Nvidia’s GeForce Now PC beta is much better at cloud gaming than you think

GeForce Now

Cloud gaming has become a bit of a dirty word these days. There have been plenty of people who have tried their hand at it over the years, promising high-end, lag-free gaming without the need for all that bulky, costly hardware, but most (*cough*Gaikai*cough*OnLive*cough*) have ended up on that age-old trash heap of crushed dreams and broken promises, their meagre uptake prompting them to disappear back into the ether almost as quickly as they appeared.

This time, though, Nvidia might have finally cracked it, as the beta for their GeForce Now streaming service has finally arrived on PC in Europe and North America. It’s free, uses your very own game library and their respective cloud saves, and, whisper it, it’s actually pretty good. So rejoice all you laptop and creaking PC people whose rigs would probably faint at even the slightest suggestion of running something like Doom or Shadow of War at Ultra quality settings and 60fps. Your time in the gaming big leagues has arrived.

So how does this GeForce Now malarkey actually work? One important point to make before we dive into the nitty-gritty is that this isn’t the same thing as GeForce Now on Nvidia’s own Shield tablet or their Shield TV streaming gizmo (helpful, I know). Those have a different library of games and completely separate pricing structure to the PC version, so cast whatever you currently know about GeForce Now to the wind. It’s no good here.

Instead, GeForce Now for PC is all about turning low-end systems such as laptops, netbooks and ancient PCs into high-powered gaming rigs, letting you play games you already own at the shiniest, most extreme graphics settings possible without said laptop or PC collapsing into a wheezing, undignified mess.

Doom at 1080p, 60fps and Ultra-Nightmare settings on my four-year-old laptop? You're having a laugh, mate. Oh...

Doom running at 1080p, 60fps and Ultra-Nightmare settings on my four-year-old laptop? You’re having a laugh, mate. Oh…

It’s not every game you own, mind. Right now, there are around 150 games that support GeForce Now (you’ll find a full list on the next page), but Nvidia says they’ll continue to add more at regular intervals.

You’re also currently limited to games from Steam, UPlay and Battle.net. However, provided Nvidia’s previously announced partnerships with GOG and Origin haven’t fallen through since they were first unveiled in January 2016, then games from these platforms should also hopefully be making their way over either very soon or when GeForce Now launches properly once the beta’s over.

There is, admittedly, a small loophole that lets you play Steam games that aren’t on Nvidia’s supported list, but to be honest, it’s a bit of a faff. You not only need to install the game each time you want to play it through GeForce Now (which Nvidia says can take up to 30 minutes as opposed to a one-time ten second install like the rest of GeForce Now’s library), but you won’t be able to take advantage of things like cloud saves either – unless, that is, it already supports Steam’s Cloud Sync and you’ve got that enabled.

Still, there’s a pretty good selection on offer in the main GeForce Now library, including favourites like Plunkbat, Fortnite and CS: GO, as well as newer, fancier things you might not have found time to play yet, such as Divinity: Original Sin 2, Destiny 2, Wolfenstein II: The New Colossus, SpellForce 3, Prey and Dishonored: Death of the Outsider. You can also buy supported games you don’t currently own within the GeForce Now app, as clicking on each game will take you straight to its relevant store page.

GeForce Now games

Just some of the games available on GeForce Now right now

It’s certainly a tempting prospect, both if you’ve never owned a proper gaming PC or have ever contemplated whether it’s worth going all in on and spending thousands of pounds on a full-blown gaming laptop – particularly when graphics card prices are still fluctuating faster than Steam’s best-seller list. If you bought the 4K-capable Nvidia GeForce GTX 1080 over Black Friday, for instance, you could have bagged one for around £480. Now, you’re looking at paying something closer to £650. No thank you. The GTX 1070 is even worse. This cost £350 in November. Now you’ll need to add another £200 to your budget.

There are, of course, cheaper graphics cards available like the £140 GTX 1050Ti (our current 1080p gaming champion), but that still doesn’t help much if you’re often tied to a laptop or all-in-one PC, or simply don’t have the confidence or know-how to start tinkering about inside your current PC case.

