Wrong, the data sent to the server is the same. It’s not like you are streaming back to the server.
You are straming video + user input to google.
Vs
User input going directly to server.
Hello?
Google stream is like a proxy for your connection to game server.
The video stream is going to be a hell of a let more dependent on perfect internet conditions (large packets, higher bandwidth)
Vs
Direct client to server connections that uses small packets that are minimal bandwidth and very resilient to less than ideal internet conditions
So you are telling me that Google game stream isnt worse on the fact that it is a lot more dependent on perfect internet connection?
You don't send video stream back to Google, why the hell would you do that?
Hello?
You are sending input only, nothing else to the google servers. You will be receiving only the video stream from Googles servers.
The problems with these services when it comes to multiplayer games are:
1) The video stream coming in from the data center is heavier than the bits of data typically sent from a game server, which optimally consist of the least amount of data required to tell you where other players and NPCs are located and what they are doing. Poorly optimized games will be worse than others.
2) Because you are streamed the video of what is happening rather than having it locally you lose the ability to utilize client side prediction and it requires more data. If a multiplayer, server authoritative game does not utilize client side prediction it has the same "lag" affect from input as these streaming services do.
You are correct - Google servers only send video back to client.
Client sends all user output to Google, Google proxies it to game servers and only sends video back.
So the client - server connection is maintained by Google and only video is sent back to client.
So any packet loss from client to Google would result in bad video retransmission and possibly bad client input to Google.
Still removing Google from the equation would result in a better experience.
How powerful are googles servers that will be running the game client? I mean if googles server hardware sucks, you are not going to be having a good gameplay experience.
Everything you've said previously you were on the bubble but then it burst when you said "When 5g is out 99% of wired and wifi will be obsolete"
Then watching you theory craft on how Google works, their hardware, and then saying "removing Google would result in a better experience"
The absurdity is bonkers. I don't even... I can't...
Go check 5G LTE specs yourself - 20x the throughput of 4g
And yes playing Fortnite on your PC directly connecting to Epic servers
Vs
Playing Fornite by streaming it from Google Stadia
Its gonna be better playing directly without Google - which is why I said "removing Google will be a better experience" - maybe it was worded poorly on my part but I meant that non-streamed would be better.
Get it?
I'm sorry did you say something? I was playing some UE4 game on Ultra settings from the toilet (mesh wi-fi). Got a little distracted because every time I pressed jump there was a little input lag but it's all good. J/K
"As far as the forum code of conduct, I would think it's a bit outdated and in need of a refre *CLOSED*"
im so hoping this will not suces and if it suces it will kill the gameing no more free development of games all on one platform all will need to obey som restrictions imagin games that will be political corect be the actual owner of main server and that you got no control over the game you own like steam now but ivem more you cant iven dowlaod it and play offline all content controled and menaged be who big brather this just 1984 Bad dream
I dont think this is an aim to replace local gaming PCs nor will it. There is a larger gaming market to tap into and that is one of a potential player not having to buy a box to play a game. This is going to be fine for that purpose. I played Assassins Creed for months and had a great time. Through my browser. Very positive move for the industry and the reason why everyone is throwing so much money at it. The delivery system has always been a hurdle and this helps lessen it. Fast internet will be a factor for sure. As will your distance to a google server but for what they aim to do it is going to be fine.
This is where I disagree with you a bit. While I agree that this may be the short term vision, in the long game I totally see this supplanting and replacing gaming PCs. Google, and everyone who isn't Microsoft has a lot to gain by breaking free from the Windows chokehold. Google, I have no doubt, would love to take the home "desktop" and device market over with Chromebooks and Android. This is the sort of tech that could break the back of Windows in the home market.
I think envy and jealousy will motivate infrastructure upgrades like it did with cable in the seventies and eighties. A lot of places didn't have cable back then and people were jealous of having cable service. It's now nearly ubiquitous. Building out fiber is a no brainer. People who don't have speedy and quality internet will want it badly enough to make it happen. People want it now, just not badly enough to do anything about it.
Fiber is also short term and will only be relevant for ISP infrastructure.
Wireless to all user connections is the future. 5G and beyond will enable 10Gb/s wireless connections with sub 5ms latency.
This might take another 50 years but it is inevitable.
Physical connections like fiber and wires will be looked upon In the future the way we look at analog phones today
Yeah, eventually physical lines will be the antiquated way, but then we still have copper lines delivering internet and people complaining about tiny bandwidth so go figure.
We have both in our house. The wired line is fiber 1000/250 and the wireless is Verizon 4G with "unlimited" data. So when wired goes down we turn on local hotspot/tethering and keep going. Wireless is a lot laggier than wired so it's not perfect and the fiber is so much faster we all use wifi at home instead of 4G.
For the next couple of decades I think we'll continue to lay wired infrastructure until wireless just becomes easier and cheaper. There are frequency and bandwidth congestion issues to sort out with that tech too.
Wireless being the main protocol is indeed the ultimate goal (just as HaaS is for consumer facing media solutions).
The problem is your boy up there said 5G was going to make 99% of wired connections obsolete and I literally took my Thunderbolt 3 cables and started swinging them like nunchucks because I don't have any Terabyte grade ethernet cables to be silly with right now.
