Following on from yesterday's post (Which is still today's post as I'm writing this.) I thought I'd say something about GeForce Now.
Eh? What? Was there something in that post about GFN? I don't remember anything...
No, there wasn't. But what there was was me saying I hadn't had to post anything "desperate" yet to keep up with my Blaugust schedule. Yes, well, that may be true but there have been a couple of posts that I definitely wouldn't have published (Or probably written.) if I hadn't been on this post-a-day kick.
This is another of those.
It has to be because I'm working tomorrow and work and blog posts, especially solid, researched, well-thought-out, substantive blog posts that take three-to-five hours to write, don't mix. They might if Beryl didn't have a say in it but she does so there it is.
I am doing my best to keep the bonus, work-day posts to topics I would have posted about anyway, only without Blaugust they might well have been sections in a Grab Bag, rather than autonomous postings in their own right. Luckily, tomorrow is the last day in August I'm working so this should be the last time I have to scrub up something the day before. This is the third time this month I've had to write two posts in one day, or at least a post and a half, and I'll be very happy not to have to do it a fourth.
So, then: GeForce Now. It was a bit of a punt when I decided to pay for a year's subscription up front a couple of months back. I'm not much of an impulse buyer but I can be tempted by a good deal and the price they were offering certainly looked like one of those. Had I ended up not using it much, it'd have been a false economy, If I'd hardly used it at all it would have been a complete waste of money. I think I can say already that it won't be either.
I've used my GeForce Now subscription pretty much every day since I got it. I've played quite a few sessions that exceeded the free version's one hour limit (I think three hours was the longest.) and I've played all of them on the powerful subscriber-only machines at the highest graphic settings, with no lag or performance issues at all.
The whole thing has been extremely smooth and efficient. Everything just works, first time, no questions. The UI is attractive and practical. I can easily see what games I can play, including a good percentage of my Steam games, now I've linked the two platforms. I have more choice than I need by a wide margin.
Mostly I've been playing on my desktop, which is working just fine again now I changed the drive the OS was on, but I've played a few sessions of Neverness To Everness on the laptop, where it runs perfectly. I even tried to play on the big TV downstairs, since it hosts GeForce Now natively, but it wasn't practical because the TV won't recognize a keyboard as a controller. Not GFN's fault and at least I have a wireless keyboard now.
In fact, since I subbed to the cloud gaming service I have barely played anything on my own machines. I did play a session of Stars Reach on the desktop when it went into Early Access. It was okay but the PC crashed as soon as I logged out. I believe that's what started the problem I started having a few months ago and I don't want to repeat the same process and corrupt the new Windows installation, so I was thinking that would be my last run in Stars Reach for the foreseeable future.
And then Playable Worlds suddenly announced that due to "popular demand" Stars Reach would be available on GeForce Now. I was delighted but also astonished. How did that happen?
Firstly, what's all that about "popular demand"? Stars Reach has been on Steam since it began. If there was any problem with that, as far as the testers were concerned, it must have passed me by. I'd have guessed the core audience for the game was pretty conservative. If anything, I'd have imagined they might have preferred a standalone client even to Steam. I mean, they seem to want everything else to be like it was in 2003.
I definitely wouldn't have bet on there being a significant faction that would prefer to play Stars Reach on a third-party, cloud gaming, streaming platform. Especially one for which they'd have to pay an additional fee if they wanted anything more than a bare-bones service.
So there's that. And then there's the question of numbers. Just how low is the bar to get your game onto GeForce Now, anyway? Even putting it in the most positive, favorable light, Stars Reach Early Access is a niche game. Steam pegs the EA peak at just under 700, and that's already fallen by 50% in the first week.
I don't really know how GFN works but presumably they have to open a discrete client for each account that logs into any given game. I just asked Gemini and it tells me, via reddit, that "GeForce NOW assigns a completely separate, isolated virtual machine (VM) and a distinct game client instance for every single user session". So, yes they do.
I suppose, on one level, a game that few people play puts very little demand on the system, so maybe they're happy to have any old thing on there. I know I could play Cloudpunk or NeoCab, for example. Cloudpunk currently has about the same number of people playing as Stars Reach. NeoCab has five.
I hope that is the case because I'm already starting to see GeForce Now in much the way I've come to see Steam, as my preferred portal for gaming. For a while now, if a game's on Steam I've been more likely to play it than if I had to sign up for some other platform and now I'm starting to feel I'm more likely to play something if I don't have to run it on my own hardware at all.
It saves so much time and effort with updating, for a start. And it means I don't need even an entry-level gaming machine. Any device that can connect to the internet would do, although in practice, because of the games I play and how I like to play them, it does need to be something with a decent keyboard and mouse option. And once you start talking about connecting a bluetooth mouse and keyboard to your phone you probably need to get on your water-skis and have Ritchie aim the speedboat for the nearest shark.
There is, of course, the ever-present question of how long any of these services will last. I certainly wouldn't be paying any annual sub to play on Amazon's Luna. I'm beginning to think, though, that given the spiralling costs of consoles and gaming PCs, cloud gaming might actually be the future the companies behind it were trying to tell us it was going to be a few years ago.
And frankly it's ridiculously cheap at the moment. My annual sub to GFN is less than what my my annual sub to Daybreak All Access will be next month, if I renew it. And I guess maybe I shouldn't because I've barely set foot in Norrath for months.
I'd be more inclined to keep the Daybreak sub if I could play EverQuest II and DCUO on GeForce Now. There are 4000 games you can play on the service but neither of those is on there. According to Gemini, that's down to " publisher Daybreak Games' virtual machine restrictions and policies." I think we can be certain more people are playing either of them than have ever played Stars Reach (And possibly ever will...) so it can't be that NVidia doesn't think they're popular enough to merit a slot.
It's all a bit confusing for me. At some point I'm going to have to decide whether to pay upwards of a thousand pounds for a moderately capable gaming PC just so I can play the kinds of games that don't make it onto GeForce Now, or I could choose to stick with what is on there, which is already orders of magnitude more titles than I'm ever going to play, and save myself all that money.
While there's no guarantee GFN's subscription charges will stay as low as they are now, they'd have to go up one hell of a lot before buying a PC or a console would start to look like the more economical deal. And prices for hardware are only going to increase, even in the short term. GFN could treble their prices and I'm still not sure it would cost more over five years than buying and upgrading a low-end gaming PC over the same period. If you're talking about a gaming PC that's the equivalent of the ones my games are running on at GFN then forget it. It'd take a decade to catch up with those costs.
But you do want to be able to play anything you want, don't you? It's a dilemma. I'd better just hope nothing really amazing comes out in the next few years that I have to play but which for some reason doesn't end up on a cloud gaming service. And also that cloud gaming doesn't go the way streaming movies and TV has, so you have to keep swapping from one to another to keep up with where your favorites have gone.
As for Stars Reach, I'm afraid to say that playing it at maximum graphical fidelity with no appreciable lag did not markedly improve the gameplay. In fact, with all of the friction removed, it was just easier to notice how dull it was to play. My first and so far only session with the Stars in the cloud lasted barely half an hour and I quit because I was really quite bored.
I'll put up with a lot of things to play a game - lag, stuttering, rubber-banding, bugs, glitches - but I won't put up with boredom. That's a game killer.
Notes on AI used in this post.
I asked Gemini two questions. The questions and the results are documented in the text.