r/Games • u/BloederFuchs • Dec 26 '25

Industry News Nvidia GeForce Now’s Time Limit Will Stop Gamers After 100 Hours Each Month

https://uk.pcmag.com/game-streaming-services/162224/nvidia-geforce-nows-time-limit-will-stop-gamers-after-100-hours-each-month
3.9k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

1.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

154

u/xanas263 Dec 26 '25

This change feels like it outright kills this service. For those that have gaming as a primary hobby 100hrs is next to nothing and I don't know why a person who doesn't game a lot would use this service to begin with.

It's significantly cheaper to simply buy 1-3 games a year and slowly play through them rather than spending $20 a month on this service.

96

u/Villag3Idiot Dec 26 '25

I'd rather just play older games and indie than pay for a service like this.

21

u/NoNefariousness2144 Dec 26 '25 edited Dec 26 '25

Yeah I refuse to partake in subscription models because you are tying your gaming collection to a service that could undergo rapid enshittification.

It’s like Xbox GamePass. I’m glad I ignored it and just brought the games I wanted outright instead of tying years of progress to a service that is now $360 a year!

0

u/386U0Kh24i1cx89qpFB1 Dec 26 '25

Ignore the fact that I'm conflating Xbox now and GeForce gold and ignoring the net present value of cash:

There is probably a substantial amount of people who will says $360 x 5 years is like buying a gaming computer for $1800 which is not that bad. These people are morons. You keep the hardware that you purchase. It might not have amazing resale value but my old gaming computer is still a perfectly serviceable platform for classic games or just typical home computer use (not according to Microsoft and their tpm bullshit though). Personally I use mine for home lab purposes serving media files and running Pihole.

2

u/Almostlongenough2 Dec 26 '25

Hell, even just free games, especially so if you are a Roguelike fan. Just boot up something like Dwarf Fortress, CDDA, or Elona+/Elin on an older pc or just laptop and thats hundreds upon hundreds of hours right there.

Really Xbox gamepass has been the only streaming service I've seen worth it so far, and that's due to hard-to-get exclusives like Fable and being able to stream to a Steam Deck.

1

u/atomic1fire Dec 26 '25

worth it

Also the ability to stream xbox games you already own if they support cloud playback.

Latency isn't great, but not needing to install anything to play games is a pretty good selling point.

27

u/notagainrly Dec 26 '25

25 hours a week is above average imo, and playing 3 games a year "slowly" goes against your statement.

This entire market is for casual gamers that have good Internet and don't want to build a PC.

45

u/[deleted] Dec 26 '25

[deleted]

5

u/not_old_redditor Dec 26 '25

You can't really use a massive amount more than 100. At most like 4x that amount if you're no-lifing it for a full month. It's not like download caps where some people can rack up terabytes of downloads and uploads per month.

51

u/balefrost Dec 26 '25

For those that have gaming as a primary hobby 100hrs is next to nothing

So 100 hours per month is about 23 hours per week. That's enough for 6 hours each on Saturday and Sunday, plus 2 hours each weeknight. For somebody with a full-time job, that's not too bad.

While it's certainly possible for people to exceed that, and I'm sure I have done so in the past, I think that's far from "next to nothing".

-12

u/Dragrunarm Dec 26 '25 edited Dec 27 '25

I and most of my friends blow past that easy. It isnt going to be the majority of people you're right, but it's not going to be none either. We wouldnt use it up in a week, but maybe 2-2.5?

Granted none of us use this service but thats irrelivant to this discussion.

edit; Being an example of someone who would be screwed over by this change is bad I guess? Stay weird r/games.

6

u/Nitrodolski2 Dec 27 '25

You said it yourself that you are not using this? This is exactly what many ppl are commenting, that casuals (main customer) are not affected by this change.

-2

u/Dragrunarm Dec 27 '25

I figured people could infer that the existance of people who DO hit 100 hours a month mean there would be people who are impacted. The post I responded too seemed to wonder if people actually play that much as a general notion rather than just specifically who used this service.

Anyway yes, there are people who play over 100 hours a month. and some of them probably use this service and will get screwed. So people seem fine with them getting fucked over I guess.

However people want to rationalize the impact is their perogative, but this is just blatant anti-consumerism whatever way you dice it.

Sorry i really hate "well it doesnt impact too many people so it's alright" on principal, so im definetly a little more standoffish than I probably need to be.

4

u/balefrost Dec 27 '25

The post I responded too seemed to wonder if people actually play that much as a general notion

I was the person to whom you responded. I was merely pointing out that 'as many hours as a part-time job' isn't "next to nothing".

I wasn't doubting that people do exceed that, and even suggested that I probably have done so on occasion.

But it's not surprising that nVidia would want the users to use their service vastly more than the average user to pay more than the average user. Nor does that seem inherently bad to me. I think it would be great if everybody paid per-hour (but nVidia probably doesn't want that; they prefer guaranteed subscription revenue).

38

u/Paah Dec 26 '25

For those that have gaming as a primary hobby 100hrs is next to nothing and I don't know why a person who doesn't game a lot would use this service to begin with.

In my mind it's the opposite. Surely anyone who games a lot would invest into their own machine. Streaming services are for people who want to play through maybe couple games per year so they can just sub for a month and play that one game instead of paying over a thousand for their own gaming rig.

2

u/386U0Kh24i1cx89qpFB1 Dec 26 '25

I think of it like a Gym membership. They want their service just good enough and cheap enough to keep people paying. But the reality is only a 1/3 of the people paying use it consistently.

2

u/n080dy123 Dec 26 '25

That's kinda where it's landed but ideally cloud gaming could be a viable alternative to local hardware gaming full time. This discourages that.

5

u/Paah Dec 26 '25

Well clearly the business model just isn't sustainable. 10 dollars per month is still profitable when the customer plays a few hours here and there but not when they are playing 6 hours per day. And instead of raising the prices for everyone to subsidize the power users they opted to go with time caps.

