Unless they have magically solved network latency issues, then it's worthless like all the previous similar attempts. I don't think they are capable of solving those.

Latency depends on the ISP, and there is nothing Nvidia or anyone else can do about it. With certain distance to the server, latency will become noticeable, especially for relatime focused games.

The best one can do is find an ISP with least latency. But even that won't be enough necessarily. Remote desktop gaming works well in LAN, but not really in general WAN cases.

Still, there are games which are not as affected by latency as others. Those are better candidates for such services. So I suppose it's not completely useless, but at the same time, if one has a computer to run the client for such remote server, it most probably would be capable of running such games too. That's pretty neat. Although when you really stop and think about the entire process, everything about it from a financial and efficiency perspective suddenly seems ridiculous for a grey beard like me. Especially considering that in 2017, the first world is drowning in cheap, powerful electronics. I think it parallels the inevitable autonomous car as a service idea however.

Increasingly convenience and instant gratification trump everything, thus people are starting to be more willing to let go of the concept of actually owning anything. Personally I can't imagine renting time on a graphics card any more then I would a car, but the next generation will probably think it was weird that most people ever owned their own car, and who knows maybe it will be the same with high performance PC towers as well. Interestingly, Steve Jobs did predict that PCs would eventually become the computing equivalent of dump trucks.

Wait, you still have to own the game and pay $25 for 20 hours? Why would Nvidia pay for your games?

They provide a cloud service for installing and playing games through it, but they don't own games themselves. So it makes sense that you pay for the game, and pay to Nvidia for the service. I suppose they intend it for those who don't want to invest into stronger hardware, but at the same time want to play some games which work well in such remote scenarios. Though $25 for 20 hours sounds too high for such a thing. Wait, you still have to own the game and pay $25 for 20 hours?

Why would Nvidia pay for your games? They provide a cloud service for installing and playing games through it, but they don't own games themselves. So it makes sense that you pay for the game, and pay to Nvidia for the service. I suppose they intend it for those who don't want to invest into stronger hardware, but at the same time want to play some games which work well in such remote scenarios. Though $25 for 20 hours sounds too high for such a thing. They wouldn't I was just thinking it would work like PS Now where you rent games. You don't just rent a PS3 there, you rent a PS3 and Infamous or whatever.

Also how much of my 20 hours is going to be wasted downloading 50 GB of Doom then? They wouldn't I was just thinking it would work like PS Now where you rent games. You don't just rent a PS3 there, you rent a PS3 and Infamous or whatever. Also how much of my 20 hours is going to be wasted downloading 50 GB of Doom then?

Sony is different. I don't use them, but I assume games they offer for such renting are also games they own. So they can do whatever they want with them.

Nvidia isn't a gaming publisher and they don't own games. So in order to do such a thing, they'd need to pay for them. Since it's a remote server, I assume installation would happen on it, so you won't need to pull anything to the local computer.

And most probably they would have good gigabit+ connections, so even huge games won't take long to install. They wouldn't I was just thinking it would work like PS Now where you rent games. You don't just rent a PS3 there, you rent a PS3 and Infamous or whatever. Also how much of my 20 hours is going to be wasted downloading 50 GB of Doom then? Sony is different.

I don't use them, but I assume games they offer for such renting are also games they own. So they can do whatever they want with them. Nvidia isn't a gaming publisher and they don't own games. So in order to do such a thing, they'd need to pay for them.

Since it's a remote server, I assume installation would happen on it, so you won't need to pull anything to the local computer. And most probably they would have good gigabit+ connections, so even huge games won't take long to install. There's 450+ games on PS Now.

Not all Sonys obviously. It wouldn't really be any different from a computer cafe that has games installed or a video game rental store. Just served over the internet. Why couldn't they have PCs with any game? Of course it would install on the remote server. Installing a 50GB game even on a gigabit connection is going to waste a good 10 minutes at least.

Kinda crap when you are paying per hour. Wait, you still have to own the game and pay $25 for 20 hours? Why would Nvidia pay for your games? They provide a cloud service for installing and playing games through it, but they don't own games themselves. So it makes sense that you pay for the game, and pay to Nvidia for the service. I suppose they intend it for those who don't want to invest into stronger hardware, but at the same time want to play some games which work well in such remote scenarios. Though $25 for 20 hours sounds too high for such a thing.

