Stadia not so good after all?

DukenukemX

[H]ardness Supreme
Joined
Jan 30, 2005
Messages
4,603
That WoW now caters to a more casual playstyle doesn't change the fact that you can play at a far higher difficulty than Vanilla ever was.
Not to derail this thread but yes it does. I've played Vanilla WoW on a private server for over a year and did everything from start to finish. Even got myself The Corrupt Ashbringer on my Paladin. If everyone isn't on the same playing field as you then it cheapens the experience. Retail WoW ruins this with multiple difficulty settings.

But the point was that over time Blizzard thought they were catering to casuals when in reality there isn't such a thing. Remember, you think you do but you don't. Lots of companies think they know what customers want when they really don't. Ask Microsoft when they tried to introduce Xbox One without the ability to play used games. They're still hurting from that decision to this day.

In regard to this thread about game streaming, I don't see how you can gamestream 4K quality video render of your gameplay without a significant amount of AI trying to pre-determine what people are going to do to reduce apparent lag. Which begs the question: Who is really playing the game at that point? You or the AI?
The idea is that games also have latency as well. Red Dead Redemption 2 has awful input lag as you can see from the video. The idea is to process possible input from the player to reduce this input lag. Google will never implement this technology just like Sega would never use Blast Processing in their games because it wasn't practical. It's just marketing speak to get people hyped for potential of the service.

 

DukenukemX

[H]ardness Supreme
Joined
Jan 30, 2005
Messages
4,603
No, You can't compare video streaming and game streaming as a competent gamer, no different to an audio/videophile. There are many that don't notice or care about any perceived lag and would happily hand over money for such a service if the entry fee is low enough without the constant need for hardware upgrades.
You know what they say when you assume?

Of coarse the two are comparable. As an experience, we all know Google's offering isn't as good as gaming on an actual gaming PC as fairly hardcore gamers, just like the audio/videophile in relation to streaming services - Yet services like Netflix still rake in the cash, as there's a vast majority of people out there that simply don't know or care.
Again, image quality isn't the same as input lag. Netflix isn't comparable to Stadia. Image and audio are questionable for most people because they aren't always perceivable. Input lag is very much perceivable, unless the game doesn't depend on precise timing like Persona 5. Stadia is equivalent to the Nintendo Power Glove. Looks cool, sounds good in concept, but in reality it was awful.

As for it being like Netflix, keep in mind that for $10 a month I get access to every movie or TV Show available on the service while for $10 a month on Stadia I get... nothing. No sorry, I get to play Destiny 2 if I pay $130. That's not like Netflix at all.
NintendoPowerGlove.jpg
 

Aix.

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Sep 30, 2010
Messages
1,818
However, latency still exists, is measurable and most definitely noticeable in the case of any client > server configuration.
Well yes of course it exists, but the point of lag compensation is to eliminate the "noticeable" latency effect from the perspective of the player, and it does so by syncing your game client (processed locally and zipped to your monitor via HDMI/DP) with the server client by sending your inputs and whatever other data it needs. Stadia will not have that local processing, so everything you do will be sent to the server over the network prior to being rendered, and then it will travel over the network again before it arrives on your screen; that's significant added latency that would normally be mitigated/hidden or simply non-existant for single player games.
 

Mazzspeed

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 27, 2017
Messages
2,543
Well yes of course it exists, but the point of lag compensation is to eliminate the "noticeable" latency effect from the perspective of the player, and it does so by syncing your game client (processed locally and zipped to your monitor via HDMI/DP) with the server client by sending your inputs and whatever other data it needs. Stadia will not have that local processing, so everything you do will be sent to the server over the network prior to being rendered, and then it will travel over the network again before it arrives on your screen; that's significant added latency that would normally be mitigated/hidden or simply non-existant for single player games.
Except you can't eliminate noticable latency, there are times considering the current client > server model where it is noticeable. Connect to a server on the other side of the world and tell me you don't notice the increase in latency. In order to 'sync' you have to 'transfer packets of data' - That takes time.
 