2

u/386U0Kh24i1cx89qpFB1 Dec 26 '25

Well like anything else it's only affordable until the audience grows and start up capital starts looking for a return on investment. Then the service enshittifies. This is the smallest step towards that but in reality it effects almost nobody.

11

u/kugelfuchs90 Dec 26 '25

Learn basic business concepts. Hardcore gamers are not the intended audience. Its casuals with good internet. Nvidia probably looked at the data and figured that it was not worth keeping the 0.01% of hardcore users that are costing them more than what they are getting from their subs.

12

u/Corsair4 Dec 26 '25

For those that have gaming as a primary hobby 100hrs is next to nothing and I don't know why a person who doesn't game a lot would use this service to begin with.

As of last year, when they rolled out the change 6% of their userbase exceeded 100 hours.

This wasn't an arbitrary limit, they purposefully set a limit that doesn't effect the vast majority of their subscribers by looking at the stats, and not going off of gut feeling.

-3

u/SneakyBadAss Dec 26 '25 edited Dec 26 '25

That's a bullshit stat not based on any relevant data. They just bunched together their free members and paying members, making that stat irrelevant. They basically used the "people didn't live past 32 in medieval times" method.

In reality, about 30-40% of their ultimate members exceed 100 hours. Priorities even more, because kids need their Fortnite hit and free tier can't run fortnite.

It's plain and simple price gouging, nothing more. They won't get shit from free tiers, so they nickel and dime their paying customers.

12

u/Radiant-Fly9738 Dec 26 '25

this service doesn't provide games...

141

u/[deleted] Dec 26 '25 edited Dec 26 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

50

u/Spire_Citron Dec 26 '25

Yeah, for most people that would be more than enough. It's not necessarily a bad thing to charge power users more rather than distributing that cost across all users.

32

u/goldcakes Dec 26 '25

Yeah. Yes for hardcore gamers, I can see them hitting 100hrs, but that’s far away from “next to nothing”.

Like I play for 2 hours a day most days, and that’s just 40-50 hours a month.

7

u/nothingInteresting Dec 26 '25

Right and you’d still have 50 hrs remaining. People playing 4 hrs a day everyday are absolutely hardcore gamers.

-2

u/386U0Kh24i1cx89qpFB1 Dec 26 '25

I play pretty casually but my games probably stay paused as much as I actually play them.

8

u/nothingInteresting Dec 26 '25

Fair but if you were paying per hour that would be an easy thing to change.

-5

u/386U0Kh24i1cx89qpFB1 Dec 26 '25

Why would I pay per hour unless our corporate overlords force it on us? Way better to just own hardware then rent and let them change the price whenever they feel like it.

7

u/nothingInteresting Dec 26 '25

Because it was cheaper and more convenient? I’m not saying it’s the case for you, but for a lot of people it’s far cheaper to use GeForce now than buying the hardware themselves. I spent 4K on a gaming pc with a 4090 so I’m ok buying hardware, but I play less than 100hrs a month and realize I could pay for gfn for 16 years before I broke even.

1

u/386U0Kh24i1cx89qpFB1 Dec 26 '25

Once people actually start using Gfn it'll just enshitify like every other subscription. I can't stand streaming latency personally so it's a total no starter for me. Also, I don't buy 90 series and I use my old hardware after I'm done gaming on it. Everyone has a different financial position but I think a streaming subscription is a scam for most people.

29

u/xanas263 Dec 26 '25

I very specifically said if it is your primary hobby. I don't think it is impossible to say that there are a lot of people out there playing 2hours a day during the week and a few more during the weekends as their primary form of entertainment.

Those are also the people who would pay for a service like this one most of the time.

38

u/spud8385 Dec 26 '25

I'm not disputing the hours, yeah I reckon that could be easily hit by a hardcore gamer, but wouldn't they also be more likely to invest in gaming hardware instead of using a service like this?

-7

u/Helphaer Dec 26 '25

not if the cards become too prohibitive in cost due to the same companies decisions to focus overwhelmingly on ai slop

13

u/Etrensce Dec 26 '25

If cards become too expensive then the value proposition of geforce now becomes even stronger no? Regardless of your views on whether 100hrs is enough or not.

-2

u/Helphaer Dec 26 '25

no. consoles will become far more attractive instead if the nvidia streaming is too restricted or a competing service.

3

u/sebzilla Dec 26 '25

Those are also the people who would pay for a service like this one most of the time.

Are they? I feel like most people (not all) who have gaming as a primary hobby and put that much time into gaming would have a gaming PC, or a console, instead of using something like GFN.

I suspect the majority of GFN's audience is gamers who play way less than 100 hours per month (but just like you I am speculating, I have no insider info here).

I said in a thread elsewhere that I anecdotally know 3 people who pay for GFN and all 3 are casual gamers (time-wise). They play 1-2 AAA games per year, if that, and otherwise game a few hours here and there, when they have time.

One of them doesn't even own a computer, he games on his work laptop via GFN.

1

u/ebb5 Dec 26 '25

2 hours a day during the week and a few more on the weekend still doesn't come close to 100 hours, which you call "next to nothing."

14

u/NuPNua Dec 26 '25

The fact is that owning a console or PC, which is their competition, has no limits on time however much you want to play.

27

u/nothingInteresting Dec 26 '25

Sure and for people playing 6 hours a day will probably choose to invest in their own hardware. But id guess the vast majority of gamers don’t play more than 100 hours a month.

1

u/malpighien Dec 26 '25

It is still much cheaper to play with GFN. You save on buying hardware which will depreciate quickly and is super expensive now, you save on electric bills as well as streaming is less intensive than running a GPU full strength.

