That is basically unplayable for anything that isn't turn-based.
Even 100ms total latency feels pretty miserable when you can compare it against a tighter console experience (with either a CRT TV or a TV with a decent game-mode)
That is basically unplayable for anything that isn't turn-based.
Even 100ms total latency feels pretty miserable when you can compare it against a tighter console experience (with either a CRT TV or a TV with a decent game-mode)
It also uses 20GB worth of data per hour of gameplay.
Wonderful product.
That sounds a bit high, but I guess shouldn't be surprising.
4k video streaming is only about 7.2 GB per hour, but I've never looked at what frame rate is tied to that.
Seems like they should offer 1080p streaming which is going to be less than 1/4 the "cost" in terms of data usage.
This whole thing just reeks of a development team that is completely out of touch with what kind of infrastructure the vast majority of people have access to.
This could work in the couple of cities that are co-located with data farms AND are on Gigabit connections.
This could work in a place like Seoul or Tokyo.
But this isn't going to work for 90+% of the population of this country for a LONG time.
OUCH 20GB/hr? A lot of ISPs, especially big national ones like AT&T have data caps, usually around 1TB of data. It really wouldn't take long for someone to burn that and get hit with some 10-20 per 10GB fee for overages. If you did nothing and I mean nothing on the internet at all you could eat 50 hours/month using the service to max out, but realistically if you're someone who watches tv/movies online, bothers with social media, youtube and the rest it will be dramatically less.
Video game streaming is a waste of money. Yea, it's easy but you own nothing. You just agree to pay to use the service.
How is that different to Netflix, or cable, or any other form of subscription? If you go to the movie theatre you don't own anything either. Hell, if I buy a bottle of milk I drink it and then I own nothing too!
If the service is appropriately priced, reliable, and offers a satisfactory level of quality, I can definitely see it being popular. It's not going to replace other forms of gaming, it's gonna be another option that may be suitable for some, not for others.
That milk analogy is far-fetched. You definitely end up as the owner of that milk, free to do with it what you will.
That's like you saying you don't own a console, because in 5 years time it will be replaced by another console. Makes no sense.
It's no different than netflix or hulu except for data use. Netflix is pretty simple, you select the title and it streams that video to you. The video is a static data source as in the data is largely one way...to you. With gaming, you are now manipulating the entire experience and it's sending that data out to be sent back. It's a dynamic experience. If I'm playing....say Doom...what's the data use going to look like? Does it download entire levels or the whole game? If I turn it off, play another game, then decide to go back to Doom do I have to redownload or is the data temp cashed to the console?
You seem to have missed the point of what Google presented.
It is supposed to function EXACTLY like Netflix -- i.e. they are only streaming the video output, with the program and all processing done on their side.
There is no game to download, just a raw stream. (with your control inputs streaming to them in the other direction)
Based on the latency mentioned upthread (10 frames at 60Hz), personally, I think it sounds borderline unplayable.
And I expect that latency is the current "best case" for people who are nearly co-located with the server farms.
For real-world players going over a mobile network it will be way worse.
I don't believe anything google says lol.
My comment on that was that it is different from Netflix by how gaming works.
When you stream a movie, you stream it from beginning to end. The data only changes by the quality of the video. Gaming is different in that I have to constantly commmunicate what I'm doing in the game world and google has to send all the new info back.
If we apply, say that 7.2gb for 4k you mentioned, that's 72gb for 10 hours. You can break this down even further, but it's quite easy to hit the 1tb data cap most people have here with video and gaming now combined.
If they do degrade the gameplay to 1080 or 960...why bother.
It's no different than netflix or hulu except for data use. Netflix is pretty simple, you select the title and it streams that video to you. The video is a static data source as in the data is largely one way...to you. With gaming, you are now manipulating the entire experience and it's sending that data out to be sent back. It's a dynamic experience. If I'm playing....say Doom...what's the data use going to look like? Does it download entire levels or the whole game? If I turn it off, play another game, then decide to go back to Doom do I have to redownload or is the data temp cashed to the console?
You seem to have missed the point of what Google presented.
It is supposed to function EXACTLY like Netflix -- i.e. they are only streaming the video output, with the program and all processing done on their side.
There is no game to download, just a raw stream. (with your control inputs streaming to them in the other direction)
Based on the latency mentioned upthread (10 frames at 60Hz), personally, I think it sounds borderline unplayable.
And I expect that latency is the current "best case" for people who are nearly co-located with the server farms.
For real-world players going over a mobile network it will be way worse.
