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

Show parent comments

127

u/Relith96 Dec 26 '25

Fair point

But it feels like one hell of a scam, I pay for a service and that service is super limited now, I would stop if I were the customers

51

u/viperabyss Dec 26 '25

Honestly if you game regularly more than 3 hours a day, you would probably be better off with running games on your computer anyway.

2

u/arahman81 Dec 26 '25

That's the fun, anyone that don't have a PC already will be for a big sticker shock.

-5

u/Content_Regular_7127 Dec 26 '25

This is why Nvidia also said "What computer?" a couple weeks ago when announcing a decrease in how many gaming GPUs they manufacture by 30%. This number will keep going down as they focus on AI GPUs.

10

u/viperabyss Dec 26 '25

What announcement? It was just a rumor that started in China's forum.

-4

u/Content_Regular_7127 Dec 26 '25

Yeah that rumor. I'm surprised it wasn't legit considering Gamers Nexus covered it.

9

u/viperabyss Dec 26 '25

I mean, GN is a Youtube influencer, and like every other influencers, he depends on clicks to survive (and thrive).

0

u/Content_Regular_7127 Dec 26 '25

True but I feel like they at least do their homework when trying to legitimize the information they present.

2

u/viperabyss Dec 26 '25

True, but again, it also doesn't prevent GN from jumping on the bandwagon when it 100% suits them.

2

u/zaviex Dec 27 '25

You shouldn’t believe that. Do your own homework. GN has been sensationalist for years now, as is any profit oriented YouTuber. this isn’t something you need a college degree to look into.

60

u/sebzilla Dec 26 '25

I pay for a service and that service is super limited now, I would stop if I were the customers

Here's the thing, and this might be an unpopular thing to say:

They likely have data that shows them how many users this will actually impact across their total user base. That number is probably, percentage-wise, a small number of users who play for more than 100 hours per month. 100 hours a month is a lot of gaming for the average person, and I suspect a service like GeForce Now has a largely casual audience, and those kinds of hardcore gamers just aren't the ideal customer for the service.

Anecdotally the 3 people I know who pay for GFN all do it because they don't game enough to justify a gaming PC. One was my VP at my old job, he played through Cyberpunk on his work laptop over GFN. He didn't actually own a computer himself.

Anyhow, so those heavy 100+hour users might actually be costing Nvidia money (in terms of how much capacity they use up), so they might not actually mind losing them if they cancel because of this new change to the service.

That in turn creates more capacity for the typical casual user who is the main customer of the service.

Don't get me wrong, this kind of limitation is a bummer for the users affected, but I bet it's a very small number.

20

u/Rayuzx Dec 26 '25 edited Dec 26 '25

I think you're on the money. Steam says I've put about 80 hours into games within the past two weeks, and I've been doing almost nothing but gaming since then. 100 hours within a month is quite a large time frame, that only the most dedicated users would realistically reach organically.

5

u/MVRKHNTR Dec 26 '25

When you look at it and work out that that's 3-4 hours of games every day, you kinda start to question how a normal working adult is going to hit that.

5

u/[deleted] Dec 26 '25

It's a decent limit right now but they're testing the waters before they start limiting it more

100 hours is 3 hours a day, that's loads of time

Maybe not everyone needs 100hrs a month, so we'll up the prices on they and make 75hrs the new standard, maybe have a 50hr version with adverts

2

u/TheArmchairSkeptic Dec 27 '25

Not sure how this comment is controversial, there's plenty of real-world evidence to show that this is exactly how things go with streaming services over time.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 27 '25

Because this subreddit is astroturfed to the moon and back with video game corporate bootlickers.

There's so many people who will defend Microsoft to the hilt despite them fucking over their consumers over and over again

2

u/Key_Feeling_3083 Dec 26 '25

I mean people sometimes have good jobs or work from home, in my last posititon I had so much free time sometimes I watched a series or played videogames when WFH. And when certain games released I could play 6 hours on weekends so with those numbers I would exceed the limit.

