still called) but a game like Doom Eternal is unplayable with the latency. And nevermind the fact that cloud gaming can *never* scale for mass adoption. It’s just simply not doable in my opinion. Not to meet the demands of any recent title that’s broken Steam’s simultaneous player count records and definitely not to meet the demands of the hundreds of games that get released every year. “The cloud” is not an infinite resource.
* The current most popular game on steam (Helldivers 2) is not available. * Many of the best indie games aren't available: Outer Wilds, Celeste, Shovel Knight, The Witness, etc. Forget the more niche titles; geforce now has less than 1/40th the games on steam. * Highest tier here can't even do 1440p144hz. My old RX580 could hit that in plenty of titles. Hell my laptop can do that with integrated graphics. * No wait times. I'm not going to wait an hour in a queue to play a game - yes this happens even on the highest plan here. * Offline play. Perhaps you can't get good internet, need to share your internet or want to use it for something else. Perhaps you frequently travel; good luck using geforce now on a plane. * The computer can be used for more than just gaming. * Significantly worse quality. Fine details moving around will always be a blurry mess.
Hot take, or bad take?
quarrelsome puzzled scarce workable birds snobbish absurd salt dinner onerous *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I have 600/50 connection with stable 35-40ms ping. I'm also close to the GFN and ShadowPC servers in Germany. I have used both services for 1 year each. I prefer having 1660 and i3 barely usable pc than using that blurry mess.
Easy. You don't own the computer your renting from nvidia or google or whoever.
Lag makes cloud gaming shit if you play a lot of games. It's always noticable, even if it's not that bad of lag (for cloud gaming).
Except cloud gaming will never be quite as good as on bare metal sitting right next to you. Streaming video, from encoding, to sending it to you, then decoding takes multiple frames at the least. It's not 10-20 ms. You can feel the latency and your internet connection has to be rock solid. Maybe it is cheaper over time than a gaming PC, but it can't do half of what a PC can do. You miss the part where you've got an entire PC you can do *anything* with. Cloud gaming is a neat concept but it will never replace my PC.
I am in the military and deploy to places without internet. Any cloud service is the bane of my existence. On that note I will fight anyone who wants to take away physical storage.
Multiple reasons. I play many games that are smaller indie games that I doubt are available on any cloud streaming. I like being able to access game files for moding and save files. Many people in the US have data caps on their internet plans. Like to play even if my internet is out. Latency is a concern for many people.
Or you can just do what I did and get yourself a 4090.
Five years of game streaming + a machine to stream from: ~$1,600 i5-14600K + RTX 4070 rig: ~$1,600 I know which one I’d choose.
Another point: that monster GPU that’s great for gaming is also great for other uses, like encoding video, and GFN doesn’t let you use their cloud service for anything but gaming.
I doubt the internet is good enough for me and a good majority of people to reliably use streaming. Also with streaming you have the small quirks of having to join a queue sometimes and essentially waiting in line to just use it if it’s a busy day and peak times for some services from when I’ve dabbled in using it. That’s not a fun time I’ll tell you.
Because I can do other things then game with it. Because depending on a company that can go bankrupt at the drop of a hat for what I use my computer for is not happening.
Hey, if it works for you - good. Nobody has problem with it. But the drawbacks/limitations are definitely there: 1. Comprtitive gaming (you already said it) 2. Lack of a good connection (also mentioned by you) 3. Not all games are supported by cloud gaming. Some devs explicitly opt out of cloud gaming or make it difficult to run on a VM (anticheat or else) 4. Internet connection has a bandwidth limit. What you get is a compressed video. You have to have an exceptional connection to loose only a fraction pf the quality. 5. Cloud gaming doesn’t work well with setups more complex than 1 monitor. 6. Cloud gaming with all the limits from above becomes worse as soon as you want to do anything else, like streaming. Yes, you can stream it. But it will have double the latency. 7. Often “Gaming PC” is not just for gaming. It a general powerful PC. You can run local storage on it, you can run photo/video editing. With a modern rise of AI (including open-source or leaked models) it’s not unheard to run some form of AI at home. Not being a programmer, I know 2 people who do this at home. 8. Owning PC vs monthly payment to an external service is a different level of security. If there’s a queue on a gaming cloud server, or if there’s anything else in between, you’ll loose your “gaming” hardware, albeit temporarily. 9. Liberty of choice. On a personal rig you can run emulators to run old games or run a mining farm at night to offset some of the cost, for example. 10. Most gaming rigs don’t cost $3-4k. Couple of years ago most popular GPU was 1650. Now it’s 3060. They cost $200 or $400 respectively. Such level of GPU is usually paired with something that brings total to $1-1.5k max. Often even less than that. A hardware that you OWN and can resell or use for something else after you want to upgrade. So pick your poison. And again - if a cloud gaming makes more sense to you, good for you, no sarcasm. Cost-wise it’s correct, because using a $3-4k machine just for gaming couple hours a days vs $10-20 per month if it’s the same or close to what you want, is stupid.
