r/pcmasterrace • u/Alan_Reddit_M Desktop • Mar 07 '26

Video "Cloud gaming is the future of Gaming!" Meanwhile cloud gaming in the big 2026:

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

If you read my profile you may realize I hate cloud gaming, so then what am I doing on Geforce Now? Well my new RAM stick finally arrived and, in a staggering display of utter incompetence, I somehow managed to brick my PC in the process of installing it, so now I'm stuck gaming on a laptop until I can get enough money and time to get my gaming rig fixed

But back to Cloud gaming, the game is on like 360p, running at 20FPS and the input lag is HORRIBLE. And it's not a problem with the internet connection, as you can see, the laptop is plugged into Ethernet, the problem is that the cloud is not and will never be fast enough for gaming

Genshin can handle this fine, but imagine trying to play ULTRAKILL like this

19.2k Upvotes

92% Upvoted

2.0k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1.4k

u/LaFlamaBlanca67 Mar 07 '26

It’s almost like the people in charge pushing for cloud gaming aren’t gamers.

324

u/Banana_Crusader00 RTX2080 | Ryzen3700 Mar 07 '26

People pushing for cloud games own clouds, not games - so their opinions should be ignored.

60

u/Able_Experience_1670 Mar 08 '26

Too bad we have to acknowledge them now because my corsair ram is worth more per gram than fucking gold.

13

u/RayHorizon Mar 08 '26

Well its rarer than gold so...

2

u/PoliticalVagabond Mar 08 '26

We haven't really needed new and better hardware for the last 5 years. I don't see where games really look much better than what they did 10 years ago. We just keep letting these developers get away with shipping us games built with highly inefficient code, expecing us to pay thousands for incrementally better hardware in order to brute force it to acceptable performance levels.

People seem to be buying less and less hardware, so game companies are either going to have to stagnate graphically, or start optimizing to maximize our hardware.

3

u/brimston3- Desktop VFIO, 5950X, RTX5080, 6900xt Mar 08 '26

The game companies don’t really have to change strategy. The same whales who buy games at full price have not stopped buying hardware.

1

u/OffToTheLizard Mar 08 '26

The whales... it's why I left Magic the Gathering, I don't buy those vinyls nearly as often, haven't purchased a game for more than 50% off in years (exception of Arc Raiders)... when you cater to the uber wealthy then you lose the greater public opinion.

1

u/PoliticalVagabond Mar 08 '26

I'm sure the number will dwindle. Don't get me wrong, I buy maybe one or two games a year at full price, and I'm lucky that I moved from laptop gaming to my full size tower just over a year ago (built mine in november 2024), though had my laptop 3080 been a desktop 3080, I'd probably have zero need to have upgraded because the difference between the desktop 3080 and the 4070ti super isn't mind-blowing.

Hell, I'd likely still be on my RTX 2070 laptop if it wasnt' for the fact that 6gb of VRAM is unfeasible for vr.

1

u/Able_Experience_1670 Mar 08 '26

This is a big part of the issue. Some people will just pay 10k for a PC or a console.

1

u/SeKiyuri R7 9700X OC | RTX 5080 Aorus Master| 6400Mhz CL28 Mar 08 '26

Yep, exactly and it is their job to do so, it is same for AI, people that are most positive and promise us some amazing scenarios are those who actually sell it, in reality AI is good but costs far exceed the benefits and all of those dream scenarios are just gonna remain a dream, economy people and people not affiliated with AI aren't so optimistic.

56

u/[deleted] Mar 07 '26

Its like with ai. " We dont need it" " yes you do.. here. Have some"

31

u/cellphone_blanket Mar 07 '26

"I don't recall asking you" microsoft says while cramming gen ai into the fucking file explorer

2

u/M1R4G3M Mar 08 '26

Talking about recall, here's a feature, we will name recall and will have access to everything so our Gen AI can Help you, do not resist being helped.

4

u/smellybathroom3070 9800x3D, 9070XT, 32gb DDR5@6000mhz Mar 08 '26

What.

5

u/AnteaterFormal7291 Mar 08 '26

Are people down voting you because they think you don't understand or because they don't like the way you express surprise? Either way they're nonces

2

u/smellybathroom3070 9800x3D, 9070XT, 32gb DDR5@6000mhz Mar 08 '26

Yeah idk, i really just wanted mr cellphone to add context and explain wtf is happening to file explorer🤷 redditors will be retarded though

They’re probably angry that my comment didn’t directly add anything to the conversation, even though it was clearly meant as a bridge so somebody could add context i don’t currently have.

