Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Nice calculation.
Except it does not properly consider that there are people out there who actually have a real life and don't spend hours every day video gaming.

What.....the youth these days have a life outside a computer ??? :)

Though assume people only game x amount of time, buying outright let's you use the hardware for productivity purposes , so yeah many would end up using such a rig for most of the day.

For me renting makes little sense as I get a nice return of my investment each year I've I choose to upgrade to the latest gpu each year. Top end pascal cards have awesome productivity gains

[doublepost=1483599673][/doublepost]
Do you realize that 1,000 hours is almost 3 years, assuming that you play every single day one hour?
I don't know anyone in his adult years that plays even remotely that much.

Economically speaking using a service like this is going to be way cheaper than building a dedicated gaming rig for a big, big part of the gaming crowd.
Unless you are a world of Warcraft player....
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Stella
Forget this. Just build a a gaming pic. Don't give them the satisfaction of thinking this outdated business model works in 2017.

Everything is trying to move subscription based where you pay premiums for services to cut company costs that end up delivering a poorer overal performance to the end user.

You build a decent rig may cost you around £1-2k however in 3 years time you don't just scrap it you upgrade a few of the parts which individually the cost of which is like buying a console but you get the same improvements as if you were buying a new console.

They shan't get my money for this rip off.
 
Don't give them the satisfaction of thinking this outdated business model works in 2017.

Why is this an outdated business model? Pay-per-use cloud computing is very much alive and an important current day business. A lot of companies use amazon cloud to offer cloud storage or compute to their users. The only problem with the NVIDIA offer here is that's it too expensive. You can setup a DYI gaming cloud machine for around $0.50 per hour.
 
So basically up to 10 bucks a day for a heavy gamer on their time off/weekends. No.

If you're a heavy gamer, you have your own gaming PC.

This is for when the heavy gamer for the odd hour here and there on the go when not carrying gaming rig. Then 25 lasts a while.

Or for the casual gamer who doesn't want to invest in a highend PC.

It doesn't have to be for everybody for it to add value for somebody.
 
Don't give them the satisfaction of thinking this outdated business model works in 2017.
This business model became in sight with the invention if integrated graphics.
It got viable as penny crunchers at Apple let you pay premium for a computer that is a thin client and game developers left the platform. While telco's essentially kept up improving.
This is expensive but at low cost of entry. So attracts a wide public, most of which never even realize what BootCamp/GamePC are.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: H2SO4
Feels like it's about time this happened. Data analysis, video viewing, photo and video editing... eventually other high-intensity tasks get outsourced too.
 
This is for the user that rents music, movies , rents storage and now they can rent game time. Which apple has us doing already, except gaming

Since apple is got in bed with AMD penny pinching this is nvidias way of getting a slice of the apple pie. Good on them.

And according to nvidia 10xx support is not coming to macOS anytime soon due to apple so eGPU under macOS on pascal is not an option.
 
I almost spat out my coffee at the price haha. That was going so damn well. Charging by play time is a huge pain in the ass for anyone who plays games a lot. I understand why it'd be necessary but still.. Too much.

By the time you've paid to all of your hours in something like Skyrim / Witcher 3 you might as well have just bought a gaming PC.

PlayStation Now is the nearest competitor to this I guess and that gives a big library and no such scary time constraints. Selling you the game - and then selling you time playing the game as well seems a bit bizarre too. Hmm.
 
$25 for 20 hours and you have to bring your own games? You could buy a PS4 / gaming PC and play as many hours as you want for the bill this service would rack up.
 
Bringing high end gaming to Macs would put an end to the only argument the PC fan boys have.
It might, but parity is never going to be achievable, so that's a pipe dream. The sheer volume of games on Windows makes it impossible to ignore, there is no scenerio in which they all start magically working well on OSX.. Apple's OpenGL support is really poor compared to the state of drivers in Windows land. :/

Cloud compute isn't going to be anywhere near as smooth as local either. Gamers frequently aim way higher than 60fps.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: H2SO4
"The service will cost $25 for every 20 hours of play." lol

Mmm... a lot of money to spend on games! Clearly not viable for hardcore gamers who play for 5-10+ hours a day.

