Wednesday, January 4th 2017

NVIDIA Announces the GeForce Now. $25 for 20 Hours of GTX 1060 Gaming

NVIDIA today announced the GeForce Now, a service that converts any PC or notebook, into a gaming PC. This works by making your games to render on remote GeForce "Pascal" GPU farms. On the user's side of things, GeForce Now works as an interface that presents popular DRM platforms such as Origin, and Steam, you purchase games on these platforms, and begin playing them in minutes, without having to download or install them. The games get rendered on remote servers, and your integrated graphics plays a video stream of the game. NVIDIA claims to have minimized the lag involved in making something like this work. You will be able to purchase the service by the "hours" played and in various "tiers" (visual detail). The service works on even Macs. Pricing starts at $25 for 20 hours of gaming, with fewer hours available at the same price for higher-performance instances.

Update Jan 6th: The $25 for 20 hours price is for a GTX 1060-class graphics card. For GTX 1080 performance, the same $25 will buy you only 10 hours of playtime.
Add your own comment

40 Comments on NVIDIA Announces the GeForce Now. $25 for 20 Hours of GTX 1060 Gaming

#1
Xzibit
Don't forget the most important thing

$25 USD for 20hrs of play.
Posted on Reply
#2
OneMoar
There is Always Moar
didn't they try this already and it was a dismal failure
so lets charge more for something that didn't work before that will fix it
Posted on Reply
#3
Divide Overflow
Unless it detects any AMD products on your system, of course! :laugh:
Posted on Reply
#4
Prima.Vera
BTA, can you please update the price system for it? 25$ for 25H only seems ridiculous funny, to say the least.
Posted on Reply
#5
MxPhenom 216
Corsair Fanboy
OneMoar said:
didn't they try this already and it was a dismal failure
so lets charge more for something that didn't work before that will fix it
It probably didnt work before due to average internet speeds being slower in the past. Now for some, it might actually be feasible.
Posted on Reply
#6
Xzibit
OneMoar said:
didn't they try this already and it was a dismal failure
so lets charge more for something that didn't work before that will fix it
If I recall correctly the first time they tried it, it was a partnership with OnLive
Then it was Nvidia Grid
Then GeForce Now
Now GeForce Now again.


MxPhenom 216 said:
It probably didnt work before due to average internet speeds being slower in the past. Now for some, it might actually be feasible.
Last time they launched its requirements were.

20 Mbps for 720p and 60 frames per second, or 50 Mbps for 1080p 60 fps Less than 60ms ping to one of Nvidia's six data centers

Not to mention it was $7.99 a month
Posted on Reply
#7
xkm1948
lololol but no thank you. Too much cloud computing is not what I want.
Posted on Reply
#8
ixi
This will go down fast. If it costs so much.
Posted on Reply
#9
Silas Woodruff
Really, pay by the hour, how about no.

Anyone serious enough or in dear need of real gaming, should just save the money and get their own PC and play the way they want, not some subscription crap.

On a side note, games are fun, but hell you can use your PC for a lot more so it makes this service even more useless.
Posted on Reply
#10
RejZoR
They still don't get it that people want to OWN a game, not lease them. It's why these stupid streaming services will simply never fly with gamers. Especially not for games that cost 50€ and then you can invest 500+ hours in them. It's quite a price gap if you have to pay per gameplay hour for it, don't you think? Plus, being a streamed game, image will NEVER be as good as it being rendered on your system.
Posted on Reply
#11
john_
I guess they have to maintain the share price over $100. This is extremely alarming. Don't forget that Nvidia is also producing the graphics cards. So, if we assume that AMD fails and proprietary stuff like PhysX and GameWorks become the standard, that means that Nvidia will become the one and only provider of top quality gaming. If today they ask $25 for 20 hour of gaming, in the future, with much more expensive Geforce cards in the market and no competition, that could go much higher. Can someone guess how much they will be asking for virtual reality?