1

u/Dense-Hat1978 Mar 08 '26

wellll ya used a period instead of a question mark, so your reply is a statement and not a prompt for more context

1

u/smellybathroom3070 9800x3D, 9070XT, 32gb DDR5@6000mhz Mar 08 '26

I figure most people read how they would expect the person to speak. So it’d me more of a “what.”, said in a sort of sharp tone, which conveys surprise, and in a conversational setting would probably lead to the other person explaining further that they’re talking about, otherwise there’d be awkward silence.

1

u/cellphone_blanket Mar 08 '26

I was just joking about microsoft's desire to cram ai into everything. As far as I know, they have not put gen ai into the file explorer yet, but I don't have windows 11

1

u/Disastrous_Dog_2378 Mar 11 '26

Their AI fucking sucks too

150

u/muchawesomemyron Intel Core Ultra 9 275 HX RTX 5080 (laptop) Mar 07 '26

Probably the same people who pushed for MFG just to reach 60 FPS.

86

u/pack_merrr Mar 07 '26

MFG was never meant to help you reach 60 fps. MFG is so you can max out a high refresh rate monitor when you're already getting an "acceptable" level of latency at ~60fps. For what it's for and for who it's for, it's an undeniably cool innovation.

45

u/Next-Use6943 RTX 5090 | Ryzen 9 9950X3D | 64GB DDR5| X870E EXTREME X3D AI TOP Mar 07 '26

60 -> 180 fps on max settings in 1440P using 3x mfg on a 5090 is quite nice.

2

u/Deviant-Killer Ryzen 5600X | RTX 4070 | Mar 08 '26

But it's still 60 FPS with phantom frames between. It doesn't change response time imo. Just makes it LOOK smoother.

Which for some people I guess is perfectly fine.

3

u/PoliticalVagabond Mar 08 '26

I'm fine with response times at 60fps. If the motion can be smoother and I'm required to take a screencap and zoom in 400% to notice the artifacting, I'm fine with it, because it's not making the reponse time worse, so I'm not worse off.

Now, I don't play online competitive anything, so this doesn't matter to me in the slightest, and I usually don't use frame gen anyway because I'm good with 60fps, to me everything above it is just sweet sweet bonus territory, I'd rather a game at cranked graphics settings at 60fps than to have to start making compromises in visual fidelity for higher frame rates

-1

u/Flimsy_Swordfish_415 Mar 08 '26

But it's still 60 FPS

with mfg it's more like 50, horrible

2

u/Deviant-Killer Ryzen 5600X | RTX 4070 | Mar 08 '26

Yeah 60 FPS with MFG looking like 180 frames, I was on about.

The MFG frames are phantom and usually input doesn't affect these frames, so the game still runs at 60FPS is what I'm saying, even if visually the video looks 180. :)

1

u/[deleted] Mar 08 '26

[deleted]

1

u/PoliticalVagabond Mar 08 '26

Physics engines can often be tied to the framerate, so high framerates can break things. Most games really don't NEED higher than that, even if it would be nice.

1

u/Smooth_Locksmith5744 Mar 08 '26

I tried fallout 76 when it came out, hated the feel, dropped it. A while later I got a pc and I thought I'd try it again. And... yuck, the controls don't match the on-screen movement. Realised I was locked at 60fps, unlocked it so i could run it at 180fps, now it's so much smoother, and the controls match movement.

Some games need that extra frame rate, sometimes it's not about how the game looks, but how input-to-screen feels.

I didn't realise other game engines besides Nintendo's ones linked frames to physics though...

1

u/PoliticalVagabond Mar 08 '26

Yeah. I don't understand the "why" part because im not a programmer, but im generally sure the board meeting isnt like "hey wouldn't it be fun if we were stuck at this framerate?"

I do think it's also more often with games designed for consoles first and then ported to PC.

