Nvidia’s GeForce Now has been quietly capping its founders’ frame rates

DukenukemX

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 30, 2005
Messages
6,128
If you’re grandfathered into the original $5 a month “Founders” tier or pay $100 a year for “Priority” access, then you aren't getting 60 fps. We somehow missed the part where Nvidia raised the monthly fee to $10 per month earlier this year. Even still, Nvidia now offers $200-a-year tier that gives you the power of a RTX 3080. I've been saying to pro cloud gamers that Nvidia is going to raise their price eventually and not only they did but they're punishing those who are grandfathered from their Founders plan.

Here's a list of games that won't go 60fps.
geforce_now_capped_framerate.jpg


https://www.theverge.com/2021/11/12...-now-cloud-gaming-framerate-cap-fps-cyberpunk
 

GiGaBiTe

2[H]4U
Joined
Apr 26, 2013
Messages
2,186
Not at all surprising. Mega corporations have been pushing the boundaries on just how anti-consumer they can be for profit for a long time now. Ever since the explosion of SaaS, software companies have been jacking up the prices to see how much they can squeeze out of consumers before they squeal.

It'll be like that one prediction "you'll own nothing and be happy". Instead of the good old days where we complained our computers sucked and had bad fps because of shoestring budget PC, we'll be complaining we can't pay enough for the 1337orz gaming tier monthly subscription for good fps.
 

GoodBoy

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 29, 2004
Messages
2,257
Tiered performance makes sense. That might not be what they are doing if you can't still buy the cheaper one. But having a few levels of price/performance is logical.
 

Ebernanut

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 15, 2010
Messages
1,625
Tiered performance makes sense. That might not be what they are doing if you can't still buy the cheaper one. But having a few levels of price/performance is logical.
That's not the alleged issue. They're claiming that framerates are capped below 60 fps on that tier and making it sound like 60 fps was some sort of promise. Of course the source is questionable and doesn't cite any specific promises so it should be taken with a grain of salt but it is Nvidia we're talking about so I don't trust them either.
 

HockeyJon

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 14, 2014
Messages
1,597
This will become like the banking and telecom sectors. We'll complain about crap service and unreasonable fees, but they'll never change because we'll remain customers anyway. In the case of cloud gaming, this is easy to avoid by just not using the service and building your own PC. The less we use it, the better as far as I'm concerned. I'd like to slow the "computer as a service" business model for as long as humanly possible.
 

Domingo

Fully [H]
Joined
Jul 30, 2004
Messages
20,814
How does this service work exactly? I'm guessing it just fires up a pre-configured version of the game a-la a console. Some of those games simply can't pull 60fps on a 3080 at high resolutions and details. Yet on the PC you could choose to turn down certain details until they can. I'm assuming that isn't an option?
 

GoodBoy

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 29, 2004
Messages
2,257
The more I think about it, the more it sounds like bullshit. But, having never used a streaming game service, I have a few questions: Can you go into the game settings and adjust anything? Any settings for the visual quality? Because if you can, obviously it could impact FPS. But I think my next conjecture is even more plausible:

For all we know, having specific FPS that changes with network timings and bandwidth might be to the gamer's benefit, especially if it is adapting to their connection speed. Even with symmetrical gigabit, 240 fps might be too much for the available bandwidth. Streaming a game is not the same as, or as controllable as, streaming a movie. Streaming a movie it can be pre-compressed to fit into a specific bandwidth envelope.
A game is going to be streamed on the fly, there is probably some compression going on but it wouldn't be to the same degree as a movies' would be (if at all) because that would be adding latency to a highly latency-sensitive application. And, a games FPS is something that normally fluctuates all over the place. The one thing you can control in order to control the bandwidth used is obviously the FPS.
I'm sure someone knows the bandwidth needed to stream mostly (I suspect) uncompressed video, but having FPS caps is basically going to be required for a business like that.
For one, you couldn't have a bunch of people playing Minecraft and streaming it at 144 fps.. it would take bandwidth from other customers.

So there probably is some sort of FPS caps in place, but not for the reasons purported (we must hate nVidia!!!).

Since most TV displays are 60FPS devices, for a sync technology like G-Sync, you would set your max FPS just below that to avoid screen tearing and to get the maximum latency reduction. Reference: A blur-busters article on fps / latency / adaptive sync technologies. They found that on say a 100hz display, setting an FPS cap of 97 yielded the best results.
Whether or not the service can tailor to those users with 120fps TV's, I don't know. But if it can, makes total sense that it would probably cost more, and even then, that the FPS isn't likely to be 120, but instead somewhere preset in-between.
 

