GeForce NOW Gained 1 Million Subscribers Within A Week Of Launch

[Vayra86]

You're free to do so and I'm simply saying it's an option that's available in certain situations. It works well enough for me in my current situation and I can see it being useful for other people too.
Again, if you'd read my entire replies in this thread, you would've seen that I said that it's not something I'm planning on using long term, nor would it ever replace my desktop PC.
My laptop is five years old and doesn't have a dedicated GPU, so I can't really game on it. GeForce Now allows me to do so, although I have access to an external screen here which helps a lot too, as a 12.5" is simply not big enough for anything even half serious.

What I don't get is the anger and outrage in this thread. No-one is forced to use it, so why waste so much time slagging it off, especially if you haven't tried it?

I for one, do apologize for tone of voice and being preoccupied on the subject because yes, if its just a 'passthrough' service for gaming and using your own content, its a great thing and only adds something without damaging anything like other on-demand services do. And yes, I did re-read and misread the first time, will reflect on that one. I honestly read straight past it!

But its not just a passthrough, its not just 'any game' you can use with it; after all that data has to go past Nvidia's servers and has a commercial nature, so naturally publishers will take a long look at it. It is about control, it is about data (=value you never see returned) and like @robot zombie points out correctly, it certainly is about brand extension more so than anything else. This is a service that exists for the very same reasons we had our Shadowplay, our Ansel, our GameWorks. Its an abstract form of 'added value' that will make us pay premium for similar performance to a competitor.

It remains to be seen if it will have a future. So far, that future looks very bleak.

For publishers its really quite simple: why would they allow this, how do they benefit? Its not directly a big bonus to have your content available on the go anywhere on random devices. It damages the nature of the license that was given out in a big way. Suddenly the product is usable in many different, unforeseen settings.

But all things considered, if Nvidia can bundle this service with their GPUs at a low sub fee, its really quite a selling point. That is, IF publishers are not constantly pulling out. This service lives with its content and dies with it.

 

[londiste]

For publishers its really quite simple: why would they allow this, how do they benefit?

They still sell games the same way as they always have?

 

[Vayra86]

They still sell games the same way as they always have?

And it eliminates a USP for them to explore, PLUS it reduces the value of anything they want to release, for example, as a mobile version of the same game. And that is fast becoming a possibility, its already happening even. Civilization for example...

 

[londiste]

They never did sell the same games on mobile anyway, at least not to any real success. Mobile is a different market, different games, different control schemes, different hardware requirements.

 

[Vayra86]

They never did sell the same games on mobile anyway, at least not to any real success. Mobile is a different market, different games, different control schemes, different hardware requirements.

You got that exactly right. What NOW does, is trump the hardware limitation through a streaming service. The PC version of a game is usually a much more fleshed out one and it lacks, for example, fancy MTX schemes in many cases.

Surely you've noticed all the remasters and respins of old games lately. Its easy to hook up other input devices to a mobile, too, and panel sizes are getting to playable sizes as well. You say different market, but Blizzard said it right: 'everyone has a mobile phone nowadays!'

 

[londiste]

Either way PaaS for gaming is something we should celebrate over publishers' control of platforms.


I have played some streamed games on phone and tablet. These as platforms really do not lend themselves well for PC games. Microsoft and Sony might be a bit worried though but both have their own streaming platforms ready.

Blizzard is hoping to go big on mobile and are taking a considerable gamble on that.

Edit:
By the way, good luck to publishers with that. Steam has been doing streaming for a while now...

 

[TheLostSwede]

I for one, do apologize for tone of voice and being preoccupied on the subject because yes, if its just a 'passthrough' service for gaming and using your own content, its a great thing and only adds something without damaging anything like other on-demand services do. And yes, I did re-read and misread the first time, will reflect on that one. I honestly read straight past it!

But its not just a passthrough, its not just 'any game' you can use with it; after all that data has to go past Nvidia's servers and has a commercial nature, so naturally publishers will take a long look at it. It is about control, it is about data (=value you never see returned) and like @robot zombie points out correctly, it certainly is about brand extension more so than anything else. This is a service that exists for the very same reasons we had our Shadowplay, our Ansel, our GameWorks. Its an abstract form of 'added value' that will make us pay premium for similar performance to a competitor.

It remains to be seen if it will have a future. So far, that future looks very bleak.

For publishers its really quite simple: why would they allow this, how do they benefit? Its not directly a big bonus to have your content available on the go anywhere on random devices. It damages the nature of the license that was given out in a big way. Suddenly the product is usable in many different, unforeseen settings.

But all things considered, if Nvidia can bundle this service with their GPUs at a low sub fee, its really quite a selling point. That is, IF publishers are not constantly pulling out. This service lives with its content and dies with it.

Well, I look at it as a complement to my desktop PC at the moment, since I don't have access to my desktop PC. I doubt I'm the only person in this situation at times. As I said elsewhere, I wouldn't use it on my phone though, but that might also be because I don't play FPS games on it to start with.

It's obviously a marketing tool for Nvidia, it's another reason to buy into their ecosystem, although a bit less so than some of their other options to date.

Let's see how it plays out, who knows. I just don't understand why so many people are upset about this service being offered, as no-one has to use it.

 

[Vayra86]

Either way PaaS for gaming is something we should celebrate over publishers' control of platforms.


I have played some streamed games on phone and tablet. These as platforms really do not lend themselves well for PC games. Microsoft and Sony might be a bit worried though but both have their own streaming platforms ready.

Blizzard is hoping to go big on mobile and are taking a considerable gamble on that.

Edit:
By the way, good luck to publishers with that. Steam has been doing streaming for a while now...

Its not like I disagree... Just saying that for publishers there is little to gain and potentially quite a bit to lose.

On a larger scale; this is a movement in the market towards services before products, and I can understand publishers and studios are not all that keen on it. Especially not the smaller and middle-sized ones. For the market leaders like Activision and EA there is a big attraction because they can use it to tighten their grip on the studios under their wing (the risk is spread across the portfolio more, content can be gated for the service, etc.) and it tightens their grip on the market. It leads to further consolidation. After all, if you have a number of subs to pay for, you're less likely to buy from independant others. Its a lure into an ecosystem of sorts, and takes away a degree of control over what content you play. NOW isn't all that different from them in that sense; already the content available is limited in several ways.

All that these services achieve, is more fragmentation and more choices for us; choice is a blessing and a curse, because it also leaves less money for the actual content. If we really want streaming on the go, an open, profit free alternative is the best way really. And maybe the actual best way is to run it yourself. Commerce is a bane to this type of service, and it already shows.

 

[londiste]

If we really want streaming on the go, an open, profit free alternative is the best way really. And maybe the actual best way is to run it yourself. Commerce is a bane to this type of service, and it already shows.

Game streaming already has viable solutions.
To stream from your own computer - Steam Link, Remotr, Rainway, Nvidia's Gamestream, Parsec etc.
Cloud streaming stuff where you can play on someone else's servers - Geforce Now, Stadia, Playstation Now etc.

These two types are in principle separate. Playing on someone else's servers will not be free, at least not in the long term (maybe trial or some limited use like Geforce Now's 1h for now).