"As far as the forum code of conduct, I would think it's a bit outdated and in need of a refre *CLOSED*"
Nah their goal is a bit more focused and narrow compared to what Google is aiming for. Funny video though lol
@blueturtle13 What is Microsoft up to in comparison to Stadia?
I'm wondering if Amazon is going to make a play this year or next. I've always felt like New World was a glorified tech demo for Lumberyard, and that Lumberyard was a smaller piece of some way bigger play. Now I realize I might have been thinking the wrong things as they spoke of Twitch integration.
"As far as the forum code of conduct, I would think it's a bit outdated and in need of a refre *CLOSED*"
I'm wondering if Amazon is going to make a play this year or next. I've always felt like New World was a glorified tech demo for Lumberyard, and that Lumberyard was a smaller piece of some way bigger play. Now I realize I might have been thinking the wrong things as they spoke of Twitch integration.
I don't know but they need to step up their streaming game 100% if they want to compete. I've used their Workspaces, a Windows desktop setup and streamed, and it felt worse than any game streaming service I've ever tried.
I'm not gonna lie, I laughed when I saw her hit the analog stick and the car moved like half a second later. DMkano is gonna lose his shit when he sees that.
"As far as the forum code of conduct, I would think it's a bit outdated and in need of a refre *CLOSED*"
I don't know why people are thinking that this is targeted towards PC Multiplayer Online games (Ok, that is the focus of these forums, but that was not the focus of the Google Announcement). This is the least viable use for this technology, and the one that would give them the lowest returns for their time/effort.
Streaming is all about bypassing local hardware limits. Simple (non PC) examples could be: playing a PS4 exclusive on a XBox playing a graphically intensive PC game on a chromebook Playing a console/PC game on a mobile device.
In each of these examples, the hardware is not sufficient (nor can it reasonably be made sufficient) to do the task at hand. This is why streaming would work to allow the same (limited) hardware to do more things (and thus be more valuable because of this service).
PC's, because of their open architecture, and part comparability/availability could in theory be configured to do ALL of the above (console games are developed/run on PC's, and are limited by licensing, not hardware). This is why the PC platform is generally the LAST choice for streaming, with the exception of one off scenarios (i.e. if you are going to play games on a PC, it will be better to build a PC that can play games... but if you are going to play one game, one time, then streaming works as the odd exception).
The reason that Google is getting involved in this is simple, Android. The addition of streaming services to devices with limited capabilities (i.e. phones/tablets) greatly increases the value of having such devices. With the addition of the desktop mode (and ever increasing CPU and bandwidth options) it will become viable to use a phone as a mobile computer.
Most people are used to thin client apps (think Google Docs) that put most of the resource requirements in the cloud. Streaming is a way to do the same thing for many apps that have more intense display (GPU) requirements. This is a way for Google to build a service that will make android devices more desirable.
Google is competing with Apple (and Microsoft/Sony) here, not with Steam/Epic. They are looking to make less sophisticated devices more useful (as they have an interest in those). They are also looking to get out front now... but know that they will not see many useful applications for a few years. This is mostly to get the development started for what will be viable after those few years.
this looks like a console to me, and I don't see why I would even get this, if a computer can do that already
Normally you would need a computer/console with a GPU to run game code and process the graphics that are displayed on your screen.
Game streaming removes the need for a local processing and rendering entirely - so all the game code and GPU processing is done at the data center and all of that is streamed back to your local display (tablet, TV, PC whatever).
So that's what this is all about - the ability to play high end graphics games on something that doesnt have the GPU nor CPU to handle high end graphics.
yes I skiped all tech stuff, because to a normal consumer that means nothing, I don't like cloud computing, most because security issues, and because I don't to like to share, my bandwith is already heavily taxed with what I play, I can't stream and play without huge lag spikes, and taht is the issue on most parts of the world, forget korea/japan internet, think on people who pay for limited speed around 100Mb/s, with huge lag spikes btw, plus most of the said promisses are fake to the least,
sony would never open they exclusives to others, even the emulators of playstations sony tried to stop then, failed, most because they can't ban something in the internet, but google? they can sue
and I bet microsoft would also try to stop this
this little thing is like that VR they tried to push, looks nice in the paper, not so much in reality, and even less on the consumer williness to pay the cost for this gimick
so like all, awesome, and marvelous think most of you try to sell, I see it for what it is, a gimmick who only some will get it and in the end the sell promises don't live up to what really is
...what? Do you understand the term of "Streaming" ? Is like you are watching a movie but at the same time, be able to control the main ..hero. You are NOT getting the completed frame back in the way you want it to sound. If that was the case, then how Project Stream with Assassin's Creed was running at full HD at 60 FPS on ..a browser?!
Ok, for you to understand better ( which I have no idea how you don't get it since .. I know you know some things related to tech ) , I am going to say that this will work like .. giving you Remote Access to my computer, and then you will be able to play whatever you want from it, with my current hardware. The only think you'll need , will be a mouse and a keyboard ( and a sound card if you want to hear things ). Oh, and a good internet connection since this exemple is based solely on Remote Desktop thing which has nothing to do with gaming. But .. is a good exemple for you to understand.
You will basically have access to some short of a "computer" at their data center.