Aix.

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Sep 30, 2010
Messages
1,818
Except you can't eliminate noticable latency, there are times considering the current client > server model where it is noticeable. Connect to a server on the other side of the world and tell me you don't notice the increase in latency. In order to 'sync' you have to 'transfer packets of data' - That takes time.
Why would you connect to a server on the other side of the world? Have you ever played an online FPS game in your life?

Lag compensation works well, but the more latency present the more compensation required. 0-60 ms is generally a fine experience, while getting up into the 80-100 ms range things start to feel sluggish. 100+ ms is generally a miserable experience.

Lag compensation works just fine when you are within acceptable conditions. Connecting to a server with 300 ping and complaining you can still notice the latency would be idiotic.
 

Mega6

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 13, 2017
Messages
2,745
I keep a couple configs handy for my shooter, one for low latency below 50ms and the other for above. The major change is increasing the cl_interp as latency increases. It's better than nothing but as stated, there are limits.
 

sharknice

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Nov 12, 2012
Messages
1,890
Why would you connect to a server on the other side of the world? Have you ever played an online FPS game in your life?

Lag compensation works well, but the more latency present the more compensation required. 0-60 ms is generally a fine experience, while getting up into the 80-100 ms range things start to feel sluggish. 100+ ms is generally a miserable experience.

Lag compensation works just fine when you are within acceptable conditions. Connecting to a server with 300 ping and complaining you can still notice the latency would be idiotic.
The lag compensation techniques that work for multiplayer games do not work for direct user input. You can't hide it like a multiplayer game. You're going to feel the lag.
 

Aix.

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Sep 30, 2010
Messages
1,818
The lag compensation techniques that work for multiplayer games do not work for direct user input. You can't hide it like a multiplayer game. You're going to feel the lag.
That's what I've been saying:

This is specifically for multiplayer games and involves a number of settings - most notably server "tick" rate, referring to how often the server updates each client. The higher the tick rate, the more updates the server sends and receives from the clients, resulting in a much more accurate game. Low server tick rates are exactly why you would experience a lot of "that's BS I was behind cover" types of moments.

What this service is doing has nothing to do with any of that. In this case, you are clicking your mouse and sending that input to the server, having the server render the game for you, and then receiving the result of the click on your screen.
 

cybereality

[H]ardness Supreme
Joined
Mar 22, 2008
Messages
4,989
How about we actually try it before deciding it doesn't work? That's what I'm going to do.

I didn't like the blue controller, so I didn't pre-order (I want the white one) but I'll give it a shot and see if it works.

Honestly, I was surprised with the Geforce service, it worked better than expected. I think Google has a massive server fleet, they probably have a better position than any company trying this before.
 

GoodBoy

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Nov 29, 2004
Messages
1,714
And iD is working with them on this, at least with getting Doom Eternal on there. If anyone can make a game that can work with this type of service, it's iD.

Supposedly the game running on Stadia will have features/options not possible anywhere else. Not 100% sure what those differences will be though.
 

DukenukemX

[H]ardness Supreme
Joined
Jan 30, 2005
Messages
4,603
How about we actually try it before deciding it doesn't work? That's what I'm going to do.

I didn't like the blue controller, so I didn't pre-order (I want the white one) but I'll give it a shot and see if it works.

Honestly, I was surprised with the Geforce service, it worked better than expected. I think Google has a massive server fleet, they probably have a better position than any company trying this before.
That's entirely the point Google wants. To try it you need to spend $130. That's a hefty chunk of change for something that's suppose to be like Netflix. When Stadia is totally free with free games to try then sure. Until then I'm going by my degree in computer networking, and it says no. No network topology will ever get cloud gaming working like a PC or console. That's not an opinion that is a scientific fact. You can improve image quality by increasing bandwidth, but latency has only one solution and that's to reduce distance. Less distance, less hops, less input lag.