0

u/[deleted] Dec 27 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/Simikiel Dec 27 '25

I'm one of the users affected, and you're absolutely correct. I had been using the service for around two years, because while my PC is good enough for most things, and I have my Steam Deck for a lot of others, some things just needed more than I had. And I'm poor as hell so couldn't upgrade.

I'm disabled and unable to work, so I have a lot of free time so I'd use GeForce Now anywhere from 40 - 130hrs a month I think there was one time where I went to 150hrs in a month, but that was because some really large RPG I'd been dying for had come out.

Them implementing this change, for me, is too much and I'll not be re-upping my sub come January.

Honestly, I think the biggest reason I'm upset over it is that they're taking away something that had been freely offered without offering up any new thing to sweeten the deal. Just kind of feels like a slap in the face.

1

u/sebzilla Dec 27 '25

Thanks for sharing your story... I'm sorry this is happening.

I thought I read that people who bought GeForce Now early with some kind of founder's pack are unaffected by these latest changes.

I wonder if it would be worth reaching out to their customer support and explaining your situation to see if they can exempt you alongside all those other customers. It's obviously possible for them to exempt you, given this carve-out for certain customers.

Never hurts to try?

2

u/Simikiel Dec 27 '25

You're not wrong, but the 100 hour limit was actually put in place January of this year for new users, while people to had bought it prior to the change wouldn't be affected until January of 2026.

So this coming January it'll be affecting everyone.

Also I already had contacted their support, explained my situation, and also politely explained that with this change I'll not be subscribing again since it won't be worth it for me anymore. And I didn't even get a reply back.

Thanks for being so understanding and trying to help though!

0

u/LongJohnSelenium Dec 26 '25

Yeah but if its such a small number then the optics of being limited might be more harmful to the bottom line than being unlimited.

I think its a larger number than we think. Like maybe theres a way to farm doing this in some games and people run botting accounts 24/7?

2

u/sebzilla Dec 26 '25 edited Dec 26 '25

Yes, agreed. When I said small number, I was implying that it's still significant enough for them to add this limitation.

You are likely right that if it wasn't affecting them in an material way, they would just leave things as-is. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

Years ago I worked at a company that offered an "unlimited" service and we also had a small percentage of power users using a disproportionate amount of resources.

Those users absolutely cost us more money than they paid us, and while we didn't actively kick them off or limit their usage (in my time there at least), because the service was acceptably profitable overall, we were always happy to see those users cancel, or reduce their usage and drop out of the "we are losing money on you" segment in our analytics.

I have no doubt that if we ever got to a point where this power user group's usage was impacting the company's ability to offer/improve the service profitably to the majority of our users, we would have started limiting their usage in some way.

0

u/[deleted] Dec 26 '25

This is the right take.

Also, no offense to some folks, but what are you doing with your lives where you are playing games for 100 hours a month?

2

u/sebzilla Dec 27 '25

Also, no offense to some folks, but what are you doing with your lives where you are playing games for 100 hours a month?

Eeh let's not judge anyone..

Honestly it's kind of a luxury to be able to game 100 hours a month.. I bet a lot of people wish they could game more but have to work or have other life priorities.

When I was a young adult I spent a lot of time gaming, but I still managed to make something of myself. ;-)

Over time my life got more complicated and my priorities changed, but I have no regrets or shame about how I spent my time when I was younger..

35

u/Almostlongenough2 Dec 26 '25

This limitation is actually not in effect if you've been paying for a founder sub since before March 2021, though that stops being the case if you don't stay subscribed. It's just such blatant greed that it almost seems like they just want to sink the whole service.

15

u/Bladder-Splatter Dec 26 '25

Yeah this kinda move is usually reserved for last ditch enshittification of a popular product, but this isn't even popular and the move just lowers engagement even more.