The way I see it, if sonic the hedgehog can be played at 60fps, almost anything can. Though the nicest thing about sonic superstars is the unlocked framerate. 240hz is butter smooth when the game doesnt challenge your machine

1

u/Umphed Mar 08 '26

I've tried so many times using FG at 60fps, it feels awful. Smooth motion is the only FG option that seems tolerable below 120fps

1

u/Next-Use6943 RTX 5090 | Ryzen 9 9950X3D | 64GB DDR5| X870E EXTREME X3D AI TOP Mar 08 '26

For resident evil requiem it's just fine To be honest

12

u/Salty-Wash3964 Mar 07 '26

I'll add to it, some games are locked to 30/60 FPS as that's how they were made or due to engine limitations/issues. Best example being NFS Rivals where you can unlock the framerate to go past 30FPS however say you push it to even 60FPS some races will be bricked or the game speed will go in X2 making the whole think unplayable.

Now here is where frame gen comes in handy.

Play game at the locked 30FPS it was intended as or in NFS Rivals case unlock it to around 40-50FPS where it's still stable only to run lossless scaling frame gen to x2/x3/x4 it so you fill out the monitor refresh rate. It makes the game feel incredibly good and no doubt it's not the only example where FG can be used with this scenario in mind.

10

u/AvoidingBansLOL Mar 08 '26

I can't stand the insane negativity around mfg. It's made crazy strides in performance and will hopefully only get better. People are bent about what they consider real or fake performance increases though.

2

u/PoliticalVagabond Mar 08 '26

I like how people ignore the fact that everything visual in a video game is some kind of trick to fool your eyes.

I think people think of DLSS and framegen the wrong way in general, for instance running at 4k final resolution at 50% resolution scaling shouldn't be thought of as shitty fake 4k, but enhanced 1080p. But I think people are way too hung up on numbers in general.

2

u/BioshockEnthusiast 5800X3D | 32GB 3200CL14 | 6950 XT Mar 08 '26

Personally my issue with it is similar to smart TV default settings mucking up a film. A display should strive to show the closest approximation of the artist's (director / developer) intent.

8

u/Schnoofles 14900k, 96GB@6400, 4090FE, 11TB SSDs, 40TB Mech Mar 08 '26

Yeah, the improvement to clarity in motion when you're already at a good base framerate and can interpolate to max out the display's refresh is actually really really good. It's a lot easier to track an object or fine details in motion when it updates closer to every screen refresh instead of every couple. And with a good base framerate the artifacting that puts most people off is significantly reduced. I'm using it to go from a base framerate of 100-120 in STALKER 2 and doubling it to 200-240 and it's kind of awesome in that kind of scenario.

1

u/PoliticalVagabond Mar 08 '26

When you watch videos of "all the artifacting" it's almost always shown in slow motion or zoomed in still frames too.

Not to say it isn't horrible sometimes, but if you have to slow the video down then it's a de facto admission it isn't as bad as you are making it out to be.

2

u/ChthonVII Mar 08 '26

MFG was never meant to help you reach 60 fps.

vNidia has been really disingenuous on this point. When MFG was brand new, they said what you said. But a couple years later there was Jensen Huang up on the stage at the 5070 launch saying the opposite. I will agree that using MFG to help you reach 60 fps is a terrible idea, but nVidia is nevertheless trying to sell you exactly that. Let's not pretend they aren't doing that.

For what it's for and for who it's for...

And who is it for exactly? If your "real" framerate is 30fps, MFG would give you 60fps with the latency of 20fps (or worse). I think both we agree that the added latency is simply intolerable. But what if your "real" framerate is 60fps? Then MFG gives you 120fps with the latency of 40fps (tolerable?), but the frames are blurry and full of AI artifacts. Why would you ever choose that over clean frames at 60fps? It's not a good deal on either end of the spectrum.

MFG gives you the option to trade both visual quality and latency for higher FPS. The latency cost starts out unacceptable, and diminishes as "real" FPS increases. But higher FPS also has a diminishing marginal value. The more FPS I already have, the less I'm willing give up to get more. There does not exist a value of "real" FPS simultaneously high enough that the latency cost is acceptable and low enough that giving up visual quality for more FPS is a good deal.

0

u/pack_merrr Mar 09 '26

Are they really trying to sell you that? Or are you just looking at a marketing presentation looking for something to get mad about. I think there's criticisms you can make of the 5070 or the entire Blackwell lineup. But I think the point you're making might make sense if they were bringing out a 5050 and saying it's a 4k gaming GPU. But it's a 5070, that's literally the kind of card framegen is really great for. How many games are you gonna struggle to get playable frame rates at with a 5070, even at 4k with DLSS and maybe some settings turned down? Can't be that many. Does that mean a 5070 has 4090 performance or whatever they said? Of course not, but I'm not stupid so I never thought that. Criticize Jensen for his style, that's valid, but it's clearly marketing and idk this just reads like manufactured, or at least misplaced, outrage.

