Jensun Huang Comments on the Viability of Streaming Games

Technically I think we all know some types of games aren't going to work with streaming. The tradegy is that if streaming takes off they'll just stop making those games. Twitch action fighting/shooting will be no more. Games will be designed to be much less latency sensitive. Publishers play it safe.

The good news is PC gaming isn't dead yet. Consoles were supposed to kill pc gaming and after microsoft tried to kill it to push the xbox it's still here. Streaming movies, TV, music, etc isn't latency sensitive and so streaming made a lot of sense. That's not true of all video games and so I hold out hope that streaming will not replace all gaming. But I worry that if the majority of gamers go streaming that many publishers won't risk making non-streamable games. Still it sounds to me that we're getting at least one more generation of gaming consoles so I think we can kick this discussion another 5+ years down the road.
 
SomeoneElse said:
There are games you can play on steam while it is offline. There is even a feature that allows you to turn steam into offline mode. Also my point is if you lose internet connection while playing you are done. I'm pretty sure when you are playing a single player game while in steam it won't kick you out of the game because you lost connection. (I not 100% certain, I will have to confirm it for myself).



I would like to call your bluff on this.....I remember buying games for 30-45 bucks in the late 90s early 2000s. That was mainly for the AAA title for all platforms. Only in the last 10-12 years has the trend gone to $60 base game. DLC didn't exist back then so you can't exclude this, so instead of giving us all the full game today they chose to "keep the same pricing" but release less than a full game. The gaming market has changed a ton in the last 20 years.....
Click to expand...

Since the Xbox, triple a games have been 60$ where I live.
 
Thinking about game streaming like watching Twitch or Netflix is the wrong want to think about it. The way image reconstruction is heading in 5 years a $200 box with a cheap arm processor and a pile of tensor cores will be able to take a low res image, or an image with selective details, and reconstruct it to good quality. Bandwidth isn't an issue. I'd also say that this type of tech is for the low end consumer and most of them will have 100+ms input lag TVs and likely won't notice the stream lag. Also, based on what Jacket Man is saying, I'd guess they will bring AI to bare here and "predict" what the player will do and pre-render decisions before the player makes them, or just force the prerendered frames if the input is close enough. If the prediction is good enough most people would likely never notice they aren't actually playing the game.
 
I think a lot of the confusion here comes from understanding network speeds. Bandwidth actually has little to do with speed. More Bandwidth is like having a larger pipe to carry more packets, but amount of time that the packet takes to get from point A to point B is latency. While bandwidth has increased exponentially over the last few decades, latency has stayed pretty stagnant. For instance I moved and went from 10mb internet to 1gig internet, an increase of 100x in bandwidth, but my average latency went from ~100 to ~50ms. A decrease of half, and I attribute most of that to google fiber having an exit node in my area compared to my last ISP who routed everything through Chicago.

It doesn't matter how high your bandwidth is if it still takes a long time to route a packet from point A to point B. Not only that, but with Game streaming the latency is doubled, the packet containing your movement information has to travel to the server, be processed, and then another packet has to travel back. All these things are limited by the speed of light (Not going to be bypassed anytime soon), routing done by corporations out of your control, and server speeds. It's just not a good experience.

Because video is not latency sensitive, you can buffer the connection and smooth out inconsistencies. More Bandwidth solved the music and video streaming issues, but lower latency will be needed to solve the video game streaming problem. I just don't see it getting solved as easily. A good example would be phone calls. Sometimes I'm able to stream music on my phone, but not make phone calls. There is enough spastic connection and bandwidth to stream a song, but the consistent and low latency connection needed for a phone call won't work.
 
Has anyone purchased a subscription for Playstatoin Now? I have been hesitatnt due to performance network depenancy for success and non frustrating gameplay. If this works I do not see why any other streaming service wouldn't.


https://www.playstation.com/en-us/e...did=43700013706577995&semid=xconfid=r3w9h1xzi

Enjoy 700+ Games On-Demand
PS Now delivers unlimited access to a growing library of over 700 PS4, PS3, and PS2 games, all with one subscription. Stream directly to your PS4 or PC, and download PS4 & PS2 games to your PS4.

