Activision Blizzard Pulls Out of NVIDIA GeForce Now Game Streaming Service

Dayaks

[H]ardness Supreme
Joined
Feb 22, 2012
Messages
7,522
VR is another example of something that people rushed in to en masse and as of yet, it remains to be seen if it'll take off. So far it has been very niche. 3D movies/TV are an even better example: While you may think it is cool (and you aren't the only one) most people don't, they don't like the technology because you have to wear glasses, which is particularly a pain if you already do wear glasses. It also doesn't solve any of the other issues you need for real 3D (parallax and depth of field) and thus feels off to many people and even causes discomfort in some (like me). It's failure is not a surprise as this is, by my count, the 4th time they've tried for glasses based 3D and while each iteration has been an advance over the previous, it still has the same fundamental problems and thus has not been big on the market.

Like I said, a bunch of companies rushing after something doesn't mean it is going to stick. I'm not writing game streaming off at this point, but I'm not confident it'll take off either.
It only takes a small percentage of the population to make it worth it for a streaming service. I think the majority of gamers want low latency / not to be reliant on bandwidth though. But it’s probably great for the poor kid that can’t afford a new rig.

VR has a good foothold. The market is in billions a year. I remember reading the high end headsets selling ~300k units in a quarter which puts it in the hundreds of millions. Vastly more than I would have guessed. They just need something with decent screens/tetherless/wireless and it’d take off like crazy.
 

DukenukemX

[H]ardness Supreme
Joined
Jan 30, 2005
Messages
4,549
You really like to prove you know nothing about what you are talking about, don't you?
Ad hominem
You clearly don't give anything any thought and assume the entire world thinks like you.
If the world thinks like me then I wouldn't be posting and telling you you're wrong.
Every major company wouldn't be getting into game streaming if there was no future in it.
Like companies haven't made bad investments in the past. Look at Google's running joke of failed projects, which we can now add Stadia to the list. They want it because it makes them money. It doesn't mean consumers want it.
You're like the fools that said video streaming would never take off back in the early days.
Yea, as far back as 2008 and here we are where if you add up all the active users on all cloud gaming services, it would still be lower than the unit sales of the Nokia Ngage.
These are not "experiments".
Where's the 4k then? It's still experimental.
tumblr_n8e6viYxK91qgr036o3_250.gif
It's setting up for the future. Of fucking course there will always be input lag.
ElI6zMx.gif
You realize that most people play consoles on shitty TVs with massive input delay already, right?
Cloud gaming doesn't displace that input delay, as latency is cumulative. So the target audience is going to experience far worse latency because majority of people don't turn on gamemode on their TVs.
There is a time where the delay will reach a point where it is "good enough" for most people.
S8rVo3b.gif
Hell, even with some, minor, noticeable delay I can have fun playing Doom 2016 on my tablet over Geforce Now (using 4G at least).
And I'll have fun playing against people online who use cloud gaming. Just don't enable aim assist like the console peasants.
It pales in comparison to actually playing it on my PC, but it's cool that it actually works well enough to be totally playable.
I think we need a meme for cloud gaming. Like a cloud gaming peasant, but instead of low frame rates we'll make fun of input lag and color banding. We need to workshop something better than cloud gaming peasant, as it isn't original.
NpPGN4H.gif
ActiBlizz pulled out either because they're going to do their own service or because they're fucking assholes and don't like the idea of players having any freedom to play games on multiple platforms without buying them multiple times.
You do realize that's the reason why companies pursue cloud gaming right? Same reason why Disney made Disney plus, because everyone wants that monthly reoccurring fee. This does not benefit the consumer at all as you'll need multiple services to get all the games, assuming cloud gaming actually takes off.
 
Last edited:

Grimlaking

2[H]4U
Joined
May 9, 2006
Messages
3,113
You do realize that's the reason why companies pursue cloud gaming right? Same reason why Disney made Disney plus, because everyone wants that monthly reoccurring fee. This does not benefit the consumer at all as you'll need multiple services to get all the games, assuming cloud gaming actually takes off.
Imagine... yea if we could get a rule/law that states that gaming streaming services can not have exclusives. lol. Yea I know too funny we all know that won't happen.
 

DukenukemX

[H]ardness Supreme
Joined
Jan 30, 2005
Messages
4,549

Grimlaking

2[H]4U
Joined
May 9, 2006
Messages
3,113

Derangel

[H]ard as it Gets
Joined
Jan 31, 2008
Messages
18,455
Ad hominem

If the world thinks like me then I wouldn't be posting and telling you you're wrong.