Anyone hoping hi end gaming to become an expensive subscription service, can continue cheering up for Nvidia.

PS It's not only $25 for 20 hour. I think, YOU pay for the game. You are subscribing for the hardware. And those $25 for 20 hours, could mean for example GTX 1060 quality graphics. If you want GTX 1080 quality graphics, that could mean less hours of gaming for $25.
Posted on Reply
#12
bug
RejZoR said:
They still don't get it that people want to OWN a game, not lease them. It's why these stupid streaming services will simply never fly with gamers. Especially not for games that cost 50€ and then you can invest 500+ hours in them. It's quite a price gap if you have to pay per gameplay hour for it, don't you think? Plus, being a streamed game, image will NEVER be as good as it being rendered on your system.
People didn't OWN games since games started requiring internet connections and on line activation. Yet games still sell.
I agree with you that paying to stream games looks stupid now, but I'm pretty sure the next generation of gamers won't know any better.
Posted on Reply
#14
RejZoR
bug said:
People didn't OWN games since games started requiring internet connections and on line activation. Yet games still sell.
I agree with you that paying to stream games looks stupid now, but I'm pretty sure the next generation of gamers won't know any better.
There is a difference. We have GOG where you actually OWN the games. And Valve was also very clear on the Steam client policy. Yes, I treat Steam client as a form of DRM by itself, but games can be launched directly without Steam client for the most part, they still work offline and if Valve is to go bust, Valve stated they'd unlock the DRM part of it to allow people who bought games to still play them freely without Steam client itself.

With this streaming stuff, you never at any point own anything. As someone who plays even 10-15 years old games even today, that's just unacceptable business model.
Posted on Reply
#15
bug
RejZoR said:
There is a difference. We have GOG where you actually OWN the games. And Valve was also very clear on the Steam client policy. Yes, I treat Steam client as a form of DRM by itself, but games can be launched directly without Steam client for the most part, they still work offline and if Valve is to go bust, Valve stated they'd unlock the DRM part of it to allow people who bought games to still play them freely without Steam client itself.

With this streaming stuff, you never at any point own anything. As someone who plays even 10-15 years old games even today, that's just unacceptable business model.
UPlay, Origin, Battle.net... you don't own anything there. Not to mention consoles.
As someone who plays even 10-15 years old games even today, I agree with you on streaming.
Posted on Reply
#16
TheDeeGee
Good luck with your 0 customers.

Not mentioned here, but the 20 Hours is for a GTX 1060 Streaming Service, and for the same price you can play 10 Hours on a GTX 1080.

That's $1300 a Year if you stick to 20 Hours a week for a GTX 1060, and $2600 for a GTX 1080.

I have a better idea! Build a $2000 Steam Machine sized system for under/next to your TV, which will last 3-4 Years (at Ultra Settings) and after that upgrade individual parts :)
Posted on Reply
#18
RejZoR
bug said:
UPlay, Origin, Battle.net... you don't own anything there. Not to mention consoles.
As someone who plays even 10-15 years old games even today, I agree with you on streaming.
UPlay, big fucking ZERO. I'm boycotting Ubisoft so I don't own any of their "recent" games or even UPlay account. Origin, I only buy games here if I must. Mostly only EA games. Battle.net, just Starcraft 1 and 2. The rest is Steam and GOG.

Consoles? Only one I still own (and have ever owned) is PS2. Which I bought because of Gran Turismo 4 and Burnout series that were available on PS2. I have no plans in buying stupid "modern" consoles with retarded limited access to games.
Posted on Reply
#19
bug
RejZoR said:
UPlay, big fucking ZERO. I'm boycotting Ubisoft so I don't own any of their "recent" games or even UPlay account. Origin, I only buy games here if I must. Mostly only EA games. Battle.net, just Starcraft 1 and 2. The rest is Steam and GOG.