Thank you,
 
DukenukemX said:
You think the consumers don't have a choice? That's a very scary prospect of capitalism I don't want to see. Believe me people won't buy into game streaming. I do see companies making exclusives to streaming services, but gamers will load up their favourite DDOS and crash the servers when they see this.
Click to expand...

Maybe. I can think of 3 "positive" streaming scenario, and a "negative" one (really, they're mostly all negative, but work with me here).

1) If streaming improves and is 75% acceptable, AND if discounts are offered compared to full purchase, why not? I don't replay games once I finish.
2) If streaming allows a "trial" period for no cost, that would be great. What's the percentage of games I have purchased that I disliked or outright hated? HIGH. (odds of this happening = LOW)
3) A cost reduced, streaming only console has the potential to be a big seller. $100 streaming only Xbox One X? Why not?

but then again...

4) if streaming becomes the ONLY online distribution method, then why would Sony/MS etc offer any perks? They can (and will) charge whatever they want.

I think all this is 5-10 years away anyway (next gen, or the one after that). Right now streaming barely works on a local wired gigabit network, forget about the internet.
 
Welp, when the day comes I will finally go through my backlog of games and/or step away completely.

Lets not kid ourselves here, buying a 400 dollar box that just connects to a remote service, that we are most likely going to be subscribed to "you know server upkeep/bandwidth". On top of that you will still have to buy the game, maybe even storage space on servers for the killer plays/save games. I am also pretty sure in the early iteration that DRM/Region locks will fuck over people who mover around or travel over seas. If this is the route that AAA gaming is going that is fine I wont play those titles, and if that is the way hardware ends up going welp... Again I'll just step away.

Don't get me wrong I think streaming internally in ones home is cool, combined with reaching back to your setup from an external connection. Living in a place where 10Mb is the best you are going to get... Yeah I can see 2-3 kids trying to "Stream" their games, while the misses and I are streaming our content will be a major success. Well it will be for me anyways as I limit the rest of the families bandwidth so I can play.
 
With current isp issues and infrastructure I just don't think gaming is viable over the internet mainly latency versus bandwidth.
 
"... It’s a fundamental problem. It’s just the laws of physics. However, we believe in it so much that we’ve been working on this for a decade..."

While you can mitigate some latency with edge servers, the rest comes down to encouraging developers to implement latency-aware game mechanics. Things like ping charity and future state tries can be "hidden" behind clamped or truncated animations, but that's a hell of a lot of complexity for what ultimately reduces fine control over game interaction. Games that predictably prompt for inputs (or at least limit interaction dependent on animation cycle or current state) make for easy design with these restrictions, but everything else will suffer.
 
Also if streaming is to come more mainstream maybe game developers will add a hybrid mode for games. A game engine can have a peer to peer mode where menu/game overlays and maybe user's game model is rendered locally (guess only works for 1st person, 3rd person would need game world data) to mask some of the lag.
 