I don't believe anything google says lol.
My comment on that was that it is different from Netflix by how gaming works.
In terms of what shows up on your screen, no, that part is not really different from how something like Netflix works.
There have been services in the past that have tried this with lower resolution output.
I've never tried them personally, but I imagine that latency generally makes it a miserable experience.
But the underlying concept has always been the same -- run the games on a high-powered server farm and just stream the video output.
(i.e. the user never has to "download the game" beyond some minimal interface application)
"Constantly communicating" what you're doing is not processor intensive and is sending maybe 2-3 bytes of information to the servers.
The data hog is the video. And the latency is the distance from the farm plus however many frames they are trying to buffer for the video to avoid stuttering.
The concept they're pushing is hugely impractical from the latency alone, let alone the data cap concerns.
But your concern about "downloading the game" misses the point of what is being discussed.
Movie theaters are terrible! You definitely pay for a one-time experience. Nothing else is like that with digital media. At least with Netflix you can re-watch stuff at no additional cost (except data I guess)
So there's:
Owning a copy of the content (video game cartridge, CD, DRM-free media)
Renting the content indefinitely (a Steam game installed locally; it will go away someday but nobody knows when; you can still play it as long as it's installed)
Renting the content finitely (Redbox? The old days of Blockbuster etc; experience is repeatable within the pay cycle at no additional cost)
Renting the content, continually paying for the service and data (Netflix, Stadia; experience is repeatable within each pay cycle at only the cost of data; it will go away someday but nobody knows when; as soon as it does, the content is immediately inaccessible)
One-time experience (movie theater, live concert, roller coaster)
This looks so cool at a glance but in all practicality, this doesn't seem feasible. I mean, maybe it will work well enough in The Bay, but I can't imagine this will work well enough to be profitable and desirable for most regions of the US or world. Especially if you have the lag of the controller connecting to the servers and then forwarding the response to the window. NTY.
Console and PC gaming for life right here. Only reason I am excited about this news is that I own some AMD stock and the price increased as they have partnered with Google for this.
Look guys... all I'm saying is, I've bought a thousand gallons of milk in my time, and I ain't sitting atop cheese mountain right now! As far as I'm concerned, that milk is dead to me.
I think the one thing everyone is missing here is the promise of practically unlimited (or scalable) computing power. In the hands of capable studio, this could lead to a gaming experience unlike anything we've seen before. No, not the 1000 player Battle Royale, that's a fad.. but think something like 1000 player Action RPG with crafting in a persistant, breakable, laws of physics abiding world, or RTS with every unit being a real person on the field..
As much as I'm hugging my 1000 piece pile of carts, discs and physical gaming boxes and still buy all Switch games physically and hate the idea of renting a game, I can't fully ignore the appeal of truly next gen (not PS3->4 but SNES ->N64) potential of this thing.
If that potential is realized, it will drive the customer interest which will drive the internet infrastructure too.
I think the one thing everyone is missing here is the promise of practically unlimited (or scalable) computing power. In the hands of capable studio, this could lead to a gaming experience unlike anything we've seen before. No, not the 1000 player Battle Royale, that's a fad.. but think something like 1000 player Action RPG with crafting in a persistant, breakable, laws of physics abiding world, or RTS with every unit being a real person on the field..
As much as I'm hugging my 1000 piece pile of carts, discs and physical gaming boxes and still buy all Switch games physically and hate the idea of renting a game, I can't fully ignore the appeal of truly next gen (not PS3->4 but SNES ->N64) potential of this thing.
If that potential is realized, it will drive the customer interest which will drive the internet infrastructure too.
I am all for pushing technology forward and being able to leave shit in the past, without deviation from the norm progress is not possible.
They need to start doing things like this and change up gaming, I think a lot of people feel the same way about it too...I know this website not so much but this is also a niche and doesn't speak for everyone but lots of people I'm sure are thinking the console model is pretty stale.
I think the one thing everyone is missing here is the promise of practically unlimited (or scalable) computing power.
I don't think that is being missed or overlooked.
You could have infinite computing power on the server-side and it doesn't solve the bandwidth concerns or the latency issues.
Latency is one thing they’ll have to solve, but they are aware of the issue and I’m curious to see the results.
As for bandwith... since everyone’s arguing ”It’s not going to work since my internet is crap”, maybe I should bring the opposite point of view? Where I live I would say 50-100 Gb internet is the norm/minimum, and they’re already testing 5G, so it’s a total nonissue.
