Google Stadia details to be revealed this Thursday
Will you be tuning in?
SOURCEWill you be tuning in?
SOURCE? Google's making a streaming service and you come to the conclusion they are abusing power?
Yeah because you can't steal games.
Last edited by Deleted member 445482,
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2016
- Messages
- 123
- Trophies
- 0
- Location
- Somewhere with Princess Unikitty
- XP
- 670
- Country
Google wants to kill everyone in the industry and be the only one. Oligarchy
Last edited by Glitchk0ud1001,
I know what the point is. I'm wondering if Google will account for cavemen who do not own a streaming-ready device by releasing a cheapo Android box with the Stadia software on-board, so that I can technically "buy a Stadia".
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2011
- Messages
- 31,284
- Trophies
- 2
- Age
- 38
- Location
- Dr. Wahwee's castle
- XP
- 18,969
- Country
Nor can you keep them, talk about lame AF.
Yeah I want to pay for games I can only stream with lots of lag, unreliable servers and games that will cycle out, sign me up!
Last edited by the_randomizer,
Have you ever heard of Parsec or Geforce Now? It's been working for a long while. Not really sure why Google is getting in on it but in case you haven't realized there's already near lagless cloud gaming.
I have signed up for GeForce Now Beta testing months ago. Still waiting.
I guess they don't want an illustration fuck face badmouthing their service.
Some of these comments in this post are unbelievable lol. I am fine with you guys saying your opinion why Google Stadia is bad. It's your opinion, not mine. But, there is no need to force your opinion on other people. Just because you think it is bad for your use case does not mean others won't benefit from it.
This reminds me of the beginning of mobile gaming on a touch screen, people say, controller ftw, touch screen sucks. Although I do agree that controller sucks, touchscreen still works fine for playing games. As a result, we still some gamer still playing on mobile phone and see companies releasing their game on mobile app stores.
I would say to Google, go for it. Yes, there will be some challenges that might come with the product such as latency, image quality, etc. But these problems might not affect everyone equally. Additionally, it is interesting to see how other companies or Google will solve these challenges. I would say "a problem pushes innovation".
Imagine if back in the old day people say that cars are useless because we have horse carriages and then cars development stopped. We wouldn't have today's technologies with that kind of mindset.
This reminds me of the beginning of mobile gaming on a touch screen, people say, controller ftw, touch screen sucks. Although I do agree that controller sucks, touchscreen still works fine for playing games. As a result, we still some gamer still playing on mobile phone and see companies releasing their game on mobile app stores.
I would say to Google, go for it. Yes, there will be some challenges that might come with the product such as latency, image quality, etc. But these problems might not affect everyone equally. Additionally, it is interesting to see how other companies or Google will solve these challenges. I would say "a problem pushes innovation".
Imagine if back in the old day people say that cars are useless because we have horse carriages and then cars development stopped. We wouldn't have today's technologies with that kind of mindset.
If there is one company that i deem capable of delivering a satisfying cloud gaming experience it's google.
They already have massive Server Infastructure all around the globe.
They have the technical know-how to reduce input lag to the bare minimum (see: Controller talks directly to the Gameserver instead of tunneling your inputs through a PC application).
They have the money to subsidy the service if needed.
On the other hand...
They have 0 gaming experience.
Google has the tendency to drop new cool tech products if they are not successfull enough.
I think in the end, depending on the price, that I will at least try out the service. The possibilities they showed in their first reveal, even though it was just a glorious tech demo, did hook me.
This will be a very interesting presentation which I will definitely watch.
Edit: Also, since I am getting older I am starting to appreciate simpler, more casual friendly games that can be played in short bursts.
These are the types of games were Stradia will excell I think. Also, with the possibility to play anywhere, anytime (as long as you have internet) they could be targeting a more casual playerbase.
Everybody here knows that you can't play a competitive FPS Game if your Inputs are delayed, let's be honest, the technology just is not there yet for all of us.
But big, epic Singleplayer Games, like Metal Gear Solid V which is quite demanding? Would run just fine with a bit of Input Lag.
If I have access to my Stradia Game Collection at Work I would finaly have something usefull to do with my 30 minutes of break time.
They already have massive Server Infastructure all around the globe.
They have the technical know-how to reduce input lag to the bare minimum (see: Controller talks directly to the Gameserver instead of tunneling your inputs through a PC application).
They have the money to subsidy the service if needed.
On the other hand...
They have 0 gaming experience.
Google has the tendency to drop new cool tech products if they are not successfull enough.
I think in the end, depending on the price, that I will at least try out the service. The possibilities they showed in their first reveal, even though it was just a glorious tech demo, did hook me.
This will be a very interesting presentation which I will definitely watch.
Edit: Also, since I am getting older I am starting to appreciate simpler, more casual friendly games that can be played in short bursts.
