Wired network connections will get better with time, and so will wireless ones. Wired connections always have been better, and always will be if you compare them at the same time. You can get a better wireless connection today than you could wired 30 years ago. It's possible (perhaps even likely) that you'll someday be able to get a better wireless connection than you can get wired today. But by the time that happens, wired connections will have improved enough to still be better than that era's wireless.
That's why 5G doesn't help you. The need is to get a good enough wired connection. Once wired is plenty good enough for some threshold, then wireless could eventually be good enough sometime after that. But whatever your threshold is, wired will get there first.
For what it's worth, one of the key ways that 4G and now 5G increased bandwidth is to make the connection more wired than before. More specifically, they build more base stations that each cover smaller areas so that the wireless hop to get to you is much shorter than before. Most of the network is wired, and it's only the small section at the end that is wireless.
Peak throughput isn't the problem. If you need to do a quick download on a 4G connection, and conditions are right to let you do it at 100 Mbps, it works. If you try to use that 100 Mbps of bandwidth for several hours per day every day so that you're now using several TB of bandwidth per month, then your carrier will step in to stop you. If everyone tried to do that, the system would get overloaded and you wouldn't get anywhere remotely near that 100 Mbps anymore.
In principle, they could build out a system that allows an average user at an average time to be using 100 Mbps of bandwidth around the clock. Maybe someday they will. But it would cost massively more than what they have built, so expect much higher prices to compensate for that.
Forgive me if I am wrong here... but in addition to bandwidth won't we have latency issues?
Latency is another major problem, but it's actually much worse than just being another problem to solve. There are major trade-offs between latency and bandwidth.
One of the major ways that videos get compressed is compression across time. Most frames are very similar to the other frames very near them, so compressing a bunch of frames all together often doesn't take that much more space than compressing one frame in isolation.
But occasionally, a frame is wildly different from its immediate predecessor. When YouTube or Netflix or whatever is compressing a video, they can look at the whole video and make intelligent decisions about how to compress frames together. Streaming games can't do that. If you know what the next frame is, the sensible thing to do for latency reasons is to drop the previous one and just send the next one.
They could try some sort of delta compression that only transmits how one frame differs from the next. They could make that look like it works pretty well most of the time. Until you rotate the camera and then everything falls apart because the next frame is wildly different from the previous. Or opening a window or other pop-ups or anything else that makes one frame wildly different from the previous.
So they could make a demo that says, look how low latency we have, at the expense of commonly burning a ton of bandwidth. And they could also make a demo that says, look how little bandwidth we have, at the expense of latency sometimes being terrible. And then try to imply that you can get both of those at the same time, even though you can't. Or make a demo that does work pretty well because they rig it to make it impossible for one frame to be all that different from the next.
In games that are simple enough that one frame genuinely can't be all that different from the next, they probably could make delta compression work pretty well. The problem is that for simple games like that, just running it on your local computer also works pretty well, even if your local computer is a four year old laptop that cost $500 when new and is running integrated graphics.
The only thing that worries me - it's Google. They've started and abandoned more projects that I can even remember.
Might be all the rage for a while - and then after a year - "we are shutting down this product - thanks for your support".
google in a nutshell.
Fair point … if this was some other Project like ..Hangouts or Plus. This time, the CEO was there, some important companies in the gaming industry, and let's not forget that they will release this year. Plus, they opened a company which will create games.
So...it's pretty much safe to say that we good.
Amazon's game studio was formed in 2012. How did all the games they launched since then turn out? Which ones are your personal favorites?
Apple and Oranges ? So you took a point I said, that they opened a gaming company and you throw it up with a very different exemple/situation?
Nice logic there.
No. You used their opening of a company to produce games as some sort of evidence that this was an uncancellable project. I pointed out that an even BIGGER company launched a game studio almost 7 years ago with little to show for it today.
If you think because "the CEO was there" has any bearing at all on whether Google would shut it down in a few years YOU are the one that needs to rethink their logic.
They opened a gaming company to produce games FOR Stadia! I though you watched the stream. My bad you didn't.
You are delusional to believe that this is yet other "google hangsout" type of product.
This is the first time google is taking it into the gaming market. I won't rethink anything, but seems you guys didn't even watched the stream, let alone knowing exactly what this is all about. I mean I argued with "the best" of mmorpg.com guru and I tried to explain to the poor guy, that user hardware has nothing do with Stadia. In the end, it seems he understands now since he didn't answered back.
Is ok, I'm sure you were also the ones who screamed back in the days that Downloadable games will not be a thing, because what's more awesomeness then owning a physical CD, right?
Nobody said it IS a Google hangout version 2. What people have said is that Google has a history of loud and promising launch events with little to show for it years later. (What’s the penetration of Google fiber? How many units of Google Glass have sold?)
