4 ms·

In a way that's also a disadvantage - people who have a Steam library probably already have something to play it on and have at best a limited need for GFN. And

In a way that's also a disadvantage - people who have a Steam library probably already have something to play it on and have at best a limited need for GFN. And if they have a PC + Steam then with Remote Play they already have their own streaming solution if they really want one.

solardev 4y ago
How is that a disadvantage relative to Stadia? If they don't want to stream a game at all, why would they bother with either service? And if they did want to stream a game from time to time (for me it was being able to play on a laptop anywhere, not just on my own LAN), Steam games were usually cheaper from sales and resellers, there was actual multiplayer, and the Steam ecosystem has a bunch of other advantages. It was just a better service. And GeForce Now had better hardware, ray tracing, customizable graphics settings, vsync, etc. If you don't need to stream a game, well, you don't need any of these services. But if you did, GeForce Now and Steam were just plain better than Stadia.
- synicalx 4y ago
  It's a disadvantage compared to the Xbox and PS streaming services - both of which cost less and come ready-made with a large library of games. It's definitely better than Stadia which seemed to consistently be the worst out of all the streaming services (which I think today's news vindicates). GFN is good especially if you live in an area serviced by it's RTX 3080 streaming "rigs" which make it reasonably good value for money vs the cost of building an equivalent PC. But it's still the most expensive service on the market PLUS you also have to BYO library which rules out entire groups of potential users - Nvidia knows this as well based on how hard they're pushing the free-to-play titles. On top of that a lot of titles aren't even playable on it; I have a steam library of ~700 titles and apparently only ~140ish of them can be played on GFN. Personally I like the GFN idea of being able to "rent" hardware and that's a business model other companies have proven works to a certain degree since ~2015 (Shadow.tech being a good example). However I don't think it has the same mass market appeal of the other surviving services which give you the hardware + a huge library of content just like Netflix/Disney+/Stan etc.
bobthepanda 4y ago
Stadia needed you to double dip if you wanted to play games you already owned on Steam, but GFN did not. That’s easily hundreds of dollars of a game library.

solardev 4y ago

How is that a disadvantage relative to Stadia? If they don't want to stream a game at all, why would they bother with either service? And if they did want to stream a game from time to time (for me it was being able to play on a laptop anywhere, not just on my own LAN), Steam games were usually cheaper from sales and resellers, there was actual multiplayer, and the Steam ecosystem has a bunch of other advantages. It was just a better service. And GeForce Now had better hardware, ray tracing, customizable graphics settings, vsync, etc. If you don't need to stream a game, well, you don't need any of these services. But if you did, GeForce Now and Steam were just plain better than Stadia.

synicalx 4y ago
It's a disadvantage compared to the Xbox and PS streaming services - both of which cost less and come ready-made with a large library of games. It's definitely better than Stadia which seemed to consistently be the worst out of all the streaming services (which I think today's news vindicates). GFN is good especially if you live in an area serviced by it's RTX 3080 streaming "rigs" which make it reasonably good value for money vs the cost of building an equivalent PC. But it's still the most expensive service on the market PLUS you also have to BYO library which rules out entire groups of potential users - Nvidia knows this as well based on how hard they're pushing the free-to-play titles. On top of that a lot of titles aren't even playable on it; I have a steam library of ~700 titles and apparently only ~140ish of them can be played on GFN. Personally I like the GFN idea of being able to "rent" hardware and that's a business model other companies have proven works to a certain degree since ~2015 (Shadow.tech being a good example). However I don't think it has the same mass market appeal of the other surviving services which give you the hardware + a huge library of content just like Netflix/Disney+/Stan etc.

bobthepanda 4y ago

Stadia needed you to double dip if you wanted to play games you already owned on Steam, but GFN did not. That’s easily hundreds of dollars of a game library.