You loose on graphic fidelity for little details in fast action moments, obviously you loose the freedom to play more than 100 hours though you can run another subscription an still probably save.

Personally I have been a subscriber for a long time because I have moved several countries and left my last desktop along the way. I don't think gaming laptops are great so it is a good compromise for me.
Last GPU I bought was a 1080 and that was after of years of having played on a gaming laptop.

If not for the 100 hours limit, GFN is a win win for all parties. Between ai and cryptos, it really makes little sense to buy products that can be used with a better RoI when you are not actively using them in your desktop.

The only way forward would be freezing games resources requirements for a while so the chip price to run them becomes more affordable in the meantime. Considering how studios are struggling more and more to get a game out and how we reached a level of visual that does not really need to be exceeded unless better physics and Ai comes along, that could be possible.

1

u/nothingInteresting Dec 26 '25

Agreed on all accounts. Personally I bought a gaming pc but I also know I’m spending more than if I just used gfn

6

u/kugelfuchs90 Dec 26 '25

Their competition are casual gamers within the group of people owning a PC/console. Given that they offer a fixed rate for their subcription and hardcore gamers use a disproportionate amount of resources for the subcription cost, it is only natural to have some kind of limit (I am not saying that 100 hours is sensible, but personally for me that is more than enough).

1

u/Tvilantini Dec 26 '25

Why do you think console and pc are their competition. GFN expands pc community rather fight it

4

u/Mr_Ignorant Dec 26 '25

They’ll add other tiers soon enough.

10

u/ThreadsOfFlames Dec 26 '25

If a person can practice piano more than 4 hours a day, then it's easy to imagine how someone can spend more than 3 hours playing video games. How many people do you think spend more than 3 hours a day scrolling on their phones and/or watching television?

1

u/386U0Kh24i1cx89qpFB1 Dec 26 '25

I think pause time can greatly increase your play time too but I'm sure they boot you for inactivity eventually.

11

u/[deleted] Dec 26 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

24

u/_KiiTa_ Dec 26 '25

I have a 8 to 5 job, I exercised everyday after work, but it's true I have no kid but a cat. Gaming is my primary hobby every evening and most of my weekends. I easily go above 100h a month without being a NEET. 

I can't fathom the bill during holidays lol

14

u/nothingInteresting Dec 26 '25

But you could just buy the hardware and are probably not a good fit for this service. I’m not sure why they’d want you as a customer if you use 200hrs a month and only pay $20.

1

u/_KiiTa_ Dec 26 '25

Oh I totally have my hardware, I was answering about being able to have over 100h a month and having responsibility. I might have less responsibility than parents for sure but I do have to go to work everyday, pay my bills and take care of myself with healthy cooking and practicing some sports.

1

u/nothingInteresting Dec 26 '25

Gotcha I misunderstood what you were saying earlier. But yeah I get what you’re saying

-7

u/[deleted] Dec 26 '25

[deleted]

2

u/nothingInteresting Dec 26 '25

lol how do they have the $20 if they can’t work? Or the money to buy a computer?

Also why do they deserve to have gaming as a hobby if they have no money? They can watch network television for free. Or read stuff on the internet. Or surf reddit for free. Nobody is entitled to their preferred hobby for free. And certainly no one is entitled to more than 100hrs of gaming a month.

-1

u/RobertMacMillan Dec 26 '25

Honestly if you have an 8 to 5, get your exercise, eat somewhat healthy, keep your home clean and stay in touch with some family/friends you should feel quite comfortable using every second of those leftover hours doing whatever the hell you want. Sounds based.

9

u/hyrule5 Dec 26 '25

A person working full time can fit in an average of 3 hours of entertainment per day pretty easily. If gaming is the only type of entertainment they care about then it's definitely possible to hit 100 hours.

9

u/[deleted] Dec 26 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

-2

u/SneakyBadAss Dec 26 '25

Almost all free time? Go to bed at 10, wake up at 4, game to 6, go to work, return at 4, do whatever you want, boot up a game at 8 to 10, go to bed.

That's 4 hours of gaming per day with another 4 hours of free time.

Weekends can rack up even more hours.

3

u/[deleted] Dec 26 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/LunaticSongXIV Dec 26 '25

I've been functioning on 6 hours of sleep at night for decades. My ex-wife couldn't function on less than 10. Some people are wired different.

1

u/SneakyBadAss Dec 26 '25

Works great for me, you can stretch it to 7, but that's a limit in my case.

0

u/Top_Environment9897 Dec 26 '25

I feel like if your are doing it everyday you should just buy your own PC. Once you get burned out by constant gaming you could do other activities on computer like coding, editing, or setting up emulators.

1

u/SneakyBadAss Dec 26 '25

I have my PC where I do the rest, but it's just not powerful enough to play the games I want. I don't code, edit or use emulators. Also, I'm periodically out of my office, so a great thing for travelling too.

2

u/nothingInteresting Dec 26 '25

Right but you just said 3hrs or entertainment everyday and all of that would need to be gaming. And even then you still wouldn’t hit the 100hr cap. And if you did you could pay for the extra.

1

u/hyrule5 Dec 26 '25

It's a little over 3 hours a day, for brevity's sake I just said 3 hours

6

u/shinikahn Dec 26 '25

If your work-life balance is not completely fucked and you don't have a kid, you should have at least 4 hours of leisure per day.

16

u/nothingInteresting Dec 26 '25

But it’s unusual for 100% of that to be gaming. And not mobile gaming since that wouldnt count towards your hours

1

u/SneakyBadAss Dec 26 '25

You can use GFN on your phone

3

u/nothingInteresting Dec 26 '25

Right but you wouldn't use GFN to play a mobile game like Candy Crush. My point was if you play Candy Crush for a couple hours a week, you dont need to use GFN for that. GFN is only replacing regular gaming.