Maybe if we used entangled particles to transmit data faster than light. A sort of quantum internet, but that's in the realm of scifi at the moment.
Or “features” held back so google has something to entice users.
That is more likely the situation.
 

cybereality

[H]ardness Supreme
Joined
Mar 22, 2008
Messages
4,989
I guess what I'm saying is that there will be some amount of latency, obviously, but doesn't mean it won't be playable.
 

LurkerLito

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 5, 2007
Messages
2,161
Most likely PC = Stadia version, but stadia gets an "SLI" option that can use as many free graphics cards on their servers that aren't being used so they can have better graphics streaming to the user.

I bet they'll have the best point and click adventure games where latency doesn't matter. :D
 

sharknice

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Nov 12, 2012
Messages
1,890
I think the reality is that Stadia will never be adequate for a hardcore PC gamer, but it could potentially replace consoles for the average console gamer. The average console gamer uses a controller and TV with such high input lag that with ideal Stadia conditions they won't notice a difference in input lag.

Their marketing team is trying to hype Stadia up saying it has advantages over a PC just like the Playstation and Xbox marketing teams do. It's all marketing BS.
 

DukenukemX

[H]ardness Supreme
Joined
Jan 30, 2005
Messages
4,603
I think the reality is that Stadia will never be adequate for a hardcore PC gamer, but it could potentially replace consoles for the average console gamer.
The reality is that PC gaming took a lot of market share away from Xbox and the market for gaming is essentially PS4+PC. As a studio the PC market has a lot of advantages like no need to pay Microsoft or Sony 20% or 30% of game sales if they make their own launcher like Bethesda and EA have done. They also don't need to worry about their audience paying a $10 monthly fee to play their multiplayer game which is riddled with micro-transactions. Also, they have a much wider selection of audience since any PC is a gaming PC. CupHead may have been made for the Xbox One and PC but it can run on a PC from 2004 easily.

Eventually even Sony could lose out to the PC market as they're pushing for the PS5 to be a $550 to $600 console. PC and console gaming is generally expensive and no console above $400 has done well. So companies see a large niche of gamers who can't afford that hardware and still want to game. Hence why cloud gaming is being pushed so hard. Cloud Gaming is meant to be the poor mans PC or console

I don't see that happening since the experience will be sub par. If my name was JoeSixPack and I wanted to game on the cheap then I'd stick with a PS4 when the PS5 is out. If I don't care for graphics but I do care for latency then that's my best route. Game developers will just have to make games for both the PS4 and PS5, which works out since the PS5 will be backwards compatible with the PS4. It'll suck for PS5 owners for a few years until the console is affordable for everyone else. As a PC gamer I'll stick with my GTX 970 or RX 480 until a Ray-Tracing GPU is around $250, and then I'll upgrade. I just gotta hope that new games don't require Ray-Tracing for a couple of years.
The average console gamer uses a controller and TV with such high input lag that with ideal Stadia conditions they won't notice a difference in input lag.
Remember, latency doesn't displace latency. Latency is cumulative, as it adds up. If a PS4 with Dualshock4 bluetooth gamepad has 60ms with a HDTV that has 40ms, then you already have 100ms of latency with this setup. If your internet gives you 30ms to Stadia servers it isn't going to be 30ms total. You still have that 100ms of latency, plus 30ms from your internet, plus latency from encoding and decoding the video stream. Generally you'll get around 1/4 second delay from your input. You could get less with Stadia's Wifi gamepad but it won't be a world of difference. A gaming PC with mouse+keyboard and Ethernet connection could bring that down to nearly 1/10 a second reaction time, but it'll be more noticeable since you can feel the mouse lag easier than analog stick lag.

Realistically most people will be on a Chrome book or Chrome cast using this service with some aftermarket bluetooth gamepad. It'll be on wifi, and that internet connection won't always have a low 30ms latency, and it'll be on a TV that doesn't have gamemode enabled. Those people can expect to see a 1/3 second input delay or worse.
 

sharknice

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Nov 12, 2012
Messages
1,890
The reality is that PC gaming took a lot of market share away from Xbox and the market for gaming is essentially PS4+PC. As a studio the PC market has a lot of advantages like no need to pay Microsoft or Sony 20% or 30% of game sales if they make their own launcher like Bethesda and EA have done. They also don't need to worry about their audience paying a $10 monthly fee to play their multiplayer game which is riddled with micro-transactions. Also, they have a much wider selection of audience since any PC is a gaming PC. CupHead may have been made for the Xbox One and PC but it can run on a PC from 2004 easily.