What you literally said was that we shouldn’t worry about that because “ the CEO was there”. I’ll just leave that hanging there again for everyone to see when evaluating your statements.
I remember when Google Fiber came to Austin TX - and it was all the rage with my friends down in TX - and not even a year into the project -they abandoned it.
I chuckled - but man talk about salty people in Austin over this - seriously though - an example of something that was hugely hyped that Google completely abandoned (as far as expanding it into new markets - all google fiber stuff has completely stopped). So yes for those who have it - they have it but that's it.
Blows my mind you two are talking about very irrelevant things.
But ok , they did failed some small projects ( yes, I call Glass, Fiber and others, small projects in comparation with Stadia ) , but .. why don't you guys also speak about products who are very good from google, hm?
Gmail, maybe? Oh ..what about Android? Or Google Maps? Analytics? Cloud? No ? .. just .. failed projects , right?
Wired network connections will get better with time, and so will wireless ones. Wired connections always have been better, and always will be if you compare them at the same time. You can get a better wireless connection today than you could wired 30 years ago. It's possible (perhaps even likely) that you'll someday be able to get a better wireless connection than you can get wired today. But by the time that happens, wired connections will have improved enough to still be better than that era's wireless.
That's why 5G doesn't help you. The need is to get a good enough wired connection. Once wired is plenty good enough for some threshold, then wireless could eventually be good enough sometime after that. But whatever your threshold is, wired will get there first.
For what it's worth, one of the key ways that 4G and now 5G increased bandwidth is to make the connection more wired than before. More specifically, they build more base stations that each cover smaller areas so that the wireless hop to get to you is much shorter than before. Most of the network is wired, and it's only the small section at the end that is wireless.
Peak throughput isn't the problem. If you need to do a quick download on a 4G connection, and conditions are right to let you do it at 100 Mbps, it works. If you try to use that 100 Mbps of bandwidth for several hours per day every day so that you're now using several TB of bandwidth per month, then your carrier will step in to stop you. If everyone tried to do that, the system would get overloaded and you wouldn't get anywhere remotely near that 100 Mbps anymore.
In principle, they could build out a system that allows an average user at an average time to be using 100 Mbps of bandwidth around the clock. Maybe someday they will. But it would cost massively more than what they have built, so expect much higher prices to compensate for that.
The problem with "wired connections" is that no one will use it in the near future ( customers, not companies ). That's why I said Wireless will offer the same bandwidth as a wired connection at some point ( again, from customers point of view ). I was not argued that Wireless will be better then Wire in every shape or form ( or who knows? )
If you've got a desktop in your house and you don't have a wired connection to at least one computer, then you've botched your house wiring and really should fix that. That's commonly but not always true for a laptop, too.
You need to have a router, and you have to put it somewhere. You might as well put it right next to a computer. And if your router is right next to a computer, then you might as well run an Ethernet cable to it. No sense in having the computer right next to a WiFi router waste a bunch of bandwidth on it and degrade the WiFi qualify for everything else in your house.
...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?
"This generation of gaming is not a box," said the Google guy.
Because it's actually a series of tubes. Ted Stevens was right.
But it's a bunch of boxes (servers) that are running everything.
Also the fucking CLOUD - never have I hated the term more - it's just a bunch of datacenters that are connected with high speed links that you don't own.
Hey lets put this app up in the datacenter that's run by Amazon - management - "no lets put it in the cloud" - /facepalm
In the end there's always a box (server) that's involved still - you can get rid of one box - but never the other.
You two are against evolution I assume. Seems you are living in the past. Do you know how people who will grow up with this technology will call you? Well .. take a wild guess
Predictions about the future are notorious for ending up wildly wrong. Where's my flying car?
My skepticism is based on understanding some of the technical hurdles to making this work well and reliably. Have you ever used a thin client in your life?
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?
Game streaming currently does work in a pretty good capacity as it stands right now. It does it at a fairly low bandwidth, with the exception of running full 4K, which I haven't personally tested, but as someone who has tested project stream, now known as stadia, what you're saying isn't the reality of my experience.
Whether people like it or not, this is the future of gaming period. Once it gets perfected and the quality is there, then it will take over whether its Google or another company very similar to what Netflix did to blockbuster.
How do you perfect latency?
1ms latency for every 100miles of fiber is the best we can do - there's nothing that's even suggesting that this will change within our lifetime.
Add about 20ms of latency for last mile due to crappy oversubscribed ways of ISPs delivering internet into the neighborhoods and you are looking at 40+ms latency from like Dallas TX to Houston TX - when the fiber latency is 3ms between the 2.
Latency is what's holding any cloud gaming service back - might be fine for slower paced or turned based games.