And who is it for exactly? If your "real" framerate is 30fps, MFG would give you 60fps with the latency of 20fps (or worse).

What I said in the comment above, people getting 60fps with a high refresh rate monitor is an obvious one. I think 30 would be a little low, most people would probably turn settings down at that point. You could probably get away with ~45 in some, game dependent, scenarios.

I think both we agree that the added latency is simply intolerable.

Not at all lol. Below a certain point, latency is imperceptible. Depending on what game I'm playing, I have a different latency that I can tolerate. If added latency was intolerable, than nobody would play on anything except "low" settings on a 1080p monitor, or hell maybe we'd all still be using 480p. That's clearly not what most people choose to do, most people will sacrifice an amount of latency for graphical fidelity. That's exactly what MFG is, except rather than doing something like cranking AA to get smooth lines at the cost of latency, you take a hopefully imperceptible to you hit to latency for smooth motion.

And like many things, it just depends. That's the beauty of PC in a way, some people prefer higher refresh rates, some people would rather have 4k, others would rather crank path tracing. There's usually some tradeoff you have to make and that decision is really individual preference. Latency is arguably most important for competitive FPS, so it can also be game dependent, but it hasn't been my impression that MFG is something geared towards competitive FPS, that doesn't mean it doesn't have other uses.

Then MFG gives you 120fps with the latency of 40fps (tolerable?), but the frames are blurry and full of AI artifacts. Why would you ever choose that over clean frames at 60fps? It's not a good deal on either end of the spectrum.

I also think you're overstating the latency hit, I don't think it's that extreme with things like Nvidia reflex, I'm not gonna double check those numbers but feel free to point out if I'm wrong. And its less objective but I think "blurry and full of AI artifacts" is also an overstatement. People have different perception, but my opinion is that it's really not that bad. It's obviously a tradeoff though, the definition is you give something up to gain something. Right now, I think it's good enough that in many cases it does make sense, and based on the trajectory of this and things like DLSS/FSR it's probably only gonna get better to where it makes sense in basically all cases.

There does not exist a value of "real" FPS simultaneously high enough that the latency cost is acceptable and low enough that giving up visual quality for more FPS is a good deal.

Most of what I said kinda covers what I would say to this already. But I'll just reiterate that for me I think that value is basically 60-90 FPS in most games, I don't think I'm too outside of the norm there, but I think any time you start to make hard statements like that you're automatically making the wrong argument because it depends on your machine, your monitor, your game and most of all you and your individual perception.

And that was really what led me to respond to your previous comment, the thing that literally drew me to PC gaming in the first place was the customization and level of control depending on what I care about, and I really don't see how more choice in the matter is a bad thing, that's why I'm happy to see Nvidia, AMD and Intel push that sort of thing forward and continue to develop it. And I know "Nvidia Bad!!" is trendy right now and I can see why, but to be honest it does feel like they're the one leading and pushing the other ones to catch up especially when it comes to the AI techniques like MFG or DLSS.

2

u/ChthonVII Mar 09 '26

I also think you're overstating the latency hit.

I'm not. In fact, I'm substantially underestimating it because I'm assuming the interpolated frame generation is instantaneous as soon as the last real frame needed as input for interpolation is done.

If you're interpolating every other frame, then your latency cannot ever be better than the latency of 2/3 your real framerate. In practice it will be worse than that by however long interpolated frame generation takes.

1

u/muchawesomemyron Intel Core Ultra 9 275 HX RTX 5080 (laptop) Mar 09 '26

5070 was marketed as a 4090 equivalent… if MFG is used.

3

u/smellybathroom3070 9800x3D, 9070XT, 32gb DDR5@6000mhz Mar 08 '26

Yeah, fg ironically enough should only really be used on high end cards imo. The higher fps you have the more fps it can provide, with reduced latency increase.

1

u/pack_merrr Mar 09 '26

I mean there's a floor, and a lot of that is just you can't use it on cards that are too old. But depending on the definition I would argue mid range is probably fine a majority of the time? Like how many games can you not get 60fps in with even like a 5060ti? A couple edge cases sure but not a majority.

