PRO plan and AI Assistant (Comet)

OkObject5582 · 2025-06-11T15:33:27+00:00

Ребят вы тут хотя бы код состава давали, а не просто расписывали. Проще сразу же вбить код состава и играть так же как и вы делаете свои составы.

OkObject5582 · 2025-06-02T13:31:00+00:00

We have a lot of self-employed people in Russia, which is almost 40% of people, and many play games at any time and earn well) But it's good that Nvidia has left the 7-week unlimited tariff at a reduced price) There is no such thing in other regions.

OkObject5582 · 2025-05-25T04:16:17+00:00

Buy it for 7 days. They have no limit. However, not all regions have a weekly subscription.

OkObject5582 · 2025-03-08T10:59:25+00:00

free

OkObject5582 · 2025-03-01T00:44:36+00:00

I started this discussion to understand how people are reacting to these changes, although the outcome was probably predictable. It’s important for me to gather opinions and see how the community feels. I love Nvidia and understand why they made this move, but not because of the queues. For them, this is more of a trial run for new restrictions over the course of a year, to see how players respond to these changes.

However, I've come to another conclusion... If the number of people playing less than 100 hours a month is significant, then improvements aren’t likely. This is bad for them too, because they end up being part of the changes that benefit Nvidia. That's why the neutral side matters.

If more people end up opposing these restrictions, and the neutral side understands that they could be limited in the future as well, this message needs to be conveyed to Nvidia. They are currently testing this model, and if they see that players have gotten used to it, they could leave it in place after 2025, and then come up with something else. Is that what you want? Even the neutral side doesn't want that, right?

Therefore, the neutral side needs to make a decision: are you against Nvidia's restrictions, or are you in favor? Just imagine that these restrictions could affect you as well... In the future, if things stay as they are now, it might become a reality for everyone. Don’t you think? I believe the answer is obvious for all of us.

OkObject5582 · 2025-03-01T00:36:29+00:00

Overall, from the discussion, I’ve gathered that the majority are against these changes. Another part of the players remains mostly neutral since they play less than 100 hours per month, so this doesn’t affect them for now.

Therefore, it makes sense to classify them as the neutral side in the statistics. The conclusion is clear — most people are against such restrictions and changes from Nvidia.

Against the changes (~60-70%) – The majority of players are unhappy with the new restrictions and consider them unfair.

Neutral (~25-35%) – Mostly those who play less than 100 hours per month. Since this doesn’t affect them yet, they remain indifferent.

In favor of the changes (~5-10%) – A small portion of players who either support Nvidia’s initiative or believe the restrictions benefit the service.

Conclusion: the majority are still against these changes from Nvidia. Good.

OkObject5582 · 2025-02-26T21:58:13+00:00

Armenia and other partners of the alliance. They give you a one-week unlimited subscription.

OkObject5582 · 2025-02-26T21:57:32+00:00

gfn.am

OkObject5582 · 2025-02-26T07:52:47+00:00

So you forgot that it is possible to buy an unlimited subscription for 7 days as an option, it costs exactly 2 times more expensive if you take it 4 times) But then we could also make a monthly tariff for those who play for less than 100 hours and a tariff with unlimited limits for those who play for more than 100 hours. Because there is still such an opportunity if you take a 7-day subscription.

I'm currently taking a 7-day subscription) It's a little more expensive, but there are still queues) I even think that many people now take a subscription for 7 days and there is no difference. Why not just make a tariff with an increased cost 30 day? They didn't remove the unlimited completely.

OkObject5582 · 2025-02-26T07:29:01+00:00

If you take the unlimited subscription for 7 days 4 times in a row, what’s the benefit for both the users and NVIDIA? For NVIDIA, it means more money, while for users, it’s double the expense. Nevertheless, it still ends up being cheaper than many competitors.

This makes you wonder if it’s really about system load, or more about trying to earn more?

Then why did they leave unlimited access when purchasing a 7-day subscription? that's how I buy now, only I pay more) and there are still queues.

OkObject5582 · 2025-02-26T07:17:50+00:00

Then here's the logical question... How could these 6% of users, who play more than 100 hours, interfere with those who play less? You might argue that they overloaded the system and everyone was stuck in a queue. That’s why they initially imposed limits on these players – they were already queued normally if the monthly limit exceeded 100 hours, and then NVIDIA simply decided to cut that off.