GeForce Now also takes a lot of the hassle out of owning and maintaining a gaming PC, as annoying things like updates and game drivers are all handled automatically at Nvidia’s end, meaning you’ll never have to wait for a new patch to install ever again. You also don’t have to worry about clogging up your hard drive or SSD with loads of game files either, as that’s all taken care of in the cloud. Each game installs in about ten seconds, taking up next to no space at all instead of tens of GBs, and there’s no limit on the number of games you can have installed either. GeForce Now games all support cloud saves, too, so your files won’t be locked inside Nvidia’s servers forever should you decide to leave or stop your subscription.

GeForce Now download

That said, the big question that still hasn’t been answered is how much does all this actually cost? Well, the short answer is we don’t know yet. The PC beta is currently free for everyone who signs up (there’s currently a waiting list, so it may take a while before you get onto it), and will remain so until GeForce Now launches properly. Nvidia couldn’t give me any kind of timescale on when that might happen when I probed them about it, but they did say that the beta would continue for at least the next three months, so it might be a while before you find out for sure.

GeForce Now PC beta performance

Is it really as good as it all sounds, though? Well, much like any cloud gaming service, the quality of the service depends very much on your current web connection, as you’ll only be able to see all those Ultra-fied face pores and wafting hair locks if you’ve got big enough internet pipes. Anything less and those pristine textures will descend into a giant, smeary blob of pixelated Vaseline, a bit like when you’re trying to stream something on the telly and it hasn’t quite buffered yet.

According to Nvidia, you need an internet connection with at least a 25Mbps download speed, but ideally you should have 50Mbps or more to get the best out of it. Nvidia also recommends you’re hardwired into your router via an Ethernet cable, or have a 5GHz one you can connect to wirelessly.

GeForce Now wireless

You’ll also need to make sure the laptop or PC you’re using has at least Windows 7 or higher for your OS, a 3.1GHz Intel Core i3 processor or faster, 4GB of RAM and a GPU that supports DirectX 9 – i.e.: an Nvidia GeForce 600 or AMD Radeon HD 3000 series card or newer, or Intel HD Graphics 2000 or newer if you’re using a laptop.

To put GeForce Now through its paces, I installed it on my 2013 Dell XPS 13 laptop, which has never enjoyed anything more than Intel’s integrated HD Graphics 4400 chip, and gave it a thorough going over at both 2.4GHz and 5GHz on my BT Smart Hub router.

When connecting over 2.4GHz, I was warned about having poor signal and that I might experience stutter or latency issues, but on the whole, it wasn’t really the latency that was the problem. Instead, it was the bitrate – or rather that aforementioned Vaseline issue. Despite measuring a bitrate/download speed between 45-49Mbps, the overall sharpness of each game I tried tended to vary quite wildly – like everything had a dynamic resolution feature that would produce pixel-perfect textures one minute and descend into a blurred mess the next.

Now this wasn’t the case all the time. Running GeForce Now on a Monday morning, for instance, was much more stable than using it on Friday evening (when a pop-up message warned me that the sheer number of people trying to use the service at that time might mean connection times were a bit slower than normal), and I also found the bitrate tended to be a bit hit and miss when my partner was playing something else downstairs in the living room. When it did drop, however, even if it was just for the briefest handful of seconds, I couldn’t help but feel disappointed – even though under ordinary circumstances my laptop would struggle to spit out a single frame at similar settings.

GeForce Now Doom screenshot

Doom, in all its demonic, perfectly streamed glory. (Click for full size)

This wasn’t much of a problem in games like Doom, Tacoma or Dishonored 2, as their broader colour palettes and stylised art direction aren’t so dependent on reproducing the absolute finest detail. In something like SpellForce 3, however, even a small drop in bitrate can quite literally spell disaster, as there were times when its reams of text became almost illegible. That’s a problem when you’re managing lots of units and need the game’s detailed UI to help send them into battle or manage your town’s building resources, and in cases like these, a 2.4GHz connection just isn’t really enough to produce the seamless experience you’d want from a cloud gaming service.