Eventually even Sony could lose out to the PC market as they're pushing for the PS5 to be a $550 to $600 console. PC and console gaming is generally expensive and no console above $400 has done well. So companies see a large niche of gamers who can't afford that hardware and still want to game. Hence why cloud gaming is being pushed so hard. Cloud Gaming is meant to be the poor mans PC or console

I don't see that happening since the experience will be sub par. If my name was JoeSixPack and I wanted to game on the cheap then I'd stick with a PS4 when the PS5 is out. If I don't care for graphics but I do care for latency then that's my best route. Game developers will just have to make games for both the PS4 and PS5, which works out since the PS5 will be backwards compatible with the PS4. It'll suck for PS5 owners for a few years until the console is affordable for everyone else. As a PC gamer I'll stick with my GTX 970 or RX 480 until a Ray-Tracing GPU is around $250, and then I'll upgrade. I just gotta hope that new games don't require Ray-Tracing for a couple of years.

Remember, latency doesn't displace latency. Latency is cumulative, as it adds up. If a PS4 with Dualshock4 bluetooth gamepad has 60ms with a HDTV that has 40ms, then you already have 100ms of latency with this setup. If your internet gives you 30ms to Stadia servers it isn't going to be 30ms total. You still have that 100ms of latency, plus 30ms from your internet, plus latency from encoding and decoding the video stream. Generally you'll get around 1/4 second delay from your input. You could get less with Stadia's Wifi gamepad but it won't be a world of difference. A gaming PC with mouse+keyboard and Ethernet connection could bring that down to nearly 1/10 a second reaction time, but it'll be more noticeable since you can feel the mouse lag easier than analog stick lag.

Realistically most people will be on a Chrome book or Chrome cast using this service with some aftermarket bluetooth gamepad. It'll be on wifi, and that internet connection won't always have a low 30ms latency, and it'll be on a TV that doesn't have gamemode enabled. Those people can expect to see a 1/3 second input delay or worse.

Yeah it depends how high their current console gaming input lag is. If Stadia is only 15% more they probably wouldn't know the difference.
 

Shadow_Foxx

[H]Lite
Joined
Nov 26, 2011
Messages
111
I think the reality is that Stadia will never be adequate for a hardcore PC gamer, but it could potentially replace consoles for the average console gamer. The average console gamer uses a controller and TV with such high input lag that with ideal Stadia conditions they won't notice a difference in input lag.

Their marketing team is trying to hype Stadia up saying it has advantages over a PC just like the Playstation and Xbox marketing teams do. It's all marketing BS.
I agree, casual console gamers might not notice the additional input lag, but any hardcore gamer who has built a high end PC will more than likely notice, but they aren't the target demo anyway.
 

cybereality

[H]ardness Supreme
Joined
Mar 22, 2008
Messages
4,989
Correct, it is a different market. Ultra hardcore PC gamers probably aren't who this is for.

For example, a lot of my old friends I used to game with in high school and college have settled down and don't own consoles or game on their PC.

However, they would probably still like games for time to time, but not enough to buy a console or spend several hundred or thousand on a gaming PC.

If their new 4K TV came with Stadia, and maybe they only needed a $50 controller to set it up, I think a lot of these older ex-gamers would be willing to give it a shot.
 

Jandor

Gawd
Joined
Dec 30, 2018
Messages
527
And iD is working with them on this, at least with getting Doom Eternal on there. If anyone can make a game that can work with this type of service, it's iD.

Supposedly the game running on Stadia will have features/options not possible anywhere else. Not 100% sure what those differences will be though.
More than speed of light network. :ROFLMAO:
 

5150Joker

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 1, 2005
Messages
3,579
Correct, it is a different market. Ultra hardcore PC gamers probably aren't who this is for.