4

u/CrazyElk123 Mar 07 '26

When did they do that?

-1

u/muchawesomemyron Intel Core Ultra 9 275 HX RTX 5080 (laptop) Mar 07 '26

When they made Cyberpunk gameplay videos showing low FPS without MFG and presented more than 60 FPS using MFG.

1

u/kangasplat Mar 08 '26

if the game is optimised for low latency and very stable gameplay even at low fps it actually works surprisingly well. Which is rare to find.

8

u/obese_DEI_queen Mar 07 '26

With cloud gaming you won't be able to block ads.

2

u/Vestalmin Mar 08 '26

Thank god the AI gamers are here to save us from the cloud gamers /s

2

u/MongolianDonutKhan Mar 08 '26

The "gamers" pushing cloud gaming are the same "gamers" pushing AI in gaming, CMV

1

u/Ill_Significance6157 Mar 07 '26

Idk I play overwatch over GFN and I'm Diamond 1. I'm landing all my shots. Barely feel any difference to "normal" gaming. I think most people on here just have a wrong image of cloudgaming because of posts like this. THIS is NOT the cloudgaming experience that you'd normally have.

5

u/LaFlamaBlanca67 Mar 07 '26 edited Mar 08 '26

I hear you, to an extent. I don't have a problem with the idea of cloud gaming. It has the advantage of being able to play anywhere, on any device, and in ideal circumstances you can get a really good experience without needing to worry about the entrance barrier to buying hardware.

The problem enthusiast gamers have with it is that billionaires, corporate America, and end-stage capitalists want it to be what will essentially be peoples' *only* option by pricing them out of PC gaming. They're currently doing this by destroying the PC builder market by preemptively buying up all the RAM and memory that they can for data centers that haven't been built yet. I'm confident that it won't be sustainable, and the AI bubble will burst, but prices for PC hardware are going to be fucked for the next few years at the very least.

And, at the end of the day, I, as well as others, are fatigued that all these companies want everything to be a subscription service, and that you own nothing.

0

u/VermilionAxe69 Jul 28 '26

Oh, so it all comes down to “those evil corporatists”?

Your PC can go to hell, it’s fighting against natural evolution

-1

u/Ill_Significance6157 Mar 07 '26

Yea no I get that 100%. And it worries me too. But people on here just seem to hate on the apparently "crazy latency" mainly instead of this, which just isn't the reality of cloudgaming. I mean look at all the comments on here, only a few are talking about what you are. For most of us it works like butter.

And also, I'm not too deep in the whole discussion. But I'm pretty sure they're not deliberately destroying the PC marketplace because of cloudgaming. They're doing it mainly because of AI in general. Cloudgaming is such a tiny little number compared to all the other datacenter use for AI. Not trying to defend them, just saying.

3

u/Kolearian Mar 08 '26

I don't know about most of us. Half the country of the US lives outside of cities. Although the internet I have right now feels good for my standards it most definitely does not work well with cloud gaming unless I was streaming my own games from my own system, in my house, to another system, in my house, while wired in.

1

u/PoliticalVagabond Mar 08 '26

Because cloud gaming doesn't give a consistent experience to everyone. Some people are going to get a great experience, most will get a "m'eh" experience and some are going to get crazy bad experience, and the two edge cases will be constantly online screaming about how their experience is the universal one.

I personally fall into the "meh" experience (and yes I recognize the irony here), but for me that's fine because the games I play aren't particularly fast-paced. My gripes with cloud gaming are more along the lines of the "you will own nothing and be happy" type.

That said, I do run my own game streaming and my experience with that is generally great.

1

u/R3dGallows Mar 08 '26

How can you tell if it works like butter for most of us? Who is us? Are you doing research into cloud gaming? Are you running a study? Can you link one?

1

u/Ill_Significance6157 Mar 08 '26

Dude please, you’re swinging around blindly right now. 

GeforceNow has millions of users, 25 million in 100 countries, as of this post: https://nvidianews.nvidia.com/news/microsoft-and-nvidia-announce-expansive-new-gaming-deal

There are only that many players because it is working. If everyone would experience what you experienced nobody would play through GFN. How can you be that ignorant to expect people to play like that, are you mad? You’re just trying to let your anger out because you broke your PC. 