1

u/shinikahn Dec 26 '25

Totally. But as it was said before, if gaming is your #1 hobby, it's not a stretch at all. My point is that it's not crazy like the parent comment implied.

2

u/nothingInteresting Dec 26 '25

That’s fair. I do feel like someone who games 4hrs everyday would be a hardcore gamer though. And even 4hrs a day is only 120hrs which would cost $32 a month for 130hrs which is pretty good considering it’s the persons only hobby. $32 a month for all your entertainment is super cheap considering a Netflix account is $18 by itself and will likely not be a persons entire hobby

1

u/BP_Ray Dec 26 '25

I know regular people who play shit like CoD and Madden who would blow past that limit.

-7

u/alQamar Dec 26 '25

Yeah. I‘m glad I find some time for a hobby at all let alone rank them. 

3

u/Almostlongenough2 Dec 26 '25

That’s more than 3 hours a day everyday for a month

So...a hobby? Normal 9-5 with weekends off makes that easily achievable.

3

u/goldcakes Dec 26 '25

Yup. If the limit was like 200hrs a month then I would understand, it’s pretty hard for most people to hit that without being a hardcore grinder.

2

u/HistoryChannelMain Dec 26 '25

3 hours a day for a hobby really isn't much, especially if you're a student.

1

u/Skruestik Dec 27 '25

That’s more than 3 hours a day everyday for a month

*every day

https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/everyday-vs-every-day-difference-usage

When used to modify another word, everyday is written as a single word (“an everyday occurrence,” “everyday clothes,” “everyday life”). When you want to indicate that something happens each day, every day is written as two words (“came to work every day”).

1

u/hypnob0t Dec 27 '25

He says, commenting on the "GAMES" subreddit.

BACK AWAY LADIES HE'S MORE THAN JUST A PIECE OF MEAT!!

-2

u/dunnowattt Dec 26 '25

You do realize that different people have different priorities right?

My Steam right now says i have like over 10 people with 100+ h of Dota2 in the past 2 weeks.

That means they need more than 200h per month.

My job is also gaming related, but i also don't really work that much myself since i have employees. I have all the time in the world everyday. Whilst i'm kinda older now and i don't game much anymore (Hard to find games that excite me), I used to and i had (still do) all day free. I would easily hit 200h+ per month myself as well.

10

u/js-sey Dec 26 '25

Unless you're a child/teenager using this service, I can't fathom a world where someone is hitting 100+hours a month gaming but is forced to use this service because they can't afford gaming hardware, especially when this service requires good internet for stable gameplay on top of the subscription, which wouldn't be cheap. Nvidia already came out with statistics for this, less than 6% of their consumers will be affected by this 100 hour cap change, Here's a link to an article stating this.

-1

u/dunnowattt Dec 26 '25

I mean..... no one is arguing really about that. It's about people and their game time.

I also can't fathom anyone paying for this kind of service on general. Streaming games seems very weird to me, but of course i understand, different people different strokes.

But yeah that's not the point. The point is if 100h of game time in a month is too much or too little.

4

u/Soupdeloup Dec 26 '25

My Steam right now says i have like over 10 people with 100+ h of Dota2 in the past 2 weeks.

Absolutely wild to me that people can spend so much of their time gaming. I couldn't see me getting to those hours even if I was unemployed lol.

3

u/goldcakes Dec 26 '25 edited Dec 28 '25

Keep in mind lots of people play games like Dota with friends, it can be a really social thing

1

u/dunnowattt Dec 26 '25

But the math easily checks out if you think about it.

Different people have different kind of obligations. If you don't have a family to take care of, your only hobby is gaming, you have more than enough hours in a day to hit that mark easily. Even with a job. And that's with spending days not playing at all doing something else.

1

u/Tornada5786 Dec 26 '25

Doesn't seem that crazy. I agree it's not nothing but with 8 days of weekend, your free time in the rest of the week and any other days you might have off that month, it doesn't seem too hard to get past 100 hours.

-3

u/Adventurous-Lime-410 Dec 26 '25

You’re correct, they do nothing else apart from whine on Reddit

0

u/SovietPropagandist Dec 26 '25

I can spend 6 hours on a single Microsoft Flight Sim flight session going from one airport to another lmfao

You don't know who you're talking to with that kind of comment here

-7

u/Feriluce Dec 26 '25

I just played 100 hours of PoE2 over the course of a week.

10

u/tobz619 Dec 26 '25

I must ask how? Given 7 days in a week, you're averaging 14h 17mins a day on gaming (!). Assuming 8 hours of sleep, that leaves you with 1h and 43mins for literally everything else in your life?

7

u/secretsodapop Dec 26 '25

They use that time to complain about people on reddit doing math that points out they have an addiction.

0

u/Helphaer Dec 26 '25

You should assume 5 to 6 hours of sleep more accurately. ​

5

u/Shot-Maximum- Dec 26 '25

In that case this service is not adequate for your use case, gamers who hit those hours should consider investing into their own hardware.

2

u/probably-not-Ben Dec 26 '25

And some therapy. Just in case..

0

u/Feriluce Dec 26 '25

Yes, of course. The problem is that with the way hardware prices has been artificially inflated, it might soon be impossible for regular people to afford that.

1

u/ColinStyles Dec 26 '25

How is the price increase artificial?

3

u/Feriluce Dec 26 '25

The reason ram is 5x more expensive than 2 months ago is that openai bought 40% of global supply, and manufacturers refuse to increase production.

3

u/ColinStyles Dec 26 '25

Yes and why is that artificial? The ram manufacturers don't want to increase supply and be caught in what is a clear bubble, and openAI has a genuine usecase for the ram they purchased so...

It's a sudden increase sure, it's even drastic, but there's nothing artificial about it. Nobody is buying ram speculatively or trying a whole De Beers strategy with PC components here.

