4K/60 fps gaming at $20 per month: Nvidia GeForce Now apps on Windows and macOS can now stream games at 4K resolution at a silky 60 fps

[Hertzian56]

Saw this and thought it might be interesting. It's an NBC blurb here's the link:

https://www.notebookcheck.net/4K-60-fps-gaming-at-20-per-month-Nvidia-GeForce-Now-apps-on-Windows-and-macOS-can-now-stream-games-at-4K-resolution-at-a-silky-60-fps.617467.0.html

 

I'm assuming there's some catch there making it not such a good deal but idk. I guess one catch is people not paying attention to the GaaS and forget about being billed every month, end up costing way more than if you just bought a system capable of that and kept it for a few years. That's the trend for everything, I think the schwab guy at WEF openly says this, and of course the ptb want that so there's definitely a thin end of the wedge going on all over. I mean I'm sure there are tiers because I can't imagine someone with a 4k screen and the equipment to stream that wouldn't just get a mid tear gpu even older one like a 2070 and turn down a few things for 4k/60 in a lot of games(==Scratch that it says 3080 tier only==). No mention of ray tracing support from the blurb either.

[jaybee83]

yep, unfortunately thats the way everything is heading towards: everything as a service with recurring monthly payments and no actual real ownership of the product... not sure im a fan of that 🙄

[Aaron44126]

I haven't tried streaming gaming yet but I have hard time believing that I'd be happy with it...  Unlike streaming video where the endpoint client can buffer up several seconds or minutes of video, gaming has to be real time, so there is no room for buffering.  Turnaround time from input -> transmit to data center -> run the game -> encode video output (compression artifacts!) -> send back to endpoint/client -> decode and display has to be what, 50 ms or less before you'd start noticing the lag?  And no interruptions in the data flow at all.  You'd have to have a really solid Internet connection.

[Hertzian56]

All good points, yeah it definitely requires some very fast stable internet, probably metro areas only really.  Yeah I wouldn't be interested either but for gamers that have the necessary equipment already and don't want the commitment of a high level gpu cost and could jump out of the need for it within a year or so it seems a pretty decent deal.

 

I guess another thing is that you don't need to have a 4k screen and can just play it at what you have, for 20$ month it would take a while to pay more than what a 3080 would cost you, even a used gpu would still take months to equalize the cost. $240/year, not sure what that would get you in used or new gpus now, I would think you could get at least a 1070 which for 1080p would be fine for high, no rt of course. But no blazing internet needed either and can play any game unlike the limited selection. Maybe get it until prices drop or you find a used or deal that would negate the need for this services who knows.

 

As to the everything as a service model well it matters if you want to trust the ptb dictating to you in pretty much every aspect of life because that's where it will go, from history, especially modern history, this is a terrible idea. They are pretty open about their plans if you look for it and people don't seem to believe them or they're too distracted by consuming or unable to think as to where this is leading,  but enough said there.

 

 

[ryan]

yeah but what city doesn't have at least 50mbs internet. I live in rural alberta canada and we have 1.5 gbps internet..it doesnt cost much too get fast internet pretty much anywhere.

[Aaron44126]

1 hour ago, ryan said:

yeah but what city doesn't have at least 50mbs internet. I live in rural alberta canada and we have 1.5 gbps internet..it doesnt cost much too get fast internet pretty much anywhere.

I know people here in Michigan who don’t have any real option other than AT&T copper (“maybe” 25 Mbps … under ideal conditions, and pitiful upload speed).  Wireless options are popping up to service people in this situation (5G and Starlink), I’m not sure how good those would be with the low latency required for cloud gaming.

[ryan]

i guess canada has better infrastructure....ironic i always thought singapore and usa was the furthest advanced

[Aaron44126]

11 hours ago, ryan said:

i guess canada has better infrastructure....ironic i always thought singapore and usa was the furthest advanced

 

Here in the U.S. it all depends on where you live, the situation is different everywhere.

 

The main issue as I see it is that there is no competition.  In most metro areas, there is just one major (cable) provider offering high speeds.  Sometimes you have a second choice for getting wired Internet to your house but it often isn't really a choice because the speed difference is enormous (i.e. ADSL vs. cable).  Cable providers tend to carve up the map and avoid competing with each other so that they can keep prices where they want them, set arbitrary monthly data caps, and apply other anti-consumer policies that end users can't do anything but accept.  ...But at least they are offering gigabit (download) speeds in most areas these days, if you're willing to pay over $100/mo for it.

 

Many rural areas don't even have a cable provider so they are limited to whatever can be piped over a traditional copper phone line.  (These would be the "maybe 25 Mbps" users I was referring to in the previous post.  If you're not close to a node then it's probably more like 5-10 Mbps.)

 

Things are changing a bit as residential fiber rolls out to compete with cable.  Fiber providers often offer gigabit for $70-$80/mo so it is causing some market disruption for cable providers.  But that rollout is not moving fast at all and most markets don't have access to residential fiber, there is still only one fiber provider in most areas that do have it, and there is definitely no incentive for ISPs to roll fiber into rural areas.  They tend to target the most densely populated areas so that they can get the most bang for their buck when doing the rollout.

 

The U.S. is never at the top of lists like this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Internet_connection_speeds

 

There's always stuff going on about the government giving money to ISPs to build out infrastructure in underserved areas, and then nothing really happening with that.  I'm sure there are success stories here in there but that is also something that is going nowhere fast.

 

I understand that some places in Europe have rules like different ISPs are (required to be) allowed to use the same physical infrastructure, so residential users can choose between multiple providers to sign up with.  That leads more quickly to higher speeds and lower prices.

[ryan]

cable vs fibre?

 

honestly I can get 1gbps with copper...I think it can go higher like 5gbps and up.....fibre is a game changer but who needs 10000gbps I guess it doesnt hurt. I think the game changer is latency 0.1ms latency and lower will matter for future game streaming services.

 

I pay 87 for unlimited home phone and 500mbps..not bad but I don't live in calgary or edmonton anymore so its kinda normal to have 1gbps pretty much everywhere here in canada unless you live in a igloo up north

[Reciever]

Fiber is absolutely a game changer, problem is many people pay for fiber but only up to the junction box, not directly to their homes.

[jaybee83]

9 hours ago, ryan said:

cable vs fibre?

 

honestly I can get 1gbps with copper...I think it can go higher like 5gbps and up.....fibre isn't what the game changer is..

 

I pay 87 for unlimited home phone and 500mbps..not bad but I don't live in calgary or edmonton anymore so its kinda normal to have 1gbps pretty much everywhere here in canada unless you live in a igloo up north

 

1 hour ago, Reciever said:

Fiber is absolutely a game changer, problem is many people pay for fiber but only up to the junction box, not directly to their homes.

 

yep, for now Fibre only brings marginal real life speed bumps, but long term its a total game changer. copper can only do so much.

[ryan]

reworded my post. It was a mistake the way it was worded, and yes fibre is a game changer just latency wise is what I care about more than getting 100gbps vs 10gbps as 10gbs.. is good enough for now.