I also experienced the occasional latency issue in Doom. Again, most of the time it was absolutely fine. The frame rate never dropped below 60fps on Ultra/Nightmare settings at 1920×1080, but there were still a couple of times when it ground to a choppy, stuttery halt in big fight scenes, turning what should be fast, fluid shoot-outs into a disastrous slideshow.

This screenshot doesn't quite capture the full extent of how blurry it can look in real life, but you really need a 5GHz wireless connection if you like playing strategy games

This screenshot doesn’t quite capture the full extent of how blurry text can look in real life, but you really need a 5GHz wireless connection if you like playing strategy games. (Click for full size)

The latency and bitrate problems got a little better when I turned on the Ultra Streaming Mode option in the GeForce Now’s menu options, which is meant to adjust in-game settings to help minimise latency issues, but this was nothing compared to switching over to my router’s 5GHz network.

At 5GHz, those bitrate issues completely disappeared, restoring my faith that I didn’t, in fact, just need to go to the opticians and get some new glasses. SpellForce 3 ran like a beaut, rendering all its glorious text in picture-perfect detail, and it even ironed out most of Doom’s latency issues as well. I still encountered one instance of some quite nasty lag during a particularly busy demon brawl, but it recovered in a couple of seconds and never happened again in a single mission. To all intents and purposes, it really did feel like I was playing on a proper gaming PC – not an ultraportable laptop that’s never seen the inside of a dedicated graphics card its entire life.

That’s a pretty great feeling if I’m honest, and even those few seconds of lag over 5GHz weren’t enough to dim my overall view of GeForce Now. Even my own Nvidia GeForce GTX 970-equipped PC can’t run Doom without the odd frame rate plunge every now and again, and having the opportunity to play games like Dishonored 2, Okami HD, Destiny 2, Prey and Metal Gear Solid V on a laptop in any room in my house is about the closest I’m going to get to a PC version of the Nintendo Switch any time soon – which, let’s face it, is all anyone really wants in lifeSteam Link comes close, admittedly, but that still requires you to sit down in front of a TV or monitor. GeForce Now, on the other hand, lets me fire up a game when I’m tucked up in bed.

The rough locations of GeForce Now's data centres

The rough locations of GeForce Now’s data centres

Of course, this may change once Nvidia tell us how much this is all going to cost – the nice thing about the Switch, of course, is that you don’t have a running monthly fee for the privilege of portable play. But provided GeForce Now doesn’t start costing silly money, I think this really could be a force for good in PC gaming spheres and give older devices a new lease of life. It would certainly make me think twice about the need to upgrade my four-year old laptop and, given current graphics card prices, it might even work out to be just as cost-effective in the long run.

Look at it this way. A £650 graphics card would effectively cost £54-per-month over the course of the year, or £18-per-month over the course of three. Even if you don’t upgrade that graphics card for another five years (which works out at roughly £11-per-month), that might end up being roughly the same kind of money you’d spend on GeForce Now over the same time period – all without the hassle of game storage woes, install times, driver updates and constantly fiddling around with the graphics settings.

Only time will tell, of course, but right now, I’m feeling optimistic. A lot will depend on the kind and number of games Nvidia adds to GeForce Now in the future, but as long as it keeps up with new releases and provides enough variety across all the major genres, it might finally be the thing to restore cloud gaming’s good name. It’s certainly worth checking out if you’ve got the right internet connection and can bag a spot on the beta, and here’s hoping it doesn’t cost an arm and a leg when it finally launches.

For a full list of games currently supported by GeForce Now, head over to the next page.

56 Comments

  1. Darkmessage says:

    Do you even tag, bro?

    Edit: Goddamn, somebody removed all the auto-generated tags :(

  2. Chris Cunningham says:

    This kept me sane (on a Mac) over the holidays. With a decent connection you’ll forget it’s remote until you get confused as to why loading times are so short. The PC release will change people’s lives, at least until Nvidia start charging for it.

