|
DebonaireD posted:This system, according to the DF guy, would remove the bandwidth restrictions keeping multiplayer games capped at around 100 people with minimally interactive environments. We could see a return to UO style MMOs with thousands or tens of thousands of people playing in the same shards, which would be so cool and worth 166ms of input latency. I think this is the best talking point for Stadia. The second one being bringing gaming to people who didn't think they could game before (on the other hand with this same premise both Ouya and PSTV failed hard, and PSTV at least had a library of games available). Stadia could be a viable platform for episodic content like Telltale Games adventures... too bad Telltale died.
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2019 13:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 16:07 |
|
|
IShallRiseAgain posted:Game companies really want this to be a thing because its gives them a ton of control over when people can play their game, and what exactly they do with it. Also, it will let them have a subscription model. I think we are also forgetting another player in here that wants something like this to happen: The Internet Provider company. This gives FIOS/COX/COMCAST another vector to hit you with data limits/pay for their special "HIGH SPEED EXTREME GAMER" specialty package.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2019 14:09
|
|
|
BexGu posted:I think we are also forgetting another player in here that wants something like this to happen: The Internet Provider company. This gives FIOS/COX/COMCAST another vector to hit you with data limits/pay for their special "HIGH SPEED EXTREME GAMER" specialty package. They'd have to install the infrastructure to support this first.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2019 14:28
|
|
|
IShallRiseAgain posted:Game companies really want this to be a thing because its gives them a ton of control over when people can play their game, and what exactly they do with it. Also, it will let them have a subscription model.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2019 14:29
|
|
|
Zephro posted:I understand the scepticism but the massive doom and gloom is a little hard to reconcile with the fact that Sony have been doing this for four years at this point. Sure it hasn't set the world on fire but on the other hand they've stuck with it so the service obviously works well enough to have some people using it. That's the point, man. It's a niche product good for a select group of people, but desirable to the market as a whole. That's fine for a optional service like Sony's. But Google wants this to be THE FUTURE OF GAMING and that's just lol at this stage.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2019 15:09
|
|
|
IShallRiseAgain posted:Game companies really want this to be a thing because its gives them a ton of control over when people can play their game, and what exactly they do with it. Also, it will let them have a subscription model. I think this is true, but I also think they should be wary of the promises Google (and eventually Microsoft, and probably Amazon some day) are making to them. All the stated benefits of developing for such a platform come with the risk of ceding unprecedented amounts of control over to Google. The last decade is not short on examples of what can happen to content creators when one or two Silicon Valley tech behemoths become your only large-scale method for distributing your content.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2019 15:13
|
|
|
Blotto_Otter posted:I think this is true, but I also think they should be wary of the promises Google (and eventually Microsoft, and probably Amazon some day) are making to them. All the stated benefits of developing for such a platform come with the risk of ceding unprecedented amounts of control over to Google. The last decade is not short on examples of what can happen to content creators when one or two Silicon Valley tech behemoths become your only large-scale method for distributing your content.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2019 16:56
|
|
|
i don't think it's been mentioned in this thread that google employees move up in the company based on how many products they launch. oh, did you make a huge improvement to one of our existing products? too bad jimmy, that doesn't count. bob launched a buggy fart app that we're going to abandon next year so he's getting the promotion
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2019 17:05
|
|
|
I looked up a bunch of onlive receipts because I was curious on how they priced stuff back in 2011. I was stuck on an imac at the time with a 1080p resolution and no real way of running anything decently so I gave it a shot since the other option was..nothing at all. They would do 5 day access per title for 9 bucks, and then throw discounts on it to make it 5 bucks constantly apparently. It looks like the full pass (no time limit) access was 30 bucks on average and then they'd also discount those randomly to 5 bucks. Onlive last maybe a year total? But then they basically sold it all to sony and it seems to be doing alright for them via psnow So this time next year you'll have geforce now, stadia, and whatever the hell microsoft calls their cloud service at e3?
