Can I assume that streaming means sending video of your game play from a server based video card to you? That is all needed at your end is a monitor, controller and internet connection? Count me out. I don't have unlimited data and I share my internet connection. I only pay to play MMO types. If it's a single player I don't want to have to have a constant stream of data going between me and some server. Only work when ISPs go flat rate unlimited data.
you stil have FUP? ..in my country ISPs went flat rate unlimited a decade ago ..and i live in worlds azz ..fiber 600/60 Mbps for 15eur a month ..it must be better everywhere else no?
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.
What you are talking about is an issue regardless of this service or any other multiplayer game.
Correct - I am just addressing the suggestion that Googles backbone network "optimal routing" is somehow optimized to overcome latency that everyone is subject to - like geographical distance.
It isnt.
So lag will be the same for players that are playing with friends far away from them just like it is now - because Googles backbone network is subject to same 1ms per 100mile latency like everyone else.
That's all. This service wont make any difference for gamers that are playing together and are already dealing with geographic distance latency, it will remain the same at best.
You claimed it would be worse for multiplayer games and I pointed out that considering how multiplayer games work it not only shouldn’t be any worse it has potential to be better (in regards to multiplayer, not your own connection to the data center)
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.
What you are talking about is an issue regardless of this service or any other multiplayer game.
Correct - I am just addressing the suggestion that Googles backbone network "optimal routing" is somehow optimized to overcome latency that everyone is subject to - like geographical distance.
It isnt.
So lag will be the same for players that are playing with friends far away from them just like it is now - because Googles backbone network is subject to same 1ms per 100mile latency like everyone else.
That's all. This service wont make any difference for gamers that are playing together and are already dealing with geographic distance latency, it will remain the same at best.
You claimed it would be worse for multiplayer games and I pointed out that considering how multiplayer games work it not only shouldn’t be any worse it has potential to be better (in regards to multiplayer, not your own connection to the data center)
You will have to receive more data packets if you don't have assets installed locally.
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.
What you are talking about is an issue regardless of this service or any other multiplayer game.
Correct - I am just addressing the suggestion that Googles backbone network "optimal routing" is somehow optimized to overcome latency that everyone is subject to - like geographical distance.
It isnt.
So lag will be the same for players that are playing with friends far away from them just like it is now - because Googles backbone network is subject to same 1ms per 100mile latency like everyone else.
That's all. This service wont make any difference for gamers that are playing together and are already dealing with geographic distance latency, it will remain the same at best.
You claimed it would be worse for multiplayer games and I pointed out that considering how multiplayer games work it not only shouldn’t be any worse it has potential to be better (in regards to multiplayer, not your own connection to the data center)
You will have to receive more data packets if you don't have assets installed locally.
No more or less between multiplayer or single player. I don’t know the specifics of the stream but you are not streaming the game itself, more like a video of it.
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.
What you are talking about is an issue regardless of this service or any other multiplayer game.
Correct - I am just addressing the suggestion that Googles backbone network "optimal routing" is somehow optimized to overcome latency that everyone is subject to - like geographical distance.
It isnt.
So lag will be the same for players that are playing with friends far away from them just like it is now - because Googles backbone network is subject to same 1ms per 100mile latency like everyone else.
That's all. This service wont make any difference for gamers that are playing together and are already dealing with geographic distance latency, it will remain the same at best.
You claimed it would be worse for multiplayer games and I pointed out that considering how multiplayer games work it not only shouldn’t be any worse it has potential to be better (in regards to multiplayer, not your own connection to the data center)
It has more potential to be worse for multiplayer games:
Example without streaming service:
Players PC process graphics locally - clients send player actions to server (movement, chat, actions in game etc... The bandwidth required to do this is minimal - most mmo games (voxel based games excluded) have less than 1mb/s bandwidth many are below 150Kb/s because the client server traffic is mostly exchange of player input actions.
So small packets, there is higher tolerance for congestion and packet loss.
Now consider streaming - it's a constant stream of game video and player input. The packets are no longer small, and any congestion or packet loss will have very detrimental effects on user experience.
So streaming inherently has a much higher possibility of being affected by packet loss or latency spikes due to a constant stream of larger packets being less resilient compared to a bunch of small packets that non-life stream client server exchange.
So - streaming Apex Legends via Google
Vs
Playing it on your PC normally
You will have a better experience just using your PC because client-server traffic is way more resilient to unpredictable internet conditions than the overhead of having a video stream embedded together with player input.
So yes it will be worse for multiplayer games without a doubt.
Wrong, the data sent to the server is the same. It’s not like you are streaming back to the server.
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
None of the corps are trying to "replace" PC gaming out the gate. They know how difficult it is for certain types of people to wrap their brain around it ?.