  3. Mcshufts says:

    Currently checking out Rainway (mixed results so far) but Moonlight works mostly well too.

  4. GSGregory says:

    25 at least… that still leaves out most people. If you can’t afford a gaming pc I doubt you have an internet connection that high. at least in america where our prices are high and isps suck.

    Then you have bandwidth limits that are still at year 2000 levels that barely handle netflix let alone full time gaming at 1080. I don’t see isps changing their tune about this either.

    • HiroTheProtagonist says:

      Came in to post this. Network speeds in the states are still pretty slow, and now there’s little reason for them to improve.

      Also, the minimum specs feel a bit steep, relatively speaking. Someone with a 600-series card probably wants to or already has upgraded their PC to play the latest games, and most laptops with integrated graphics aren’t running 2000-series outside of higher-end models. Combined with the need for South Korean internet speeds, it just seems like the whole thing will never extend beyond a niche group for a few years before getting canned.

      • GSGregory says:

        Even if the speeds in america were all 100 mbps right now the bandwidth caps are all still at 200-300 gbs a month.

        Some of the few conversations I could find. If 1tb bandwidth limits have trouble handling 50 hours of gaming no isp in america will tolerate this service.

        link to forums.geforce.com

        link to forums.geforce.com

        • supagold says:

          Comcast is one of the largest ISPs in the US, and their caps are 1TB/mo. If Nvidia is using a 20Mbps stream for 1080p, my back of the envelope calculations show 50 hours a month would use 450GB.

          For comparison, Netflix used to use 3Mbps streams for 1080p, but I believe they moved to VBR not too long ago, so they’re probably still on the order 2-5Mbps depending on scene complexity. They have the advantage of pre-compressing their files, but I’d still expect Nvidia’s streams to be <20Mbps in practice.

          • GSGregory says:

            So for 50 hours of gaming you have half your monthly cap. If you watch netflix… And thats for a single person. If there are 2 users on this plan or a family it would be over quick. And that still leaves out that most people don’t have this 1tb limit. The 1tb limit only applies to 27 states and im not sure if its available on all plans or an extra. And lets be honest. If you regularly use 50%+ of your plan from a single source comcast is going to throttle you.

          • supagold says:

            Well, it’s more likely to work out to <25% of your plan, and even 2 people watching netflix for 50h doesn't get you to 50%. I think you're vastly overestimating both how much bandwidth streaming sources use, and how much most ISPs care. 500GB of Netflix = ~370 hours of 1080p programming. That's over 15 days of television. I just don't see many people blowing through that much data.

            I ran through my entire 1TB cap with comcast last month, with about 90% of the traffic coming from a single source (misconfigured NNTP app), and they didn't throttle me. I got over my quoted 100Mb speed for most of the time. All I got was an email telling me I used 1 of my 3 free overage months. I hate comcast for plenty of reasons, (and came close to canceling this month) but they’ve been reasonably fair to me internet-wise.

          • GSGregory says:

            You seem to be one of the lucky ones. I doubt most comcast users would agree.

            However that doesn’t really matter. What matters is the 1tb limit is not the norm. 2-300 gbs is. and if 30-40 hours has you over your monthly limit that isn’t practical for replacing a desktop.

            And I might be overestimating a bit, but there is no information at all except for the two forum threads where people hit a 1tb limit.

            And if you have or live with a family that watches netflix, or live with someone else who games or streams ect this will soar past bandwidth limits.

          • kiasta says:

            I have Gigabit internet through Comcast and have a 1TB bandwidth limit. My first month I went through 1000 GB almost hitting my cap. Second month I did just over 500GB. Not only is it pointless for me to have Gigabit internet with a paultry 1TB bandwidth limit but if I want to remove that limit I have to pay an extra $50/mo. I do 4K streaming on my TV through Netflix and it just eats up all my bandwidth. There’s no way I’m going to be able to use this service as it stands. It’s criminal that ISPS can set a bandwidth limit on internet.