These are the types of games were Stradia will excell I think. Also, with the possibility to play anywhere, anytime (as long as you have internet) they could be targeting a more casual playerbase.
Everybody here knows that you can't play a competitive FPS Game if your Inputs are delayed, let's be honest, the technology just is not there yet for all of us.
But big, epic Singleplayer Games, like Metal Gear Solid V which is quite demanding? Would run just fine with a bit of Input Lag.
If I have access to my Stradia Game Collection at Work I would finaly have something usefull to do with my 30 minutes of break time.
Last edited by Kadji,
i didnt say ther wasnt-all im saying is you said you wont ever use a service unless you own the game-and i said if ther was a game tht was only done by streaming and you badly wanted to play it and wouldnt due to tht yr punishing yrself by thinking negatively
...why do I even bother reading this thread?
*sigh* against better judgment: my counter-arguments
"cloud gaming will never work"
Answer: Perhaps not on current technology, but there's 5G on the horizon. Netflix or youtube would never have worked on 56k technology either, but that changed
"games will cycle out"
Answer: probably true...but discs deteriorate as well, backups aren't always feasible, and thus far there was always a solution for popular games. I'm not denying that it can be a problem...but I don't see it as different as buying games on a virtual store.
"Google is a tech company that wants to abuse their power"
Answer: microsoft
"I have zero interest in this unless there's an actual physical machine to collect besides the controller."
Answer: this...is probably the best argument against it. I don't see people getting hyped on a new "click here to subscribe" window somewhere on the internet. What's the point of getting google stadia if you can't show it to your visitors?
But I guess we'll see in a couple of days...
*sigh* against better judgment: my counter-arguments
"cloud gaming will never work"
Answer: Perhaps not on current technology, but there's 5G on the horizon. Netflix or youtube would never have worked on 56k technology either, but that changed
"games will cycle out"
Answer: probably true...but discs deteriorate as well, backups aren't always feasible, and thus far there was always a solution for popular games. I'm not denying that it can be a problem...but I don't see it as different as buying games on a virtual store.
"Google is a tech company that wants to abuse their power"
Answer: microsoft
"I have zero interest in this unless there's an actual physical machine to collect besides the controller."
Answer: this...is probably the best argument against it. I don't see people getting hyped on a new "click here to subscribe" window somewhere on the internet. What's the point of getting google stadia if you can't show it to your visitors?
But I guess we'll see in a couple of days...
...why do I even bother reading this thread?
*sigh* against better judgment: my counter-arguments
"cloud gaming will never work"
Answer: Perhaps not on current technology, but there's 5G on the horizon. Netflix or youtube would never have worked on 56k technology either, but that changed
"games will cycle out"
Answer: probably true...but discs deteriorate as well, backups aren't always feasible, and thus far there was always a solution for popular games. I'm not denying that it can be a problem...but I don't see it as different as buying games on a virtual store.
"Google is a tech company that wants to abuse their power"
Answer: microsoft
"I have zero interest in this unless there's an actual physical machine to collect besides the controller."
Answer: this...is probably the best argument against it. I don't see people getting hyped on a new "click here to subscribe" window somewhere on the internet. What's the point of getting google stadia if you can't show it to your visitors?
But I guess we'll see in a couple of days...
I wouldn't get your hopes up about 5G or any new "technology." Sure, it will be "better," but the thing is, the numbers that people will quote to you are the ones that are usually the most theoretical shit that doesn't always translate into practical applications. For example, you're supposed to get 640MBps with USB3.0 ports using USB3.0 compatible devices, but unless if it was using an external backup drive (think those WD My Book ones), you'd be lucky to get that speed in my experience due to other variables determining how fast your computer can really go as opposed to how they sell it. And I can say from experience that it's never even come close to that theoretical number!
Already the amount of data this beast of an idea has been quoted as requiring is ridiculous (something like 20GB per hour), but let's add your wife watching her show on her TV while you play on your laptop, your kid(s) playing COD online together on whatever practical console parents are more likely to buy their kids if they even buy them a console at all and the kids don't just use the parents' tablet/phone. It's not just one individual using this thing in the house; other people are using data and bandwidth that will eat up data until you possibly reach your data cap. People aren't going to pay ISPs more money for overages just because they have to use Google's services. Not everyone is a nerd like us who don't have very many RL friends and family that we hang out with. Google might have all of their money and other capital to pull this off, but people said that about many financial institutions 10+ years ago that were considered "too big to fail" and then we had the biggest financial crisis worldwide after interest rates rose and people didn't have their nuts stored up before winter came, as the metaphor goes.
