When I read about Snoost, I really wanted to try it out and love it!
Install went well, albeit a little slow, but it eventually got there and the VM felt very snappy. Games ran very well, above what I expected...
Then came shutdown time, which took very long... odd...
When I started the VM again, Snoost needed 21 minutes (TWENTY-ONE) to start up... I don't know what it was trying to do, copying game files and other stuff??? That is not supposed to happen...
A second and third time showed the same slow startup times, ranging between 15 and 21 minutes.
I cancelled my trial, removed my cc details and will never look back...
Last edited: February 8th, 18:37
Showing 1-10 of 10 comments
MechanicWrongMan#1February 8th, 21:13
Yep, everytime you startup it has to install windows, drivers, programs, and copy all your files over to the system, it would be very expensive to keep your machine on and waiting for you to connect, which one of the reasons why this service is cheaper than most. This is one of the aspects that the devs are trying to improve.
Snoobsterstormychel#2February 9th, 00:46
Ughh that's awful... Shouldn't they be using VM's instead?
MechanicWrongMan#3February 9th, 01:39
It might be awful but it doesn't make sense to have 100% of the system running if you are not using it. They do give you a virtual machine, but when you log off they offload the data somewhere and uses the available hardware for something else, or return it to the datacenter. That is what makes it cheap
Last edited: February 9th, 01:39
Snoobsterstormychel#4February 9th, 07:49
A VM does not need to run all the time... Instead of offloading all the data (which means they do keep it on SOME drive anyway), so they should make a separate VM for each customer. You could have 100 VM's on one server, the only restriction is how many at once can run on the host hardware, but this has nothing to do with offloading data and whatever else is happening here...
MechanicWrongMan#5February 9th, 14:16
@stormychel You do realize that they probably do not own all of the hardware used? It would take an absurd investment to own all the hardware needed to provide this service in so many areas. So they probably just bulk rent at a special rate. Then they need to stop renting when you stop using, and offload the data to cheaper storage.
And even if they had all the hardware it would be stupid to keep the VMs running all the time. But it would definitely be faster.
Anyway looking forward to hear your alternatives, I've been expecting this technology for years, so i think i know what is out there atm, and this (this business model) was the best alternative, the rest are much more expensive.
Snoobsterstormychel#6February 9th, 14:23
Sounds like a very complicated way of doing this, but I do understand that it might be the cheapest way to handle things..
I tested a lot of these services, currently testing Geforce NOW (which is beta and currently free), but my main service is Parsec+Paperspace, which is at an hourly rate of 0,40 USD, which is fairly affordable IMHO...
MechanicWrongMan#7February 9th, 14:59
@stormychel i'm still waiting to get into geforce now. About paperspace, i've tried it, but since you have to pay 5$ for storage, if you play 20 hours (in one month) you are above snoost's monthly fee. And there are months when i'm gonna play a lot more than 20 hours.
How's geforce now?
Snoobsterstormychel#8February 9th, 15:14
Yep, it IS more expensive, and if Snoost manages to shave a little off the startup times, perhaps by keeping the storage on the rented dataservers at a slightly higher price, I'd sign up in a heartbeat. Maybe they are trying to be a little too affordable, and this is backfiring on them?
Geforce NOW is awesome, they added Uplay a few weeks ago and Origin is on its way. The downside is they limit you to the games they have certified to work wel, and this is a slow process, about 3-4 games are added to the list each week. Off course they haven't said much about pricing yet, so we'll see what it will cost in the end, and if this is still affordable.
If you play more than 20 hours, it might be advisable to get a cheap gaming pc and be done with it. My reason to use cloud gaming instead is that I totally dislike PC's, and I only play the PC version of a game when I want to play online with my PC-owning friends. I own an Xbox One so most of my other gaming is on that anyway, so I really couldn't justify spending money and room on a gaming PC.
Another interesting service is Liquidsky, their pricing plans may be of interest to some people, I think for most they would be a little cheaper than Parsec+Paperspace...
MechanicWrongMan#9February 9th, 20:39
Yeah, the thing is my gaming pc broke down a couple of years ago, and I'm the exact opposite of you, i only buy a console a few years after its been released if there are enough exclusives on it that interest me.
And most of the year the university work load eats up most of my time, I only have about 2-3 months a year to game heavily, rest of the year i have little time for it. So i guess in my case the most cost efficient way to do it would be paperspace for the while i don't have that much l free time and snoost when i do have, but snoost is cheap enough.
About liquidsky i have seen it but i dont like the time limit, if only it were cumulative. But you are right it is considerably cheaper than paperspace (12 bucks or 47.5 hours)
Looking forward for geforce now, ive taken a look around and that service with nvidia shield is only 7 bucks a month so i expect it wont be much more without it, they, more than anyone are in a good position to offer cloud gaming at affordable prices.
Also looking forward for Google's service (and prepared for a whole new ad profile layer they will make out of it xD).
So geforce now doesn't give you a full windows machine?
Snoobsterstormychel#10February 9th, 23:20
I see.. your use case is very different from mine :)
Geforce NOW does not offer a Windows desktop. When you click on a game's play button in their app, the VM starts and boots into the Steam, Origin or Uplay app...