And given some other constraints, you probably don't want GFN to be your sole game system, anyway.Ī lot also depends on how Nvidia structures the billing.

GFN seems like it's supposed to complement these existing systems when you're away from your primary system, not replace them. Plus, hardcore gamers are the ones buying Nvidia's high-end GPUs. Beta testers are also annoyed because the beta has been free and many of them won't be able to afford the service for the number of hours they play if it goes live at the proposed price. It also sounds expensive when you compare it to other streaming services, like Netflix, whose 4K streaming plan costs half that, including content.īut I don't think Nvidia really wants people to use this as their main gaming system if they're going to be playing lots of hours - that would require a lot more resources to keep everyone happy. That does sound really expensive, especially when you compare it to the price of a console or an $800 gaming desktop. That works out to 325 hours a year, or 16.3 20-hour gameplay chunks at a total of $410 for the year, not including the game.

There's understandably been pushback in the forums on the 25-for-20 figure from beta testers, which seem to consist of people who game a lot or want to but can't afford the hardware.įor instance, SteamSpy estimates (really roughly) that on average, people play PlayerUnknown's Battlegrounds (PUBG) for about 12.5 hours every two weeks.

But the announced pricing and policies will likely only appeal to intermittent gamers or Mac owners who have few alternatives for playing Windows-based games. Here's the rub: The game selection and interface feels like it's designed to appeal to hardcore gamers, not intermittent ones.

Nvidia geforce now download