        • poohbear says:

          u guys have bandwidth caps in the US? is this normal in the big cities or just the countryside? In Canada we’re not particularly famous for our internet, but unlimited bandwidth is the common standard here in Toronto and the other big cities.

      • pkroliko1 says:

        I think it really depends how they price it. I remember last time they tried the price was outrageous something like $25 for 20 hours of gaming or something like that which at that point might as well just buy your own GPU. Completely destroys the value of the service imo.

    • Relenzo says:

      And that’s all without factoring in our good friend Mr. Pai. Lord only knows how feasible it will be to stream so much data six months from now.

    • Premium User Badge

      Nauallis says:

      I dunno, I disagree about “leaves out most people”, but I might be experiencing the shock of realizing that I’m comparatively privileged. On the other hand, people seem to like to conveniently forget that a huge (majority) portion of the gaming population is somewhere between 25-45 years old, with disposable incomes and varying levels of tech savvy. Whether you have children or not, if you have a computer at home I am willing to bet most people are also paying for a home internet connection.

      A 25Mbps down speed is relatively affordable in (larger) American cities that have access to a fiber connection, be that Google, AT&T, CenturyLink, Comcast, etc, usually for $50-$75 a month in the 40-100 Mbps range. Less in some areas. It’s certainly more expensive for cable – my wife and I pay ~$100/month for approximately 125Mbps through Comcast, but I still do not think that’s an unreasonable monthly cost for a household. It probably is in Europe, but that’s an irrelevant point here.

      As a cost comparison for what people are willing to pay regarding monthly subscriptions and services, many of our friends have cellphone plans that cost upwards of $150/month for only one or two numbers, but they are using their phones for 90-100% of their online access. Some don’t even own PCs.

      Maybe Grandma is still on a 7 Mbps connection or less, or DINKs who do nothing but exercise and watch Netflix, but they aren’t the target market. This is aimed at the household with a couple of kids on a 40 Mbps connection.

      • Zamn10210 says:

        I had no idea that broadband connections were still so slow and expensive in the US. I live in the UK and get 100Mbps with no bandwidth limit for the equivalent of about $50 a month. I don’t think it’s even possible to get a connection slower than 30Mbps these days, at least not in urban areas. And the UK is certainly far from cutting edge as far as broadband infrastructure is concerned.

        • Singular says:

          I’d have to disagree with you there. I’ve moved about a bit recently and over 3 properties, Virgin would supply not a single one. The best bandwidth I got was 30Mbps with Sky Fibre, and that was after much tinkering.

          Okay, it’s all relatively cheap compared to the US, but I couldn’t see myself getting 50 Mbps without a fibre-to-the-home setup, which just isn’t possible in a lot of areas.

          • Zamn10210 says:

            I guess I’m lucky then but even your bad luck is apparently much better than the situation in the US, to my surprise.

        • ludde says:

          In Sweden 100 Mbps goes for about $30 and is on the slower end of what’s available, in urban areas. 250 Mbps is mid-range and 1000 Mbps high-end but increasingly affordable at about $75. Obviously no caps.

  5. Premium User Badge

    DeadlyAvenger says:

    Steam Link comes close, admittedly, but that still requires you to sit down in front of a TV or monitor.

    I don’t understand what you mean by this? Because of the Steam Link box itself? Unless they removed it, you can use Steam Link functionality between two PCs (e.g. your gaming PC and laptop) locally as well.

    • lordmogul says:

      One will need some kind of display and input peripherals anyway, no matther the platform. So not really an argument.

  6. upupup says:

    The reason to treat Cloud gaming as a dirty word isn’t because of its viability, but because it takes away all control consumers have over their products, making the relation between them and companies drastically one-sided and rendering preserving them for the future nigh impossible. It’s not a positive kind of convenience at all and should be pushed back against by anyone with any sort of affection for the medium.

