From Newsgroup: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg


See? This is why I don't like subscription services.

Nvidia's GeForce now is cracking down on how long you can play games;
starting January, they're putting a 100hour per month cap on their
service. Want more than that? You're going to have pay ($6USD for an
extra 15 hours).*

Now, this sort of limitation is acceptable for their free-user tier...
but if I'm paying for the service (Nvidia's 'premium' services range
from $10 to $20 per month, depending on the level of service you
choose; the difference is mostly in the quality of the stream) then I
expect to be able to play as long as I fucking want.

This is the sort of enshittification that you expect from services
AFTER they dominate the market. Subscription cloud-gaming services are
still only a small part of the gaming industry. At this point, they
should be offering BETTER service than their offline competitors.

Ultimately, we can expect this sort of abuse from /all/ subscription
services, but I guess Nvidia wants to be ahead of the curve (or maybe
they're trying to scare away all their gaming customers so they can
reuse all those Nvidia GPUs to sell to the AI tech-bros).

Fortunately, this doesn't really affect me; although I have a GeForce
Now account (and sometimes even use it!), I only have the free
version, and my usage is minimal. It's just a quick way for me to look
at a game to see if its something I'd actually be interested in before
taking the time to download and install it. If I've used a hundred
hours on the service total (in at least five years), I'd be surprised.

But I'd be pissed off if I were actually paying for the service and
using it as intended. And disgusted, because this is what the industry
will eventually devolve into, once subscription services become the
norm.






----
* story
https://www.pcgamesn.com/nvidia/geforce-now-100-hour-cap-2026


--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2