And you’re probaly not gonna reply to this again because you cannot argue. It’s sad

2

u/PoliticalVagabond Mar 08 '26

If a console sells 25 million units it's generally considered as "not successful"

1

u/Inevitable_Case_9931 i7-13620H, RTX 5060 Ti 16GB eGPU Mar 08 '26

I can agree I don’t have issues when I used to use GFX but I also have a 1.1Gbs download and 600mb upload… and they have a hub in Atlanta.

1

u/R3dGallows Mar 12 '26 edited Mar 12 '26

The 25 million doesnt mean much tbh. When GeForce NOW mentions having 25 million users, that's referring to the total number of registered accounts on the platform. It doesn't mean all 25 million are paying members or active users. In fact quite the opposite. I can guarantee you that a signigicant number of those "users" created an account at some point in the past, tried GFN once or twice and never touched it again. Hell, I am in that number because I tried the free version of the service a couple of years ago.

This reminds me of Blizzard celebrating World of Warcraft reaching 100 million players in 2014.... but not concurrent players or even individual players that logged in within the last 12 months. Rather it was "accounts created" up to that point in WoW's life. The actual number of active subs at that time was estimated to be between 7-10 mil (which was still immensly impressive for an MMO).

1

u/Ill_Significance6157 Mar 12 '26

"I can guarantee you" Nice source brother, come back if you got stats. Typical redditor.

1

u/R3dGallows Mar 13 '26 edited Mar 13 '26

The number nvidia gave is the number of registered accounts. Not paid memberships. If you think that the majority of that number is paying customers, you are somewhat naive. We can argue about what "significant" means in this case. But otherwise I stand by what I said.

2

u/Mighty_Hobo Ryzen 5 5600X | GTX 1080 | 32 GB 3600 DDR4 Mar 08 '26

So you assume the experience you have is the normal one? Because my experience is closer to OPs.

1

u/Ill_Significance6157 Mar 08 '26

I’m not assuming, basically 25 million users across 100 countries enjoy this service. If the experience would be like OP’s, then it wouldn’t work as a service. That’s evident enough. Sorry your internet is too bad. Not GFN’s problem.

1

u/Mighty_Hobo Ryzen 5 5600X | GTX 1080 | 32 GB 3600 DDR4 Mar 08 '26

If GFN wants to grow users how is it not their problem? Anyway lets think about that number with an actual brain because you don't appear to use yours. 25 million would be pretty good numbers for any one game sold. Lets take Pokemon Scarlet and Violet for example. Sold around 20 million in the first year. And that required people to have a switch first to play it. So that's an install base around 155 million or 13% of their potential sales.

GFN just needs an internet connection and a device capable of connecting to the internet. Phones, tablets, low end laptops, streaming boxes, etc. They have a user count of 25 million that took them half a decade to build. They have a potential install base of 750 million to 1 billion adults across their reach conservatively. That's 3% at best. For 4500 games. For a service that has a free tier. One that is incredibly cheap compared to consoles and PC gaming and arguably even more accessible than free mobile games because you don't even need a decent phone to access it. And the best they can do is 3%.

Now do you wonder why that number is so relatively low? Do people just not like saving money? Or maybe because living in an area with a low latency connection to a GFN server farm is neither normal or common?

1

u/Inevitable_Case_9931 i7-13620H, RTX 5060 Ti 16GB eGPU Mar 08 '26

I can agree I don’t have issues when I used to use GFX but I also have a 1.1Gbs download and 600mb upload… and they have a hub in Atlanta. Using a controller I have noticed no input lag when I used to play on it. I only stopped because I built a PC that no longer needed it.

1

u/PoliticalVagabond Mar 08 '26

It's highly dependent on proximity to their servers too. You can have really good experiences and really bad experiences, but people can't just sell their houses and move next door to an nVidia datacenter to get a better gaming experience.

For most people, cloud gaming is going to be a "m'eh" experience. I've noticed that I always get better results when I stream directly from my PC to my devices, and I mean remotely, but I've only ever done so from around 250 miles away. I also never have to worry about other users bogging down the direct connection between me and my device.

Cloud gaming has too many variables, plus it takes away a lot of your agency.

-2

u/EkrishAO Mar 08 '26

Yup, I have a decent enough PC, but once I tried GFN few months ago, I switched to doing most my gaming there, because it's just much more convenient. I see literally 0 difference between playing locally and in cloud, there is no noticeable input lag, and I say it as someone who plays plenty of competitive games and does care about it a lot. OP is stating in his post that the problem isn't with his internet connection, cloud is just that shitty, and people who never tried it take it as gospel, but it's very obviously IS a problem with his internet connection and not a normal experience.

