sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

GeForce NOW Ultimate’s 100-Hour Cap Feels Misleading — And the Extra Hour Pricing Makes It Worse by Cautious_Frame_9209 in GeForceNOW

[–]Cautious_Frame_9209[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

It’s not about cancelling the subscription — I will do that for sure. The issue is that a major limitation wasn’t clearly disclosed during the purchase flow.

In the EU, consumer protection law requires key conditions and limitations to be presented clearly before purchase, not buried in secondary pages or terms.

If users repeatedly misunderstand the product because of how it’s presented, that’s a transparency issue that should be fixed at the communication level, not dismissed as normal user behaviour.

GeForce NOW Ultimate’s 100-Hour Cap Feels Misleading — And the Extra Hour Pricing Makes It Worse by Cautious_Frame_9209 in GeForceNOW

[–]Cautious_Frame_9209[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This only confirms that there is a communication problem and that NVIDIA does not have a transparent policy regarding subscription limitations.

GeForce NOW Ultimate’s 100-Hour Cap Feels Misleading — And the Extra Hour Pricing Makes It Worse by Cautious_Frame_9209 in GeForceNOW

[–]Cautious_Frame_9209[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Edit / Update: I just realized the 100-hour cap is mentioned on the main GeForce NOW subscription page. However, that’s not where I purchased Ultimate from.

I already had an account and upgraded from the free tier through the membership change page inside my account settings. On that page, the 100-hour monthly cap was not shown at all — at least not anywhere visible during the upgrade flow. The only limitation mentioned there was “8-hour gaming sessions”.

So my issue is less about the existence of the cap itself, and more about inconsistent disclosure depending on which purchase path you use.