Like companies haven't made bad investments in the past. Look at Google's running joke of failed projects, which we can now add Stadia to the list. They want it because it makes them money. It doesn't mean consumers want it.

Yea, as far back as 2008 and here we are where if you add up all the active users on all cloud gaming services, it would still be lower than the unit sales of the Nokia Ngage.

Where's the 4k then? It's still experimental.
View attachment 223406

View attachment 223407

Cloud gaming doesn't displace that input delay, as latency is cumulative. So the target audience is going to experience far worse latency because majority of people don't turn on gamemode on their TVs.

View attachment 223408

And I'll have fun playing against people online who use cloud gaming. Just don't enable aim assist like the console peasants.

I think we need a meme for cloud gaming. Like a cloud gaming peasant, but instead of low frame rates we'll make fun of input lag and color banding. We need to workshop something better than cloud gaming peasant, as it isn't original.
View attachment 223409

You do realize that's the reason why companies pursue cloud gaming right? Same reason why Disney made Disney plus, because everyone wants that monthly reoccurring fee. This does not benefit the consumer at all as you'll need multiple services to get all the games, assuming cloud gaming actually takes off.
"I don't like this thing that means no one should ever use it because I'm the sole person who decides what is and isn't good"
 

UnknownSouljer

[H]ardness Supreme
Joined
Sep 24, 2001
Messages
6,171
"I don't like this thing that means no one should ever use it because I'm the sole person who decides what is and isn't good"
I'm noticing a pattern with you. In any case, you're misappropriating what he even said. In any case, not that Duke needs any defending...
Give me any scenario in which increased input lag is beneficial. Or that stressing your connection and driving up ping times is beneficial. Your argument that was posted was the "it's good enough" argument. Or for accurateness: "it will be good enough for most people (eventually or whatever)" argument. And to turn what you also just said on its head: "It's good enough for you. And who are you to be arbiter over what is good enough for anyone else?"
It might very well be possible that cloud gaming is the future, but it has a lot to overcome to be a replacement for a local machine. And comparisons to Netflix or streaming services aren't comparable. As they don't suffer from, or need to, have an input from the user past selecting a film. In other words, in streaming a film "delay" doesn't matter. In gaming it absolutely does.
 
Last edited:

Derangel

[H]ard as it Gets
Joined
Jan 31, 2008
Messages
18,455
I'm noticing a pattern with you. In any case, you're misappropriating what he even said. In any case, not that Duke needs any defending...
Give me any scenario in which increased input lag is beneficial. Or that stressing your connection and driving up ping times is beneficial. Your argument that was posted was the "it's good enough" argument. Or for accurateness: "it will be good enough for most people (eventually or whatever)" argument. And to turn what you also just said on its head: "It's good enough for you. And who are you to be arbiter over what is good enough for anyone else?"
It might very well be possible that cloud gaming is the future, but it has a lot to overcome to be a replacement for a local machine. And comparisons to Netflix or streaming services aren't comparable. As they don't suffer from, or need to, have an input from the user past selecting a film. In other words, in streaming a film "delay" doesn't matter. In gaming it absolutely does.
My problem is that he's not even bothering to approach most responses as anything beyond "I don't like this" or just throwing in stupid memes, which aren't arguments.

My statement about it eventually getting to the point where it's "good enough" for most people is based on actually understanding the way a lot of people already game and how few people actually care about split millisecond delay. I'm not even considering my own opinion on game streaming and discussing entirely on the merits of the tech and what the future could hold. Outside of "this tech is cool, because I'm a technophile and like seeing stuff working" I really don't have that much of an opinion on game streaming itself, but I don't let that blind me to where things are heading and the potential it could have.

The comparison to video streaming is apt in that people would say things like "this will never take off, the quality will never be good enough, people will never want to switch from better physical media" and so on. As soon as streaming video reached a point where it was "good enough" for the general audience it exploded. Game streaming is a different set of hurdles (and likely a MUCH longer time span) but when it does reach that "good enough" point then I think we'll see consumers adopting it pretty quickly.
 

Flogger23m

[H]ardForum Junkie
Joined
Jun 19, 2009
Messages
10,337
I always knew it was going to end like this. Everyone wants a piece of the pie.
And that is why I am not even trying the $1 a month subcriptions. The free trials I'll try, but even the Ubisoft one was such a pain in the ass to get working. Sounds like the MS thing is also a pain so I haven't bothered. Too much effort just to play the games. Streaming is obviously a way to fight off piracy and charge even more in the long run so I hope people will resist it. But we all know they won't.
 