    • Chris Cunningham says:

      If you think there is nothing at all positive about being able to play modern video games on budget laptops and get the same sort of performance you’d expect for the first six months from a massively overpowered gaming PC then you’ll be aghast when your parents stop paying for your computing equipment.

      • The K says:

        Yes, everyone of us who owns a top of the line gaming rig, or even updates his computer regularly lives at home with mommy and pays all this with daddys credit card. People with jobs and disposable income are not a thing in the PC gaming crowd, no sir.

        Nothing like a good old ad-hominem argument, right?

      • upupup says:

        I’ll take being called young as a compliment, but aside from that the consequences of consumers losing all control over their products far, far, far outweigh the inconvenience of not being able to play the hottest new thing on your laptop, when there’s an excess of options already available to you – handhelds, phones and now even consoles to play on, plus countless of slightly older games that will run just fine.

      • BooleanBob says:

        I disagree with you so you must be an immature, entitled freeloader.

        What?

      • ludde says:

        Subtle.

    • HiroTheProtagonist says:

      If you use Steam/uPlay/Origin you already gave up direct ownership of your games for convenience.

      But realistically, cloud gaming is just not viable and only offers benefits to those who don’t run cost-benefit analysis. GeForce Now is free right now, but I’m guessing it will cost money once the beta is over, and I’m also guessing that a year’s worth of access will be comparable to a 1070’s MSRP circa mid-2017.

      • TechnicalBen says:

        Many of my Steam games are just .exe with no DRM.

        Can you again confirm that Steam requires DRM?

        Origin and Uplay can jump off a cliff though.

        • GSGregory says:

          Close steam completely. Launch the exe and see what happens.

          • malkav11 says:

            In quite a few cases, the game will launch. Steam’s DRM scheme is not mandatory and not everyone uses it.

      • upupup says:

        Which is part of why I dislike those services, but even then the files are there on your computer to tinker with as you please, if you choose to. That makes all the difference. With the Cloud, you have no control over your files and can’t do anything if a company decides to make it disappear, such as because they want you to buy the New and Improved version or because they don’t want something to fall into public use and thus insure that no-one can use it, it’s gone forever. Treating any medium of expression in such a way is intolerable and a perversion of why concepts such as copyright came to be in the first place – to grant temporary exclusive use of ideas that belong to all to incentivize creativity and innovation. No medium can evolve without learning from its predecessors, for which preservation is a need and a right.

        If that sounds overly high-minded, that would be because I have spent most of my life working on games and believing in their potential for creativity and as a medium of expression, only to see the industry hijacked by shallow marketing, an obsession with mimicking the worst parts of the movie industry and a complete lack of accountability. Despite how tired I am of it all, I still feel strongly about how this is not how it should be and not what we should we be striving for, yet to achieve this people need to start looking beyond minor conveniences and at what they’re sacrificing to get them. That’s what I’m hoping to achieve at least.

        And yes, I agree that it’s still unlikely to catch on anytime soon, but I feel that it is important to not forget why we should reject this approach to games on principle instead of only being unfeasible.

    • Premium User Badge

      DeadlyAvenger says:

      For me – it’s the input lag. I can really see the benefit of this but they need to improve the lag (which I think is nearing the boundaries of what’s technically possible) for it to appeal to serious gamers.

    • malkav11 says:

      This is my usual complaint about the prospect of cloud gaming, but I think “play games you’ve already separately purchased and can run on your own hardware with cloud save transfer at any time you choose” is about as far from risking that scenario as you’re likely to get.

      I have no idea how they monetize it and still make it a useful prospect, lots of people aren’t going to have robust enough (or uncapped enough) internet to use it, and the game selection seems pretty thin, but unlike OnLive or Gaikai or whatever, it doesn’t seem to be about taking away our consumer rights.

    • DodgyG33za says:

      While I am sympathetic to the argument of the OP I find myself in a situation where such as service would be quite compelling. For most of the year my gaming rig is in Australia. I am in a serviced apartment in a third world capital that has an 80mbit connection. It isn’t feasible to bring my rig with me each time, and I have a ton of games on my steam account.