Kiriakos-GR

Weaksauce
Joined
Nov 21, 2021
Messages
99
Not impressed by the news, NVIDIA feels desperate to demonstrate at their stockholders extreme profitability.
They cannot gain cash from car industry, due Chip shortages, even if they have piles of orders to deliver.
Faster way to bring in cash flow, this is to suck money from web services as is this one.
Smart individuals will not accept to continue using such services.
 

Comixbooks

Fully [H]
Joined
Jun 7, 2008
Messages
18,491
The REAL reason you can't buy a video card. :jimlad:

You can't buy one because they have been scalped since October 2020 Nvidia cards anyway. I had a chance to buy a 3080ti but for 1.4k now the damn things are selling for 2k on ebay. I'll always buy the 2 tire lower cards from now on its the only way to game and stick with 1080P
 

Iratus

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 16, 2003
Messages
1,567
It’s what investors require of you. Get people in and then crank the screws.

I imagine someone will just have been seeing how much they can trim down the vgpu allocation until people squeal.

If a fuss gets kicked up, say it was a mistake and roll back. Else just keep going.

I made a lot of money off nvidia but it’s one of those companies I chose not to be invested in anymore.
 

Kiriakos-GR

Weaksauce
Joined
Nov 21, 2021
Messages
99
I made a lot of money off nvidia but it’s one of those companies I chose not to be invested in anymore.
I would be less negative charged, because NVIDIA at least, this is good at GPU drivers long term support. :)
Speaking of long term trust, AMD this is far more dangerous today, they have a higher rate at making consumers angry.

All 100% Chinese owned brands, they do not care of maintaining past build reputation, they think of today only.
An Honk Kong brand this follow mindset of UK. (they deliver product quality at 75%)
An Taiwanese brand this follow mindset of the USA along EU. (they deliver product quality at 95% or better)
An Japanese brand this follow mindset of the USA along EU along of their own. (they deliver product quality at 99% or better, but they are very selective of what category of products worth to be manufactured by them).
 

cybereality

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Mar 22, 2008
Messages
8,789
Under 60fps is unacceptable, especially if you are paying extra for a premium package. Nvidia should be ashamed.

On Stadia you can get 1080p 60fps with a free account (you just need to buy the game).
 

vegeta535

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 19, 2013
Messages
8,692
Are people actually paying for and using these game streaming services?
That is a good question. They probably don't care. They want to push and force everyone to eventually to use a service like this. It is the future.
 

cybereality

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Mar 22, 2008
Messages
8,789
I use Stadia. I do mostly play native, cause I have a good PC, but for the living room it is nice on the projector and definitely better than a last-gen console.
 

Iratus

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 16, 2003
Messages
1,567
I would be less negative charged, because NVIDIA at least, this is good at GPU drivers long term support. :)
Speaking of long term trust, AMD this is far more dangerous today, they have a higher rate at making consumers angry.

All 100% Chinese owned brands, they do not care of maintaining past build reputation, they think of today only.
An Honk Kong brand this follow mindset of UK. (they deliver product quality at 75%)
An Taiwanese brand this follow mindset of the USA along EU. (they deliver product quality at 95% or better)
An Japanese brand this follow mindset of the USA along EU along of their own. (they deliver product quality at 99% or better, but they are very selective of what category of products worth to be manufactured by them).
I think that’s nonsense, it’s all down to the company’s themselves. There are Chinese and British companies with extraordinary quality, just as there are some that are absolute shit. You’re just less able to do low margin low quality stuff on developed economy wages.

If you’re doing contract manufacture then you just pay for what quality level you want.

I don’t have an AMD card but I have no problem with it, except I need cuda. Hands tied. I buy nvidia products but I have no loyalty, only preferences, I just choose not to invest in them because they’ve been crummy. If AMD went that way I’d divest in the same way.

My really complex investment strategy for directed investments is is buy things I know and like. Works ok for me.
 

Kiriakos-GR

Weaksauce
Joined
Nov 21, 2021
Messages
99
I think that’s nonsense, it’s all down to the company’s themselves.
Who cares of what you think.
Neither I care of how many products ended up to your trash-can.
If very few and smart people, get helped to become educated consumers, then this is a victory of sanity and of their pocket.
 
Top