andrewaggb said:
Technically I think we all know some types of games aren't going to work with streaming. The tradegy is that if streaming takes off they'll just stop making those games. Twitch action fighting/shooting will be no more. Games will be designed to be much less latency sensitive. Publishers play it safe.
Click to expand...
If customers want those type of games then developers have no choice but to make them. The AAA game industry thought they could do what they want to their customers and now they're hurting real bad for it.
The good news is PC gaming isn't dead yet. Consoles were supposed to kill pc gaming and after microsoft tried to kill it to push the xbox it's still here.
Click to expand...
PC gaming will survive long after consoles soon to be death. Lots of people are aware that the PS5 and Xbox Two will have a hard time getting people to transition over to the new hardware, and the asking price of likely $500 will put them off. Game developers won't make the switch either cause their customer base will still be using the PS4 and Xbone. For at least two years the PS5 and Xbox Two will have a lot of remastered games and nothing that'll be unique to the hardware. Why you think everyone and their grandma is making a game streaming service? People are going to resist the transition. PC gaming though isn't effected by this because all games are backwards compatible and getting new hardware does indeed increase game quality and performance. On top of it, you don't need to upfront the cost. Upgrade the CPU this month, upgrade the GPU next month and etc. Games are cheaper, you don't need $600+ hardware to play games either. You can mod games, run emulators, and even play stupid Facebook games if you wanted.
But I worry that if the majority of gamers go streaming that many publishers won't risk making non-streamable games. Still it sounds to me that we're getting at least one more generation of gaming consoles so I think we can kick this discussion another 5+ years down the road.
Click to expand...
Publishers will do this anyway cause nobody will adopt game streaming. The only way people will even think about using game streaming is if a major game like Half Life 3 was only available on their service, and people will get pissed. The server will get hacked. The game will certainly be copied off it. People will DDOS it and wouldn't feel ashamed at all. You have no idea what pandora's box will be opened if someone does this. Think of the backlash game studios get with micro-transactions but times 10.

Burticus said:
1) If streaming improves and is 75% acceptable, AND if discounts are offered compared to full purchase, why not?
Click to expand...
You can't improve streaming. There's no technology that will fix it. Most likely as other people have said, they'll make two version of a game that both have lag to show that game streaming is "OK". You'll have a delay with a button press either way.

I don't replay games once I finish.
Click to expand...
Then you play shit games. I played Shadow of Mordor once and will never play it again, but I've played Zelda Breath of the Wild and will certainly play it again.
2) If streaming allows a "trial" period for no cost, that would be great. What's the percentage of games I have purchased that I disliked or outright hated? HIGH. (odds of this happening = LOW)
Click to expand...
Then you haven't learned the wonderful world of piracy. I've certainly tried games this way before buying, and I do buy. Mostly cause I want the Linux version of the game. I know people will hate that I pirate but... nobody makes demos or shareware anymore. You think I played Breath of the Wild on WiiU or Switch? I PCMasterRace'd it, but I would love it natively ported on PC and would buy it.. for a discount of course. Doom 2016 had a demo and that worked out super well for it. Make Demos not game streaming.
3) A cost reduced, streaming only console has the potential to be a big seller. $100 streaming only Xbox One X? Why not?
Click to expand...
Because PC gaming hardware is getting cheaper? Because 1 year of paying the monthly fee will be enough to buy a PS4? Subscription based services are designed to extract money from you, not benefit you. Assuming that game streaming services are only $15 per month, but I'm expecting them to be higher than that.

4) if streaming becomes the ONLY online distribution method, then why would Sony/MS etc offer any perks? They can (and will) charge whatever they want.
Click to expand...
This is a problem with streaming anyway. I'm pretty sure if cloud gaming took off then everyone will offer their own service, which means you have to pay the monthly fee for a lot of services to be able to play your games. As convenient as streaming is, we're giving companies a monopoly. This is why you shouldn't be ashamed to pirate cause it teaches companies to innovate, and cloud gaming isn't innovating. Cloud gaming is just the ultimate form of DRM.

 
deaedius said:
Has anyone purchased a subscription for Playstatoin Now? I have been hesitatnt due to performance network depenancy for success and non frustrating gameplay. If this works I do not see why any other streaming service wouldn't.


https://www.playstation.com/en-us/e...did=43700013706577995&semid=xconfid=r3w9h1xzi

Enjoy 700+ Games On-Demand
PS Now delivers unlimited access to a growing library of over 700 PS4, PS3, and PS2 games, all with one subscription. Stream directly to your PS4 or PC, and download PS4 & PS2 games to your PS4.

Thank you,
Click to expand...
700 games and growing for a year for 99.00... this is why streaming is inevitable.
 