If the frame rendered on the remote server never makes it to your computer, then how did it get displayed in a browser window? If it stays on the server and never gets sent to you, you're not going to see it on your monitor.
You're not claiming that people have to physically travel to a data center in order to play games, are you?
/facepalm
What part from my exemple you did not understood ?! I said you do not get the completed frame back in the way you want it to sound. All you will receive will be an image/video, just like you are watching a movie online. Or better, just like you are watching a YouTube Video. Yup, that's the correct thing. It looks like a YouTube Video. There you go!
So, if your hardware , be it computer, laptop, phone, tablet, etc can handle a YouTube Video at 1080p, then you will be ready to go. Having bad internet? Then you will buffering just like you are buffering while watching a YouTube video. Yes, is that simple. There is nothing else involved. It ignores your awesome video card and how many frames can send to your monitor, or whatever else "problem" you've wrote in this topic.
"That’s the idea of Google’s cloud gaming service, Stadia. From Chrome tab to 4K, 60fps game, in five seconds. No installation. Google promises that Google Stadia's cloud computing power is the equivalent of a console running at 10.7 GPU terraflops, that's more than the PS4 Pro and Xbox One X combined. If Google delivers on this promise, then it could be a game-changer."
As I said, basically you are connected on their .. "computer" and comes back to you as a ..YouTube Video!
You're insisting that streaming games will give you images but won't give you any frames. What do you think a frame is if not an image?
...in the way you want it to sound, like it will depends heavily based on the user hardware to get the frames back to you in a .. normal way. I will say it again : It almost ignores the user hardware, and will mostly relay on your internet connection ...mostly, because you still need some hardware. What I mean by that, is it will play exactly like how you are watching a YouTube video. If you can watch it 1080p, then you can play the said game at 1080p. Heck, I heard it will scale to 720p if is necessary.
Makes sense now?!
Except that it is not at all similar to watching a video on YouTube. I'm not sure whether (or how) to explain to you what compression across time or buffering a video ahead of time is. So I'll propose a simple experiment for you.
Go to YouTube and start watching a video. It doesn't really matter which one, provided that it is at least a few minutes long. It's probably better to make it one that has stuff actually move in the video, rather than one whose only real point is the audio.
Let the video run for a minute or so, and then kill your Internet connection. Unplug an ethernet cable, power off a router, or do whatever it is that you have to do to ensure that your device no longer has any Internet connection at all. See what happens to the video.
It keeps playing, right? Well, it keeps playing for a while, and then eventually it stops. Depending on how far ahead it got buffered, it might keep playing until the end of the video, or it might stop sooner.
Think that killing your Internet connection while you're streaming a game won't disrupt the game at all? Have you ever played an online game at all?
...what? Do you understand the term of "Streaming" ? Is like you are watching a movie but at the same time, be able to control the main ..hero. You are NOT getting the completed frame back in the way you want it to sound. If that was the case, then how Project Stream with Assassin's Creed was running at full HD at 60 FPS on ..a browser?!
Ok, for you to understand better ( which I have no idea how you don't get it since .. I know you know some things related to tech ) , I am going to say that this will work like .. giving you Remote Access to my computer, and then you will be able to play whatever you want from it, with my current hardware. The only think you'll need , will be a mouse and a keyboard ( and a sound card if you want to hear things ). Oh, and a good internet connection since this exemple is based solely on Remote Desktop thing which has nothing to do with gaming. But .. is a good exemple for you to understand.
You will basically have access to some short of a "computer" at their data center.
If the frame rendered on the remote server never makes it to your computer, then how did it get displayed in a browser window? If it stays on the server and never gets sent to you, you're not going to see it on your monitor.
You're not claiming that people have to physically travel to a data center in order to play games, are you?
/facepalm
What part from my exemple you did not understood ?! I said you do not get the completed frame back in the way you want it to sound. All you will receive will be an image/video, just like you are watching a movie online. Or better, just like you are watching a YouTube Video. Yup, that's the correct thing. It looks like a YouTube Video. There you go!
So, if your hardware , be it computer, laptop, phone, tablet, etc can handle a YouTube Video at 1080p, then you will be ready to go. Having bad internet? Then you will buffering just like you are buffering while watching a YouTube video. Yes, is that simple. There is nothing else involved. It ignores your awesome video card and how many frames can send to your monitor, or whatever else "problem" you've wrote in this topic.
"That’s the idea of Google’s cloud gaming service, Stadia. From Chrome tab to 4K, 60fps game, in five seconds. No installation. Google promises that Google Stadia's cloud computing power is the equivalent of a console running at 10.7 GPU terraflops, that's more than the PS4 Pro and Xbox One X combined. If Google delivers on this promise, then it could be a game-changer."
As I said, basically you are connected on their .. "computer" and comes back to you as a ..YouTube Video!
You're insisting that streaming games will give you images but won't give you any frames. What do you think a frame is if not an image?
...in the way you want it to sound, like it will depends heavily based on the user hardware to get the frames back to you in a .. normal way. I will say it again : It almost ignores the user hardware, and will mostly relay on your internet connection ...mostly, because you still need some hardware. What I mean by that, is it will play exactly like how you are watching a YouTube video. If you can watch it 1080p, then you can play the said game at 1080p. Heck, I heard it will scale to 720p if is necessary.
Makes sense now?!