For example, a lot of my old friends I used to game with in high school and college have settled down and don't own consoles or game on their PC.

However, they would probably still like games for time to time, but not enough to buy a console or spend several hundred or thousand on a gaming PC.

If their new 4K TV came with Stadia, and maybe they only needed a $50 controller to set it up, I think a lot of these older ex-gamers would be willing to give it a shot.
I very much doubt they would given the $60 price of games and latency involved. Stadia will be DOA, there's no real market for it.
 

cybereality

[H]ardness Supreme
Joined
Mar 22, 2008
Messages
4,989
I just pre-ordered Stadia. I was waiting until the white controller came out, but I see you can buy that now (shipping in 1 month).

I'll report back and let you all know if it works, I'm keeping an open mind.
 

Mazzspeed

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 27, 2017
Messages
2,543
Why would you connect to a server on the other side of the world? Have you ever played an online FPS game in your life?
Because sometimes there isn't a server available in your locale? Because it was an example of latency?

Latency exists, that's why it's listed as a statistic in server browsers - Because it most definitely has an effect on gameplay considering the traditional server > client model.
 

Brian_B

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 23, 2012
Messages
3,356
So, inside of Final Fantasy 14 - an online MMO, there is a minigame called Chocobo Racing, in which you control a giant racing ostrich (it's Japanese, if you aren't familiar with Final Fantasy lore I couldn't even begin to explain).

Now, of course, being an MMO, it's online, and all your commands get sent to the server to be processed and what not. But the rendering is all performed locally, and immediately based on your input. If the server/client aren't in sync - you get rubber banding. Not too common but it happens occasionally.

Now, in this minigame, for whatever reason, it's done differently. The rendering is still performed locally, but only after the server has processed the command and returned an update - then your local game will render the image. The result is horrible. Some people can get used to the latency, or maybe they just have better latency than me. For me, on my rural podunk ISP and my old man drunk reflexes, it's unplayable entirely.

This is more or less what I picture game streaming to be like.
 

DukenukemX

[H]ardness Supreme
Joined
Jan 30, 2005
Messages
4,603
Yeah it depends how high their current console gaming input lag is. If Stadia is only 15% more they probably wouldn't know the difference.
15% would be extremely optimistic. For most console gamers it would be nearly double, and for PC gamers it would be 10x more latency than PC gamers are used to.

I agree, casual console gamers might not notice the additional input lag, but any hardcore gamer who has built a high end PC will more than likely notice, but they aren't the target demo anyway.
I like how you guys make casual gamers sound like they're retarded or slow. You really think casuals wouldn't notice this?

 

sharknice

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Nov 12, 2012
Messages
1,890
15% would be extremely optimistic. For most console gamers it would be nearly double, and for PC gamers it would be 10x more latency than PC gamers are used to.


I like how you guys make casual gamers sound like they're retarded or slow. You really think casuals wouldn't notice this?

Yes. I played Apex Legends at a friend's house on his Xbox and cheap 65" HDTV he bought from Walmart. It felt like a half second of input lag.
 

SmokeRngs

[H]ard|DCer of the Month - April 2008
Joined
Aug 9, 2001
Messages
16,060
So, inside of Final Fantasy 14 - an online MMO, there is a minigame called Chocobo Racing, in which you control a giant racing ostrich (it's Japanese, if you aren't familiar with Final Fantasy lore I couldn't even begin to explain).

Now, of course, being an MMO, it's online, and all your commands get sent to the server to be processed and what not. But the rendering is all performed locally, and immediately based on your input. If the server/client aren't in sync - you get rubber banding. Not too common but it happens occasionally.

Now, in this minigame, for whatever reason, it's done differently. The rendering is still performed locally, but only after the server has processed the command and returned an update - then your local game will render the image. The result is horrible. Some people can get used to the latency, or maybe they just have better latency than me. For me, on my rural podunk ISP and my old man drunk reflexes, it's unplayable entirely.