Uvaman2 said:
700 games and growing for a year for 99.00... this is why streaming is inevitable.
Click to expand...
NewGrounds has more games than that and it's free. Mind you flash games but I doubt all 700 games are good. Humble Bundle has 7 games for $8. Most PS3 games can be found on Ebay for like $3. Bloodborne is on Ebay for a little over $6. It needs to be said that most games they offer are old games, hell even Red Dead Redemption for the 360 is now nearly playable on the Xenia emulator on PC. You aren't going to play all 700 games and you aren't going to spend anywhere near $100 for all the good games they have on there if you actually bought them. Only an idiot will think that spending $100 PER YEAR for 700 random old games is actually a good value. You don't see games like God of War 2018 or Red Dead Redemption II on there for a reason. At that point $100 per year makes sense, but no they still have you buy the latest games for $60. I would be very upset if the new consoles didn't have Blu-Ray drives cause that would take away any value discounts a game console owner could ever have, cause then the $100 per month is your only choice.

 
Lol, and here I thought rubberbanding and teleporting in existing online PvP games are bad enough, but with stuff like frame interpolation and other techniques to generate frames to compensate for unstable network latencies, I don't see how streamed games will ever be a viable replacement for people who wants a great experience.

Streaming games for SP games, maybe. But anything multiplayer or competitive, no chance. It'll be a "cheaper" alternative to the masses, though. So I guess if you think about the potential market for it, Nvidia would be stupid not to invest. They don't really care if streaming doesn't take off, the R&D spent on it are still very useful for stuff other than streaming games, i.e. wireless VR, gameplay streaming (aka Twitch), wireless displays, etc...
 
Look, Jensen learned a new catch phrase to pump NV stock - it's called "streaming games".

Good luck with that one.
 
trandoanhung1991 said:
Lol, and here I thought rubberbanding and teleporting in existing online PvP games are bad enough, but with stuff like frame interpolation and other techniques to generate frames to compensate for unstable network latencies, I don't see how streamed games will ever be a viable replacement for people who wants a great experience.

Streaming games for SP games, maybe. But anything multiplayer or competitive, no chance.
Click to expand...
Multiplayer gets worse when some people may experience hiccups in their connection. Especially because 99.99% of people out there use WiFi, and even for games like CS:GO and World of Warcraft a wifi connection is going to cause issues. You need a 802.11ac connection, and you need to be sitting right next to the damn access point. Forget ISP issues, you still have issues at home. Not many people run gigabit Ethernet to a desktop computer like we do.
It'll be a "cheaper" alternative to the masses, though.
Click to expand...
No it won't. Assuming that most people are console peasants (and they are) then you're better off just buying the hardware. For PC gamers just use an APU like a Ryzen 2200G. You'll get better image quality and no lag, and yes image quality cause obviously the video stream is going to have compression artifacts. 2019 is going to be a crazy year for discount PC hardware.

So I guess if you think about the potential market for it, Nvidia would be stupid not to invest. They don't really care if streaming doesn't take off, the R&D spent on it are still very useful for stuff other than streaming games, i.e. wireless VR, gameplay streaming (aka Twitch), wireless displays, etc...
Click to expand...
Nvidia would rather have cloud gaming take off cause they make far more money selling hardware to servers than to consumers. Why you think Nvidia is fine charging so much for high end hardware? That same hardware would sell for thousands more in the server market. Nvidia isn't going to sell them cheap $1,500 RTX 2080 Ti's but NVIDIA Tesla V100 for like $9k. Plus Nvidia would lock out anyone using VM's with their drivers, like Nvidia has done in the past, to prevent any smart server operators for going cheap and buying consumer GPU's. Of course Nvidia wants cloud gaming.
 
This is one of those times that during it we all go yea it won’t work because of x y z and the yrs go buy and it’s technically figured out in ways we didn’t even consider and this is looked on like we were idiots for not assuming some master breakthrough in latency.
 