Except that it is not at all similar to watching a video on YouTube. I'm not sure whether (or how) to explain to you what compression across time or buffering a video ahead of time is. So I'll propose a simple experiment for you.
Go to YouTube and start watching a video. It doesn't really matter which one, provided that it is at least a few minutes long. It's probably better to make it one that has stuff actually move in the video, rather than one whose only real point is the audio.
Let the video run for a minute or so, and then kill your Internet connection. Unplug an ethernet cable, power off a router, or do whatever it is that you have to do to ensure that your device no longer has any Internet connection at all. See what happens to the video.
It keeps playing, right? Well, it keeps playing for a while, and then eventually it stops. Depending on how far ahead it got buffered, it might keep playing until the end of the video, or it might stop sooner.
Think that killing your Internet connection while you're streaming a game won't disrupt the game at all? Have you ever played an online game at all?
Any game that is streamed to you that has any kind of buffering would be utterly unplayable, i can't imagine a more horrendous issue to affect gameplay
Guys, they don't care about your latency, or opinions on their game studios.
Google Cloud Platform, Amazon AWS, Microsoft Azure. Talk about those.
Open up your search engine and look up Web Assembly and Unreal Engine tech demo.
Look up what Parsec was doing years ago, and imagine that on gamma rays + CDNs and all the caching, microservice, technology that has come about since.
My money is on the corporations who literally took their hardware and technology and rammed them up our collective bottoms. They're all marching together on this direction.
Don't talk about OnLive, don't talk about pressing jump in a video game and it showing half a second later.
Most of y'all have 144hz 4K HDR OLED TVs and don't even know what content is being served by any of the providers.
A handful of giant data centers is the wrong model entirely if you want game streaming to work other than for the handful of people who happen to live very near you. OnLive had 5 data centers in the US. Microsoft Azure has 11. Yes, Microsoft's are much bigger than OnLive's ever were. But that doesn't matter. The difference between 5 locations and 11 is what matters. Make it 500 and you have a chance at keeping latency manageable for more than a handful of people.
ISPs have that kind of infrastructure. The big cloud providers don't.
You're still talking about optimal game streaming performance and ignoring what the big picture is; decoupling business logic, processors, and GPU from consumer facing hardware. It's not just about games.
It's not just a "handful" of data centers, it's HaaS centers, it's CDNs, it's the telecom alliances
Are you registering how much MONEY is going to be shift back to cable companies, game hardware, display, IoT, and smartphone manufacturers and other infrastructures with the HaaS philosophy?
There is no "this is dead in the water because Fortnite" scenario. It's the beginning of the general market HaaS transition. It's the compression and machine learning arms races that are about to rev up (again).
Lastly if the conversation is going to be fussing about input lag, Microsoft is claiming all they'll potentially need is 5mbps bandwidth and they can get 10ms latency. So there's that.
I'm not picking winners, what I'm saying is there isn't going to be any "losers" per say. This ain't an OnLive situation. It's a "do you guys not have phones?" scenario.
At the least everyone on this forum should be rejoicing because the whole [Insert Desired PC Game]: Mobile thing just got kicked square in the cojones.
Just because they build something doesn't mean that anyone has to buy it. And it especially doesn't mean that other developers can't ignore the project and do something else.
Do you think that Nvidia and AMD are going to stop making consumer GPUs? Do you think that Steam is going to preemptively give up and shut down because Google decided to throw a ton of money at some goofy project?
so Stadia is showing latency near Xbox One X levels and people are saying it does not work on here? You guys should work for Digital Foundry then. They need your wisdom lol
Google Stadia: 166ms
Google Project Stream: 179ms
PC @ 30fps: 112ms
PC @ 60fps: 79ms
Xbox One X: 145ms
In a year or two it should be even better. Once it goes below 100 it is good enough for even the skeptics.
Thousand of us have already used this service for months now. It works. Deal with it.
Of course it works - other game streaming services worked too, I dont think the argument is that it wont work.
The issue is will it survive long term - or die on the vine like many google projects.
The other issue is obviously not all games stream equally well - some are a lot more latency sensitive and input lag sensitive than others.
Bottom line is - this will be good enough for some, but is no substitute for a good gaming PC, especially if you are an FPS player
Latency is latency. And as you say experiences will vary a lot.
Network latency will exist though whether you have a PC or - maybe in a few years time a TV that is better than the fastest PC you can buy now. Today though - as Microsoft said - the best experience will be had with an attached device (they were talking consoles but the comment is applicable).
How are Google going to make this pay though. I am sure they have "goal": all they to do is simply dethrone Steam, Sony, Microsoft and Amazon (or take a big enough slice of their pies) and they will make a fortune. Pulling off even a fraction of that though ...... how much are they prepared to spend trying?
Input latency and display latency are much more disruptive than network latency. Depending on the nature of the game, you can sometimes cover up network latency such that even a few hundred ms doesn't particularly matter. Some games can't do that; DMKano's example of a twitchy first person shooter doesn't let you. But PVE makes possible some tricks that you can't do in PVP.
But even if you want to regard all forms of latency as equivalent, then this will still only make it worse. That's just the triangle inequality.
Guys, they don't care about your latency, or opinions on their game studios.