You are incorrect. Game streaming only works if you live close to the server. No matter how you try to rationalize it, game streaming is nothing more than a proof of concept. Game streaming might work for 5% of the world's gamers and that's it. Millions & millions of people in USA do not have access to high speed internet. They only have access to 35mbps or less, and even then those are just advertised speeds, in the real world it's more like 5-10mbps tops. ISPs throttle speeds, have data caps etc. Not to mention multiplayer can NEVER work. Latency is already noticeable if 1 person on the east coast plays online with someone from the west coast. Same goes for digital games, people with horrible internet can buy a digital game and spend a week waiting for it to download. For example, Red Dead Redemption 2 is 100gb, would take forever for some people to download. Fallout 76, broken on release, took some people a long time to download the 50gb patch. Internet is the downfall of games, game streaming is a joke, digital is a joke, releasing broken games that require gb upon gb of updates to fix is a joke. Before "high speed internet" finished polished games were released.
Unless people figure out photon teleportation (and make it cost efficient), latency will always be an issue. There is no way around it.
The only alternative "solution" would be a ton of datacenters, which still would not completely solve the problem. But it would at least make it reasonably good for some players.
The latency issue is also completely unsolvable for wireless connections, 5G or whatever, since wireless connections are impossible to stabilize, due to the very nature of it (way too susceptible to outside interference). 5G is also starting to worry me due to how it affects people's health, since it requires a lot more antennas (like 4 times more) than 4G, and those do have an impact on the human body.
Even on 802.11ac, standing a few inches from my WiFi router, I may (and do some times) get input lag with in-house streaming.
Latency is unimportant for some games, but for FPS, fighting games etc. 1 frame means victory or defeat.
In other words, you'd need a direct connection on at least a half-frame latency (8.3ms) window, with 0 jitter.
That kind of connection pretty much does not exist.
I even have anecdotal evidence for it being unfeasible - I have a 100Mbps Cable Internet connection at home and a a 10G fiber one at work (I'm the network admin there). I get, at best, 8-11ms roundtrip (ICMP 1-byte echo) latency. And I live 2 miles from work (not that it matters since what matters is the network distance, but it works as an estimative for the IXP over here). Unless Google sets up a datacenter here and put it right next to the IXP, playing "latency sensitive" games will not be a good experience. And it gets worse the farther you get from the datacenter, being even worse on wireless.
What Google can do is mitigate the delay by pre-processing, rollback, or set delays based on average/mode latency. Or even a good mix of all of those. At the very least, they have to pre-render the corresponding graphic output and pre-process the system state for all possible inputs, for some frames (at least 1), which is already very costly on the hardware side for recent games. This issue gets exponentially worse on local multiplayer games, and I imagine online multiplayer will be a complete nightmare to optimize.
Moreover, for more advanced PC gamers, due to the existence of mods, streaming is even less attractive. I doubt google would let you mod your game in their servers, unless they had some presets for it, would still be a limited form of modding.
TL;DR - As of now, streaming games is only good for some game genres, in some very specific locations, and not using Wireless. And only if you don't care about mods.
The only alternative "solution" would be a ton of datacenters, which still would not completely solve the problem. But it would at least make it reasonably good for some players.
The latency issue is also completely unsolvable for wireless connections, 5G or whatever, since wireless connections are impossible to stabilize, due to the very nature of it (way too susceptible to outside interference). 5G is also starting to worry me due to how it affects people's health, since it requires a lot more antennas (like 4 times more) than 4G, and those do have an impact on the human body.
Even on 802.11ac, standing a few inches from my WiFi router, I may (and do some times) get input lag with in-house streaming.
Latency is unimportant for some games, but for FPS, fighting games etc. 1 frame means victory or defeat.
In other words, you'd need a direct connection on at least a half-frame latency (8.3ms) window, with 0 jitter.
That kind of connection pretty much does not exist.
I even have anecdotal evidence for it being unfeasible - I have a 100Mbps Cable Internet connection at home and a a 10G fiber one at work (I'm the network admin there). I get, at best, 8-11ms roundtrip (ICMP 1-byte echo) latency. And I live 2 miles from work (not that it matters since what matters is the network distance, but it works as an estimative for the IXP over here). Unless Google sets up a datacenter here and put it right next to the IXP, playing "latency sensitive" games will not be a good experience. And it gets worse the farther you get from the datacenter, being even worse on wireless.
What Google can do is mitigate the delay by pre-processing, rollback, or set delays based on average/mode latency. Or even a good mix of all of those. At the very least, they have to pre-render the corresponding graphic output and pre-process the system state for all possible inputs, for some frames (at least 1), which is already very costly on the hardware side for recent games. This issue gets exponentially worse on local multiplayer games, and I imagine online multiplayer will be a complete nightmare to optimize.
Moreover, for more advanced PC gamers, due to the existence of mods, streaming is even less attractive. I doubt google would let you mod your game in their servers, unless they had some presets for it, would still be a limited form of modding.
TL;DR - As of now, streaming games is only good for some game genres, in some very specific locations, and not using Wireless. And only if you don't care about mods.
