Compared to a PC
Quote: Gamers pay Nvidia $5 a month (for now) to run games they have already bought at a far higher performance level and speed than their devices can manage.
What devices is this being compared to?
From what I can see, the nVidia Now service is capped at 1080p and 60fps (with occasional 120fps), all dependant on the games. Which is about the same as a mid range PC. So saying 'far higher' is only really valid if people are running a potato at home. Not saying some people aren't running a potato, and that those people wouldn't get an uplift at least in GFX with this service, but the wording is rather inaccurate for anyone with a mid range or higher gaming PC/Laptop, (or even the 'pro/enhanced' versions of current XBox or PlayStation).
Quote: , it means ordinary gamers can compete with those on high-end gaming machines, which cost thousands of dollars...
What are you defining as a high end PC? If you're talking about something that can match, or beat GeForce Now, then that's not high end, and certainly not thousands!
A low to mid range PC, that would match and even outperform GeForceNow at 1080p would cost around ~$650 *.
Bump that to ~$1000 * and you'll get a reasonably high end 1440p 60Hz system that would be far better than GeForce Now.
* These are real prices based on pcpartpicker just now, so should be doable.
1st system Ryzen 3600 + AM4 mobo + 8GB RAM + small SSD + RX590 + case + PSU
2nd system Ryzen 3600X + AM4 mobo + 16GB RAM + 500GB fast Samsung SSD + RT 5700 XT + case + PSU
Throw in a 3700X and a RTX 2070 Super (only ~5% slower than an RTX 2080), and it's getting proper high end, fast 1440p. reasonable 4k gaming, and that's still only a little over $1300.
Even sticking a RTX 2080Ti in doesn't break $2000 unless you go for one of the extreme editions, $1850 for basically as high end as it gets (unless you go silly).
If you do want to get to thousands, get an Intel CPU, such as a 9700K * or 9900K (the newer Comet Lake ones are just a rehash), then you can get above $2000 with a 2080Ti, but whilst you get a little more FPS on average with the 9700K (and a fair bit more with the 9900K), it's not really worth the extra money. (Also with the AMD platform, you can easily upgrade the CPU later anyway, to a high end 3900X etc, or even the upcoming 4000 series).
* The 9700K whilst expensive, is also only 8 core 8 thread, so for anything muti-threaded, a 3700X (8 core 16 thread), tends to be much faster. So unless the system is only ever going to be for gaming, and also wont be used to do streaming from it, the 3700X is a better option.
All of this also assumes you are buying everything from new. If you've got an existing rig, you could like save money with things like existing case, drives, PSU etc.
Note, none of the above includes displays or controllers, as you'd need to have those anyway to use GeForceNow.
Quote: With even a microsecond meaning the difference between winning and losing, it is something many are prepared to pay for.
Just using GeForce Now with it's added built in latency will be enough to disadvantage anyone using the service against pretty much any PC (or console for that matter) player, even someone on a low end/last gen PC, as all the PC gamer has to do is drop the GFX settings down to medium to low, to bump up their FPS. Something many competitive gamers already do.
One last word, not saying any sort of PC building is for everyone, and of course some people simply either can't afford even a basic gaming PC, or have other priorities for the money (family etc). So I can see services like this being potentially useful for them, just don't try to make them out to be something they are not, or spout inaccuracies like over inflated costs for building a PC.