They also realize people are living the fantasy of being competitive gamers (when the actual real ones don't play seriously over the internet.)
They're (Google, Amazon, Microsoft, etc) going to slowly squeeze the necessity of your rigs hardware out of the workflow. You'll be on your rig talking about "Look, when I press spacebar jump happens faster", while some kid on his tablet will be playing the same game on Ultra fully immersed.
@blueturtle knows wassup. I just want to know from him, if xCloud and Stadia are approaching the solution similarly or are their philosophies very different?
"As far as the forum code of conduct, I would think it's a bit outdated and in need of a refre *CLOSED*"
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. 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.
Once real 5G is out (sub 10ms latency) and multi gig throughput - as long as data rates are reasonable, 99% of wired connections and even wifi will be obsolete.
In the not too distant future, power transmission will also be wireless.
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 recall only the video card per instance being 10.7 teraflops, that's the only data they like to throw at players these days. They did mention they can run multiple video cards though which could be cool, but I suspect the prices would be astronomical for that. I don't recall off hand any mention of CPU.
Another thing to consider is that I don't believe there will be any "proxy" happening to the game server. Meaning I don't think, based on what I heard and understand, that any existing multiplayer servers will be on the system and would be instead installed in the data center itself. I could be wrong on that part. It's also possible they are going to have both, so an existing game could allow proxy to their servers or they could install directly on the Google data center and be done with it.
Installing directly on the data center has some advantages like no longer needing separate server and client code, so the communication that normally happens between players would be more like a local coop or LAN than a current multiplayer setup. This alone completely changes the feeling of interacting between players and the delay's associated. You are only bound to the delay between yourself and the data center and the connection the other player has doesn't matter. Of course there is the fact that distance between the data centers will have an affect on that as well, but it's less of an impact than it is when two players are connecting to the same server from different distances.
It'll be interesting to see where Google takes this and what can be done. Still the number one factor will be the stream from server to client. That is what will make or break this.
Everytime someone says "this is the future" a new tech dies on arrival.
Seriously, this is 3d television all over again.
Talk to me withing 10 years where connections can achieve ethernet quality... I won't be paying subscription (or purchasing titles) to a plan to play a game with added layers of latency summ with connection latency and video latency.
You're comparing Hardware As A Service to 3D Television? That's not retarded at all.
"As far as the forum code of conduct, I would think it's a bit outdated and in need of a refre *CLOSED*"
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...
"As far as the forum code of conduct, I would think it's a bit outdated and in need of a refre *CLOSED*"
Thankfully it's not Google, if for no other reason than the number of horrific ways this could and would be monetized would make EA's marketing department die of maniacal giggling-induced asphyxiation. And then there's all the ways Google would find to track, log, advertise to you, and sell your data to any and all.
Can't say as I'm often happy when basic physics stands in the way of technology, but in this case I'll make an exception.
People can claim whatever they want but this is going to be huge. I remember many streaming music products existing, but never really breaking trough, because the quality was not there. Then products like pandora slowly took it to the next step, and while the world was still dazzled by Itunes, suddenly out of nowhere came Spotify and obliberated it's competition.
For movies it was the same. Streaming video was crap, basically. No one believed in it. DVD's where the thing of people that liked video. Blue Ray was the next big thing. And HBO. The quality of streaming was just too poor. Until it wasn't, and Netflix blew away the entire video and TV industry. No one buys Blue Ray's anymore and no one is talking about a succesor to Blue Ray
The same thing will happen to gaming. Once you can play high quality streaming without having to pay 1400 euro on a videocard or 600 for a new console, no one is going to do that. Of course the quality isn't there. Yet. But when it is, it will blow everything away.
Let's be real here saying no one buys blu-rays is a blanket statement of incompetence. If that was true Wal-mart, Best Buy etc wouldn't be lined to the teeth with them.
Physical media is still a thing, there are people out there that prefer not dealing with air. People buy vinyls, people buy physical games, people buy movies. That will never go away.
Sure their might be a Gameflix at some point, but there will still be pc enthusiasts, there will still be console enthusiasts.
Nothing ever completely disappears, hell there is still swap meets for Beta and VHS tapes.
[[ DEAD ]] - Funny - I deleted my account on the site using the cancel account button. Forum user is separate and still exists with no way of deleting it. Delete it admins. Do it, this ends now.
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 recall only the video card per instance being 10.7 teraflops, that's the only data they like to throw at players these days. They did mention they can run multiple video cards though which could be cool, but I suspect the prices would be astronomical for that. I don't recall off hand any mention of CPU.