Google Cloud Platform, Amazon AWS, Microsoft Azure. Talk about those.
Open up your search engine and look up Web Assembly and Unreal Engine tech demo.
Look up what Parsec was doing years ago, and imagine that on gamma rays + CDNs and all the caching, microservice, technology that has come about since.
My money is on the corporations who literally took their hardware and technology and rammed them up our collective bottoms. They're all marching together on this direction.
Don't talk about OnLive, don't talk about pressing jump in a video game and it showing half a second later.
Most of y'all have 144hz 4K HDR OLED TVs and don't even know what content is being served by any of the providers.
A handful of giant data centers is the wrong model entirely if you want game streaming to work other than for the handful of people who happen to live very near you. OnLive had 5 data centers in the US. Microsoft Azure has 11. Yes, Microsoft's are much bigger than OnLive's ever were. But that doesn't matter. The difference between 5 locations and 11 is what matters. Make it 500 and you have a chance at keeping latency manageable for more than a handful of people.
ISPs have that kind of infrastructure. The big cloud providers don't.
Even with 10,000 locations there are still issues like this:
You are in New York city and you want to play Fortnite (or Apex legends, or any FPS) with your friend from San Diego.
Connecting to a server that's close to either player will suck for the other player - and connecting to a server in the middle of the US - defeats the purpose of regional datacenters that are close to each player.
Again it comes down to the fact that physical distance introduces latency that cannot be overcome by even the best technology we have, and this is where game streaming falters for FPS titles.
Again - streaming can work for single player games (where you can stream from a regional datacenter) - but online FPS games - there is no magic bullet solution.
All speculation right now, but I got the impression that you wont be picking a data center close to either player and instead the data centers would communicate between each other. Your only connection concern would be the data center closest to you, your friends closest to him, and the games would be hosted on Googles servers.
Assuming most online games use server side authority, when a player sends a movement signal it goes to the server where the server makes the final decision and sends the response to the connected clients even the original player for any corrections in prediction. If these data centers have optimal routing, which I'm sure they do, then it's even possible the routing between them could be better than typical routing between players and your average game server.
If all that is true, which like I said is pure speculation, then the impact of it being multiplayer will be minimal and still the only factor will be your connection to your own data center.
Even in best possible routing scenario - our max speed for getting network packets through fiber is 1ms per every 100miles (that's one direction - RTT is 2x)
There is no tech that google or anyone in the world has that is faster than that.
The latency will be an issue if you are going from East Coast to West coast no matter what.
It all can work fine if you are connecting to a regional data center that is local to your area and all the people you play with are all local to the same region and - it all works great.
The issue is when you have players from all over the world interacting with players that are 400ms away - again there is no optimal routing that can overcome geographic distance like that.
Bottom line - latency will be an issue whenever you have 2 players in the same game that are geographically far apart from one another.
I have the impression that you have no idea what are you talking about. This isn't me, from Europe, making a server on a X game with MY ISP, and you, from US, is joining MY server from YOUR ISP. We will both be connected to the nearest and best node google has for us. Just like any game in this time and age is doing.
Sure.. the Latency/Ping , at his base, is an issue even today without Stadia for different reasons and for different people, and so with Stadia there will be no exceptions.
Bottom line - latency IS an issue today, without Stadia, whenever you have 2 players in the same game that are geographically far apart from one another.
Let's back up a bit. Have you ever used a thin client in your life? Do you even know what a thin client is?
so Stadia is showing latency near Xbox One X levels and people are saying it does not work on here? You guys should work for Digital Foundry then. They need your wisdom lol
Google Stadia: 166ms
Google Project Stream: 179ms
PC @ 30fps: 112ms
PC @ 60fps: 79ms
Xbox One X: 145ms
In a year or two it should be even better. Once it goes below 100 it is good enough for even the skeptics.
Thousand of us have already used this service for months now. It works. Deal with it.
Of course it works - other game streaming services worked too, I dont think the argument is that it wont work.
The issue is will it survive long term - or die on the vine like many google projects.
The other issue is obviously not all games stream equally well - some are a lot more latency sensitive and input lag sensitive than others.
Bottom line is - this will be good enough for some, but is no substitute for a good gaming PC, especially if you are an FPS player
The argument HAS been made that it wont or does not work.
This is an aimed tech for console not PC players. For now.
The argument isn't so much that it won't work at all as that it's a really inefficient way to do things. Both game streaming and local rendering have a cost/quality curve, where you can get better quality at the expense of more cost. Local rendering has a much better cost/quality curve and likely always will.
That means that at a given cost, you can get better results with local rendering than game streaming. Or equivalently, a given level of quality can be done more cheaply with local rendering than game streaming.
im so hoping this will not suces and if it suces it will kill the gameing no more free development of games all on one platform all will need to obey som restrictions imagin games that will be political corect be the actual owner of main server and that you got no control over the game you own like steam now but ivem more you cant iven dowlaod it and play offline all content controled and menaged be who big brather this just 1984 Bad dream
I dont think this is an aim to replace local gaming PCs nor will it. There is a larger gaming market to tap into and that is one of a potential player not having to buy a box to play a game. This is going to be fine for that purpose. I played Assassins Creed for months and had a great time. Through my browser. Very positive move for the industry and the reason why everyone is throwing so much money at it. The delivery system has always been a hurdle and this helps lessen it. Fast internet will be a factor for sure. As will your distance to a google server but for what they aim to do it is going to be fine.