But super latency sensitive games like Fortnite, Apex Legends etc... a big no
What will be the difference here? I am seriously asking this question.
If my current latency/ping to Apex servers is say .. 60ms and if Google Nodes are very close to the Apex servers , what will be the difference?
There are a lot of tricks that you can use to cover up network latency that you can't use to cover up input or display latency. Games will commonly assume that characters will maintain the same velocity (or position or acceleration or whatever makes sense for that case) and then render this accurately under that assumption. If the server later tells the client that the assumption was wrong, then a character jumps slightly (or moves extra fast or whatever) to get to the correct spot. You can't make that sort of predictions about incoming video to smooth it out.
Furthermore, for what is fundamentally a single-player game, you don't want to impose that extra latency.
Not enough info to gain any interest here. Give me something solid with specific features discussed in detail PLUS developers/titles that have committed to being compatible with this product and who knows. But right now it's just hot air.
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.
...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.
"This generation of gaming is not a box," said the Google guy.
Because it's actually a series of tubes. Ted Stevens was right.
But it's a bunch of boxes (servers) that are running everything.
Also the fucking CLOUD - never have I hated the term more - it's just a bunch of datacenters that are connected with high speed links that you don't own.
Hey lets put this app up in the datacenter that's run by Amazon - management - "no lets put it in the cloud" - /facepalm
In the end there's always a box (server) that's involved still - you can get rid of one box - but never the other.
You two are against evolution I assume. Seems you are living in the past. Do you know how people who will grow up with this technology will call you? Well .. take a wild guess
Predictions about the future are notorious for ending up wildly wrong. Where's my flying car?
My skepticism is based on understanding some of the technical hurdles to making this work well and reliably. Have you ever used a thin client in your life?
Game developers have already been covering all platforms for gaming.Even so,who the hell would feel they got something good here if trying to play a good looking game on a crappy cell phone on a puny screen. The most important thing in gaming is THE GAMES,this will do nothing at all for the games.I think they like every other game that comes out now are trying to copy ideas already mentioned by other businesses like Microsoft for one.
Their entire presentation just sounded like some political party speech,i never got any indication they care one bit about anything other than Google.So what do i think heir marketing team is really doing,i would bet the yare trying to think of ways to monopolize this the same way Microsoft has been trying.They have a lot of money,they will use it to try and get enough on board to force gamers into their system,problem is that gaming is just way too big,even for Google to try and takeover.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
Snake Oil, press conference was embarrassing. Imagine texture streaming at a distance of 2000-3000 miles then having your packets make it in and out of California alive. This is Bitconnect tier.
Anything higher than 20ms frame delay is unacceptable, and here they were with prostrating themselves with 100ms delay on screen and displayed for everyone to laugh at.
Steam tried it in house to your TV from a PC and it failed
We've had something with a TV setbox and subscription (LINK?) which failed
SONY has PS Now for almost 2 years and still didn't really come from the ground
I guess this streaming service will be much like all 3 of the above - either failing or stick around as long as Google+ did without getting from the ground to be taken down completely after 5 or so years...
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.
"As far as the forum code of conduct, I would think it's a bit outdated and in need of a refre *CLOSED*"
Streaming AC: Odyssey was pretty problem free. The only issue I ran into was it needed a lot of bandwidth, almost like doing a long download instead of playing a game. Even watching an entire season on Netflix on a weekend doesn't take up so much BW. Hopefully they will improve and optimize.
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
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.
Agree completely. Most FPS players are now running 144Hz because 60Hz is too slow. This project has roughly 50% more input lag than a PC at 30fps and twice as much as one at 60fps. With pretty optimal conditions and a limited userbase. Doubt any of the initial testing was done with more than one test subject in the same neighborhood, let alone block, much less house.
I have a fast enough connection bandwidth-wise, but latency can still be spotty. And I have a data cap. I'm also in the 85+% of the US population that has no competition in the 85Mb and above broadband space so that cap is probably not going anywhere.
Also...
Last week: Epic sucks! Steam or die! No new launchers! I'm not giving my info and money to a company that could abuse it.
This week: Google, who is known for abandoning projects and is one of the largest conglomerates in the world with revenues of $136.82 billion (with a that are 86% derived from ads based on them gaining as much personal info on users as possible up to to the point of record fines, is starting a streaming service? Take my money! (or more personal info) Where do I sign up?
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.
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.
i mean really what is the gaming industry comming too....2020
hate to see where we will be in 2025...........oh let me guess the VR era........well right?
