Installer Steam
connexion
|
langue
简体中文 (chinois simplifié)
繁體中文 (chinois traditionnel)
日本語 (japonais)
한국어 (coréen)
ไทย (thaï)
Български (bulgare)
Čeština (tchèque)
Dansk (danois)
Deutsch (allemand)
English (anglais)
Español - España (espagnol castillan)
Español - Latinoamérica (espagnol d'Amérique latine)
Ελληνικά (grec)
Italiano (italien)
Bahasa Indonesia (indonésien)
Magyar (hongrois)
Nederlands (néerlandais)
Norsk (norvégien)
Polski (polonais)
Português (portugais du Portugal)
Português - Brasil (portugais du Brésil)
Română (roumain)
Русский (russe)
Suomi (finnois)
Svenska (suédois)
Türkçe (turc)
Tiếng Việt (vietnamien)
Українська (ukrainien)
Signaler un problème de traduction
Procédures à suivre et règles des discussions
3 
Signaler ce message
Ridiculous arguments? It's basic math. The cheapest RTX 4080 goes for like $1500 USD. GeForce NOW Ultimate (RTX 4080 Rig) is $240 a year. You're going to tell me that's not a good value? That's cheaper than a console!
You're missing the point entirely. This isn't about YOU personally, whether you build and pay for your PC outright or finance it. It's an apples to apples comparison of cost for hardware over a period of time.
To put it as simply as possible, the equivalent PC of the Ultimate tier is in the realm of $3000 - $5000 USD. Yes, that kind of PC will last you a long time. But there's no doubt newer hardware will come out that'll make it inferior rather quickly (as is the nature of hardware cycles).
Now build and upgrade every 6 years around that cost? Or pay less than $1500 every 6 years without needing to worry about upgrades?
GeForce NOW continually upgrades their servers - at no additional cost. You can't possibly compare the value of getting a high end PC in the cloud vs. paying up front for your own.
Obviously, owning your own PC is better from a consumer standpoint. But acting like you're getting ripped off paying a small monthly fee for a cloud rig that'll exceed almost everyone's budget if they were to build it themselves is simply false.
You must work for Nvidia if you're defending it that much.
I got my dedicated graphics card as part of a PC setup on sale. No one is that dumb to buy it individually and not wait for a sale to come along.
GeForce NOW also doesn't have all the games I have and won't ever have them up all at once all the time. So that's inconvenient and a waste of money if I'm paying every month for not being able to play all my games on that service. It's just better off for me to install my games right on my PC and be able to play them ANY TIME I WANT without internet and GeForce NOW or any other such service.
By the way, I have Amazon's Luna because I'm an Amazon Prime member. Luna is similar to GeForce NOW and I hardly ever use it for those reasons.
I love how people default to this when they're on the losing end of an argument.
Okay. Is that dedicated card an RTX 4080? Because if not, this statement is irrelevant given the context of the argument. We're talking about matching specs. Not whether or not you have a PC that can run Minecraft.
That's fair. Nobody is forcing you to use GeForce NOW. It doesn't suit your needs, that's fine. I myself have a gaming laptop. I use GeForce NOW purely for convenience (TV, Phone, Laptop) and when I want to play games like Cyberpunk maxed out at 4k with path tracing.
The only point I'm making is that developers should always opt into the service because it costs them nothing to do so. And it offers the potential for greator sales from those that rely purely on the service to play their games. People complain about the lack of games. Well, how else do you increase the game library on the service besides asking developers to opt in?
How am I losing when I'm making good points about not needing your services?
You only get the RTX 4080 technology if you pay into the Ultimate membership which is $19.99 PER MONTH. The other don't get that. You don't need the latest graphics card to still be able to play the latest games anyway. I'm not due to buy a new gaming computer for another few years. I can live without the latest visual technology for now.
Yeah, I get it, but I'm seeing this from the consumer's side. Gamers taking part in this are actually paying an extra $9.99 to $19.99 PER MONTH for the games they already bought.
I like Nvidia, but they have to think of adding more things to bring extra value to the gamers for this service.
Sorry but that's just a non-sense argument. If you pay 2400€ up front to play the games you already own or if I pay 2400€ over the period of 8-10 years (potential future price increments) GFN Ultimate to play the games I already own, makes no differents in the end. But I don't have the need to pay extra money to upgrade the components in these 10 years.
For me, personally, I also take the electricity savings into account. I use a 65W Mini PC which only needs to output a video/audio stream instead of rendering the game using 400-500W with an equivalent setup.
I really don't get it why some people have the need to argue against the decisions others made for them selfs.
If you are happy with your PC and have fun playing your games, building the PC, it's totally fine. And there is no problem at all if GFN is the best choice for some of us.
The only point that holds water is the lack of games and always needing a connection to the internet (although many games require that anyway).
The argument you're making about the cost of service doesn't make much sense to me.
Yeah, and? That's the entire point. You pay $240 a year for a $4000 equivalent gaming PC. You don't need the latest technology? Indiana Jones would like a word with you.
And that's besides the point. You'll never find a PC capable of running anything for $240. How are you not grasping this?
Again, I don't understand how you're coming to the conclusion that you're paying extra anything.
You BOUGHT the games. Whether on Steam, Epic Games Store, Ubisoft Connect, whatever. You can play them on GeForce NOW or a PC that you own.
The "extra" that you're paying is essentially a rental service for a gaming PC you most likely couldn't afford. Most people aren't throwing around RTX 4080 money. How is that NOT consumer friendly, and a good value proposition?
I either buy games, and spent $1000 plus on a PC to play them. Or I buy my games and pay $240 a year to play them on the highest level hardware?
It's pretty straight forward which one is cheaper long term.
What kind of things would you like to see added that would bring more value to the service to you?
Not having to buy the games like the Xbox service so gamers can just play them without owning them, with the OPTION of buying them if they really like them would be great.
Because right now, I don't care about renting the hardware when I already have a perfectly good gaming setup already bought and paid for like most gamers do.
If GeForce NOW does that and is able to provide a huge library of games, combined with the hardware rental for it's members to choose from, they will definitely do well and give Xbox some competition.
Because right now, I don't think just providing hardware rental is attractive enough. But being able to play games I don't own would.
There are no drawbacks and you would make a lot of people happy!
https://partner.steamgames.com/doc/features/cloudgaming