There’s certainly enough people in the world living in high internet area for this to become popular enough. As I said, that will drive interest to update the connection which will in turn drive the infra to be built. It is not a real obstacle for Stadia to succeed and grow.
Besides, people are slightly exaggarating the need for high bandwith in my opinion. If you consider the data from Google, it’s exactly same as Youtube video which millions are already watching. Only thing to add are the keypresses going to Google and how much data can that really be.
I think the one thing everyone is missing here is the promise of practically unlimited (or scalable) computing power.
I don't think that is being missed or overlooked.
You could have infinite computing power on the server-side and it doesn't solve the bandwidth concerns or the latency issues.
Latency is one thing they’ll have to solve, but they are aware of the issue and I’m curious to see the results.
As for bandwith... since everyone’s arguing ”It’s not going to work since my internet is crap”, maybe I should bring the opposite point of view? Where I live I would say 50-100 Gb internet is the norm/minimum, and they’re already testing 5G, so it’s a total nonissue.
There’s certainly enough people in the world living in high internet area for this to become popular enough. As I said, that will drive interest to update the connection which will in turn drive the infra to be built. It is not a real obstacle for Stadia to succeed and grow.
Besides, people are slightly exaggarating the need for high bandwith in my opinion. If you consider the data from Google, it’s exactly same as Youtube video which millions are already watching. Only thing to add are the keypresses going to Google and how much data can that really be.
You clearly aren't familiar with the state of broadband access in the USA.
And even if we get 5G in a reasonable timeframe, our ISPs are still going to data-cap people and charge by the GB.
Our market is made up of a bunch of regional near-monopolies, so there is effectively no competition except in the relatively few cities served by Google Fiber.
And our rural areas don't even have access to real broadband at any price.
In terms of the need for high bandwidth -- those big numbers were from Google, I thought.
And unlike video, you can't buffer a game -- you need that bandwidth continuously, with no hiccups, for it to function as a product.
Sounds like an Ouya 2.0 just because they are putting out piece of hardware but no focus of software to entice buyers. The gaming market is crowded enough and I am not sure what games google will put on there beside games already on other platforms.
I thought that was just an early demo of Steam's big screen experience with their controller and ultimately became a sort of minimum spec for building a steam based HTPC for gaming.
Comments
https://twitter.com/prodiGtv/status/1108072829285814272
10 frames of input lag at 60FPS.
PASS.
That is basically unplayable for anything that isn't turn-based.
Even 100ms total latency feels pretty miserable when you can compare it against a tighter console experience (with either a CRT TV or a TV with a decent game-mode)
It also uses 20GB worth of data per hour of gameplay.
Wonderful product.
https://twitter.com/prodiGtv/status/1108072829285814272
10 frames of input lag at 60FPS.
PASS.
That is basically unplayable for anything that isn't turn-based.
Even 100ms total latency feels pretty miserable when you can compare it against a tighter console experience (with either a CRT TV or a TV with a decent game-mode)
https://twitter.com/goodbyecomput...
It also uses 20GB worth of data per hour of gameplay.
Wonderful product.
That sounds a bit high, but I guess shouldn't be surprising.
4k video streaming is only about 7.2 GB per hour, but I've never looked at what frame rate is tied to that.
Seems like they should offer 1080p streaming which is going to be less than 1/4 the "cost" in terms of data usage.
This whole thing just reeks of a development team that is completely out of touch with what kind of infrastructure the vast majority of people have access to.
This could work in the couple of cities that are co-located with data farms AND are on Gigabit connections.
This could work in a place like Seoul or Tokyo.
But this isn't going to work for 90+% of the population of this country for a LONG time.
Running 1080p/60fps could help, but at that current ratio, it would eat away my monthly data cap in 20 hours of game play.
Yeah, but data caps are just for the peons that don't live in a Tier-1 City and have personal access to a full Gbit anyway, right?
Video game streaming is a waste of money. Yea, it's easy but you own nothing. You just agree to pay to use the service.
How is that different to Netflix, or cable, or any other form of subscription? If you go to the movie theatre you don't own anything either. Hell, if I buy a bottle of milk I drink it and then I own nothing too!
If the service is appropriately priced, reliable, and offers a satisfactory level of quality, I can definitely see it being popular. It's not going to replace other forms of gaming, it's gonna be another option that may be suitable for some, not for others.
That milk analogy is far-fetched. You definitely end up as the owner of that milk, free to do with it what you will.
That's like you saying you don't own a console, because in 5 years time it will be replaced by another console. Makes no sense.
Not a fan, not even impressed. Input lag galore.