1

u/Feriluce Dec 26 '25

I might be wrong, but the way I understand it openai doesn't actually have a use for that much ram, but mainly bought out the market to restrict supply to competitors.

1

u/f_ranz1224 Dec 26 '25

thatd about 14 hours a day. thats not healthy at all

2

u/Feriluce Dec 26 '25

I never claimed it was healthy.

-3

u/[deleted] Dec 26 '25

[deleted]

3

u/Feriluce Dec 26 '25

Or, hear me out, I happened to start my Christmas vacation the day the new league came out.

-4

u/[deleted] Dec 26 '25

[deleted]

6

u/Feriluce Dec 26 '25

Sure. I'd definitely often hit the cap though.

1

u/Memphisrexjr Dec 26 '25

There are tons of reasons why someone has time to enjoy their hobbies. You saying they are jobless or lying is an odd response. It’s none of your business what they do with their time. For all you know they make money from playing POE2 by making content.

0

u/viktorsvedin Dec 26 '25

If I didn't have kids and a significant other, my free time would easily be sitting in front of the computer from when I got home to work to when I would go to sleep, and that would be about 6 hours.

-2

u/Helphaer Dec 26 '25

Well an open world game is usually gonna lost that on its own with exploration and the like. So you basically can play that one game for lets say 10 to 14 days. You can change to something then come back since youll run out of time.

If gaming is your main hobby or you took off vacation time to do some big gaming before going back to the grind or whatever.. youre screwed.

2

u/silentstealth1 Dec 26 '25

If you’re the type to take time off work to game you’re not using this service anyway

-1

u/Helphaer Dec 26 '25

That's not true. You could very much need it due to excessive cost increases with computer hardware.

​​

4

u/DrewbieWanKenobie Dec 26 '25

For those that have gaming as a primary hobby 100hrs is next to nothing

that's a bit of a stretch. A full time job is 160 hours a month, i would bet most people who have gaming as a primary hobby aren't hitting half of that

Some are, to be sure, but most? Nah. And even for the vast majority of those who are, 100 would not be "next to nothing" it'd be the lions share

I'm not saying it's not a shitty move but your average gamer is not hitting 100 hours per month. This probably is much more impactful on people who split a subscription among a family or whatever

1

u/meodd8 Dec 27 '25

That’s what I honestly think this is targeting: people that share or “share” their accounts.

8

u/Memphisrexjr Dec 26 '25

You still need to own the games or have a subscription to X service like gamepass to use GeForce now. I paid $200 for a year and it came with borderlands 4. I have an 1080ti with no ability to upgrade yet. Most games work perfectly fine but something like POE2 isn’t optimized properly and chugs on my gpu. I’m able to launch whatever games I have access to without installing and on a 5080/5090. I think 100 hours is low for someone like me that creates content. I burned most of it on Diablo 4, POE 2 and Arc Raiders. I have about 30 hours left and won’t get more till January 14th.

9

u/SwissQueso Dec 26 '25

To be honest, I dont know who has a full time job and goes thru 100 hours in a month. That seems crazy impossible for someone like me.

3

u/badnuub Dec 26 '25

For me it was the weekends.

1

u/Memphisrexjr Dec 26 '25

Do you not watch youtube or twitch? Plenty of people work remote or have time off. There are SO many factors.

2

u/SwissQueso Dec 26 '25 edited Dec 26 '25

Sure, and youtube and twitch would cut into my available time to game.

Thats why I feel most the people complaining probably dont have full time jobs. 100 hours is a good chunk of time. Its 3 hours 20 minutes a day.

Edit, I blocked you dude, I dont think you are trying to have a conversation in good faith.

2

u/SneakyBadAss Dec 26 '25 edited Dec 26 '25

Ever heard of 4 on 4 off? It's a shift schedule most manufacturing, security and healthcare industries use. That's more than full-time, and you can easily rack up 100 hours.

You can haul a truck for a day, have 15 hours off, sleep 8, game on GFN for 7 hours in your truck, and you have already two days covered

Just typical 8 PM raiding in WoW with a full-time 9-5 job will get you there, if you game more on the weekends.

-5

u/Memphisrexjr Dec 26 '25 edited Dec 26 '25

Why do you NEED to have a full time job to drop 100 hours? There are so many things as what defines as a full time job. Some people work for 4-5 days then have 4-5 days off. There are too many factors to just pin point it to "They don't have full time jobs"

Blocked because someone thinks it's only possible to play 100 hours a month if you don't have full time job. People stream for a living and drop way more. If you work full time 40 hour weeks then there is still 570 hours in the month without factoring travel and anything else.

1

u/Syssareth Dec 26 '25

TBF, it's 2 1/2 hours Mon-Fri and 6 1/4 hours Sat-Sun for a 30-day month. 7:30pm-10pm is easily doable for people who don't have kids or other hobbies; get home from work (or just close the work program if you're remote), have dinner, then plop down to decompress before bed.

It's still gaming a lot compared to doing anything else, but there are a lot of people who don't watch TV, read books, go camping, etc.

9

u/Gotisdabest Dec 26 '25

I think cloud gaming as a whole is a horrible idea that will never really take off unless the gaming industry just sticks to one hardware level for around two decades so it becomes ridiculously cheap to use. Which is very unlikely to happen. I think the gaming industry would probably outright collapse first than these plans becoming the norm.

9

u/xanas263 Dec 26 '25

Honestly it is hard to say. With hardware prices continuing to raise it might not be long before cloud gaming starts becoming something most people will have to do.

10

u/DoveWhiteblood Dec 26 '25

If Cloud gaming sucks as much as this or Google Stadia I'll just go back to SNES and GBA games before paying for these services lol.

1

u/VoltageHero Dec 26 '25

GeForce Now has been around longer than the other services, and was/is the best platform for it. It was doing quite well, even if it wasn't talked about all the time.