This is more or less what I picture game streaming to be like.
Oddly enough, FF14 was a game that immediately came to mind as a perfect example of how Stadia will not work worth a damn. I haven't played for a few years but in general the regular 4 man instances usually aren't too bad about pushing "twitch" mechanics. However, once you get into the level 50+ trials (8+ man instance that is a raid boss only) "twitch" mechanics are a huge part of the instance where you don't have much more than a split second to get out of the way of an attack which will likely one shot you. I don't have the best internet connection to begin with and had trouble with a number of those trials. I can't imagine having any chance whatsoever of being able to complete most of those trials on a service such as Stadia. The added latency would be horrible.

There's another issue which people are missing or ignoring. If a service such as this has to have servers all over the place to make sure people are playing "local" to reduce latency to a manageable level, what do you think the effect is going to be with regards to playing with friends and such? I've been in multiple clans/guilds/kins/whatever in MMOs and FPSes. Each one of them has had members from all over the continent and usually worldwide. Stadia would kill any ability to do that. Being only on a "local" server means I'd never be able to connect with all those people. Even having the option to connect to a different server farther away would mean the latency issues would only get worse. It's a lose/lose situation as far as I'm concerned.

The biggest issue with multiplayer gaming has always been latency. Any service which adds latency to the equation is only going to make the experience worse. Even with a single player game any added latency is going to be worse. In some cases you might not be able to notice it but in many cases there's going to be no way not to notice it. The added latency can only make the gaming experience worse. It can never make it better.
 

Uvaman2

2[H]4U
Joined
Jan 4, 2016
Messages
3,143
Well, not that Google will see any money from me.. but comparing Google with a game with a server in god knows where its really no comparison.
The service might work well enough, with all the servers Google has. I would imagine they certainly would target population dense areas.
I think standia will find itself successful subletting capacity to any company wanting to stream their game, or offering the option to do it so on.
 

M76

[H]ardForum Junkie
Joined
Jun 12, 2012
Messages
10,273
Well, not that Google will see any money from me.. but comparing Google with a game with a server in god knows where its really no comparison.
The service might work well enough, with all the servers Google has. I would imagine they certainly would target population dense areas.
I think standia will find itself successful subletting capacity to any company wanting to stream their game, or offering the option to do it so on.
I think an even bigger issue than input lag is the lack of buffering. You see netflix play smoothly because it buffers the stream (pre-loads ahead of time) you can't do that with a game. So any fluctuations in your network / internet connection (someone hogging all bandwidth in the house for just one second) will cause the game to skip frames. Or pause, depending on how they handle it.

While this may be fine for casuals, as is the 30-40ms (bcs) input lag, it is not fine for the audience they are targeting. They aren't targeting casuals with the buy game for $60 then pay a monthly fee to have access to it scheme.
 

dandirk

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 5, 2004
Messages
1,831
I think an even bigger issue than input lag is the lack of buffering. You see netflix play smoothly because it buffers the stream (pre-loads ahead of time) you can't do that with a game. So any fluctuations in your network / internet connection (someone hogging all bandwidth in the house for just one second) will cause the game to skip frames. Or pause, depending on how they handle it.

While this may be fine for casuals, as is the 30-40ms (bcs) input lag, it is not fine for the audience they are targeting. They aren't targeting casuals with the buy game for $60 then pay a monthly fee to have access to it scheme.
Right now it looks like they are targeting "early adopters" (what ever that means to you), in reports they say in 2020 there will be a free no sub option. Which makes the full price purchasing similar to other storefronts. The monthly fee gets access to a free game (for the month?) and discounts on games, so value remains to be seen but imo not completely out the ballpark of a viable option.

I agree completely there is the big issue many services have and that is access to purchases if something should happen (contract dispute, service shutdown etc). I bought a few games of GeForce Now, they included Steam keys, which imo was a good solution to this problem (even if it basically shifts the problem to another vendor, as reliable as they are).