They wouldn't I was just thinking it would work like PS Now where you rent games. You don't just rent a PS3 there, you rent a PS3 and Infamous or whatever. Also how much of my 20 hours is going to be wasted downloading 50 GB of Doom then? I'm assuming that Amazon has a very fast internet connection, it would take less than 10 minutes to download Doom on a 1Gb connection. ^ninja'd cos I was slow with the reply butan edit: also, who's to say time spent downloading a game is going to count against your allotted hours? I actually can see this, personally.

$1.25 an hour is a bit expensive yet, but it's still cheaper than a new computer for the occasional Windows game I want to play on my Mac, that various virtualization solutions won't solve cheaper yet. Unless the price drops quite a bit I can't see playing games on it regularly, but for the occasional title that needs top-of-the-line hardware for the gamer who isn't invested enough into gaming to make keeping a computer fully upgraded worth the money, it's probably a good deal. There's 450+ games on PS Now. Not all Sonys obviously. It wouldn't really be any different from a computer cafe that has games installed or a video game rental store.

Just served over the internet. Why couldn't they have PCs with any game? Of course it would install on the remote server. Installing a 50GB game even on a gigabit connection is going to waste a good 10 minutes at least. Kinda crap when you are paying per hour. Not sure about computer cafes.

Wouldn't they need to pay something for renting games to others as a service? Games are usually sold to individuals, not to other services to profit from. I think there might be some tricky issue here with first sale doctrine though. You can resell something physical for sure. Can you resell something digital? What about renting?

I suppose it depends on how the law defines it. 50 GB = 400 Gb. That's 6 min 40 sec to download on 1 Gb/s. Not much, but I suppose they can exclude downloading time from the charges. That's pretty neat. Although when you really stop and think about the entire process, everything about it from a financial and efficiency perspective suddenly seems ridiculous for a grey beard like me. Especially considering that in 2017, the first world is drowning in cheap, powerful electronics.

Package: 1x USB Speaker phone 1x USB cable 1x User Manual 1x Portable EVA Travel Case Application &Features: This device is both a speaker and microphone for your PC. Untie yourself from your handset and headset, for one-to-one conversations or group conference calls Plug and Play, requires no software or battery, just connect it to your PC via USB interface. Conference usb microphone, portable stereo omnidirectional. HD Voice for conversations in High Definition sound quality Crystal-clear conversations during Skype of Microsoft internet calls with far field Mic, noise reduction and echo cancellation Hear and be heard with a 360-degree Omni-directional microphone that picks up sounds from any angle Support Windows, Mac OS and Chrome Compatible Software: Skype, Zoom, Google Hangout, Microsoft Lync, Cisco, Avaya, Face time, Ding talk, Vonage business, Adobe web, ect. Easy to use with dedicated controls for answering and ending calls, volume, and mute Compatible with Windows Microsoft Communicator and Microsoft Lync.

I think it parallels the inevitable autonomous car as a service idea however. Increasingly convenience and instant gratification trump everything, thus people are starting to be more willing to let go of the concept of actually owning anything. Personally I can't imagine renting time on a graphics card any more then I would a car, but the next generation will probably think it was weird that most people ever owned their own car, and who knows maybe it will be the same with high performance PC towers as well. Interestingly, Steve Jobs did predict that PCs would eventually become the computing equivalent of dump trucks.

Well, I think it's pretty neat too. My hope is that this catches on and things get cheaper. Imagine what this could turn into - everyone could use cloud compute.

You could subscribe and not need to upgrade hardware very often. And power consumption's concentrated at the server farm. I look forward to the day I can call on more compute power as and when I need it for day-to-day stuff. And latency - they could move server farms close to where their users are concentrated and twist ISP's arms into laying down fiber. That's a management problem, not a technical one.

There's 450+ games on PS Now. Not all Sonys obviously. It wouldn't really be any different from a computer cafe that has games installed or a video game rental store. Just served over the internet.

Why couldn't they have PCs with any game? Of course it would install on the remote server. Installing a 50GB game even on a gigabit connection is going to waste a good 10 minutes at least. Kinda crap when you are paying per hour. Not sure about computer cafes. Wouldn't they need to pay something for renting games to others as a service? Games are usually sold to individuals, not to other services to profit from.

I think there might be some tricky issue here with first sale doctrine though. You can resell something physical for sure. Can you resell something digital?