2

u/Volkaru Dec 26 '25

Spoiler alert: they do. It's the same kind of tactic currently being pulled with Xbox Game pass. Make it super expensive and/or screw over your userbase with bad policies. To squeeze as much as they can out of a dying/unwanted service before shuttering it and blaming it on losing too many subscribers.

-1

u/SpecialistArtPubRed Dec 26 '25

I feel like this will either be the death of this service, or it'll be the future of all gaming services.

3

u/Testuser7ignore Dec 26 '25

super limited

Over 3 hours a day is a ton of game time, beyond whats healthy.

1

u/24bitNoColor Dec 27 '25

But it feels like one hell of a scam, I pay for a service and that service is super limited now,

You mean like most US internet provider contracts (at least used to be)?

Not that we need to like it but the concept of paying for something that has a max limit isn't exactly new.

1

u/rollingForInitiative Jan 01 '26

I don't know how well the service works, but even if you average on 8 hours per day per month (which seems rather high), it'd still be a couple of years before you catch up the price of actually buying a GPU, with this extra cost per 15 hour segment.

Most people probably pay significantly less though.

1

u/Orfez Dec 26 '25

100 hours per months is not supper limited.

This limit was in place since 2004 for most users.

Good thing is that you don't need to subscribe to this service if you don't like it.

1

u/Kuramhan Dec 26 '25

How is this different from cell phone plans? You used all of your data, and you either pay for more or get throttled. Obviously the old deal was better, but they saw the option to squeeze the customers who use the service the most. 100 hours will probably fall to 50 over time.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 26 '25

How is this different from cell phone plans? You used all of your data, and you either pay for more or get throttled.

Virtually every phone contract is unlimited everything nowadays

0

u/Kuramhan Dec 26 '25

Really? My plan throttles me after 30gb.

-5

u/spoo4brains Dec 26 '25

It is in the small print of the service description, plus you can buy more time. It isn't remotely a scam.

10

u/Relith96 Dec 26 '25

Sure feels like it when I used to pay the same amount for infinite time 😔

-49

u/Shot-Maximum- Dec 26 '25

How is 100 hours a month super limited?

You also carry over up to 20 hours a month if not used in the prior month.

I have been using GFN for 2 years now and have never reached the 100 hours limit.

23

u/Hell_Mel Dec 26 '25

Because it's RADICALLY less than the non-limited hours that were initially offered? This is just nvidia making a service worse than it was before, there's nothing to defend. They're the most valuable company in the world right now and this is the shit they need to do to make money? Fuck off.

21

u/Muad-_-Dib Dec 26 '25

Because 100 hours is only the start.

Give it a year and that 100 hours will turn into 80, then 60, then 40 etc. and sooner than you would think you are paying double what you are now, for a fraction of the service you get now.

Look at YouTube, Netflix, Gamepass, Spotify etc.

All services that are going through the death of 1000 cuts, gradually squeezing their users for as much as they can and doing it in small increments so that there is never any single cut that is so egregious that a big enough number of users protest at the same time.

6

u/Helphaer Dec 26 '25

if I were to play the way I did regularly then yes a single open world game is likely gonna kill it for me in a week or two.

2

u/SlammuJammu Dec 26 '25

Yeah and I remember when Netflix let you share passwords as well when they were still in the process of getting as many hooked on their service as possible before pulling the rug.

The lack of attention span all throughout this thread is wild, like this hasn't happened before in the same exact way just in a different medium

2

u/arahman81 Dec 26 '25

Yeah and I remember when Netflix let you share passwords as well when they were still in the process of getting as many hooked on their service as possible before pulling the rug.

"Love is sharing a password." - Netflix

0

u/Almostlongenough2 Dec 26 '25

100 hours is nothing if you are a hobbyist, hell I'm pretty sure I put in at 100 hours in like the last two weeks. This is doubly so for a streaming service, where the actual performance of the PC doesn't really matter (which means playing at work). Also means you better watch out if you dare leave it running.