Derangel

[H]ard as it Gets
Joined
Jan 31, 2008
Messages
18,455
And that is why I am not even trying the $1 a month subcriptions. The free trials I'll try, but even the Ubisoft one was such a pain in the ass to get working. Sounds like the MS thing is also a pain so I haven't bothered. Too much effort just to play the games. Streaming is obviously a way to fight off piracy and charge even more in the long run so I hope people will resist it. But we all know they won't.
Game Pass itself is pretty easy to subscribe to and cancel. However, the PC app still needs work. If you're talking about MS' game streaming service, it's still in closed beta so it's mostly luck of the draw if you get in.
 

DukenukemX

[H]ardness Supreme
Joined
Jan 30, 2005
Messages
4,549
My problem is that he's not even bothering to approach most responses as anything beyond "I don't like this" or just throwing in stupid memes, which aren't arguments.
I threw in stupid memes because you went Ad hominem. At that point taking you serious is hard to do and I'll use you for a good laugh.
My statement about it eventually getting to the point where it's "good enough" for most people is based on actually understanding the way a lot of people already game and how few people actually care about split millisecond delay.
You aren't proving UnknownSouljer wrong. You don't know what consumers want just as much as Microsoft, Sony, and etc. I know I wouldn't like it but that doesn't mean anything.
I'm not even considering my own opinion on game streaming and discussing entirely on the merits of the tech and what the future could hold. Outside of "this tech is cool, because I'm a technophile and like seeing stuff working" I really don't have that much of an opinion on game streaming itself, but I don't let that blind me to where things are heading and the potential it could have.
Nothing benefiting consumers, I can assure you. I just found out that the Geforce Now services “extended play session” is 6 hours. There is a potential queue but the service isn't saturated just yet to have that problem. Input lag and color banding aren't the only issues cloud gaming has, as there's cost. Nvidia wouldn't implement these limits into their service if they weren't worried about cost. Also speaking of cost, does anyone know why Blizzard pulled out of Nvidia's Geforce Now? They simply didn't have permission to do so. It's a matter of making a commercial agreement, which means money obviously.

The comparison to video streaming is apt in that people would say things like "this will never take off, the quality will never be good enough, people will never want to switch from better physical media" and so on. As soon as streaming video reached a point where it was "good enough" for the general audience it exploded. Game streaming is a different set of hurdles (and likely a MUCH longer time span) but when it does reach that "good enough" point then I think we'll see consumers adopting it pretty quickly.
The reason Streaming videos took off is because Blu-Rays were awful. James Rolfe explained this recently to why he hates Blu-Ray. They were expensive, didn't offer much in quality over DVD, have even more commercials before you start the movie, and require updates from the internet just to play. You don't have these problems with video games, especially when we moved towards downloading games. Video streaming has buffers and doesn't have to deal with input lag, which is why it just works. Cloud gaming requires that the audience temper their expectations of the services performance, with stipulations.
 
Last edited:

Derangel

[H]ard as it Gets
Joined
Jan 31, 2008
Messages
18,455
I threw in stupid memes because you went Ad hominem. At that point taking you serious is hard to do and I'll use you for a good laugh.

You aren't proving Derangel wrong. You don't know what consumers want just as much as Microsoft, Sony, and etc. I know I wouldn't like it but that doesn't mean anything.

Nothing benefiting consumers, I can assure you. I just found out that the Geforce Now services “extended play session” is 6 hours. There is a potential queue but the service isn't saturated just yet to have that problem. Input lag and color banding aren't the only issues cloud gaming has, as there's cost. Nvidia wouldn't implement these limits into their service if they weren't worried about cost. Also speaking of cost, does anyone know why Blizzard pulled out of Geforce Now? They simply didn't have permission to do so. It's a matter of making a commercial agreement, which means money obviously.


The reason Steaming videos took off is because Blu-Rays were awful. James Rolfe explained this recently to why he hates Blu-Ray. They were expensive, didn't offer much in quality over DVD, have even more commercials before you start the movie, and require updates from the internet just to play. You don't have these problems with video games, especially when we moved towards downloading games. Video streaming has buffers and doesn't have to deal with input lag, which is why it just works. Cloud gaming requires that the audience temper their expectations of the services performance, with stipulations.
Fair enough. I'll admit, I did think about throwing a Princess Bride meme at your "experimental" statement.

I do think that game streaming can give consumers some benefit, as long as it remains as a side option and not the primary way to play games. I don't travel a ton, but if I do I'm not going to lug my desktop, peripherals, and both monitors with me and the 1050m in my laptop is simply too weak for a lot of the games I'd want to play. I have a Switch, but that really doesn't help when I want to play PC games. In that situation, game streaming can be great (obviously, as long as there is a good 4G signal or good wifi). Even without traveling, I can easily play PC games in my bedroom without needing a put a PC in here and without leaving my gaming system on for in-home streaming. It can give consumers more freedom in where and how they play games. If it becomes the only/primary way to play games then the opposite is true and it becomes and major limiting factor.

The six hour time limit doesn't sound all that bad to me, but who knows how it'll go as time goes on. I assume Nvidia has time limits like that to manage server load. As for ActiBlizz, I would really really love if someone with a lot of money were to make a legal challenge against those kind of exclusivity agreements.

Early blu-ray was garbage (thankfully, a lot of issues seem to have been worked out over the years). Though, streaming took off when it was still sub-DVD quality. The mess that was early BD didn't help, but I think it was more of a convenience thing that really pushed it, especially once Netflix was available on phones and tablets.
 

DukenukemX

[H]ardness Supreme
Joined
Jan 30, 2005
Messages
4,549
I do think that game streaming can give consumers some benefit, as long as it remains as a side option and not the primary way to play games.
This is what I suggest Stadia to do, because depending on Cloud Gaming to expand your store isn't going to happen. What Google should do is make a store on Linux to download these games, since they're already made to work on Linux anyway. Nvidia should also do this, for many reasons. Besides expanding their store so you can download games like Steam, Nvidia should make games that take advantage of their hardware because consoles are always going to be limiting PC games. Don't depend on others to put their games on your platform. At that point cloud gaming should be a bonus to the service, and if consumers like it then it'll expand.
I don't travel a ton, but if I do I'm not going to lug my desktop, peripherals, and both monitors with me and the 1050m in my laptop is simply too weak for a lot of the games I'd want to play.
The 1050m is too weak? It doesn't do 1080p at 60fps?
The six hour time limit doesn't sound all that bad to me, but who knows how it'll go as time goes on. I assume Nvidia has time limits like that to manage server load. As for ActiBlizz, I would really really love if someone with a lot of money were to make a legal challenge against those kind of exclusivity agreements.
6 hours is a long time, but when I played World of Warcraft those 6 hours went by very quickly. Try raiding with a 6 hour limit and you might find yourself booted while your guild is downing the last boss. Especially if you play Classic as many raids took more than 6 hours. If I was a raid leader and experienced that from someone using Geforce Now, I would bench you. I wouldn't be surprised if that's one of the reasons why Blizzard/Activision didn't renew their agreement.
Early blu-ray was garbage (thankfully, a lot of issues seem to have been worked out over the years). Though, streaming took off when it was still sub-DVD quality. The mess that was early BD didn't help, but I think it was more of a convenience thing that really pushed it, especially once Netflix was available on phones and tablets.
Yes the convenience is a huge factor, because unskippable commercials for a movie you paid for is bullshit. Plus costing $50+ for a movie and $1k for the player was also bullshit. Needing to update the encryption key to play a movie is also bullshit. Blu-Ray is the reason why video streaming took off because it was so full of bullshit. Video streaming definitely has its flaws which is why I use Jellyfin.
 

Derangel

[H]ard as it Gets
Joined
Jan 31, 2008
Messages
18,455
This is what I suggest Stadia to do, because depending on Cloud Gaming to expand your store isn't going to happen. What Google should do is make a store on Linux to download these games, since they're already made to work on Linux anyway. Nvidia should also do this, for many reasons. Besides expanding their store so you can download games like Steam, Nvidia should make games that take advantage of their hardware because consoles are always going to be limiting PC games. Don't depend on others to put their games on your platform. At that point cloud gaming should be a bonus to the service, and if consumers like it then it'll expand.
That would be a great idea. Really though, what Google should have done is go the "Neftlix for games" route. Have people play a flat fee and get access to all games on the service. Of course that would have required them doing any actual research on the gaming market and what people would actually want.

The 1050m is too weak? It doesn't do 1080p at 60fps?
For some games, yeah. If I lower settings quite a bit it can manage it, but it's not ideal. This is especially true if I want play newer AAA titles.

6 hours is a long time, but when I played World of Warcraft those 6 hours went by very quickly. Try raiding with a 6 hour limit and you might find yourself booted while your guild is downing the last boss. Especially if you play Classic as many raids took more than 6 hours. If I was a raid leader and experienced that from someone using Geforce Now, I would bench you. I wouldn't be surprised if that's one of the reasons why Blizzard/Activision didn't renew their agreement.
For MMOs it is definitely not an ideal. I'm not sure if game streaming is a great option for MMOs period, at least end-game stuff. ActiBlizz just wants money. They don't really care about the end-user or their experience as long as they get paid.

Yes the convenience is a huge factor, because unskippable commercials for a movie you paid for is bullshit. Plus costing $50+ for a movie and $1k for the player was also bullshit. Needing to update the encryption key to play a movie is also bullshit. Blu-Ray is the reason why video streaming took off because it was so full of bullshit. Video streaming definitely has its flaws which is why I use Jellyfin.
One of these days I really need to get around to building a little storage server to rip all of my BDs to. Even with some of the BS still present in blu-rays (especially UHD BD) I still prefer it over streaming simply because the quality is better and not dependent on CenturyLink's shit DSL being stable.
 
Joined
May 4, 2018
Messages
37
Cloud ain't worth it, that is, until something like quantum internet comes out. And then there is the matter of cloud continuing the trend of removing your rights as a software owner. Oh and lets not forget the continuous trend of privacy invasion. Why do you think google is investing in this? THEY WANT TO CONTROL YOU!
 

DukenukemX

[H]ardness Supreme
Joined
Jan 30, 2005
Messages
4,549
That would be a great idea. Really though, what Google should have done is go the "Neftlix for games" route. Have people play a flat fee and get access to all games on the service. Of course that would have required them doing any actual research on the gaming market and what people would actually want.
That's what people expect when they hear it's the Netflix of gaming. The problem is that people expect the latest releases to be available as well for the same $5 or $10 monthly fee. Plus most people will cancel the service once they played the games they like, much like Netflix. PS Now and xCloud does this, but with games that are either old or weren't that profitable to begin with. This works for Sony and Microsoft as they have an established library of games but Stadia and Geforce Now do not. Stadia and Geforce Now kinda bum off PC gaming at the moment and depend on it for a library of games.

For MMOs it is definitely not an ideal. I'm not sure if game streaming is a great option for MMOs period, at least end-game stuff. ActiBlizz just wants money. They don't really care about the end-user or their experience as long as they get paid.
It's a bit of both. Blizzard/Activision definitely want to get paid, but they definitely don't want to deal with problems caused by the Geforce Now service. If there's a problem in a game, who do you think gamers are going to contact? Its going to be Activision/Blizzard, and they don't have a way to deal with disconnection from servers and lag through Geforce Now. Rather than telling you to turn off the PC and back on again, they'll have to contact Nvidia to fix the problems. If the lag gets bad enough then there's nothing Activision/Blizzard can do about it, since that lag could be coming from the Geforce Now service as well. Trust me Activision/Blizzard does care, but only because it comes down to money again and they don't want to lose customers because Nvidia's Geforce Now wasn't working well for some customers.
 

Stoly

[H]ardness Supreme
Joined
Jul 26, 2005
Messages
6,462
That's what people expect when they hear it's the Netflix of gaming. The problem is that people expect the latest releases to be available as well for the same $5 or $10 monthly fee. Plus most people will cancel the service once they played the games they like, much like Netflix. PS Now and xCloud does this, but with games that are either old or weren't that profitable to begin with. This works for Sony and Microsoft as they have an established library of games but Stadia and Geforce Now do not. Stadia and Geforce Now kinda bum off PC gaming at the moment and depend on it for a library of games.


It's a bit of both. Blizzard/Activision definitely want to get paid, but they definitely don't want to deal with problems caused by the Geforce Now service. If there's a problem in a game, who do you think gamers are going to contact? Its going to be Activision/Blizzard, and they don't have a way to deal with disconnection from servers and lag through Geforce Now. Rather than telling you to turn off the PC and back on again, they'll have to contact Nvidia to fix the problems. If the lag gets bad enough then there's nothing Activision/Blizzard can do about it, since that lag could be coming from the Geforce Now service as well. Trust me Activision/Blizzard does care, but only because it comes down to money again and they don't want to lose customers because Nvidia's Geforce Now wasn't working well for some customers.
Well Blizzard/activision had been on GeforceNow for quite a while. I'm not aware of people complaining about the game on the service. Granted people were playing on the Shield TV so probably they were aware of the potential issues, but still.
 

DukenukemX

[H]ardness Supreme
Joined
Jan 30, 2005
Messages
4,549
Well Blizzard/activision had been on GeforceNow for quite a while. I'm not aware of people complaining about the game on the service. Granted people were playing on the Shield TV so probably they were aware of the potential issues, but still.
How would you know? Only Nvidia and Activision/Blizzard would be aware of any issues and complaints. Most of Activision/Blizzard games are based on reoccurring revenue, and as such they want to keep their customers happy and playing. Unlike Borderlands 3 or Control where if there's an issue it doesn't change your profit outcome because these games don't have micro-transactions, loot boxes, or even a monthly fee like WoW does. Saying that Geforce Now is no longer in beta means the service is up for all consumers and they didn't sign any agreement that makes them understand that game experience can change for the worse. Like I said, Activision/Blizzard can't do anything if there's a problem and neither can Nvidia, because issues can be caused by the customers ISP or even their home network. This can change the game experience for the worse, and that can drive some customers away, which Activision/Blizzard doesn't want. Maybe customers complained of disconnects? Maybe customers complained about lag? Maye customers complained that they can't setup addons? Or maybe Activision/Blizzard just wants a nominal fee from Nvidia to use their games on their service. Whatever the case is Activision/Blizzard didn't renew their contract with Nvidia for a reason.
 

Stoly

[H]ardness Supreme
Joined
Jul 26, 2005
Messages
6,462
How would you know? Only Nvidia and Activision/Blizzard would be aware of any issues and complaints. Most of Activision/Blizzard games are based on reoccurring revenue, and as such they want to keep their customers happy and playing. Unlike Borderlands 3 or Control where if there's an issue it doesn't change your profit outcome because these games don't have micro-transactions, loot boxes, or even a monthly fee like WoW does. Saying that Geforce Now is no longer in beta means the service is up for all consumers and they didn't sign any agreement that makes them understand that game experience can change for the worse. Like I said, Activision/Blizzard can't do anything if there's a problem and neither can Nvidia, because issues can be caused by the customers ISP or even their home network. This can change the game experience for the worse, and that can drive some customers away, which Activision/Blizzard doesn't want. Maybe customers complained of disconnects? Maybe customers complained about lag? Maye customers complained that they can't setup addons? Or maybe Activision/Blizzard just wants a nominal fee from Nvidia to use their games on their service. Whatever the case is Activision/Blizzard didn't renew their contract with Nvidia for a reason.
Well to start there would be rededits and forum complaints and if the issue was serious everyone would know.

BTW I think you picked the worst example. If you are playing WoW for instance and are having network issues, you are certainly going to blame your ISP first.

I wouldn't make GeforceNow my main gaming platform, but I can see myself using it for casual gaming (as I do on my ShieldTV). Certainly it has come a long way since it started as GRID. Network speeds have become much faster. I couldn't dream on having even a 30mb connection back then.

Also I don't think its worth paying $5 bucks a month, but hey you can't beat FREE. Right now I really don't have trouble waiting for get a slot, that may change in the future if it becomes more popular.

I don't think streaming will replace local gaming, it will complement it. Its great having the chance to play your games on different devices, specially when you don't need high end hardware.

BTW you get 25 free games if you use the shield tv console. Used to be like 50 or so though, I owned most of the now missing ones, so no real issue there.
 

Grimlaking

2[H]4U
Joined
May 9, 2006
Messages
3,113
Gamers are fineky and resistant to giving up. They want to game the system.

Make a hot game that a lot of people want to play exclusive to a streaming service at launch for a window of time. People will flock to the system and as long as the system is bad ass then they will stay.

I don't want this to happen... I Want my. Desktop to have every hit... But that's the nature of the beast.
 

DukenukemX

[H]ardness Supreme
Joined
Jan 30, 2005
Messages
4,549
Well to start there would be rededits and forum complaints and if the issue was serious everyone would know.
Not everyone uses reddit and not everyone uses forums. Blizzard has in game tickets to discuss any issues. Also, how many people are actively using Geforce Now? The smaller the user base then the lower the chances are you'll hear of a reoccurring issue. Or maybe the input lag was the reoccurring issue and there's nothing that can be done about it?
BTW I think you picked the worst example. If you are playing WoW for instance and are having network issues, you are certainly going to blame your ISP first.
And? What if the customer switches back to running the game local and it fixes the lag?
I wouldn't make GeforceNow my main gaming platform, but I can see myself using it for casual gaming (as I do on my ShieldTV). Certainly it has come a long way since it started as GRID. Network speeds have become much faster. I couldn't dream on having even a 30mb connection back then.
Most of the games Blizzard has is casual but also require a keyboard+mouse, so a ShieldTV wouldn't be ideal. You could do it, and it would work but it wouldn't be ideal.

Also I don't think its worth paying $5 bucks a month, but hey you can't beat FREE. Right now I really don't have trouble waiting for get a slot, that may change in the future if it becomes more popular.
For 1 hour? That would drive people nuts, as I'm sure it was intended.

Make a hot game that a lot of people want to play exclusive to a streaming service at launch for a window of time. People will flock to the system and as long as the system is bad ass then they will stay.

I don't want this to happen... I Want my. Desktop to have every hit... But that's the nature of the beast.
That's what Stadia is doing right now, but honestly it wouldn't be enough. You would need Half Life 3 to come out exclusively for streaming or make Fifa and Madden games exclusive to streaming. You'd certainly piss off a bunch of people, but they'll jump on it if they want that crack pipe.
 

Sycraft

[H]ardness Supreme
Joined
Nov 9, 2006
Messages
4,541
Make a hot game that a lot of people want to play exclusive to a streaming service at launch for a window of time. People will flock to the system and as long as the system is bad ass then they will stay.
Well both parts are a problem for streaming services. The first is a problem because you have to have a studio that will make such a game that is willing to go exclusive with you. So far, there aren't any of those. It would be a risk for the studio so unless they are owned by the company doing the streaming, probably not going to happen. The second part "as long as the system is bad ass" is another problem. Streaming is manifestly NOT badass and will probably never be. It is, at its best, "ok". You can get visuals that are nice, but not as good as local gaming on account of the compression artifacts, and you can see lag low enough that it isn't THAT noticeable and it can be stable enough that there isn't any glitches over local. But that's all.

Unless companies are willing to throw some major resources on the back end, and developers spend the time working to use them properly (remember we'd be talking large parallel rendering environments, which are harder to code for than a single card) then they aren't going to be able to make the basic rendering any better than what you see at home. Then whatever you have, it will be degraded by compression. While video compression technology is good these days, it still produces noticeable visual degradation, particularly with computer graphics unless you crank the bitrate. Well you can't crank it up because you need to be able to stream on a reasonable connection. You can't say "Ya we are going to do 4K ACV-Intra 4:2:2 compression, you have 800mbits to spare just for a game stream, right?" So there will be visual quality loss there, which manifests as colour smearing, fine detail getting degraded, etc. Many of the same things that rendering at lower detail/resolution get you, in fact.

Likewise latency has no solution. You can reduce it if you spread the datacenters around, though there's limits to how much, but the speed of light is a bitch and there's just only so low you can cut it. Plus most consumers are on cable or DSL which has its own overhead, over what you'd get on fibre. So while you can cut it to something reasonable, you'll never get rid of it, you'll never provide the responsiveness a local machine will.

Finally no matter what you do, you are at the mercy of their ISP, and the transit in between. There WILL be outages, there WILL be times where the connection has issues and when those happen, the experience won't be great, or even playable.

So offering a "badass" experience is more or less impossible. It is always going to be second best. An acceptable alternative perhaps, but not something that wows people. Then added to that is you have to compete with the fact that devices aren't all that much these days. You can get an X Box 1 X right now for $350, a PS4 Pro for $320. The regular versions are even cheaper, more like $250. That's not a lot of money and it's a one-time cost, that works fine with shit Internet. On the other hand with streaming while you can offer something cheaper, maybe even a free "use the device you have" model, you need better Internet. For a 4K stream, Stadia wants 35mbps which means you realistically need at least 50mbps, and more like 100mbps, Internet to be able to stream that much stable. That's not a particularly high speed... but it isn't one of the cheap packages either, nor is it something you can get everywhere. So it isn't a great option for those who are looking to save money.
 

Grimlaking

2[H]4U
Joined
May 9, 2006
Messages
3,113
Well both parts are a problem for streaming services. The first is a problem because you have to have a studio that will make such a game that is willing to go exclusive with you. So far, there aren't any of those. It would be a risk for the studio so unless they are owned by the company doing the streaming, probably not going to happen. The second part "as long as the system is bad ass" is another problem. Streaming is manifestly NOT badass and will probably never be. It is, at its best, "ok". You can get visuals that are nice, but not as good as local gaming on account of the compression artifacts, and you can see lag low enough that it isn't THAT noticeable and it can be stable enough that there isn't any glitches over local. But that's all.

Unless companies are willing to throw some major resources on the back end, and developers spend the time working to use them properly (remember we'd be talking large parallel rendering environments, which are harder to code for than a single card) then they aren't going to be able to make the basic rendering any better than what you see at home. Then whatever you have, it will be degraded by compression. While video compression technology is good these days, it still produces noticeable visual degradation, particularly with computer graphics unless you crank the bitrate. Well you can't crank it up because you need to be able to stream on a reasonable connection. You can't say "Ya we are going to do 4K ACV-Intra 4:2:2 compression, you have 800mbits to spare just for a game stream, right?" So there will be visual quality loss there, which manifests as colour smearing, fine detail getting degraded, etc. Many of the same things that rendering at lower detail/resolution get you, in fact.

