I can easily understand this impact. I worked for a mobile telecom company at a time when it provided 3G/UMTS/HSDPA access with around 4-8 Mbps download speed. I might be mistaken about the specific numbers, as it was a long time ago. Since 98%+ of users used this mobile internet fairly, we had around 1% of users who consumed terabytes per month (close to the maximum bandwidth cap, running 24x7x31).If 94% of subscribers will be unaffected by this limit, how does adding it provide such a profound positive impact on the QoS? 6% of users aren't going to contribute to that much resource usage. BS-detector beeping.
Aging out of teenage years, does not necessarily make one an adult. Don't know your specific case, but I see it all the time. That is people in their 20s, 30s and even 40s who never became an adult.It sounds like a lot, and it is a decent chunk of time in one month to be fair. That said, if you consider 3 hours of gaming 30 days in a month, that's 90 hours. So almost 100. So it's not entirely out of the realm of reason. While I probably would rarely clock 100 hours in a month, I could easily clock half of that.
Signed, an adult who plays video games.
I play elite dangerous odyssey on my mac using GFN, hooked up to my OLED in glorious 4K 120 and full eye candy. Experience zero perceivable latency in space or ground combat. It's a great service.Have you tried it? I use it to play Cyberpunk in 4K with all graphic options at max on my Mac and it's buttery smooth. Unless you play competitive online shooters I doubt you will feel any input lag. I haven't.
In my opinion this is actually the future of gaming.
I think you misspelled “Switch + PS5 with Disc Drive”, but to each their own!As a casual gamer, Mac + PS5 with Disc Drive = perfection.
The reality is they took away 32bit support and one of my games I liked very much (civ4) stopped working. And there is no guarantee that rosetta won't go away in near future. Apple doesn't understand what's needed to be a gaming platform.I wish Apple and Steam would partner up to improve x86 gaming emulation on ARM so Mac users can finally play some good games without much hassle. I think that both companies could benefit, especially with rumors of the Steam deck going ARM.
To my surprise, it is actually better than streaming via steam from a pc in the next room, on gigabit lan. I'd say it's no worse playing warzone on geforce now than playing it on my xbox with a 25hz tv.I'm surprised they have the subscriber base to have been going for so long. Now they're going to nickel and dime their new customers? Game streaming will NEVER be as good as local. It just won't. Period. The concept of game streaming is great, but not the reality. I don't understand the people that can play any type of game that requires more precise movement, timing, or reactions. Very few games, IMO, are somewhat playable via streaming. I can't even wirelessly stream from my PC to my Quest 3 because I'm very sensitive to response times and input latency. And that's all on a LOCAL 6e network!
They've actually improved the cheaper tier, went from 1080p to 1440p.This is how ensh*ttifiaction works.
-Degrade the service.
-Claim that it only affects a small number of users.
-Then introduce a more expensive or cheaper tier to make current ones look like amazing value.
-Rinse and repeat until the product is a shadow of its former self.
It sounds like a lot, and it is a decent chunk of time in one month to be fair. That said, if you consider 3 hours of gaming 30 days in a month, that's 90 hours. So almost 100. So it's not entirely out of the realm of reason. While I probably would rarely clock 100 hours in a month, I could easily clock half of that.
Signed, an adult who plays video games.
They can but they have to respond to the shareholder greed of wanting to squeeze every cent out of every service to keep profits soaring$29.760 Billion in net profit last fiscal year and NVidia cannot improve the quality or speed of their service and have to resort to limiting gaming hours?
You are probably right, but a more dedicated player isn't a benefit for business. It's a cost. People who only play 1-2 hours every month still make them 9,99$/month (or whatever the price is). If you play 100 hours instead of 2, you cost them more.That’s… I mean, yeah. 100 hours will accommodate the majority of users. But it’s the ones that play over 100 hours who are likely your most dedicated subscribers.
It works very well on Mac. Just not on iOS because until recently Apple did not allow game streaming on App Store.How this service works for Mac users? Someone use it?
They work much better now, especially if you live near one of the data centers (most heavily populated regions will be near one).do these cloud gaming work? I tried it like 10 years ago, it moved in slow motion
Those 6% of users are using a lot more than 6% of the resourcesIf this only affects ~6% of users, how is this change meant to improve things for other subscribers? This makes no sense to me, what am I missing? How are 6% of users meaningfully degrading the quality of the service and why can't one of the most valuable companies on earth simply improve their infrastructure?
Agree with you, but it depends on the games. I mostly play FromSoftware games. Neither Elden Ring nor Dark Souls III is supported on GFN.I think GFN is really good. I like that I don't have to buy another machine just for casual PC gaming.
Valve only has about 336 employees, surely apple can hire their own people Todo that work.I wish Apple and Steam would partner up to improve x86 gaming emulation on ARM so Mac users can finally play some good games without much hassle. I think that both companies could benefit, especially with rumors of the Steam deck going ARM.
Now you can get gaming laptops and nice ones too like the Asus rog zephyrus g16 it has a nividia GTX 4060 or better graphics card and OLED screen and is thinner than a MBP , no need to build a PC.If you’re that serious about gaming then build a gaming PC. I seriously hate dealing with subscriptions lately…