What about renting? I suppose it depends on how the law defines it. 50 GB = 400 Gb. That's 6 min 40 sec to download on 1 Gb/s. Not much, but I suppose they can exclude downloading time from the charges. Yea, that's assuming the drives they stick in these servers can write that fast and Steam fully saturates a Gigabit connection from where ever, plus the time to login, do the first run setup install direct X all that stuff. 10 min seems like a decent estimate to me.

Can't Download Any Games On Nvidia Geforce Now For Mac Free

How will they tell? Otherwise I can just get a free VPN through Nvidia while downloading hundreds of GBs of Steam games over and over. Yea, that's assuming the drives they stick in these servers can write that fast and Steam fully saturates a Gigabit connection from where ever, plus the time to login, do the first run setup install direct X all that stuff. 10 min seems like a decent estimate to me. How will they tell?

Otherwise I can just get a free VPN through Nvidia while downloading hundreds of GBs of Steam games over and over. Well, you don't really need Nvidia for that.

There are a lot of different services already where you can rent remote hardware (or VMs) and install whatever OS you want there, and run whatever you want. They indeed don't measure what you do.

But they are usually costly. I suppose since Nvidia's service won't be general purpose, they'll somehow provide an ability to measure how long actual gaming session took and can differentiate between maintenance, and intensive usage when GPU is loaded. But then you also get the question of privacy and such. Wait, you still have to own the game and pay $25 for 20 hours? Why would Nvidia pay for your games? They provide a cloud service for installing and playing games through it, but they don't own games themselves.

So it makes sense that you pay for the game, and pay to Nvidia for the service. I suppose they intend it for those who don't want to invest into stronger hardware, but at the same time want to play some games which work well in such remote scenarios. Though $25 for 20 hours sounds too high for such a thing. They wouldn't I was just thinking it would work like PS Now where you rent games. You don't just rent a PS3 there, you rent a PS3 and Infamous or whatever. Also how much of my 20 hours is going to be wasted downloading 50 GB of Doom then? I'd much rather play any game available than be restricted to the games NVIDIA managed to license.

This is great if you have a gaming PC at home and want to access those games on the road (at least in a world without latency). That's pretty neat.

Although when you really stop and think about the entire process, everything about it from a financial and efficiency perspective suddenly seems ridiculous for a grey beard like me. Especially considering that in 2017, the first world is drowning in cheap, powerful electronics. I think it parallels the inevitable autonomous car as a service idea however. Increasingly convenience and instant gratification trump everything, thus people are starting to be more willing to let go of the concept of actually owning anything. Personally I can't imagine renting time on a graphics card any more then I would a car, but the next generation will probably think it was weird that most people ever owned their own car, and who knows maybe it will be the same with high performance PC towers as well. Interestingly, Steve Jobs did predict that PCs would eventually become the computing equivalent of dump trucks. Well, back when Jobs founded Apple in the 70s, almost no one owned computers; anyone who wanted to compute rented time on big mainframes and minicomputers.

Can't Download Any Games On Nvidia Geforce Now For Mac Download

We're just coming back full circle. The really disappointing part about this is that there was no 1080Ti announced. WE may have to wait until GDC until it comes. That's assuming it comes at all. Then again, if it comes it will likely be exorbitantly priced and have limited Async capability, so it won't be future proof. The other is that Nvidia has been behaving like a monopoly. I hope that AMD's Vega gives them a hard kick in the groin.

Prices have been high on Pascal high end GPUs, while the quality of drivers has declined, especially in the case of quality of SLI drivers. Meanwhile Nvidia has made record breaking profits.

They don't care about computer enthusiasts any more. We're just something to milk. Meanwhile they expand aggressively into the HPC and automotive sectors with a lot of resources. If Vega is strong, I will be buying a pair of Vega GPUs to support AMD. Hopefully the rumored 6144 core Vega is true, not just the 4096 core version. Wait, you still have to own the game and pay $25 for 20 hours?

Why would Nvidia pay for your games? They provide a cloud service for installing and playing games through it, but they don't own games themselves. So it makes sense that you pay for the game, and pay to Nvidia for the service. I suppose they intend it for those who don't want to invest into stronger hardware, but at the same time want to play some games which work well in such remote scenarios. Though $25 for 20 hours sounds too high for such a thing. They wouldn't I was just thinking it would work like PS Now where you rent games.