      Realistically though, I am likely to buy a serious gaming laptop next time I am home.

  7. aircool says:

    I use the Nvidia Shield TV… great bit of kit and great for playing PC games downstairs on the big TV. Well, as long as they games that use a controller and not a mouse and keyboard.

    As for lag when using it over the internet, I haven’t tried it, but I’d imagine it won’t be great for twitch shooters, but totally fine for more laid back games like XCOM/XCOM2 etc…

  8. fish99 says:

    OMG what the hell happened to GPU prices?

    • nrrd says:

      Cryptocurrency dipshits

    • Nelyeth says:

      Cryptocurrency miners are buying every last GPU on the market. Even physical retailers are being raided now, and even though nVidia released a statement to say “guys stop doing this”, they’re not actually doing anything to stop them.

  9. Premium User Badge

    colinmarc says:

    I’ve been using it to play PC games on my apple computer. Despite having a wired 400mbit connection, though, I’ve found the streaming quality to be extremely bad. Latency is fine. I’m in Berlin, so maybe they’re underprovisioned in central europe or something.

    • GSGregory says:

      One bit I read stated they have 6 data centers and its recommended you have a ping under 60 to one of them.

    • montfalcon says:

      Internet in Berlin is particularly poor, though.

  10. mont3core says:

    Parsec is the only streaming service I’ve found to have low enough latency to not drive me totally insane. It’s free and easy too.

  11. left1000 says:

    IMO it’s not at all fair to say Gaikai and OnLive are on the trash heap. Sony bought both services for 100s of millions of dollars. Sony shut them down, yes, but only because sony at the same time started it’s own service that did the exact same thing. Playstation now. Which is pretty popular service. When you make a company that does well enough to get bought out by the competition that doesn’t really mean you failed. Yes users couldn’t use gaikai or onlive anymore but playstation now is still going strong.

    • Karmakaze says:

      Lots of factual errors but you got the gist right. The Gaikai team built PlayStation Now after Sony acquired it. Sony did not buy OnLive but if I recall correctly did buy some of their IP after they folded.

      Source: worked at both Gaikai and PlayStation Now.

  12. Simbosan says:

    In NZ the lowest ping I have ever seen is 170ms, that’s unsupportable lag for playing a twitch game of any difficulty

    • programmdude says:

      You would need it local in the country. It would be worse in aussie, since they are so spread apart.

    • Carra says:

      One nice thing about living in Belgium. Data centers are often put up here or in a 500 km radius (Paris, Netherlands…).

  13. Vilos Cohaagen says:

    Intriguing!

  14. programmdude says:

    I’ve had problems using steam streaming over wired LAN, which is a 1Gbit connection. The bitrate isn’t high enough so everything looks slightly blurry. Having 4K would make it 4x worse. I don’t think it’s the network bandwidth though, it’s likely to be a side effect of real time streaming using lossless compression.
    It’s similar to the difference between 720p movies and 1080p movies on a 1080px monitor, 720p isn’t bad, but the 1080p is noticeably crisper.

    • ludde says:

      It’ll never look as good as it does coming straight from your GPU. A single DVI-link for 1080p@60Hz is 4Gbps, so the compression to go down to 50Mbps or even 1Gpbs has to be pretty severe.

  15. Askis says:

    The games you mention are all singleplayer, did you try some of the multiplayer ones as well? Would be interesting to know if gaming through the cloud affects your latency significantly.

    Also, they’ve got Skyrim on the list, which kinda brings up the question of mods, do Nvidia allow you to mod “your” installation of a game or is it base game only?

  16. Zendegi says:

    It seems that no one’s heard of LiquidSky. They are a completely up and working, worldwide cloud gaming service. Very similar to Geforce’s model, but there are no restrictions on any game or service you can use. I’ve used it briefly to check it out, and it run pretty stable and solid. As for the price…look up Liquidsky and check that out, I forget at the moment.