Well, within current laws of physics, let's paint the best possible scenario. Light can travel 300km per ms, and 60fps is 1 frame every 16.7ms. So we've got ~2500 km max distance between a user and a server as the crow flies. Realistically electricity is slower than light in a vacuum (90% is achievable though) but faster than light in fibre optic cable (which travels around 30% slower), so that drops to 2250km. Now cables are never routed as the crow flies, they follow streets and roads, come together in server centres and exchanges, so that 2250km quickly drops down to ~1000km max. And of course we've assumed no processing time anywhere in the comms chain, which is ridiculous. Either way, we are talking about needing to have a lot of servers across the globe to pull that off. And that is of course if we are happy with say someone in Australia not being able to play in the same instance as a player in the US, (or even in SE Asia). Which is likely the main killer of a streaming service for games particularly for multiplayer, the latencies required to make it work would limit too greatly the number of users able to play together.

The best possible scenario is if in the future every house is connected to the internet via a direct SATCOM link to a LEO satellite constellation. Never mind that each user would need to timeshare channels (as we wouldn't have the bandwidth to allocate separate channels to each user) which adds further latency. In that instance, we could maybe achieve ~2000km distance max between server and user for 16.7ms of latency. The number of satellites to pull that off however would be astronomical. Either way, it isn't something that can be ''solved', it is a limitation that can only be mitigated with some significant tradeoffs and cost (server centres in each state of the US, nearly every country in the world, with games only able to support users within that 2000km bubble), or greater allowance for lag between user input and action (a move at odds with the rise of high refresh rate gaming).

This isn't like man learning to fly or landing a man on the moon, this is like man learning to travel faster than light. We don't even know how such a thing could theoretically occur, let alone practically be achieved.
 
Geni said:
Well, within current laws of physics, let's paint the best possible scenario. Light can travel 300km per ms, and 60fps is 1 frame every 16.7ms. So we've got ~2500 km max distance between a user and a server as the crow flies. Realistically electricity is slower than light in a vacuum (90% is achievable though) but faster than light in fibre optic cable (which travels around 30% slower), so that drops to 2250km. Now cables are never routed as the crow flies, they follow streets and roads, come together in server centres and exchanges, so that 2250km quickly drops down to ~1000km max. And of course we've assumed no processing time anywhere in the comms chain, which is ridiculous. Either way, we are talking about needing to have a lot of servers across the globe to pull that off. And that is of course if we are happy with say someone in Australia not being able to play in the same instance as a player in the US, (or even in SE Asia). Which is likely the main killer of a streaming service for games particularly for multiplayer, the latencies required to make it work would limit too greatly the number of users able to play together.

The best possible scenario is if in the future every house is connected to the internet via a direct SATCOM link to a LEO satellite constellation. Never mind that each user would need to timeshare channels (as we wouldn't have the bandwidth to allocate separate channels to each user) which adds further latency. In that instance, we could maybe achieve ~2000km distance max between server and user for 16.7ms of latency. The number of satellites to pull that off however would be astronomical. Either way, it isn't something that can be ''solved', it is a limitation that can only be mitigated with some significant tradeoffs and cost (server centres in each state of the US, nearly every country in the world, with games only able to support users within that 2000km bubble), or greater allowance for lag between user input and action (a move at odds with the rise of high refresh rate gaming).

This isn't like man learning to fly or landing a man on the moon, this is like man learning to travel faster than light. We don't even know how such a thing could theoretically occur, let alone practically be achieved.
Click to expand...
The problems get worse when you consider that most peoples homes aren't wired but wireless. If you've every played online with people you realize a lot of people have lag and a lot of that is from wireless connections. The ISPs themselves have moments where a lot of people jump on and cause congestion on the network, and now games that were like 60GB at most download, are now eating 10 GB per hour. Now you run into issues with data caps as well as congestion on the network cause Minecraft that was a 100MB download is now eating 10 GB per hour. So of course ISPs are going to limit these streams cause there's no Net Neutrality.