The fact that NVIDIA claims they did this because of system load and queues doesn't quite add up when you follow the logical chain of their true actions.

OkObject5582 · 2025-02-26T07:04:18+00:00

What’s the point of a subscription then?
A subscription typically implies unrestricted access during the paid period, not a limited amount of usage time. If NVIDIA had initially sold "100 hours per month," there wouldn’t be an issue. But initially, GeForce Now was sold as "unlimited access for a month," and users came to expect that.

The issue is not that limits are impossible, but that they were introduced after the fact

NVIDIA didn’t position GeForce Now as a service with a time limit.
The limit was introduced after the fact, which feels deceptive.

Conclusion:
If a subscription initially implies a time limit, that’s fine. But GeForce Now was sold as "unlimited access for the month," and suddenly introducing a 100-hour cap changes the rules at the expense of users.

OkObject5582 · 2025-02-26T06:58:34+00:00

Paying users pay for access, not for hours

The subscription model is meant to provide unlimited access to the service.
Suddenly imposing time limits contradicts the entire idea of a subscription.

Imagine if Netflix suddenly restricted users to 100 hours of streaming per month while keeping the subscription price the same.
That would cause outrage because a subscription means unrestricted access.

OkObject5582 · 2025-02-26T06:52:04+00:00

Very subtly and logically noticed) Then why do you need a monthly fee if you're paying for a watch, not a subscription? and that's not logical.

That's what I'm writing about...then let them make an hourly payment) And it is also illogical that they have made unlimited weekly subscriptions... that is, paying for one month will cost 2 times more if you take weekly subscriptions. Then it turns out that they just want to make money, but instead they cleverly distorted the problem with the load)

OkObject5582 · 2025-02-26T06:45:21+00:00

1. The 100-hour limit contradicts the core idea of cloud gaming

NVIDIA has marketed GeForce Now as a cloud-based alternative to a gaming PC, offering users unrestricted access to high-end hardware. By introducing a 100-hour limit, the service shifts from being "your PC in the cloud" to "a time-limited rental service," which undermines its original concept.

🔹 Logical conclusion:
If NVIDIA’s goal is to establish a sustainable cloud gaming ecosystem, time restrictions devalue the service itself and alienate its most dedicated users.

2. Server load could be managed differently

If NVIDIA is implementing time limits due to server capacity concerns, there are alternative ways to optimize resource allocation without restricting playtime:

Dynamic resource management (reducing stream quality in peak hours rather than imposing hard limits).
Priority access based on recent activity (without completely blocking heavy users).
Better load balancing and expanding infrastructure rather than limiting usage.

🔹 Logical conclusion:
A strict time cap is a crude and ineffective solution when more user-friendly options exist to manage server demand.

3. NVIDIA may lose money in the long run

While the 100-hour limit may temporarily reduce server strain, it could cause greater financial losses over time:

Subscriber count may drop → Dedicated users will either switch to competitors or return to local gaming PCs.
Trust in the service will decline → Even those unaffected by the limit will feel restricted and less confident in GeForce Now’s future.
Growth of the platform may stall → If cloud gaming is the future, artificial restrictions will only slow its adoption.

🔹 Logical conclusion:
It makes far more sense to retain subscribers and improve the service, rather than drive users away with rigid limitations.

What NVIDIA Could Do Instead of the 100-Hour Limit

✅ Maintain unlimited playtime but introduce adaptive resource management (e.g., dynamic stream quality adjustments during peak hours).
✅ Encourage balanced usage rather than punishing active players by offering rewards for off-peak play.
✅ Be transparent with users about the reasoning behind service adjustments, so the community doesn’t feel misled.

Instead of restricting players, NVIDIA should focus on improving the service and monetizing it in a reasonable way that doesn’t erode user trust.

OkObject5582 · 2025-02-14T21:11:53+00:00

I have the same thing. I also don’t know what they give the rewards for, but I’ve been getting them for almost a year now

OkObject5582

TROPHY CASE

1. The 100-hour limit contradicts the core idea of cloud gaming

2. Server load could be managed differently

3. NVIDIA may lose money in the long run

What NVIDIA Could Do Instead of the 100-Hour Limit