This is where I disagree with you a bit. While I agree that this may be the short term vision, in the long game I totally see this supplanting and replacing gaming PCs. Google, and everyone who isn't Microsoft has a lot to gain by breaking free from the Windows chokehold. Google, I have no doubt, would love to take the home "desktop" and device market over with Chromebooks and Android. This is the sort of tech that could break the back of Windows in the home market.
I think envy and jealousy will motivate infrastructure upgrades like it did with cable in the seventies and eighties. A lot of places didn't have cable back then and people were jealous of having cable service. It's now nearly ubiquitous. Building out fiber is a no brainer. People who don't have speedy and quality internet will want it badly enough to make it happen. People want it now, just not badly enough to do anything about it.
Fiber is also short term and will only be relevant for ISP infrastructure.
Wireless to all user connections is the future. 5G and beyond will enable 10Gb/s wireless connections with sub 5ms latency.
This might take another 50 years but it is inevitable.
Physical connections like fiber and wires will be looked upon In the future the way we look at analog phones today
Today high speed ISP router and a wifi for your home is normal - these will go the way of the dodo, as LTE or whatever future wireless tech becomes standard for all internet access and constant always on connectivity.
The internet of things will work like this - direct wireless always on connectivity that wont need wifi period
I am just waiting for my direct brain internet connection implant - that's another thing that will change, now all smartphones and computers are external - in the future they will all be embedded inside of us.
You'll always be able to get more bandwidth with a wired connection than wireless. If nothing else, wired can get 100x the bandwidth by having 100 wires clumped together. Wireless can't do that, but is limited by spectrum, interference, and various other factors.
If nothing else, 10 Gbps ethernet could be cheap tomorrow if it were a high volume product included on nearly every motherboard the way that gigabit ethernet is now. Right now, there isn't much consumer demand for that because 10 Gbps over a LAN isn't terribly interesting, because what you actually want is off somewhere else on the Internet.
im so hoping this will not suces and if it suces it will kill the gameing no more free development of games all on one platform all will need to obey som restrictions imagin games that will be political corect be the actual owner of main server and that you got no control over the game you own like steam now but ivem more you cant iven dowlaod it and play offline all content controled and menaged be who big brather this just 1984 Bad dream
I dont think this is an aim to replace local gaming PCs nor will it. There is a larger gaming market to tap into and that is one of a potential player not having to buy a box to play a game. This is going to be fine for that purpose. I played Assassins Creed for months and had a great time. Through my browser. Very positive move for the industry and the reason why everyone is throwing so much money at it. The delivery system has always been a hurdle and this helps lessen it. Fast internet will be a factor for sure. As will your distance to a google server but for what they aim to do it is going to be fine.
This is where I disagree with you a bit. While I agree that this may be the short term vision, in the long game I totally see this supplanting and replacing gaming PCs. Google, and everyone who isn't Microsoft has a lot to gain by breaking free from the Windows chokehold. Google, I have no doubt, would love to take the home "desktop" and device market over with Chromebooks and Android. This is the sort of tech that could break the back of Windows in the home market.
I think envy and jealousy will motivate infrastructure upgrades like it did with cable in the seventies and eighties. A lot of places didn't have cable back then and people were jealous of having cable service. It's now nearly ubiquitous. Building out fiber is a no brainer. People who don't have speedy and quality internet will want it badly enough to make it happen. People want it now, just not badly enough to do anything about it.
Fiber is also short term and will only be relevant for ISP infrastructure.
Wireless to all user connections is the future. 5G and beyond will enable 10Gb/s wireless connections with sub 5ms latency.
This might take another 50 years but it is inevitable.
Physical connections like fiber and wires will be looked upon In the future the way we look at analog phones today
Yeah, eventually physical lines will be the antiquated way, but then we still have copper lines delivering internet and people complaining about tiny bandwidth so go figure.
We have both in our house. The wired line is fiber 1000/250 and the wireless is Verizon 4G with "unlimited" data. So when wired goes down we turn on local hotspot/tethering and keep going. Wireless is a lot laggier than wired so it's not perfect and the fiber is so much faster we all use wifi at home instead of 4G.
For the next couple of decades I think we'll continue to lay wired infrastructure until wireless just becomes easier and cheaper. There are frequency and bandwidth congestion issues to sort out with that tech too.
Wired connections aren't going away. Even wireless is almost entirely wired. The move from 2G to 3G to 4G to 5G has been one of having wires cover more of your connection, not less. You're not going to have 5G cells that cover a 10 mile radius the way that you sometimes did with 2G. The key key way to increase aggregate bandwidth is having the wireless hop at the end go from the last several miles to the last mile to the last thousand feet to the last few hundred feet.
this looks like a console to me, and I don't see why I would even get this, if a computer can do that already
Normally you would need a computer/console with a GPU to run game code and process the graphics that are displayed on your screen.
Game streaming removes the need for a local processing and rendering entirely - so all the game code and GPU processing is done at the data center and all of that is streamed back to your local display (tablet, TV, PC whatever).
So that's what this is all about - the ability to play high end graphics games on something that doesnt have the GPU nor CPU to handle high end graphics.