In perspective, many modern games will take 200+ hours for a casual gamer like me to finish. At $25 for 20 hours, we're talking 500 bucks!!! For that much I could just about purchase a mid-range PC and play most modern games on it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nortonandreev
For me it was way more worth just upgrading to a GTX 1070. I suppose this is a good option for people who just want to play through a 10hr AAA campaign in its full high end PC glory though.

Really cool idea, and is similar to what Microsoft said they were going to do on some games on Xbox One as far as handing off some processing power to their cloud data centers (not sure if any current game actually takes advantage of that yet), but the pricing structure on this really missed the mark. Guess they gotta make up for the costs of this somehow.
 
Say you build a gaming computer. Costs $2500, lasts 3 years.

For the same amount of money, that buys you 2,000 hours of play. Over the 3 years, that's 1.8 hours per day, every day, or 12.8 hours per week. So it really depends on how much you actually play.

A pretty high end gaming computer costs quite a bit less than that. Around $1500, although it's possible to make very powerful gaming PC's for around $1000.
 
No, it surprisingly works flawlessly. I use this service on my Shield TV and can't tell any difference from locally running games. It's actually really great, there's a lot of games and you can play them all on max graphics settings.
Maybe for single player cinematic games this is okay, but for anything even remotely competitive online it is a no go.

The graphical data transmission is something that you didn't need to handle if you use a local GPU, so even if this part is done well with minimum latency (which it won't to its fullest), sending out your control input and receiving the same data from other players will now be done on top of the graphical data. This will guarantee lesser experience for network focused games, which is more or less the norm now across all genres of games.
 
I used to use OnLive. It was super playable. The only downside is that the video quality wasn't as crisp as playing it natively. It's like viewing a 1080p video on Youtube vs viewing that 1080p video before Youtube recompressed it.
I didn’t appreciate the difference before. But used to play a lot of games on my mac in Win 10. I had Tomb Raider and Splinter cell at low settings. I’ve now swapped the 5770 for an RX470 and the difference is night and day with regard to both clarity and smoothness.
I’ll take the GPU instead thanks.
 
What's with this obsession with running our software on remote systems and using our computers as, basically, thin clients or terminals?

This model of computing became outdated in the 90s. Why are we going back to it?

I can't imagine games to be very playable on this setup due to latency, jitter, lost packets, and so on.
Because de-centralized computing power is very inefficient, and expensive. Thin clients is still widely used within corporate setups. Where I work, we use extremely complex Excel-files that would require much more RAM than my laptop have.

As for latency etc, the tech is always improving with this, but I played a fair bit using OnLive's service and it worked really well, even from EU with servers in the US. Also, Remote Play from the PS4 to a Vita works great, even over internet.
 
Cloud Gaming will always be greater than PC gaming.

A 100$ laptop with a rentable $3000 backend is pretty sweet if you think about it.

More portable gaming, longer battery life.

Less time tooling systems, more time gaming for end users.

Evolving graphics without upgrades or updates for end users.

Cheaper cost to play the games you love. *Given everyone pays for the internet these days. 25$/20 hours is significantly cheaper than PC gaming, just imagine the cost break down.

You get to enjoy your games without extreme commitment and setups. Really ideal for minimalist mac users. As an OnLive beta tester, I enjoyed gaming on my Macbook Air! It was pretty smooth where I live.

This is the future of game, just have to push for faster internet service in America.
[doublepost=1483614157][/doublepost]
Not exactly, now your adding another variable, pay for hardware(PC) pay for software(game) AND now also pay for hourly service charge to play it.

Yeah but you're eliminating another factor. No more hardware upgrades. My MacBook Air with AC wireless should be able to handle decoding for cloud gaming well into the future.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.