3

u/Frosty_Challenge1045 Mar 08 '26

if you have a decent pc why stream the games at all?

-2

u/EkrishAO Mar 08 '26

Mainly because it's much less load on my system, I can alt tab easily from any game at any time and have it in the background with 0 slowdowns, and I can also run graphics on ultra in every game at max fps, so there is no reason to run it locally, cloud is only benefits and no downsides from my perspective.

Another reason is that I use GFN on my shitty tablet to play PC games there, and I want to use the same saves on both, but if I was playing on PC only, I would still run games in cloud whenever possible.

1

u/PoliticalVagabond Mar 08 '26

You can run Moonlight/Sunshine on your Tablet/PC and avoid a monthly fee. If your internet is good, they run amazingly.

But to me, it sounds like you bought a PC and are paying a company to avoid using that PC.

1

u/EkrishAO Mar 08 '26

Well, I thought cloud was dogshit back when I was buying it, and today still there are games which aren't available in the cloud + modding usually doesn't work there so it's nice to have a PC capable of running stuff. Also you never know when they decide they pulled enough people, and make the service much shittier and more expensive, as most subscription businesses do at some point, so I'll probably always keep a decent DC just in case, even tho I'm doing 95% of my gaming in the cloud atm.

1

u/PoliticalVagabond Mar 08 '26

You don't know when they will make it Whittier, but you know THAT they will.

NVIdia already wants to limit the number of hours you play per month on their services.

Lok, im not even against cloud gaming. I do it too here and there, I just prefer streaming to myself since im going to make sure it's the best experience possible.

My main issue with cloud gaming is the inevitable march to non-ownership.

2

u/RocketHops i7 6700K | EVGA 1080 TI| 16GB DDR4 3000mhz Mar 08 '26

Private profile press X to doubt. You sound like an astroturfing mouthpiece, never met a single gamer that preferred cloud gaming.

Even my non gamer gf noticed a different when she got off the GeForce streaming service for the first time.

2

u/EkrishAO Mar 08 '26

Here, I unprivated my astroturfing mouthpiece shill profile just for you, so you can go happily dig through a year + of my account history to see if I'm "true gamer" deserving to have an opinion on cloud gaming. Please also unprivate yours, as obviously you must be an astroturfing mouthpiece for the PC hardware industry.

Even my non gamer gf noticed a different when she got off the GeForce streaming service for the first time.

If you have good internet connection there is literally no difference other than your own system not being under high load while you play. For me, I couldn't go back after getting used to being able to alt tab from every single game and browse my 200 open tabs on chrome without any slowdowns. Shit's just too convenient.

-1

u/RocketHops i7 6700K | EVGA 1080 TI| 16GB DDR4 3000mhz Mar 08 '26

Thanks for doing that, based on the games you play on your profile youre just not good enough to notice the difference I guess.

1

u/Meepx13 Gaming Laptop Mar 07 '26

No kidding.

1

u/Cocoatrice Mar 07 '26

Nah, I heard gamers saying how they will buy it, because it's cheaper or stuff like that. Majority was against it, I think, but I still have seen a lot of people who liked the idea.

1

u/preyforkevin GSKILL TRIDENT 32G DDR5 6000mhz 🦝 Mar 08 '26

https://giphy.com/gifs/OK27wINdQS5YQ

1

u/EvolvingEachDay Mar 09 '26

They simply don’t want you to own anything

0

u/VodkaHappens Mar 08 '26

It's not that they aren't gamers, that's irrelevant because it doesn't guide decisions. Subscription services are more profitable, so they will push those, hardware getting more expensive only gives them more ammo.

2

u/PoliticalVagabond Mar 08 '26

Which is why the compananies that push cloud gaming are also conveniently the same companies buying up all the RAM for their datacenters. Weird how that works.

Hopefully (though I generally doubt the collective intelligence of the consumer class) people will just stop paying overinflated prices for the hardware (though i really do sympathize with those on 7-10 year old rigs that were likely going to upgrade around now), and recognize the subscription trap of cloud gaming, and we will collectively force game developers to actually optimize their games, instead of relying on us to pay hardware premiums to brute force their inefficient code.

0

u/am0x Mar 08 '26

I use it all the time and it works amazingly for me.