After the added latency and compression artifacts, the graphics are hardly still going to be high end. I think it's more accurate to say that it lets you play inefficiently programmed games on lower end devices.
Or maybe this is targeted at the same set of people that other sorts of thin clients are: people who are screw-ups and can't get a computer to work right. And will promptly break it if someone else sets up the computer properly for them. This will genuinely make it a lot easier for such people to have a computer that "works" (or is easily fixed) for games.
Or do you think that game consoles already have that crowd covered?
Let's set aside whether or how well the tech works for a moment. What I want to know is, where do the games come from? If I've already bought a game elsewhere, can I play it on Google Stadia without having to buy it again? Can I transfer my saved games or characters or whatever? Or would I have to buy it again through Google and start from scratch?
What about the other direction? If I buy a game through Google, can I later transfer it elsewhere? Or will I lose all access to games I've bought to play on Stadia the moment I cancel my subscription? Or will there be a subscription at all, as opposed to Google paying their costs by inflating game prices?
What about different versions of games? If I'm playing an older version of a single player game because I don't like something about a newer version, will Stadia block me from that? What if I want to use various mods for a single player game? Will they block that? Or will they only allow me to use mods that they officially support?
What if several years from now, Google has a game streaming service, Microsoft has one, Sony has one, Amazon has one, Apple has one, Netflix has one, and Valve has one. Each has at least one exclusive game that I want to play. Does that mean that I have to now subscribe to all of them? Or will they manage to pay the considerable costs of providing this service without requiring a subscription?
If moving games onto and off of Stadia requires repurchasing a game and/or starting over, that's going to be a hard pass for an awful lot of gamers. Similarly if it means that games that would be a one-time purchase elsewhere now take that one-time purchase plus an additional subscription.
Or maybe this is targeted at the same set of people that other sorts of thin clients are: people who are screw-ups and can't get a computer to work right. And will promptly break it if someone else sets up the computer properly for them. This will genuinely make it a lot easier for such people to have a computer that "works" (or is easily fixed) for games.
Or do you think that game consoles already have that crowd covered?
Stadia is geared towards accessibility. You can play it from a browser, like Project Stream. You can play it anywhere you have a connection, granted the connection works well.
The cost to buy in is less.. it's a virtual console. You could spend hundreds upon hundreds or you can use pretty much any current PC with a strong enough connection.
I get you're a big hardware guy, but the implications of a system like this can't be lost on you.
Even those with the best hardware, and the most amazing software, still have problems from time to time with game compatibility. If there is a system that can optimize games to work, on any hardware, reliably, even with some, yet minimal latency, that's a big deal.
The major indicator of whether or not it will take off, isn't in the way the game plays, because project stream worked well when I used it. It's going to be what the support looks like, and how games are acquired and played.
Guys, they don't care about your latency, or opinions on their game studios.
Google Cloud Platform, Amazon AWS, Microsoft Azure. Talk about those.
Open up your search engine and look up Web Assembly and Unreal Engine tech demo.
Look up what Parsec was doing years ago, and imagine that on gamma rays + CDNs and all the caching, microservice, technology that has come about since.
My money is on the corporations who literally took their hardware and technology and rammed them up our collective bottoms. They're all marching together on this direction.
Don't talk about OnLive, don't talk about pressing jump in a video game and it showing half a second later.
Most of y'all have 144hz 4K HDR OLED TVs and don't even know what content is being served by any of the providers.
A handful of giant data centers is the wrong model entirely if you want game streaming to work other than for the handful of people who happen to live very near you. OnLive had 5 data centers in the US. Microsoft Azure has 11. Yes, Microsoft's are much bigger than OnLive's ever were. But that doesn't matter. The difference between 5 locations and 11 is what matters. Make it 500 and you have a chance at keeping latency manageable for more than a handful of people.
ISPs have that kind of infrastructure. The big cloud providers don't.
You're still talking about optimal game streaming performance and ignoring what the big picture is; decoupling business logic, processors, and GPU from consumer facing hardware. It's not just about games.
It's not just a "handful" of data centers, it's HaaS centers, it's CDNs, it's the telecom alliances
Are you registering how much MONEY is going to be shift back to cable companies, game hardware, display, IoT, and smartphone manufacturers and other infrastructures with the HaaS philosophy?
There is no "this is dead in the water because Fortnite" scenario. It's the beginning of the general market HaaS transition. It's the compression and machine learning arms races that are about to rev up (again).
Lastly if the conversation is going to be fussing about input lag, Microsoft is claiming all they'll potentially need is 5mbps bandwidth and they can get 10ms latency. So there's that.
I'm not picking winners, what I'm saying is there isn't going to be any "losers" per say. This ain't an OnLive situation. It's a "do you guys not have phones?" scenario.
At the least everyone on this forum should be rejoicing because the whole [Insert Desired PC Game]: Mobile thing just got kicked square in the cojones.
Just because they build something doesn't mean that anyone has to buy it. And it especially doesn't mean that other developers can't ignore the project and do something else.
Do you think that Nvidia and AMD are going to stop making consumer GPUs? Do you think that Steam is going to preemptively give up and shut down because Google decided to throw a ton of money at some goofy project?