Originally posted by: arch_8ngel
Originally posted by: Outdoormongoose
It's no different than netflix or hulu except for data use. Netflix is pretty simple, you select the title and it streams that video to you. The video is a static data source as in the data is largely one way...to you. With gaming, you are now manipulating the entire experience and it's sending that data out to be sent back. It's a dynamic experience. If I'm playing....say Doom...what's the data use going to look like? Does it download entire levels or the whole game? If I turn it off, play another game, then decide to go back to Doom do I have to redownload or is the data temp cashed to the console?
You seem to have missed the point of what Google presented.
It is supposed to function EXACTLY like Netflix -- i.e. they are only streaming the video output, with the program and all processing done on their side.
There is no game to download, just a raw stream. (with your control inputs streaming to them in the other direction)
Based on the latency mentioned upthread (10 frames at 60Hz), personally, I think it sounds borderline unplayable.
And I expect that latency is the current "best case" for people who are nearly co-located with the server farms.
For real-world players going over a mobile network it will be way worse.
I don't believe anything google says lol.
My comment on that was that it is different from Netflix by how gaming works.
When you stream a movie, you stream it from beginning to end. The data only changes by the quality of the video. Gaming is different in that I have to constantly commmunicate what I'm doing in the game world and google has to send all the new info back.
If we apply, say that 7.2gb for 4k you mentioned, that's 72gb for 10 hours. You can break this down even further, but it's quite easy to hit the 1tb data cap most people have here with video and gaming now combined.
If they do degrade the gameplay to 1080 or 960...why bother.
Originally posted by: Outdoormongoose
Originally posted by: arch_8ngel
Originally posted by: Outdoormongoose
It's no different than netflix or hulu except for data use. Netflix is pretty simple, you select the title and it streams that video to you. The video is a static data source as in the data is largely one way...to you. With gaming, you are now manipulating the entire experience and it's sending that data out to be sent back. It's a dynamic experience. If I'm playing....say Doom...what's the data use going to look like? Does it download entire levels or the whole game? If I turn it off, play another game, then decide to go back to Doom do I have to redownload or is the data temp cashed to the console?
You seem to have missed the point of what Google presented.
It is supposed to function EXACTLY like Netflix -- i.e. they are only streaming the video output, with the program and all processing done on their side.
There is no game to download, just a raw stream. (with your control inputs streaming to them in the other direction)
Based on the latency mentioned upthread (10 frames at 60Hz), personally, I think it sounds borderline unplayable.
And I expect that latency is the current "best case" for people who are nearly co-located with the server farms.
For real-world players going over a mobile network it will be way worse.
I don't believe anything google says lol.
My comment on that was that it is different from Netflix by how gaming works.
In terms of what shows up on your screen, no, that part is not really different from how something like Netflix works.
There have been services in the past that have tried this with lower resolution output.
I've never tried them personally, but I imagine that latency generally makes it a miserable experience.
But the underlying concept has always been the same -- run the games on a high-powered server farm and just stream the video output.
(i.e. the user never has to "download the game" beyond some minimal interface application)
"Constantly communicating" what you're doing is not processor intensive and is sending maybe 2-3 bytes of information to the servers.
The data hog is the video. And the latency is the distance from the farm plus however many frames they are trying to buffer for the video to avoid stuttering.
The concept they're pushing is hugely impractical from the latency alone, let alone the data cap concerns.
But your concern about "downloading the game" misses the point of what is being discussed.
So there's:
Owning a copy of the content (video game cartridge, CD, DRM-free media)
Renting the content indefinitely (a Steam game installed locally; it will go away someday but nobody knows when; you can still play it as long as it's installed)
Renting the content finitely (Redbox? The old days of Blockbuster etc; experience is repeatable within the pay cycle at no additional cost)
Renting the content, continually paying for the service and data (Netflix, Stadia; experience is repeatable within each pay cycle at only the cost of data; it will go away someday but nobody knows when; as soon as it does, the content is immediately inaccessible)
One-time experience (movie theater, live concert, roller coaster)
This looks so cool at a glance but in all practicality, this doesn't seem feasible. I mean, maybe it will work well enough in The Bay, but I can't imagine this will work well enough to be profitable and desirable for most regions of the US or world. Especially if you have the lag of the controller connecting to the servers and then forwarding the response to the window. NTY.
I built one of the labs where they developed this.
With your bear hands?
As if I wanted to as it is, I just love using regular tangible stuff, and much rather use that instead.
I built one of the labs where they developed this.