Bandwidth limits/caps will be an interesting problem, that could bring some real world cases of all the anti-innovation/competition arguments against them (and the advertising).

Lag etc is going to be very subjective based on the game and player. These arguments make me think of the auto sector, manual vs automatic transmission. Where for years the high end and enthusiasts had very similar types of arguments against auto, valid for sure from their perspective, yet the vast majority preferred it to the point where manual is becoming even difficult to find as an option (will also add, high end autos now can be better then manuals generally, took years).

Personally I don't think they are targeting enthusiast, the streaming service seems more to be adding convenience and flexibility features. Steam in it's early days had to fight through this as people complained about the client requirements (omg what will we do without disks) etc. Now people get mad if a game isn't on their platform.
 

M76

[H]ardForum Junkie
Joined
Jun 12, 2012
Messages
10,273
Right now it looks like they are targeting "early adopters" (what ever that means to you), in reports they say in 2020 there will be a free no sub option. Which makes the full price purchasing similar to other storefronts. The monthly fee gets access to a free game (for the month?) and discounts on games, so value remains to be seen but imo not completely out the ballpark of a viable option.
Potential early adopters are enthusiasts, who are not interested in it due to the lag anyway, and can afford a gaming pc. I just don't see who is this for at this price?

I agree completely there is the big issue many services have and that is access to purchases if something should happen (contract dispute, service shutdown etc). I bought a few games of GeForce Now, they included Steam keys, which imo was a good solution to this problem (even if it basically shifts the problem to another vendor, as reliable as they are).
That's a long term issue, short term is that you pay more for the same game than on any other platform assuming you want 4K, but which enthusiast wouldn't want that?

Lag etc is going to be very subjective based on the game and player. These arguments make me think of the auto sector, manual vs automatic transmission. Where for years the high end and enthusiasts had very similar types of arguments against auto, valid for sure from their perspective, yet the vast majority preferred it to the point where manual is becoming even difficult to find as an option (will also add, high end autos now can be better then manuals generally, took years).
The manual vs automatic argument is a matter of preference. Nobody has a preference for more lag. Some just don't care.
Personally I don't think they are targeting enthusiast, the streaming service seems more to be adding convenience and flexibility features. Steam in it's early days had to fight through this as people complained about the client requirements (omg what will we do without disks) etc. Now people get mad if a game isn't on their platform.
I was mad since 1996 if a game wasn't on my platform, that's not new. And more platforms just means further fragmenting the market, which is good for nobody.
 

Aix.

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Sep 30, 2010
Messages
1,818
Because sometimes there isn't a server available in your locale? Because it was an example of latency?

Latency exists, that's why it's listed as a statistic in server browsers - Because it most definitely has an effect on gameplay considering the traditional server > client model.
I just realized I missed the post where you basically said you don't understand how the server-client model works:

I'm struggling with this concept.

We all know latency has a huge impact in relation to online game play, in fact the greater the latency, the more your actions are literally past tense. Therefore the logical conclusion is the fact that nothing you see in the game is instant, there is measurable and noticeable latency regarding current multiplayer solutions as packets of data are transferred back and forth between client and server and your comment is incorrect?

However, I do agree that streaming game play services will add to this latency issue and I cannot see how Google are going to overcome this issue with so called 'negative latency' unless they can manipulate time.
You keep arguing (for some reason) that "latency exists" and yes, EVERYONE KNOWS THAT. The point about online shooters (and various other games like StarCraft or Diablo or pretty much anything that connects to a server) is that there is a server client as well as a client running locally on your system. The server knows where all the players are because all the local clients are constantly updating the server, and the server is sending all those updates to the clients so that everyone has the same info. With decent ping and a good update rate the two will sync up and run in lockstep - it's a facade, but it is very effective in essentially eliminating the perception of latency.

So how's that relevant to this discussion? For Stadia, there is nothing being processed locally - you aren't running a version and syncing up with the server, the server is waiting for your input and then processing sound/video and then sending it back for you to see. Given what we know about the "lockstep" model above and how effective it is, there's a lot of skepticism about how Stadia will perform.
 