Consoles? Only one I still own (and have ever owned) is PS2. Which I bought because of Gran Turismo 4 and Burnout series that were available on PS2. I have no plans in buying stupid "modern" consoles with retarded limited access to games.
I wasn't talking about you. I was talking about the number of people that, unlike you and me, have no problem renting games on those platforms. Me, I don't even have a Steam account, GOG already has more games than I have time to play.
Posted on Reply
#20
renz496
Xzibit said:
If I recall correctly the first time they tried it, it was a partnership with OnLive
Then it was Nvidia Grid
Then GeForce Now
Now GeForce Now again.




Last time they launched its requirements were.

20 Mbps for 720p and 60 frames per second, or 50 Mbps for 1080p 60 fps Less than 60ms ping to one of Nvidia's six data centers

Not to mention it was $7.99 a month
Geforce now indeed is using nvidia GRID technology. but geforce now is not the only thing that nvidia did with GRID. they have separate effort on professional space that also using nvidia Grid service. and Geforce Now still being offered for $8 per month. there is no change on that front at all. this new Geforce Now is strictly for PC version. there are reasons why nvidia charge premium price for Geforce Now on PC.
Posted on Reply
#21
FordGT90Concept
"I go fast!1!11!1!"
It's not the cost that is the problem, it is the latency. There aren't many games where the latency won't be a problem.
Posted on Reply
#22
renz496
john_ said:
I guess they have to maintain the share price over $100. This is extremely alarming. Don't forget that Nvidia is also producing the graphics cards. So, if we assume that AMD fails and proprietary stuff like PhysX and GameWorks become the standard, that means that Nvidia will become the one and only provider of top quality gaming. If today they ask $25 for 20 hour of gaming, in the future, with much more expensive Geforce cards in the market and no competition, that could go much higher. Can someone guess how much they will be asking for virtual reality?

Anyone hoping hi end gaming to become an expensive subscription service, can continue cheering up for Nvidia.

PS It's not only $25 for 20 hour. I think, YOU pay for the game. You are subscribing for the hardware. And those $25 for 20 hours, could mean for example GTX 1060 quality graphics. If you want GTX 1080 quality graphics, that could mean less hours of gaming for $25.
nvidia did not do this to replace high end gaming machine. Geforce Now for Shield TV still being offered at $8 for month. then why Geforce now for PC being charge so overly expensive? remember nvidia main butter and bread is still about selling gaming gpu.
Posted on Reply
#23
bug
FordGT90Concept said:
It's not the cost that is the problem, it is the latency. There aren't many games where the latency won't be a problem.
I think the most played game today is Candy Crush, so it's all good regarding latency :D
Feel free to throw Angry Birds in there, too.
Posted on Reply
#24
dozenfury
No way will this succeed on a timed basis. Go on Steam or Origin and look at some of your played times. Game time flies by more quickly than you think. There was a game I knew I'd played a fair amount, and was surprised to see I had over 80 hours in it already. And that's just 1 game. It's a pretty limited niche that would pay for laggy, older games, at 720 or 1080 via cloud.

I do think eventually this is where gaming is going in the long-run, but imo we're 2-3 years at least early for it. I'd be surprised if the next major console update after Pro/Scorpio are not fully streamed/online. But Gigabit Internet service needs to be the norm to really support that, and that's what is a ways away (coming in 2017 to some areas, but probably 2019 before it's what most actually have). In my case I have a 150Mbit plan, which is the max one, and because of saturation it drops to under 40 usually during prime time. Those drops that most ISPs have would make cloud gaming a real headache at the current bandwidth levels that most people have. Most average non-techy people I know have 20-50Mbit plans that often drop under 10.
Posted on Reply
#25
john_
renz496 said:
nvidia did not do this to replace high end gaming machine. Geforce Now for Shield TV still being offered at $8 for month. then why Geforce now for PC being charge so overly expensive? remember nvidia main butter and bread is still about selling gaming gpu.
It takes time to make something free, a subscription service. Decades. Things could change in the future, and see gaming becoming like the modern television, where you have to pay extra to see some premium content.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment