Comment by bilegeek
1 day ago
> The reason is that it would finally motivate game developers to be more realistic in their minimum hardware requirements, enabling games to be playable on onboard GPUs.
They'll just move to remote rendering you'll have to subscribe to. Computers will stagnate as they are, and all new improvements will be reserved for the cloud providers. All hail our gracious overlords "donating" their compute time to the unwashed masses.
Hopefully AMD and Intel would still try. But I fear they'd probably follow Nvidia's lead.
Is remote rendering a thing? I would have imagined the lag would make something like that impractical.
The lag is high. Google was doing this with stadia. A huge amount of money comes from online multiplayer games and almost all of them require minimal latency to play well. So I doubt EA, Microsoft, Activision is going to effectively kill those cash cows.
Game streaming works well for puzzle, story-esque games where latency isn't an issue.
Hinging your impression of the domain on what Google (notoriously not really a player in the gaming world) tried and failed will not exactly give you the most accurate picture. You might as well hinge your impression of how successful a game engine can be on Amazon's attempts at it.
GeForce NOW and Xbox Cloud are much more sensible projects to look at/evaluate than Stadia.
1 reply →
GeForce NOW is supposedly decent for a lot of games (depending on connection and distance to server), although if Nvidia totally left gaming they'd probably drop the service too.
It will be if personal computing becomes unaffordable. The lag is simply mitigated by having PoP everywhere.