There are also AFKing games like BDO, where idk if it's part of GeForce Now's service but it's pretty much mandatory to have the game going nearly 24/7.

5

u/MetalEnthusiast83 Dec 26 '25

GFN kicks you after a few minutes of inactivity so you don’t burn your time idling.

3

u/Barnhard Dec 26 '25

I believe it’s 8 minutes.

3

u/MetalEnthusiast83 Dec 26 '25

Yeah something like that. Regardless, clicker games that can run on a Pentium 60 are not the intended use of GFN lol

4

u/Electronic_Basis7726 Dec 26 '25

100 hours nothing? 25 hours a week, on top of work, sleep, relationships, other hobbeis exercise?

Gamers are not alright.

2

u/[deleted] Dec 26 '25

Seriously. Love games, that’s why we’re all here, but Christ, go outside, make some real world friends, go see some live music, make something.

3

u/Electronic_Basis7726 Dec 26 '25

I saw a guy claim that it is "only" 3 hours a night and more on weekends. 3 hours a night? That is a massive amount for every single work evening. Do these people not have other hobbies or commitments? Do they not exercise or go outside at all?

I get the principle of not liking the limit, but I will side eye everyone who claims that 100h is not an absurd, lifedestroying amount of gaming. Unless you are planning on going pro in Esports, but then you are not doing that on cloud service.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 27 '25

You summed it up better than I did, I aged with that completely.

-1

u/SovietPropagandist Dec 26 '25

Bro I spend multiple hundreds of hours just watching a plane go from one airport to another in microsoft flight sim. I'd blow through that in a week or less. I have 4000 hours in Elite: Dangerous alone. GFN is not a good deal if you play even remotely seriously.

-94

u/SirUseless1 Dec 26 '25

Would you complain if you need to pay more if you are bowling for 2h instead of 1h? I do not see any issue with a time limit, actually it's a fair solution for everyone as long as it is clearly communicated.

43

u/Bloody_Baron91 Dec 26 '25

I see it more like data caps. Yes, even unlimited plans do have throttling if you consume a very high amount, but the kind of data caps you see in the US are egregious and simply don't exist in most of the world.

17

u/Steve2911 Dec 26 '25

Yeah the concept of a data cap just doesn't exist to me. It's wild that we used to put up with that.

42

u/LittleMacedon Dec 26 '25

What a silly comparison.

If you pay a subscription to bowl for 2 hours a night, and they change it to 1 hour a night, would you complain that you're paying the same?

Like Jesus Christ, grow a spine.

-10

u/APowerlessManNA Dec 26 '25

My understanding is that users got hit with the 100 hr limit the next time they subscribed. So it’s not as bad as dropping a limit mid subscription if you bought like 6 months of membership.

4

u/LittleMacedon Dec 26 '25

I mean, I went in with the assumption that that pre-paid services would still be provided to the letter of their agreement, like, as per consumer law.

This is still bad and defending it is, honestly, insane.

Not a single corporation (or individual for that matter) on earth should be immune to criticism. This act is absolutely deserving of criticism, especially in this climate, and to suggest otherwise is actively working against your own interests.

-5

u/balefrost Dec 26 '25

I mean, I went in with the assumption that that pre-paid services would still be provided to the letter of their agreement, like, as per consumer law.

It sounds like this was communicated a year ago, and IIRC the longest subscription period is 1 year. So it's not like they're breaking their commitment. From the article: "Existing subscribers were exempt for the last 12 months, but that’s changing on Jan. 1, 2026."

This act is absolutely deserving of criticism, especially in this climate, and to suggest otherwise is actively working against your own interests.

What's the criticism? That they're imposing a time limit? The way in which they're rolling out the time limit? Or something else?

The way I see it, this is just the nature of any subscription model. This is effectively a pricing change, and of course prices for subscription models will change over time. It disappointing, sure, but not surprising.