What I do see Sony and Microsoft doing is removing the Blu-Ray drive in favor of USB memory sticks, but these memory sticks will increase the cost of games to $70. At the same time if you buy the game online it'll cost $60, which will be their way to crush the used gaming market, plus it'll make the consoles cheaper as they won't have a Blu-Ray drive. Microsoft will of course have their cloud gaming service but I think that it'll be a disaster due to the above mentioned reasons.
 
There is some merit to edge servers and they are a lot better options than having individual clients handling the problem. Hell the edge server could send jumbo packets from a few different local clients they received to a further away host server and adjust the interpolation/compensation with that in mind and in relation to ping between the two. Not just that though you could triangulate a couple edge servers around a more centralized host server.

The main advantage versus a locally hosted search in each area is a bigger player base which could play together latency is obviously the downside, but at least it would minimized and more controlled than the current situation of local clients deliberately crippling their connection to abuse the interpolation/compensation which is advantageous sadly enough.
 
Last edited:
What is this argument that is not possible, when its already being done?
I don't know i have a second rate provider with mid tier internet connection and it pings at below 20ms with a nearby server ( within the state).
Games streaming will be improved with algorithms, and things of these nature.
Im convinced we will be nothing BUT streaming by 2030.
I will be happy with it if the value is there... I want access to complete libraries, no bullshit .. that way subscribe to 1 or 3 services and call it a day.
Ive said it in the past, current DRM model is bullshit, you may pay 60 or whatever dollars for that one game, but you don't own shit.. if validation goes south, tough luck! Is they pull the game, or whatever else, tough luck!
DRM fucked true ownership, might as well pay for just access via streaming ..to whatever they offer, or not.. don't give a shit, want me to pay you, price your shit low, its not like I own it in any way shape or form.
 
Data does not move at the speed of light through fiber or copper.
The speed of light is only possible in a vacuum.
The “internet” signal moves at ~0.65 times the speed of lught in a fiber or copper.

Physics allways wins.
 
I can imagine good enough will happen at some point and we will have some game service as big as Netflix.

That being said, at some point people are going to get sick of ubering around everywhere and renting the use of everything. Just going to take a huge market crash and they will realize they have nothing to sell. Then people will want to own things again and the cycle will continue.
 
Ive been using his game streaming open beta on my shield TV for a little while on a paltry 50mbps down 10 up connection.
Day z playable, Skater XL playable, Tekken 7/Soul Calibur 6 Meh.
 
Uvaman2 said:
What is this argument that is not possible, when its already being done?
Click to expand...
There's a difference between working and working good enough. Like a full size spare tire and a donut tire. Both works but one clearly works better.
I don't know i have a second rate provider with mid tier internet connection and it pings at below 20ms with a nearby server ( within the state).
Click to expand...
That's the thing, a nearby server. So for everyone to see nearly no lag you need servers everywhere, but you'll still have lag either way.
Games streaming will be improved with algorithms, and things of these nature.
Click to expand...
That's not how the speed of light works.
Im convinced we will be nothing BUT streaming by 2030.
Click to expand...
I'm convinced that will never happen. BTW how many streaming services do you use?
Ive said it in the past, current DRM model is bullshit, you may pay 60 or whatever dollars for that one game, but you don't own shit.. if validation goes south, tough luck! Is they pull the game, or whatever else, tough luck!
Click to expand...
And yet Torrenting exists.
DRM fucked true ownership, might as well pay for just access via streaming ..to whatever they offer, or not.. don't give a shit, want me to pay you, price your shit low, its not like I own it in any way shape or form.
Click to expand...
Unless you pirate, then you own everything. We really need some laws to fix digital ownership rights.
 
DukenukemX said:
Unless you pirate, then you own everything. We really need some laws to fix digital ownership rights.
Click to expand...

My friend lost 7 years of PSN purchases because she had an offensive account name. Deleted with no recourse. Current "ownership" rights are pretty much non existent.
 