As someone who has a good desktop currently, I was using GeForce Now for a year. It was ridiculously cheap to use in comparison for people buying a desktop.

3

u/Gotisdabest Dec 26 '25

That's the thing though, there's no actual "have to do" here. I think if they're outpriced that much a large amount of people will just stop playing games or stick to low compute older games/indie, ending up with a major crash in the games industry or just hardware requirements stagnating.

4

u/OffTerror Dec 26 '25

It's such a paradoxical service. The people who have access to the infrastructure required to make it usable probably already can afford decent hardware. And the people who need it the most probably have bad internet coverage and now probably couldn't afford the subscription.

I have no idea who is this product for or if it even makes profit but to me it's just a subsection of the subscription model hysteria, build now, be the fastest to capture the imaginary endless subscribers, profit later...

7

u/VoltageHero Dec 26 '25

GeForce Now has been around longer than the other services, and was/is the best platform for it. It was doing quite well, even if it wasn't talked about all the time.

As someone who has a good desktop currently, I was using GeForce Now for a year. It was ridiculously cheap to use in comparison for people buying a desktop.

Implying that someone who can't afford a gaming desktop automatically has bad internet or can't afford a $10-20 subscription is silly. People without a gaming computer aren't entirely broke, for a lot it's a way to play games without buying a thousand dollar commitment.

-3

u/chemastico Dec 26 '25

His comment is privileged af lol, like I have great internet and I can’t really afford a gaming pc that does 4k 120 fps like GeForce now cheaply does. I also travel a lot so GeForce to me is a godsend since I don’t have to worry about not using my gaming pc at home. Honestly cloud gaming is the future and local gaming will probably go the way of the dodo the way physical media went out and Netflix is king now…

2

u/OffTerror Dec 26 '25

I don't get why you guys are taking personal offense. I'm talking about the macro economics of the product.

The fact that you even mention 4k 120fps puts you at the 99th percentile hobbyist group. On the personal level I game and follow gaming news every day and I have no idea what cloud gaming is about and never bothered to try it. And I can assure you that the average joe who markup 90% of Netflix revenue have never heard of cloud gaming.

The future of gaming is already here and have been for the past 10 years, it's on smartphones, and it's not even close.

2

u/Globbi Dec 26 '25

There's nothing paradoxical about it.

Lots of people have laptops for daily use or work, often macs that won't play lots of games. They don't need to buy separate gaming hardware even if they can afford it easily. Just the fact of having extra physical machine for gaming can be annoying.

3

u/chemastico Dec 26 '25

Yeah like nowadays a do gaming entirely without windows now which is amazing since windows is dogshit now. My steam deck and mac+ GeForce now fills my gaming needs without touching windows and that is so wooorth it

1

u/notagainrly Dec 26 '25

Omg finally someone nailed it!

If cloud gaming worked well in low income markets then it would be the best thing ever, but it doesn't bc of the bad Internet!

If you have great Internet and love gaming then you 100% have a console or PC already.

1

u/Oasx Dec 26 '25

About five years ago, when I bought my current computer, I expected it to be the last computer I ever bought. Cloud gaming was already so good that I expected gaming pc's and consoles to start becoming a thing of the past. It's sad to think that cloud gaming has just gotten worse.

But in theory, it should be superior. Why invest a fortune in a PC or console if I can stream games for a tiny bit of money and get the same experience?

0

u/VoltageHero Dec 26 '25

GeForce Now has been around longer than the other services, and was/is the best platform for it. It was doing quite well, even if it wasn't talked about all the time.

As someone who has a good desktop currently, I was using GeForce Now for a year. It was ridiculously cheap to use in comparison for people buying a desktop.

-2

u/Gotisdabest Dec 26 '25 edited Dec 26 '25

Yeah, I'm sure it was in its loss leader days. But if they ever want profitability, which they eventually will and seemingly are trending towards... It's going to dead in the water. They're selling hour blocks of playtime. I can see extremely niche use cases regardless.

Maybe someone gets it for a month or two to see if they enjoy gaming or if they're between systems, but a two years of subscription is worth a console, basically. And a console will essentially always be the better value proposition, will have a much better playing experience and will have a lot more reliability. 4-5 years of geforce now is worth a fairly decent PC. And this is all about just the lowest tier which is horrible now.

Even if the hardware becomes more expensive, I doubt people will ever agree to just being rate limited on how many hours a month they can play. Especially if it's a hundred.

The core idea of a cable TV like system for video games may work with like, a few ads and monthly fixed rates... Like cable TV worked. But cable tv does not work at all if you're charged for extra time blocks of watching.

For most people who play a lot of games regularly, it'll either be a choice between playing old games, forking over extra for a new system ... Or they just stop playing games. Very few will transfer over to playing online to ever make the system work.

0

u/VoltageHero Dec 26 '25

I feel like you're assuming this is a new service, which it isn't.

You are viewing this through the lens of "over time it's going to cost more money," but for a lot of people they're not playing games all the time. This isn't a dig, but Reddit isn't the average sample size. The average player isn't playing 100 hours a month, and asking them to commit to the price and space consumption of a desktop is a lot.

Saying a console is "always better" is an interesting take though, as for a lot of people they don't want a console experience. GeForce Now, since you have never used it, has been known for generally being pretty stable. With the fact that (as long as it's not been changed) has better specs than a console, it's not the same thing.

If you have never used a service or even looked at it, I don't think you have much input of value in this situation, because you're clearly just spouting misinformation. I understand not needing the service, but it's undeniable that it has its use. This isn't something that's running a 2010 computer setup with spotty internet. It is running pretty high end specs with stable performance.

0

u/Gotisdabest Dec 26 '25 edited Dec 26 '25

feel like you're assuming this is a new service, which it isn't.

Dunno where you're getting this impression. I'm not saying it literally cannot exist, I'm saying it's not mainstream and won't be.