Another thing to consider is that I don't believe there will be any "proxy" happening to the game server. Meaning I don't think, based on what I heard and understand, that any existing multiplayer servers will be on the system and would be instead installed in the data center itself. I could be wrong on that part. It's also possible they are going to have both, so an existing game could allow proxy to their servers or they could install directly on the Google data center and be done with it.
Installing directly on the data center has some advantages like no longer needing separate server and client code, so the communication that normally happens between players would be more like a local coop or LAN than a current multiplayer setup. This alone completely changes the feeling of interacting between players and the delay's associated. You are only bound to the delay between yourself and the data center and the connection the other player has doesn't matter. Of course there is the fact that distance between the data centers will have an affect on that as well, but it's less of an impact than it is when two players are connecting to the same server from different distances.
It'll be interesting to see where Google takes this and what can be done. Still the number one factor will be the stream from server to client. That is what will make or break this.
They will have to simulate "client" so they could stream that to end user devices, right?
Sure it wouldn't be a traditional client as it would basically be on the server end - however i would still consider this some kind of a stripped down client code that would be used to generate the video stream. I mean they have to simulate a user running through the game and interacting with the game world - so yes that will run server side but I would still consider that to be a client of sorts.
If everything runs on Google servers and there is no proxying to external servers- this can all work relatively well. If they are proxying to external servers (like Epic servers for Fortnite for example) there would be a higher risk of network issues.
But normally game servers don't have to deal with GPU streams back to client so that overhead is one issue.
The other as you mentioned is the video stream back client - yep.
I was saying that multiplayer games developed directly on the data center wouldn't need a separate client and server in the current "traditional" sense. Think of how Halo works where one of the clients says it's the server and everyone connects through them. This could work in a similar fashion where the server itself has no authority and is instead just a relay between clients at most. Without the need for a separate server for authority this removes some of the delay we currently have with the current system.
Since the client is on the server, there's no need for an authoritative server making all the decisions.
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
It's going to be a lot less than 50 years. Hell look how far we've come in the last 50. All the kids in my neighborhood were flaunting their new tiny 9v transistor radios just under 50 years ago
I like this question from Kotaku to Phil Harrison about Stadia and Google's walking away from multiple projects. Is this just another ambitious Google project that will disappear in a few years, like Google Plus?
“I understand the concern. But I think that all you have to do is look at the level of investment that we have made and continue to make in Stadia. This is not a trivial project by any means. This is a very, very significant cross-company effort that isn’t just my team, but it’s also across YouTube, it’s across our technical infrastructure and networking team. It represents thousands of people who are working on this business.”
I'm still going to be cautious. I don't buy in or put all my reliance on Google anymore. They've killed way too many big projects and tech for me to trust them. XMPP, G+, and so many more. https://killedbygoogle.com Keeping trust with Google at arms length and a watchful eye, is wise in my opinion.
However, they will be in this for the long game. This may be one of their foundation services like Gmail and YouTube and may live. Additionally, this move is much bigger than Google. Google isn't driving this. They're catching the wave on time if not early.
Another reason to watch Google is they now have majority control in how the internet is driven. The non-mobile market alone is about 65%. Chrome is the new IE and they get to decide or steer how tech is moving. We should watch the big boys closely.
Just on a side note, you've made some great comments and points in this thread. Overall, this is a great move forward for gaming which has been stuck for a few years now.
What excites me is the other things they showed beyond just game streaming. That was last on my list because I have already had hands on with it. Style and Share have massive potential....to be copied lol
I would like to see Google succeed in this because it pushes others to do it better. After getting a look at Google's broader plans, Microsoft's XCloud will surprise people
I love the tech - but I hate that everything is pointing to Google, Amazon and Microsoft running everything in the end.
That's the downside, I just cant say I'd love to see Google succeed because it just means more monopoly going forward.
But from a pure technology side - yes I would like to see all of these cloud streaming services succeed - and they will once ISPs are stable enough to support this even in rural areas.
I’m on the same boat, unfortunately either the ones with the money make the advancements or buy out the ones that do.
Comments
you stil have FUP? ..in my country ISPs went flat rate unlimited a decade ago ..and i live in worlds azz ..fiber 600/60 Mbps for 15eur a month ..it must be better everywhere else no?
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다
거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다
Let's be real here saying no one buys blu-rays is a blanket statement of incompetence. If that was true Wal-mart, Best Buy etc wouldn't be lined to the teeth with them.
Physical media is still a thing, there are people out there that prefer not dealing with air. People buy vinyls, people buy physical games, people buy movies. That will never go away.
Sure their might be a Gameflix at some point, but there will still be pc enthusiasts, there will still be console enthusiasts.
Nothing ever completely disappears, hell there is still swap meets for Beta and VHS tapes.
거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee