Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'HardForum Tech News' started by cageymaru, Jun 6, 2019.
the lag is effin terrible, the thought of it makes me cry.
We got stop Google before the normies buy into this crap.
Need to stop all the companies. MS and Sony wanna get into game streaming also.
I can speak of GeforceNow, but unless Stadia has some magic beans or secret sauce, it should apply as well.
Under IDEAL conditions, lag is minimal. But I wouldn't do any multiplayer fps, much less competitive gaming on it.
In slower paced games like say the arkham series, AC series, Skyrim and the like, lag is a non issue.
Surprisingly, racing games like GRID2 run quite well but I feel like timing is somewhat "off", I'm getting used to it.
Absolutely NO fighting games. Good luck performing a combo or special moves.
Lego Games pretty much flawless.
No Fortnite, PUGB and the like, really, don't waste your time.
Now I said IDEAL conditions, which in my case means a 30mb internet connection, Ethernet, and no one else using the internet. No youtube, no netflix, nada. And even then there can be some hiccups every now and then.
It seems like an eventual console replacement, I don't think it will have much effect on the PC market.
Games going to still look like shit I bet. Going to be full of compassion artifacts just like ever other "4k" low bit rate streaming service.
4K60 uses quite a bit of data (roughly 15GB per hour) so the quality should be several steps above most video streaming services. At just 1080p Assassin's Creed: Odyssey didn't look too bad. Noticeably worse than what is achievable on a good gaming PC and it looked a little too "smooth" but it was probably above console quality. Surprisingly, even the foliage in the game looked decent and didn't suffer from the usual compression artifacts you see with video services like Youtube.
He's talking multiplayer, on 4G cellphone
In my area I pull around 100 mbps on data which is well above min req... and is faster than what comcast gives me at home. If latency is similar to the AC:O trial i think its an acceptable mobile experience. Of course, at home regular PC installed games for sure.
We will see when the service is up and running and actually is being hammered by customers instead of closed systems.
Actually hope this works long enough for devs to become familiar enough developing for a linux platform, because even if Stadia ultimately fails, that experience should mean linux users will benefit in the long run. MS should be worried.
So, is there a reason why 'Netflix of video games' would not work financially?
Movies and shows are expensive, and so are games. If anything there is a lager range of cost in games in you take indie/experimental/mobile into account.
Yes, I know it would be a constant large investment.. its not like Google is broke.
Google can buy several studios outright, and buy rights to more games.
I thought they would be going all-in themselves.
In any case, depending on how much hardware farms they have built, I am sure they will be offering hosting services for game companies.. so any startup can just rent Googles capacity.
Oh well, I will wait for netflix of games, I envision eventually subscribing to 1 or 2 services, and that's it, not more consoles in the traditional sense, no more games purchased.
Physical media is technically dead.
I am sticking with my Switch, under the assumption that the cartridges will work as long as the console works, as is the Wii I have.
I will stick with Nintendo if they keep making consoles interesting and with media that SHOULD work after the console is 'obsolete'.
I don't want them to, but I think they are moving on to streaming themselves (well they already ARE to an extent in Japan).. but they could compliment their services with their own hardware of sorts.
What I am not getting into, is paying 60$ for 1 streaming title.
No, NO fuck you.
If I am going to own ABSOLUTELY nothing, then I am paying for access to whatever library you offer. Whether is a good or bad library that I want to stay hooked up with, thats a separate issue.
Obviously bigger/better libraries would work.
BTW, I think its clear MS is out of consoles, I wonder if they are even going with a refresh of the Xbox.. but it they do that will be the last on for sure.
no microsoft is not out of consoles but they're also not going to put all their egg's in one basket, they've realized that they need to diversify. not taking advantage of PC gaming was potential profit they were losing considering the first 2-3 years of each console was sold at a loss.. why not put your console games on PC as well were you don't have to sell the hardware, lol.
so the downside to trying to do a "netflix for games" is the same issue netflix suffers from and that's ultimately google having to pay the developers just to host the game.. we've already seen the effects of that with netflix and them constantly having to raise prices or studio's putting assinine requirements in the contracts where you have to wait 90 days before a movie can be streamed, or you can only have X number of our movies streamed at any one time so they would have to drop movies to be able to stream the latest ones, etc, etc. publishers are no different from from movie studio's and if there's a way to milk an extra dollar they'll do it.. i mean ffs netflix paid 100 million dollars just to put friends on netflix.. dafuq?!? how much do you think EA would charge to put BFV or activision to put COD on a game streaming service? the idea and concept is good, the problem is dealing with everyone else.
so with this idea, you're basically buying the game but not spending 800+ dollars on a system to play that game.. will it work? probably not as long as consoles continue to stay at their current price ranges there's just no reason to use stadia.. if consoles all of a sudden becomes significantly more expensive then sure maybe it could work. either way i'm not buying into it because i'd rather have the hardware then to rely on a virtual service providing it and googles long track record of randomly dropping projects with the potential of making all my purchases completely useless.
i also think people are exaggerating the latency issue.. but i'm better off just bashing my head into a brick wall then to argue it so i won't bother.
Don't both Sony and Microsoft already have Game Subscription services?
Maybe Google couldn't find it's place in Game Subscriptions, but it looks like a growing market for it, and IMO it is much more desirable than just streaming a few games you must purchase individually, for the same reasons people are interested in Netflix.
I imagine that Google is probably running Windows games in a VM with Linux as the host OS. For all I know they maybe using a Google'lized version of Wine with DXVK.
I give it three years.
Data caps will kill any chance of this becoming mainstream. Rising costs of the service will be its demise.
Kids will play Fortnite on some old laptop and deal with the lag. I know it will also run on an old iPad but maybe that drains battery.
Sure, all those extra effects are going to look great when it's compressed by a factor of 400 to fit in that 35 Mbps bandwidth.
^^^^^^^ times 999
What the heck is the point of all of this when it's going to be compressed so freaking much???
I cannot see this taking off at all.
All but Fiber internet connections don't have a chance with game streaming.
If anyone else does anything on the same connection, you WILL have drops.
Most people don't notice that their home internet connection will drop for a second or half a second every so often, but you WILL notice it every single time it happens while streaming a game...
I think it's a service that's coming out ahead of it's time. But it has to if it wants a chance in the long run because there will be so many competitors.
They may market it like it's for hardcore gamers but it really isn't, it's for the plebs that use consoles on their laggy tvs. It will probably work fine for them even on their regular cable internet connection.
You Amercians need better internet companies. lol
For the rest of the world that has fiber.
(yes I'm half kidding)
This would be a nice service to supplement existing hardware based gaming, but not to replace it. Such as if you want to play demanding games on your phone or tablet while you travel.
The current infrastructure (in the US at least) is not ideal for this type of dedicated service. Data caps with high bandwidth ISPs and the [continued] lack of wide-spread high speed internet access are major roadblocks to its success.
There are enough people without the issue that the service makes sense.
Problem is so many people can't see outside their own little world- "This service is pointless for everyone cuz it's pointless for ME".
I don't really think it is a matter of seeing outside our little world as much as dealing with the reality of ISP, data caps are a legitimate issue. For one person with 1 TB cap may not have an issue, but a family of 4 probably will have an issue especially if all 4 streams.
I'm tired of entertainment as a service. To be honest, I hope this flops hard. However, I fully expect positive marketi-- independent articles for the first few months at least.
I just wanna pay $500, get my fill, and continue on with my life. Same goes for games.
^ Maybe I didn't communicate my point well enough. I'm not saying data caps aren't a legitimate issue. I'm saying there are enough people without the issue that offering streaming gaming makes business sense.
Same. Over a typical 5-7 year console life cycle you'll be saving money by just buying the damned console. A Netflix-like service could be a value add to your home hardware, but Stadia is not the service to do it.
There will be Xbox and PlayStation streaming services in conjunction with the consoles and then they'll eventually phase out the consoles altogether.
Ahh, that make sense, I do believe part of that sentiments is due to previous attempts from other companies doesn't seem to have gain any traction and the other are fears of the direction where game ownerships are heading. That being said, does this business make any sense? That remains to be seen, there is a market for this type of services, I just don't know there is a significant market to sustain this type of service. The past data said no, but current market is moving more and more toward streaming service that this maybe viable.
how about 4 people playing at the same time on one connection? I wonder how it would perform on fiber?
I don't know lets see.... my 940 Mpbs / 4... 235 Mpbs each minus a bit of leakage. I guess I might run into problems. (our standard home speeds here are around 100... so 2-3 4k streams without much issue). Perhaps... Bethusda claims to have dropped Dooms 4k stream from 35 down to around 22 mpbs or something like that with their new perhaps BS Orion tech.
You Americans just need better pipe.
Some of us American's have had fiber for 15 years, and some of us have access to 10 gigabit. Get on our level.
I can't even imagine what I would do with another 9 gigabits.... my Linux torrents would be impossibly fast I guess. lol
Sounds great in theory......but we all know how that works...........
Need to do some real world testing.