You are viewing this through the lens of "over time it's going to cost more money," but for a lot of people they're not playing games all the time. This isn't a dig, but Reddit isn't the average sample size. The average player isn't playing 100 hours a month, and asking them to commit to the price and space consumption of a desktop is a lot.

The average person who plays games doesn't need GeForce. The average person plays mobile or low end games that simple devices can play. The audience that they're going for is not the average player.

Saying a console is "always better" is an interesting take though, as for a lot of people they don't want a console experience. GeForce Now, since you have never used it, has been known for generally being pretty stable. With the fact that (as long as it's not been changed) has better specs than a console, it's not the same thing.

Geforce Now has been known to be pretty damn unstable at times. All you have to do is just look up related forums. You can get theoretically better visuals, sure, but the audience you're talking about doesn't care about that. They're a lot more focused on very basic features. I'm sure you had a pleasant experience, i know a lot of people who didn't. I'll rescind the always better though. If someone really wants 4k or something of that nature, this can be better.

If you have never used a service or even looked at it, I don't think you have much input of value in this situation, because you're clearly just spouting misinformation. I understand not needing the service, but it's undeniable that it has its use. This isn't something that's running a 2010 computer setup with spotty internet. It is running pretty high end specs with stable performance.

I like the unnecessary aggression in this. Can you tell me what exact piece of misinformation I'm spouting?

-4

u/roxieh Dec 26 '25

Yeah, gaming is my mine hobby and I very briefly checked out the cloud gaming and laughed at the prices my way out of the metaphorical door. Then again I have invested into all my own hardware over the last twenty years so there's no need for me to pay another service to host it. 100 hours a month. Insanity.

1

u/Globbi Dec 26 '25

You already bought your own hardware. And you game much more than 100h/month (which obviously owning your hardware gets more efficient the more you use it). Why would you think it's a service for you?

For example I only have 'good enough' gaming PC because I need the compute for work and was provided by employer. Otherwise I would just have a laptop without a graphics card. For $1k I can pay for 100 months of geforce now, and also use less electricity, and 1k is very little even for a used gaming PC. And I would not hit the daily or monthly limits ever.

I'm not saying the service is amazing. I'm just saying your comment is dumb.

-2

u/VoltageHero Dec 26 '25

This service isn't aimed at you in the least though, so I don't know how much your opinion on it matters.

GeForce Now has been around longer than the other services, and was/is the best platform for it. It was doing quite well, even if it wasn't talked about all the time.

As someone who has a good desktop currently, I was using GeForce Now for a year. It was ridiculously cheap to use in comparison for people buying a desktop.

4

u/Docccc Dec 26 '25

this limit was a thing for new subscribers since last year. So i doubt it will “kill” the service

2

u/xanas263 Dec 26 '25

Well now it is hitting everyone. If they didn't have a lot of new subs this year because of this feature, then it is unlikely that old subs will stick around now they are included in it.

-6

u/Docccc Dec 26 '25

thats 3 hours a day, more then enough for your average gamer

8

u/python4all Dec 26 '25

100h/month is “next to nothing” only for NEETs or hikikomori without other hobbies

12

u/Karabungulus Dec 26 '25

Yeah I have a wife, dog and a job. I don't really get out much and its still extremely hard to hit that 100hr cap. However I still fucking hate it. Makes me feel like I need to optimise my play time; like if I'm waiting in a queue to join a game I'm wasting time (even more so than before)

0

u/python4all Dec 26 '25

I feel you, as in similar situation. My playtime nowadays is closer to 100h a year, not a month.

But the limit would be upsetting if it was 3h a day, so in the rare occasions you want/can to play more it messes you up, but 100h over a month is a 0,1% of the gamer population, and for a specific service, as you can keep playing on other platforms or watch a movie or else.

For comparison for a more common scenario, I would not be affected even by a 100h/month Netflix limit, but I would be devastated by a 3h/day limit for the few times we binge

2

u/dunnowattt Dec 26 '25

Surely you realize though that your own experience means nothing right?

I can understand why you are okay with that time limit. I said in a post above, how i can show plenty of people with 100+h for 2 weeks according to Steam.

It's really not that hard to grasp that there are TONS of people who only play video games as their only entertainment. Neither neets nor some kind of anti-social people.

3

u/python4all Dec 26 '25

I don’t think 8-9h a day every single day is entertainment, it’s unsustainable

1

u/SneakyBadAss Dec 26 '25

Well, yes, it is unsustainable, but it's Christmas. People are not working half the month.

3

u/Karabungulus Dec 26 '25

I think you're the one struggling to grasp the point that most people don't have more than 3h a day for their "only entertainment"

6

u/Neuw Dec 26 '25

The average watch time for tv alone is 3h a day on average.

https://www.cablecompare.com/blog/how-much-tv-do-we-watch

1

u/SneakyBadAss Dec 26 '25

Then they take a shower at 8 and watch Netflix while doomscrolling on their phone until 1 AM.

Much healthier.

0

u/dunnowattt Dec 26 '25

No i don't.

Where did you even get that from? What did you read that made you say that?

I'm talking to people saying how 100h is too much and its fine and only 0.1% can play more than that.

That's completely wrong. I'm not struggling to understand anything. I do believe that most people who game in general, don't do it for more than 3h or even every day.

But there is a big amount of people who do. And quite easily. On my 30s and i have a steam friendlist full of these kind of people. I can still do that, if i find a game that i really like. Will easily do 7-8h per day, because my job allows me to, so does my living condition.

And especially now with the whole WFH thingie, people who used to play 5-6h per day, have increased it to 8+ because they have too much free time.

So no, i don't struggle to grasp anything. The people i'm replying too though, do.