VIC-20 said:
My friend lost 7 years of PSN purchases because she had an offensive account name. Deleted with no recourse. Current "ownership" rights are pretty much non existent.
Click to expand...
I have a ton of games on Steam and they could very well decide to remove them some day cause I said "shit" and not "poo". But thanks to piracy I could just download them and enjoy... most of my games. Admittedly games like Dark Souls and online multiplayer games would be shit out of luck. But instead of fighting for digital ownership rights we celebrate cause the platform removed someone "toxic" like they were Alex Jones or something.
 
The only really good way to stream a game is on the same LAN imo. I do use Moonlight over my 802.11ac to stream 1080p60 at a very high bitrate.

I need a faster network to do 120hz or 4k, but none of my tablets, phones, and laptop can do either yet.
 
Personally i'd only stream single player games, multiplayer would be a lag hell for everyone streaming it. I think the greatest stepback of gaming streaming services isn't the service quality itself (host) but the connection quality of the clients.
 
I once wanted to have some friends over to play Payday 2 but didn't have enough gaming PC's for everyone. I hooked my non gaming laptop up to my TV and installed Steam on an Amazon EC2 instance running Nvidia Grid. It was a bit tricky to get running as I had to use OpenVPN to trick steam into thinking it was on my network so I could use In-Home streaming. Anyway, it worked, but it was a tiny bit laggier than I would have liked. I would use game streaming for that kind of thing, a temporary way to have more systems, but would never want to use it as my main gaming platform.
 
deaedius said:
Has anyone purchased a subscription for Playstatoin Now? I have been hesitatnt due to performance network depenancy for success and non frustrating gameplay. If this works I do not see why any other streaming service wouldn't.


https://www.playstation.com/en-us/e...did=43700013706577995&semid=xconfid=r3w9h1xzi

Enjoy 700+ Games On-Demand
PS Now delivers unlimited access to a growing library of over 700 PS4, PS3, and PS2 games, all with one subscription. Stream directly to your PS4 or PC, and download PS4 & PS2 games to your PS4.

Thank you,
Click to expand...
I just gave the service a second try a few weeks ago and it is just as shitty as when I tried it the year before. Graphics look horrible and framerate chugs at times to the point where aiming can be a huge issue. As if using a controller to shoot is not bad enough. I also had several hitches. Really the whole experience was garbage and it is sad that is the best that Sony can do for streaming. The old On Live service was much better even back when my connection was fraction of what it is now. That is pretty ironic since Sony bought them...
 
Yet another move to take physical ownership away from the dirty masses.

Streaming a game will NEVER work as well as having it running on a box a couple of metres away.
 
BloodyIron said:
People that think streaming FPS games is a good idea, are the same people that don't understand the difference between CS:GO 64tick, and 128tick.
Click to expand...

I understand that Streaming games is a terrible idea, but the rest of your sentence? No idea what you said.

so, no, it doesn't require esoteric gaming knowledge to understand it's a bad idea.
 
motomonkey said:
I understand that Streaming games is a terrible idea, but the rest of your sentence? No idea what you said.

so, no, it doesn't require esoteric gaming knowledge to understand it's a bad idea.
Click to expand...
Tick rate is server updates per second.
 
motomonkey said:
I understand that Streaming games is a terrible idea, but the rest of your sentence? No idea what you said.

so, no, it doesn't require esoteric gaming knowledge to understand it's a bad idea.
Click to expand...

That is not "special knowledge" I don't play CS:GO but I do understand the difference between servers that have 64 ticks per second or 128 ticks per seconds "in world".
 
Ask any competitive CS:GO player the difference between 64tick and 128tick, and you'll discover why the devil's in the details. Overlooking things like that will disenfranchise segments of the gaming audience.

Spoiler: the difference is quite huge and about hit detection and other calculations that directly impact gameplay.

motomonkey said:
I understand that Streaming games is a terrible idea, but the rest of your sentence? No idea what you said.

so, no, it doesn't require esoteric gaming knowledge to understand it's a bad idea.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top