This is just another wild dream about the new gold rush era and nothing more. From technology perspective, this can never happen on a large scale. Think of it like this: 1. the bandwidth and latency has to be at least 2-3 times better than it is now for streaming a movie at a decent quality on 1080p; 2. hardware is not cheap and the increase in performance from last gen to new gen is not high enough or advanced to allow multiple instances of the same game to render at the same time (so more users could use the same hardware for the same service); 3. even if they can pull this off somehow, the total cost of this service per performance and visual will be grater than it is now by building your own rig; 4. You will not be able to play big and demanding titles on this anytime soon; 5. modding and any other type of user control over the said game will be very limited or none at all; 6. Take the example of VR or 3D gaming - good in theory, bad in practice (NVIDIA already announced that they will be killing their support for 3D Vision - why is that?); 7. This type of service is not going to change or reinvent the notion of PC gaming as we think, but rather improve on the facebook gaming notion...not even a console managed to kill the PC gaming, so how can this one could?
Comments
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
One of the major ways that videos get compressed is compression across time. Most frames are very similar to the other frames very near them, so compressing a bunch of frames all together often doesn't take that much more space than compressing one frame in isolation.
But occasionally, a frame is wildly different from its immediate predecessor. When YouTube or Netflix or whatever is compressing a video, they can look at the whole video and make intelligent decisions about how to compress frames together. Streaming games can't do that. If you know what the next frame is, the sensible thing to do for latency reasons is to drop the previous one and just send the next one.
They could try some sort of delta compression that only transmits how one frame differs from the next. They could make that look like it works pretty well most of the time. Until you rotate the camera and then everything falls apart because the next frame is wildly different from the previous. Or opening a window or other pop-ups or anything else that makes one frame wildly different from the previous.
So they could make a demo that says, look how low latency we have, at the expense of commonly burning a ton of bandwidth. And they could also make a demo that says, look how little bandwidth we have, at the expense of latency sometimes being terrible. And then try to imply that you can get both of those at the same time, even though you can't. Or make a demo that does work pretty well because they rig it to make it impossible for one frame to be all that different from the next.
In games that are simple enough that one frame genuinely can't be all that different from the next, they probably could make delta compression work pretty well. The problem is that for simple games like that, just running it on your local computer also works pretty well, even if your local computer is a four year old laptop that cost $500 when new and is running integrated graphics.
But ok , they did failed some small projects ( yes, I call Glass, Fiber and others, small projects in comparation with Stadia ) , but .. why don't you guys also speak about products who are very good from google, hm?
Gmail, maybe? Oh ..what about Android? Or Google Maps? Analytics? Cloud? No ? .. just .. failed projects , right?
...yeah!
You need to have a router, and you have to put it somewhere. You might as well put it right next to a computer. And if your router is right next to a computer, then you might as well run an Ethernet cable to it. No sense in having the computer right next to a WiFi router waste a bunch of bandwidth on it and degrade the WiFi qualify for everything else in your house.
My skepticism is based on understanding some of the technical hurdles to making this work well and reliably. Have you ever used a thin client in your life?
Furthermore, for what is fundamentally a single-player game, you don't want to impose that extra latency.
ISPs have that kind of infrastructure. The big cloud providers don't.
Makes sense now?!
Is coming, no worries
The most important thing in gaming is THE GAMES,this will do nothing at all for the games.I think they like every other game that comes out now are trying to copy ideas already mentioned by other businesses like Microsoft for one.
Their entire presentation just sounded like some political party speech,i never got any indication they care one bit about anything other than Google.So what do i think heir marketing team is really doing,i would bet the yare trying to think of ways to monopolize this the same way Microsoft has been trying.They have a lot of money,they will use it to try and get enough on board to force gamers into their system,problem is that gaming is just way too big,even for Google to try and takeover.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
Anything higher than 20ms frame delay is unacceptable, and here they were with prostrating themselves with 100ms delay on screen and displayed for everyone to laugh at.
Steam tried it in house to your TV from a PC and it failed
We've had something with a TV setbox and subscription (LINK?) which failed
SONY has PS Now for almost 2 years and still didn't really come from the ground
I guess this streaming service will be much like all 3 of the above - either failing or stick around as long as Google+ did without getting from the ground to be taken down completely after 5 or so years...
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
https://www.pcgamer.com/google-stadias-specs-and-latency-revealed/
I have a fast enough connection bandwidth-wise, but latency can still be spotty. And I have a data cap. I'm also in the 85+% of the US population that has no competition in the 85Mb and above broadband space so that cap is probably not going anywhere.
Also...
Last week: Epic sucks! Steam or die! No new launchers! I'm not giving my info and money to a company that could abuse it.
This week: Google, who is known for abandoning projects and is one of the largest conglomerates in the world with revenues of $136.82 billion (with a
here we go again.
hate to see where we will be in 2025...........oh let me guess the VR era........well right?
거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다