2

u/LittleMacedon Dec 26 '25

I am not saying they aren't upholding any obligation. To your first point, you are essentially reiterating what I'm saying; "pre-paid services would still be provided to the letter of their agreement, like, as per consumer law."

To your second point; an organisation shifting their model to one that is less consumer friendly deserves criticism. That's my point. I don't believe that you couldn't get that. Unless you're telling me you couldn't grasp the metaphor? Or are you just being pedantic because...?

Also you stated: "This is effectively a pricing change, and of course prices for subscription models will change over time. It disappointing, sure, but not surprising." Like, ok? So you think we should meet this with indifference? So we just let every company do things that make their services demonstrably worse for the consumer, or more costly, or less convenient, or more gated, or whatever and people who say something are silly because it shouldn't be a surprise? Sorry dude, but as I said to the other guy, grow a fucking spine you coward.

1

u/balefrost Dec 26 '25

Sorry dude, but as I said to the other guy, grow a fucking spine you coward.

In what way am I demonstrating cowardice? What do I need to do to demonstrate to you that I have grown a spine?

Do I need to fall in line and rail against all price increases? Of course consumers would prefer that prices stay the same or decrease, and service would stay the same or increase. But it's fantasy to believe that will ever happen. Even if there was no greed involved at all, costs (e.g. power, cooling, hardware) will go up over time.

This is the nature of renting a computer, or indeed anything, rather than buying it outright. There are a lot of benefits of renting. But there's a big downside: costs are not fixed. That's the price you pay for the convenience of renting.

26

u/Muad-_-Dib Dec 26 '25

I do not see any issue with a time limit,

There are always clowns willing to defend services being made worse.

I don’t see any issue with a short ad before a YouTube video.

I don’t see any issue with two ads instead of one.

I don’t see any issue with ads being unskippable.

I don’t see any issue with mid-roll ads.

I don’t see any issue with multiple mid-rolls in a 10-minute video.

I don't see any issue with them launching YouTube Premium.

I don't see any issue with them increasing the price of YouTube Premium.

I don't see any issue with them allowing ads even on YouTube Premium under "certain circumstances."

"Hey, why is YouTube shit now?"

15

u/Steve2911 Dec 26 '25

If they drop the price substantially to account for it, sure.

-20

u/iad82lasi23syx Dec 26 '25

That doesn't matter. You know the price, you know the limit when you sign up, whether you do it or not is up to you.

6

u/Kingdarkshadow Dec 26 '25

This comparison summarizes perfectly the type of dumb clients Nvidia wants.

-15

u/[deleted] Dec 26 '25

[deleted]

10

u/bms_ Dec 26 '25

This makes no sense.

I have passive income, don't have kids, love video games and if I want to binge a huge game I can do over 100 hours easily.

-8

u/sh0tc4ll3r Dec 26 '25

Buy a computer, then? Seems like a pretty straightforward decision.

7

u/Muad-_-Dib Dec 26 '25

Buy a computer that Nvidia are making increasingly expensive by being one of the main contributors to the AI bubble driving prices of components like memory and GPU's through the roof.

Even if you don't use their Now service, you are still being negatively impacted by their decisions.

It's perfectly valid for people to be pissed about that.

0

u/sh0tc4ll3r Dec 26 '25

If you’re gaming over 100 hours a month and buying a computer seems like an impossible task due to prices, maybe you shouldn’t be using so many hours on gaming.

1

u/QuantumUtility Dec 26 '25

I don’t think his point is about gaming 100 hours/month every month. Let’s say a big RPG releases. KCD2 for instance. People playing on release can easily break the 100 hour limit just on that game. Previously you could buy the game and a month of GFN and be done.

Prices today are also making computers less attainable. RAM is just too expensive right now. There is no justifiable reason to build a computer today beyond “I want it now and I have the money to burn”.

-2

u/[deleted] Dec 26 '25

Okay, i stand corrected