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)

Reubachi 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

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.

▲

brody_hamer 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

For a period of time I would rent a windows box with gpu from aws, install my game, and play it over parsec (a Remote Desktop tool designed for low latency). It was around $0.40/hour for a high-end gaming rig for the ~40 hours I needed to binge my new game. I play new games infrequently, so the cost analysis was “a new computer for $1500, or rent one for the time I need it for $15.”

It’s just a bummer that this process wasn’t a bit easier. I recall there was some setup involved.

▲

bjord 2 hours ago | parent [-]

from your perspective this feels like a positive, then, no? cheaper price per hour, no requirement that you use those hours all at once?

▲

Reubachi 2 hours ago | parent [-]

It's a positive in the sense that the industry has made it marginally cheaper in time/resources to pay-as-you-go.

It's a positive in the sense that due to these industry changes (computer power going up 20x in cost.), the platforms are offering a way to let us peons play games.

It's a negative in that it's a futher commitment of these vendors to hoarde compute/GPU power from western consumers and chinese LLM vendors. MS will routinely purchase the highest end GPU for sake of keeping this service alive, nevermind their own LLM. Good luck getting one yourself.

	▲	bjord an hour ago \| parent [-]
		agreed

▲

bjord 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

yep, actually in my area this will be cheaper than the gaming cafes people frequent—I think the lack of reasonably-local servers is the main thing that will block adoption.

I'm not so certain the average gamer is well-informed enough to realize what they're giving up, or that they feel strongly enough to take a stand for it if they do. I'm hopeful they will, we'll see.

▲

forgotpwd16 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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+.

	▲	bjord 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		didn't realize that, though I wouldn't be surprised then if it also changes on sony's end

▲

OGWhales 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

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.