Do you think AMD and nVidia are going to turn down opportunity to get a piece of Hardware as a Service money from consumers who don't have video cards built into their Tablets, Phones, Hotel Room TVs, etc? The same consumers who have 4K 144hz HDR/Oled panels in their homes and when the majority of the content served it is still 1080p (or less) and 30-60fps?
It isn't just Google, it's Microsoft... and others. Get a clue man. It's called "as a Service" for a reason.
"As far as the forum code of conduct, I would think it's a bit outdated and in need of a refre *CLOSED*"
Comments
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
No trials. No tricks. No traps. No EU-RP server. NO THANKS!
...10% Benevolence, 90% Arrogance in my case!
거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Streaming is all about bypassing local hardware limits. Simple (non PC) examples could be:
playing a PS4 exclusive on a XBox
playing a graphically intensive PC game on a chromebook
Playing a console/PC game on a mobile device.
In each of these examples, the hardware is not sufficient (nor can it reasonably be made sufficient) to do the task at hand. This is why streaming would work to allow the same (limited) hardware to do more things (and thus be more valuable because of this service).
PC's, because of their open architecture, and part comparability/availability could in theory be configured to do ALL of the above (console games are developed/run on PC's, and are limited by licensing, not hardware). This is why the PC platform is generally the LAST choice for streaming, with the exception of one off scenarios (i.e. if you are going to play games on a PC, it will be better to build a PC that can play games... but if you are going to play one game, one time, then streaming works as the odd exception).
The reason that Google is getting involved in this is simple, Android. The addition of streaming services to devices with limited capabilities (i.e. phones/tablets) greatly increases the value of having such devices. With the addition of the desktop mode (and ever increasing CPU and bandwidth options) it will become viable to use a phone as a mobile computer.
Most people are used to thin client apps (think Google Docs) that put most of the resource requirements in the cloud. Streaming is a way to do the same thing for many apps that have more intense display (GPU) requirements. This is a way for Google to build a service that will make android devices more desirable.
Google is competing with Apple (and Microsoft/Sony) here, not with Steam/Epic. They are looking to make less sophisticated devices more useful (as they have an interest in those). They are also looking to get out front now... but know that they will not see many useful applications for a few years. This is mostly to get the development started for what will be viable after those few years.
Go to YouTube and start watching a video. It doesn't really matter which one, provided that it is at least a few minutes long. It's probably better to make it one that has stuff actually move in the video, rather than one whose only real point is the audio.
Let the video run for a minute or so, and then kill your Internet connection. Unplug an ethernet cable, power off a router, or do whatever it is that you have to do to ensure that your device no longer has any Internet connection at all. See what happens to the video.
It keeps playing, right? Well, it keeps playing for a while, and then eventually it stops. Depending on how far ahead it got buffered, it might keep playing until the end of the video, or it might stop sooner.
Think that killing your Internet connection while you're streaming a game won't disrupt the game at all? Have you ever played an online game at all?
Do you think that Nvidia and AMD are going to stop making consumer GPUs? Do you think that Steam is going to preemptively give up and shut down because Google decided to throw a ton of money at some goofy project?
But even if you want to regard all forms of latency as equivalent, then this will still only make it worse. That's just the triangle inequality.
That means that at a given cost, you can get better results with local rendering than game streaming. Or equivalently, a given level of quality can be done more cheaply with local rendering than game streaming.
거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다
If nothing else, 10 Gbps ethernet could be cheap tomorrow if it were a high volume product included on nearly every motherboard the way that gigabit ethernet is now. Right now, there isn't much consumer demand for that because 10 Gbps over a LAN isn't terribly interesting, because what you actually want is off somewhere else on the Internet.
Or do you think that game consoles already have that crowd covered?
What about the other direction? If I buy a game through Google, can I later transfer it elsewhere? Or will I lose all access to games I've bought to play on Stadia the moment I cancel my subscription? Or will there be a subscription at all, as opposed to Google paying their costs by inflating game prices?
What about different versions of games? If I'm playing an older version of a single player game because I don't like something about a newer version, will Stadia block me from that? What if I want to use various mods for a single player game? Will they block that? Or will they only allow me to use mods that they officially support?
What if several years from now, Google has a game streaming service, Microsoft has one, Sony has one, Amazon has one, Apple has one, Netflix has one, and Valve has one. Each has at least one exclusive game that I want to play. Does that mean that I have to now subscribe to all of them? Or will they manage to pay the considerable costs of providing this service without requiring a subscription?
If moving games onto and off of Stadia requires repurchasing a game and/or starting over, that's going to be a hard pass for an awful lot of gamers. Similarly if it means that games that would be a one-time purchase elsewhere now take that one-time purchase plus an additional subscription.
The cost to buy in is less.. it's a virtual console. You could spend hundreds upon hundreds or you can use pretty much any current PC with a strong enough connection.
I get you're a big hardware guy, but the implications of a system like this can't be lost on you.
Even those with the best hardware, and the most amazing software, still have problems from time to time with game compatibility. If there is a system that can optimize games to work, on any hardware, reliably, even with some, yet minimal latency, that's a big deal.
The major indicator of whether or not it will take off, isn't in the way the game plays, because project stream worked well when I used it. It's going to be what the support looks like, and how games are acquired and played.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