logoalt Hacker News

bjord • today at 12:05 PM • 3 replies • view on HN

frankly, if I'm playing a game I own on a remote server, I expect to pay something for that

and I don't actually think that's substantially different from other competitors, like geforce now

whether I will choose to play it on a different server in the first place is a different question (I won't)


Replies

Reubachi • today at 12:12 PM

I totally agree with you. there's a cost benefit analysis we make when purchasing something and I can imagine the case where I'm ok paying 50c an hour for a remote game.

It's hard though not to see the writing on the wall in regards to "local compute GPU availability". Every single industry even tangentially related to compute power has "silently" moved their bus model to consumption based, despite the consumer base having 0 appetite for that. (We're not engineers/app developers who are forced to use LLM agents, we're trying to pay a service that hosts games.)

I am unsure how a medium that was a failure as a free/subscription model will succeed as a floating pay-as-you-go model.

➕ show 2 replies
forgotpwd16 • today at 12:16 PM

Seems the important part is that Game Pass included Cloud Gaming. Now, they mostly strip it off (left few hours monthly) and charge it extra. In contrast, Sony still retains unlimited streaming in PS+.

➕ show 1 reply
OGWhales • today at 12:25 PM

Yup, the input lag is not something I can stomach. Even in pretty optimal network conditions, it's very noticeable. Other people may be less sensitive to it than me, so they may find this to be nice. I do worry about a longer term trend of pushing cloud over local hardware for gaming, which was never something I seriously considered until recently with hardware prices being what they are.