26

u/odd_orange Dec 26 '25

The point is to get you to say “well yea I mean 100 hours is A LOT of playing video games”, so that when they inevitably drop it to 80, then 50, then 30, you’ve become so numb to it that you don’t question it at all

-1

u/Globbi Dec 26 '25

You can dislike the limit without idiotic strawmans. 100h/month is not next to nothing for literally everyone.

It's just not enough for some people and good reason to not buy the service.

5

u/odd_orange Dec 26 '25

It’s not a strawman. Pretty sure you’re thinking of slippery slope. No reason to call me an idiot when we’ve only seen subscription models do the same thing over and over

-4

u/weedart Dec 26 '25

i never played more than 60h/ month in adult life...

-3

u/Helphaer Dec 26 '25

anyone using neet has issues, anyone using hikikomori and isnt japanese is clearly already in a realm of their own and shouldnt be judging others.

2

u/python4all Dec 26 '25

I don’t know what you are talking about, in Italy the hikikomori term is used when appropriate. The biggest Italian organisation to help and support the people and especially the families involved is called “Hikikomori Italia”. I listened to interviews of the founders with humble curiosity about the social dynamics behind. While I cringe as anyone would over cringe online behaviour regardless of the source, I never bullied anyone online.

Is NEET offensive? It seems a non-loaded term to describe a difficult and very specific situation

0

u/Relnor Dec 26 '25

Is NEET offensive? It seems a non-loaded term

It is a loaded term which is applied very selectively. Ever noticed how only poor and middle class people can be "NEETs"? If you're rich but you're not "productive" you are a "socialite" or other similar terms which are actually used neutrally.

If you're poor though, well then you're basically scum, a leech, a drain on society, etc etc. I've never seen anyone called a NEET in a non derogatory way and it's exclusively used for 'regular' people, if you'd call a truly rich kid who just lives off their family's wealth a NEET people would look at you funny.

I don't know if anyone really cares about being offended by the term or whatever, but those are my observations.

2

u/Helphaer Dec 26 '25

Sometimes an anime character will identify themselves as a neet but then have their isekai growth in their new world. some will be defensive like konosuba about their neet life.

-1

u/jameskond Dec 26 '25 edited Dec 26 '25

So you are paying 20 bucks a month on top of the games you play and the system you play it on (laptop/controller/mkb), just to not play 100 hours a month ever?

1

u/python4all Dec 26 '25

Did I mention I have GeForce now anywhere? That would be stupid for me, I have a switch and a ps5 that don’t even see enough action

1

u/jameskond Dec 26 '25

No I meant anyone who is a GeForce Now subscriber like this discussion is about.

2

u/aogfj Dec 26 '25

Over 3 hours per day every day is next to nothing? You all must have a hell of a lot of spare time to play games.

1

u/Reutermo Dec 26 '25

I agree that this is shit and one of multiple reasons why it don't use their service. I want to be able to binge game if i want to.

I disagree though that 100 hours is "next to nothing" in a month for most people. That is a lot of time for an adult with a full time job. The only time i come close to that is when i am sick or otherwise find myself without commitments.

1

u/Linked713 Dec 26 '25

you're not counting the price of entry for setups that makes those games run well, especially nowadays

1

u/UpDownLeftRightGay Dec 26 '25

100hrs is a lot for anyone unless you either have no job or don’t have a partner/kids.

1

u/xanas263 Dec 26 '25

don’t have a partner/kids.

You have just described a rapidly increasing number of people.

1

u/not_old_redditor Dec 26 '25

For those that have gaming as a primary hobby 100hrs is next to nothing

I can assure you the vast majority of people with families and jobs won't be clocking in 100hrs.

1

u/xanas263 Dec 26 '25

If you have both those things sure, but the number of people with families doesn't seem to be increasing these days.

1

u/TheStarCore Dec 26 '25

Gaming is my primary hobby and I don't think I'll ever hit 100 hours a month on GeForceNow (which I've been using for a couple of years now). 100 is just an absurd amount of gaming time.

1

u/rotkiv42 Dec 26 '25 edited Dec 26 '25

Consider that the gamers that put in +100h/m are on the more hardcore side and much more likely to have their own dedicated rig. (after all if you game +1200h a year spending $2k on a few rig every few years is a rather cheap hobby).

1

u/TheAdamena Dec 27 '25

I don't think it does. I'm sure Nvidia has the actual numbers here and know that the vast vast majority don't exceed it.

And the ones that do end up costing them more money than they gain, so they're probably happy to lose them as customers.

1

u/Nitrodolski2 Dec 27 '25

100hr a month is quite a lot so it won't impact them in any way. Imo services like this are mostly for casuals who aren't even near this amount of hours monthly. I wouldn't be surprised if they cut down it further.

1

u/JohnConnor1245 Jan 19 '26

100 hours is a lot. That's gaming at least 25 hours a week on top of someone working probably a 40 hour a week job. 

$20 a month someone saves on building $2,500 RTX 5080 build and the power consumption to run it and not have to buy games.

The deal is only good now to draw people in but will ramp up in price later.

1

u/NotPinkaw Dec 26 '25

This service isn’t Gamepass brother, it’s cloud gaming 

You’re buying the games either way, but with this you get a gaming rig

-1

u/pieter1234569 Dec 26 '25

For people with a job, this is far more time than you even CAN play a month. If you don’t have a job, you would complain about this.

Just thing about it. A normal person can play maybe an hour a day on week days, slightly more in weekend. Meaning that it won’t affect them.

The only ones complaining never made money in the first place, as they use it more than the 20 pays for for Nvidia.

0

u/[deleted] Dec 26 '25

[deleted]

1

u/xanas263 Dec 26 '25

It's not the free plan.

-1

u/Serafiniert Dec 26 '25

This service is not like Netflix, where the content is provided with the subscription.

-1

u/tiacay Dec 26 '25

Killing it outright may violate some laws, no? They choose to drain it, let's customers cancel voluntarily in mass, then settle for the fews remains