You don't just rent a PS3 there, you rent a PS3 and Infamous or whatever. Also how much of my 20 hours is going to be wasted downloading 50 GB of Doom then? If they are smart, popular games would be cached. Nvidia has launched a new version of its GeForce Now game streaming software that allows users to play any game they own from the likes of Steam, Origin, and Uplay on any PC or Mac. You mean Windows and MacOS I presume.

So you knew what he meant. Thanks for enlightening us morons who didn't understand NVidia themselves referred to 'PC and Mac' in the press release, by the way. The free trial is 8 hours by the way, certainly generous enough to see if it works or not for you. Correcting invalid terminology is appropriate.

You should have rolled eyes at Nvidia using it, or the article repeating it. I would imagine the only logical target demographic for this is college kids that don't want to drag their gaming computer to school, business people who want to be able to play a bit on their laptop while they're away and so on. I really don't think that demographic is big enough or willing to pay enough to make this a popular service, but I'm sure they'll find a couple of costumers. Maybe even enough to pay for their costs. And the free advertisement of 'look how pretty this is on our high end cards' is probably nice for them too - maybe a few people on competing brands or lower end cards will be convinced to upgrade after one of those free trials. Wait, you still have to own the game and pay $25 for 20 hours?

Why would Nvidia pay for your games? They provide a cloud service for installing and playing games through it, but they don't own games themselves.

So it makes sense that you pay for the game, and pay to Nvidia for the service. I suppose they intend it for those who don't want to invest into stronger hardware, but at the same time want to play some games which work well in such remote scenarios. Though $25 for 20 hours sounds too high for such a thing. So nvidia can build an attractive business. By licensing content they don't own. You don't think Apple or Pandora owns all the songs, right?

I would imagine the only logical target demographic for this is college kids that don't want to drag their gaming computer to school, business people who want to be able to play a bit on their laptop while they're away and so on. I really don't think that demographic is big enough or willing to pay enough to make this a popular service, but I'm sure they'll find a couple of costumers. Maybe even enough to pay for their costs. And the free advertisement of 'look how pretty this is on our high end cards' is probably nice for them too - maybe a few people on competing brands or lower end cards will be convinced to upgrade after one of those free trials. The other thing to remember is that high-end graphics cards aren't just for games. You need some pretty good power to open, view, and edit things like large 3d models and being able to do that on the road/at home/not at your desk on a cheap and interchangable laptop would be pretty attractive for some companies.

Gaming is a good flashy way to show proof of concept for that. 'Oh, you're worried about 3DS for on-the-road presentations? Here's Crysis 3 on Ultra on a laptop whose brand name I can't even pronounce. Any questions?'

I'd be willing to bet they've already begun talking to (or even have agreements in place with) companies like Autodesk to license their products on their virtual machines. Unless they have magically solved network latency issues, then it's worthless like all the previous similar attempts. Depends on your connection. I've got Gb fibre and have been experimenting with some game streaming services and latency is not noticable (normally around 10ms according to the client program). It also makes things like Citrix usable as that could spike up to 200ms or more on my previous ADSL connection.

Obviously it depends how fast fibre gets rolled out and if they can make the pricing a little more reasonable ($2.50/hour for a 1080 seems excessive) but I can certainly see a future where it makes more sense to rent high gaming performance as you need it rather than incur capital expenditure on something that isn't used 90% of the time and obsolete in 18 months. I know PC gamers have a visceral dislike of anything that smacks of thin clients but it's pretty cool to be able to play state of the art games in bed on an ultrabook. Does anyone know if this geforce now does anything clever to overcome latency issues? I remember reading (although can't remember where) that somehow the streaming service was sending multiple versions of most.probable. frames to the client and the client was choosing which frame to display at the very last millisecond based on user input, thus overcoming the roundtrip latency for user input to travel to the server and receive back the frame. An easy example is a driving game where you turn left or right and based on this the client can have frames already there ready for display.

Can't Download Any Games On Nvidia Geforce Now For Mac Pro

Obviously this requires more processing server side but something interesting I thought. Unless they have magically solved network latency issues, then it's worthless like all the previous similar attempts. I tried game-streaming on my Shield TV months ago and it was absolutely perfectly playable.

I only tried it out with Tomb Raider, but certainly, any latency introduced by the network wasn't noticeable. Of course, it all depends on both how far the servers are from you and how good Internet-connection you have, but it just isn't true that such streaming can't work playably due to latency.