Aireoth

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
3,247
So absolute best case scenario people will be looking at 30ms lag (15 up, 15 back), average is going to be more like 60-120. Add in standard input lag for tv gaming of 40-50ms and it starts adding up. Then you have to accept that your ping isn’t going to be stable, little Johnny hops on the network, wife starts watching Netflix, someone downloads something, or just general network issues outside your home.

Next, what do most people play for games? FPS by far, most casuals won’t have much interest in rpgs and rts’ that are deeper than a cellphone game.

Seems like this isn’t going to be much of an experience under anything less than ideal circumstances.
 

Mazzspeed

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 27, 2017
Messages
2,543
I just realized I missed the post where you basically said you don't understand how the server-client model works:
Yeah, not really. I understand the concept of a tick rate quite well.

You keep arguing (for some reason) that "latency exists" and yes, EVERYONE KNOWS THAT. The point about online shooters (and various other games like StarCraft or Diablo or pretty much anything that connects to a server) is that there is a server client as well as a client running locally on your system. The server knows where all the players are because all the local clients are constantly updating the server, and the server is sending all those updates to the clients so that everyone has the same info. With decent ping and a good update rate the two will sync up and run in lockstep - it's a facade, but it is very effective in essentially eliminating the perception of latency.

So how's that relevant to this discussion? For Stadia, there is nothing being processed locally - you aren't running a version and syncing up with the server, the server is waiting for your input and then processing sound/video and then sending it back for you to see. Given what we know about the "lockstep" model above and how effective it is, there's a lot of skepticism about how Stadia will perform.
Blah, blah...

And yet in any Server > Client multiplayer game we will have a statistic clearly printed on the screen called 'latency', the higher that figure, the higher the chance that an individual is not where you think they are due to the delay getting packets of data to and from the server greatly affecting accuracy.

Fact is, tick rate or not, keeping things in sync is degraded in situations of high latency due to distance - Hence the reason why games report latency in their server browsers. It's a simple fact that I'm tired of repeating. Host your own gaming server and you will have a significant advantage compared to those that connect remotely via the internet.
 

Aireoth

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
3,247
Yeah, not really. I understand the concept of a tick rate quite well.



Blah, blah...

And yet in any Server > Client multiplayer game we will have a statistic clearly printed on the screen called 'latency', the higher that figure, the higher the chance that an individual is not where you think they are due to the delay getting packets of data to and from the server greatly affecting accuracy.

Fact is, tick rate or not, keeping things in sync is degraded in situations of high latency due to distance - Hence the reason why games report latency in their server browsers. It's a simple fact that I'm tired of repeating. Host your own gaming server and you will have a significant advantage compared to those that connect remotely via the internet.
It seems like you two are arguing the same thing, on the same side.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aix.
like this

Stoly

[H]ardness Supreme
Joined
Jul 26, 2005
Messages
6,486
I don't see Stadia doing anything any better than PSNow or GeforceNow. Both of these platforms have been in developent for quite a while and IMO are as good as it will ever get for better or worse.
 

Aix.

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Sep 30, 2010
Messages
1,818
It seems like you two are arguing the same thing, on the same side.
Lol, I just don't understand the point he's trying to make.

"Latency exists."
"Yes, but at least in some games you can use a client-server model to mitigate the effects of latency to the players."
"You can't claim that latency doesn't exist. It is real."
"Yes, I know it's real. We all know it's real. What makes it relevant to this thread is that Stadia does not use this mitigation technique, meaning you will certainly feel the effects of latency.
"You cannot claim that latency does not exist. Latency exists. I am tired of repeating that latency exists. You will feel the latency."

Like, okay, no one made a claim that latency is eliminated by lag compensation, but there are tons of games out there where it's a nonfactor due to a combination of this technique and strategically located servers/gateways to keep latency levels low. Connecting to servers on the other side of the world, or running a server out of your house are examples ofw the tech would either struggle to compensate or not be required at all.
 
Top