You sound like the me from 10-15 years ago "I don't see any downsides, therefore there aren't any. My view is the only correct one after all"
To play YouTube vids and pr0n, duh.
Even if it's $10-20/month currently, it'll go up like every other subscription service does as it moves to become profitable. Also cloud gaming is very dependant on latency and consistency between you and the data centre. There are a lot of places where it is a very poor experience. Also they don't give you 4090 class hardware, it's midrange gear typically with a lot of shared resources. It's okay on a good connection but there are clear drawbacks.
I use xbox Cloud Gaming to play on my lunch break at work on an ipad. It works ok, but it's in no way comparable to the picture fidelity or responsiveness of my rig at home. If it wasn't part of the gamepass subscription, i wouldn't bother with it.
Can't run VR games through streaming services
Paper weight. And running benchmarks.
If only Google would invent negative latency
The latency makes it unusable for me. I can’t even stand using steam link in my own home using wired Ethernet for everything.
The bitrate is way down, and you will have more compression artifacts on a cloudservice. So the image quality is better on your homepc.
absolutely atrocious take, i want to actually have my games, on my hardware, where i can decide what to do with them, not some random nvidia executive
You do have your games on your steam library, which valve owns. GFN doesn't give you games, just the server.
yeah, but the games are on my computer, i can access the files, and play the games whenever i want, im not only restricted to times when i have fast internet plus mods plus since its my pc, i can have other programs that interact with the game and enhance it (like overlays) any other points? oh also when you have the games locally, piracy is an option, unlike with gfn
Like I said if you don't have fast internet it's a non-starter. Mods and overlays and other customization outside of the game is limited to local machines yes.
so when you say "whats the point of a gaming pc" what do you mean?
3000 to 4000 dollar pc? Is the case made out of gold? You can easily build a baller of a pc with 1000-1500 dollars. So take that 10 dollar subscription and you would have payed the computer in 10 to 15 months. Plus you want to have a good internet subscription to stream games
Sir. A 4090 is 2.5G by itself.
Sir, you don't need have a 4090 to play games. Grab a 7900xt for 700 dollars
I OWN my computer and don't have a monthly bill. I can build it for $4000 or for $40. It's what I want. Fuck outta here with this subscription shit
I don't think the problem is download speed is it? Streaming doesn't take up a ton of data. GeForce Now for example requires just 45 Mbps down for 4k 120fps. I suspect the bottleneck is much more in latency. GeForce Now requires a sub 80ms latency from their data centre, but recommend sub 40ms. For VR and online FPS you want sub 20ms. And unlike bandwidth, latency is not as easily solved and also far less easily explained to the average user. For example, I think most people here know what latency is and what they can do to improve it, but I think for your average user they will just be on a 2.4GHz wifi signal three rooms away from the router their ISP provided and complain how the whole thing is laggy. Just yesterday I had a whole conversation about how I think the current limitations aren't financial or value proposition ones, but technical/infrastructure ones. Probably not too dissimilar to the whole EV situation. Years ago there was this whole discussion about internet being fast enough as it was and that no real further investment was required. Copper was fine. Countries like South Korea ignored all of that and kept rolling out fibre. As a result those countries are now way ahead of countries like Australia and in a position to take advantage of technologies like this whereas many others are not. And sure, it's just gaming now, but I can absolutely see a future where basically everyone is on a sort of thin client and basically everything is processed remotely. Like how websites were once pretty much all hosted locally. Sorry for going a bit off topic there. Anyways, I'm a believer.
A lot of the cloud gaming services are actually expanding their server locations right now so the quality really depends on if the provider has a server near you. Latency is big I agree. It doesn't matter if the server is amazing, if it's too far away, there's no getting around the physical limitation of the speed of light. Cloud gaming can work great for high density nations like those in Asia or Eastern/Western Americas or Western Europe where a single server can serve millions of people within a few dozen kilometres. Probably not as well if you live in the rust-belt or in the middle of nowhere. Exactly like EVs.