Last edited by AlexMCS,
[...]
Even on 802.11ac, standing a few inches from my WiFi router, I may (and do some times) get input lag with in-house streaming.
Latency is unimportant for some games, but for FPS, fighting games etc. 1 frame means victory or defeat.
In other words, you'd need a direct connection on at least a half-frame latency (8.3ms) window, with 0 jitter.
That kind of connection pretty much does not exist.
[...]
I want to add something which migt not be 100% clear:
If I remember correctly my latency to the Google Servers is around ~20ms, which means about 2 Frames of Input Lag to the gameserver.
That is the amount of time it takes for the Input, and only the input, to travel to the Gameserver.
On top of that you have the Videofeed that has to come from the Gameserver to your Client, whatever that might be. So you get at least 2 more frames of "Video lag" in the other direction.
The technology to get below ~5 frames of lag in total is just not here. And the problem is NOT the bandwith: A 4k Video on YT (3840x2160@24) only requires 13488 kbit/s downstream. Thats 1686 Kb/s or
~1,65 mb/s of stable download speed. The problem is the latency, which does not get better by having more bandwith. The only thing that can reduce latency is to provide the customer with better routing or a new technology thats even better than fibre. The chances for this are slim.
5 frames of lag, depending on the game, can be crucial or totaly fine. Who cares if I have 5 frames of lag if I am playing Sim City?
And one more thing: If Google is smart they can reduce the Lag between players to 0 *
For example: 2 Players want to play Street Fighter 5 online with Stadia. Instead of having 2 instances of the game that have to communicate with each other over the Internet (be it by P2P or Server based infastructure) they can communicate with each other directly since the games are already running on the same server. That way you would ONLY have the lag from the Inputs + the Videostream, the additional lag you normaly have in online games is eliminated.
Even if your oponent has a 'bad' connection Stadia could still handle the game as if its running a local multiplayer session, so you with the good internet connection don't expereince any interrupts, even if your oponent has a 300+ ping.
Not everything about Stream based Gaming is bad. It (mostly) depends on the implementation.
Funfact of the day: World of Warcraft in Germany had some major problems with some ISPs since their routing to the gameserver was so bad that players always had over 100ms of lag, even with the best possible Internet
Even on 802.11ac, standing a few inches from my WiFi router, I may (and do some times) get input lag with in-house streaming.
Latency is unimportant for some games, but for FPS, fighting games etc. 1 frame means victory or defeat.
In other words, you'd need a direct connection on at least a half-frame latency (8.3ms) window, with 0 jitter.
That kind of connection pretty much does not exist.
[...]
I want to add something which migt not be 100% clear:
If I remember correctly my latency to the Google Servers is around ~20ms, which means about 2 Frames of Input Lag to the gameserver.
That is the amount of time it takes for the Input, and only the input, to travel to the Gameserver.
On top of that you have the Videofeed that has to come from the Gameserver to your Client, whatever that might be. So you get at least 2 more frames of "Video lag" in the other direction.
The technology to get below ~5 frames of lag in total is just not here. And the problem is NOT the bandwith: A 4k Video on YT (3840x2160@24) only requires 13488 kbit/s downstream. Thats 1686 Kb/s or
~1,65 mb/s of stable download speed. The problem is the latency, which does not get better by having more bandwith. The only thing that can reduce latency is to provide the customer with better routing or a new technology thats even better than fibre. The chances for this are slim.
5 frames of lag, depending on the game, can be crucial or totaly fine. Who cares if I have 5 frames of lag if I am playing Sim City?
And one more thing: If Google is smart they can reduce the Lag between players to 0 *
For example: 2 Players want to play Street Fighter 5 online with Stadia. Instead of having 2 instances of the game that have to communicate with each other over the Internet (be it by P2P or Server based infastructure) they can communicate with each other directly since the games are already running on the same server. That way you would ONLY have the lag from the Inputs + the Videostream, the additional lag you normaly have in online games is eliminated.
Even if your oponent has a 'bad' connection Stadia could still handle the game as if its running a local multiplayer session, so you with the good internet connection don't expereince any interrupts, even if your oponent has a 300+ ping.
Not everything about Stream based Gaming is bad. It (mostly) depends on the implementation.
Funfact of the day: World of Warcraft in Germany had some major problems with some ISPs since their routing to the gameserver was so bad that players always had over 100ms of lag, even with the best possible Internet
Last edited by Kadji,
Similar threads
-
- Portal
-
- Portal
-
- Portal
-
- Portal
- No one is chatting at the moment.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
@
RedColoredStars:
There is an actual trailer with footage too. lol. Going to watch it tonight. Grabbed it from... a place. -
-
@
SylverReZ:
@Psionic Roshambo, JonTron's back yet again until he disappears into the void for another 6 or so months.+1 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