Likewise latency has no solution. You can reduce it if you spread the datacenters around, though there's limits to how much, but the speed of light is a bitch and there's just only so low you can cut it. Plus most consumers are on cable or DSL which has its own overhead, over what you'd get on fibre. So while you can cut it to something reasonable, you'll never get rid of it, you'll never provide the responsiveness a local machine will.

Finally no matter what you do, you are at the mercy of their ISP, and the transit in between. There WILL be outages, there WILL be times where the connection has issues and when those happen, the experience won't be great, or even playable.

So offering a "badass" experience is more or less impossible. It is always going to be second best. An acceptable alternative perhaps, but not something that wows people. Then added to that is you have to compete with the fact that devices aren't all that much these days. You can get an X Box 1 X right now for $350, a PS4 Pro for $320. The regular versions are even cheaper, more like $250. That's not a lot of money and it's a one-time cost, that works fine with shit Internet. On the other hand with streaming while you can offer something cheaper, maybe even a free "use the device you have" model, you need better Internet. For a 4K stream, Stadia wants 35mbps which means you realistically need at least 50mbps, and more like 100mbps, Internet to be able to stream that much stable. That's not a particularly high speed... but it isn't one of the cheap packages either, nor is it something you can get everywhere. So it isn't a great option for those who are looking to save money.
Remember when streaming in HD was a pipe dream and you'd need a 5mb connection at a minimum for 1 stream? Remember when that was seen as not doable for a long time.

As far as the latency issue, once a gaming service gets large enough to have dispersed data centers when you log on geofencing will assign you a 'system' as close to you as available. that will in and of itself serve to reduce latency.

And a Badass experience... you and I have a different definition. For instance my son is happy with the gaming experience of a 4+ year old gaming laptop and that feels badass to him. He doesn't care about a few dropped frames here and there as long as he can play the game. The vast majority of people don't even know what a high end gaming experience is because believe it or not those of us that spend thousands of dollars to constantly upgrade our computers are the exception not the norm.

So yea those of us that are PC gamers that constantly tinker and work with our systems won't be satisfied with streaming gaming. Heck I was against streaming video for a long time and I have finally given up.

And yes ISP outages are a problem. But if your worried about latency when your gaming... then that ISP outage is just as impactful for your multiplayer game as it is for someone using a streaming service. Sure you can play something local while you wait. They can't. And that is the only difference.

those that are looking to save money are NOT looking for a 4k stream. You don't save money like that on your internet connection and have a 4k gaming setup. You can't be cheap about your network connection but expect to have that same person have top end display and other hardware. That doesn't add up.

And yea I know a 4k tv can be had for super cheap today. But the vast majority of people are at 1080p hell plenty are still at 720p or 1080i.

To be clear I do NOT want streaming gaming services to supplant PC gaming. I'm just saying for a lot of people the experience will be of a quality as to be considered bad ass.
 

DukenukemX

[H]ardness Supreme
Joined
Jan 30, 2005
Messages
4,549
Remember when streaming in HD was a pipe dream and you'd need a 5mb connection at a minimum for 1 stream? Remember when that was seen as not doable for a long time.
Remember when pirates where streaming before anyone even questioned if it was possible? Pepperidge farm remembers.

And a Badass experience... you and I have a different definition. For instance my son is happy with the gaming experience of a 4+ year old gaming laptop and that feels badass to him. He doesn't care about a few dropped frames here and there as long as he can play the game. The vast majority of people don't even know what a high end gaming experience is because believe it or not those of us that spend thousands of dollars to constantly upgrade our computers are the exception not the norm.
I'd argue that's not the same as constant input lag.

And yes ISP outages are a problem. But if your worried about latency when your gaming... then that ISP outage is just as impactful for your multiplayer game as it is for someone using a streaming service. Sure you can play something local while you wait. They can't. And that is the only difference.
What about single player games?
those that are looking to save money are NOT looking for a 4k stream. You don't save money like that on your internet connection and have a 4k gaming setup. You can't be cheap about your network connection but expect to have that same person have top end display and other hardware. That doesn't add up.
A phrase I like to use is, "being cheap can be very expensive". Don't ignore data caps because ISP's aren't going to extend the cap because you think cloud gaming is the future. If anything they'll throttle your game stream to avoid congestion so they don't need to upgrade their infrastructure. Also while you game on the cloud, you can forget about Netflix or other video streaming services. Cloud gaming is like the equivalent to AOL and your 56K modem is tieing up the one phone line.
 
Top