With your bear hands?
It's crazy what you can do with Google.
I built one of the labs where they developed this.
With your bear hands?
No, im the boss
As much as I'm hugging my 1000 piece pile of carts, discs and physical gaming boxes and still buy all Switch games physically and hate the idea of renting a game, I can't fully ignore the appeal of truly next gen (not PS3->4 but SNES ->N64) potential of this thing.
If that potential is realized, it will drive the customer interest which will drive the internet infrastructure too.
You NEED fiber internet to do anything with this, otherwise you are gonna be playing a laggy blocky looking mess.
We've seen Onlive already and it sucked.
I think the one thing everyone is missing here is the promise of practically unlimited (or scalable) computing power.
I don't think that is being missed or overlooked.
You could have infinite computing power on the server-side and it doesn't solve the bandwidth concerns or the latency issues.
I think the one thing everyone is missing here is the promise of practically unlimited (or scalable) computing power. In the hands of capable studio, this could lead to a gaming experience unlike anything we've seen before. No, not the 1000 player Battle Royale, that's a fad.. but think something like 1000 player Action RPG with crafting in a persistant, breakable, laws of physics abiding world, or RTS with every unit being a real person on the field..
As much as I'm hugging my 1000 piece pile of carts, discs and physical gaming boxes and still buy all Switch games physically and hate the idea of renting a game, I can't fully ignore the appeal of truly next gen (not PS3->4 but SNES ->N64) potential of this thing.
If that potential is realized, it will drive the customer interest which will drive the internet infrastructure too.
I am all for pushing technology forward and being able to leave shit in the past, without deviation from the norm progress is not possible.
They need to start doing things like this and change up gaming, I think a lot of people feel the same way about it too...I know this website not so much but this is also a niche and doesn't speak for everyone but lots of people I'm sure are thinking the console model is pretty stale.
I think the one thing everyone is missing here is the promise of practically unlimited (or scalable) computing power.
I don't think that is being missed or overlooked.
You could have infinite computing power on the server-side and it doesn't solve the bandwidth concerns or the latency issues.
Latency is one thing they’ll have to solve, but they are aware of the issue and I’m curious to see the results.
As for bandwith... since everyone’s arguing ”It’s not going to work since my internet is crap”, maybe I should bring the opposite point of view? Where I live I would say 50-100 Gb internet is the norm/minimum, and they’re already testing 5G, so it’s a total nonissue.
There’s certainly enough people in the world living in high internet area for this to become popular enough. As I said, that will drive interest to update the connection which will in turn drive the infra to be built. It is not a real obstacle for Stadia to succeed and grow.
Besides, people are slightly exaggarating the need for high bandwith in my opinion. If you consider the data from Google, it’s exactly same as Youtube video which millions are already watching. Only thing to add are the keypresses going to Google and how much data can that really be.
https://killedbygoogle.com/
I think the one thing everyone is missing here is the promise of practically unlimited (or scalable) computing power.
I don't think that is being missed or overlooked.
You could have infinite computing power on the server-side and it doesn't solve the bandwidth concerns or the latency issues.
Latency is one thing they’ll have to solve, but they are aware of the issue and I’m curious to see the results.
As for bandwith... since everyone’s arguing ”It’s not going to work since my internet is crap”, maybe I should bring the opposite point of view? Where I live I would say 50-100 Gb internet is the norm/minimum, and they’re already testing 5G, so it’s a total nonissue.
There’s certainly enough people in the world living in high internet area for this to become popular enough. As I said, that will drive interest to update the connection which will in turn drive the infra to be built. It is not a real obstacle for Stadia to succeed and grow.
Besides, people are slightly exaggarating the need for high bandwith in my opinion. If you consider the data from Google, it’s exactly same as Youtube video which millions are already watching. Only thing to add are the keypresses going to Google and how much data can that really be.
You clearly aren't familiar with the state of broadband access in the USA.
And even if we get 5G in a reasonable timeframe, our ISPs are still going to data-cap people and charge by the GB.
Our market is made up of a bunch of regional near-monopolies, so there is effectively no competition except in the relatively few cities served by Google Fiber.
And our rural areas don't even have access to real broadband at any price.
In terms of the need for high bandwidth -- those big numbers were from Google, I thought.
And unlike video, you can't buffer a game -- you need that bandwidth continuously, with no hiccups, for it to function as a product.
Remember the Steambox?
I thought that was just an early demo of Steam's big screen experience with their controller and ultimately became a sort of minimum spec for building a steam based HTPC for gaming.