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2019 17:14
|
|
|
limaCAT posted:I think this is the best talking point for Stadia. Yes. Google is just being dumb by trying to show off games that require good reaction times and aren't normally limited by internet. There are so many "slower" games that would be fine with having 166ms response time. I mean any turn based games or even multiplayer only games as you limited by your connection anyway.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2019 17:18
|
|
|
Tormented posted:Yes. Google is just being dumb by trying to show off games that require good reaction times and aren't normally limited by internet. There are so many "slower" games that would be fine with having 166ms response time. I mean any turn based games or even multiplayer only games as you limited by your connection anyway. Laggy and unresponsive menus suck in turn-based games
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2019 17:21
|
|
|
I’m struggling to think up a market for this. People who want to play games, but can’t afford a console...but can somehow afford a subscription. Maybe if it’s bundled with YouTube premium or something else you’re already paying for. Maybe my dad, who plays games on the iPad would theoretically see an ad and want play Gran Turismo or Tomb Raider on it. Or maybe those people who only play FIFA/Madden every year. People who want games, but not that much, but also have super high speed internet or live next to a google data center and also don’t mind input lag.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2019 17:22
|
|
|
zer0spunk posted:Onlive last maybe a year total? But then they basically sold it all to sony and it seems to be doing alright for them via psnow Sony bought Gaikai. Onlive tried to entice the market with their Set Top Box.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2019 17:24
|
|
|
The Atomic Man-Boy posted:I’m struggling to think up a market for this. People who want to play games, but can’t afford a console...but can somehow afford a subscription. Maybe if it’s bundled with YouTube premium or something else you’re already paying for. Subscriptions are bad deals in the long term but are great for low-income people because constant smaller payments are easier to manage than one large one, so they’re very popular with millennials who are all simultaneously broke as gently caress and also becoming the dominant force in the economy. That’s why everything is a subscription now. limaCAT posted:Sony bought Gaikai. Onlive tried to entice the market with their Set Top Box. Sony also bought what little remains of OnLive there were upon its closing in 2015. Pirate Jet fucked around with this message at 17:33 on Mar 20, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2019 17:30
|
|
|
The Atomic Man-Boy posted:I’m struggling to think up a market for this. People who want to play games, but can’t afford a console...but can somehow afford a subscription. Maybe if it’s bundled with YouTube premium or something else you’re already paying for. if it was a netflix style subscription and not too expensive i would consider it. as soon as i can afford a new computer or console i would not be interested any more though
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2019 17:33
|
|
|
The bizarre thing is that I feel like a video game streaming service can work, but every company seems absolutely insistent on having the games run on their servers and just stream the video to you instead of, I don’t know, having you download a level at a time, or maybe even the whole game, and you just lose the license if you stop paying oh wait that already exists it’s called Xbox Gamepass and it’s making all the money
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2019 17:37
|
|
|
Pirate Jet posted:The bizarre thing is that I feel like a video game streaming service can work, but every company seems absolutely insistent on having the games run on their servers and just stream the video to you instead of, I don’t know, having you download a level at a time, or maybe even the whole game, and you just lose the license if you stop paying oh wait that already exists it’s called Xbox Gamepass and it’s making all the money The idea is it running on hardware that can't play the game. Your idea requires you still have an expensive gaming PC or a game console. edit: clarifying the game console isn't going to be expensive at the end of a hardware generation and I never intended for the expensive to modify the game console. I am sorry for the confusion. I will stand by building a gaming PC is always expensive. pixaal fucked around with this message at 18:04 on Mar 20, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2019 17:43
|
|
|
pixaal posted:The idea is it running on hardware that can't play the game. Your idea requires you still have an expensive gaming PC or console. Define expensive, because Ouya (download), PSTV (download + streaming) and the Onlive STB (streaming) weren't expensive yet they didn't get a market.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2019 17:47
|
|
|
The Atomic Man-Boy posted:I’m struggling to think up a market for this. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2019 17:48
|
|
|
pixaal posted:The idea is it running on hardware that can't play the game. Your idea requires you still have an expensive gaming PC or console. This is aimed at someone who owns a console but also a lovely/outdated laptop, chromebook, whatever and wants to also play pc based games without investing more than a monthly (??) fee. If they can match console latency on a tv I think it might do OK until they randomly drop it since it's a google product. It's a shame the whole network dependent part of it still seems too early since I'd be down for the flipside of it- Pay a monthly to nintendo, sony or microsoft for access to their titles without needing to own the hardware, but the technical barriers make that reality kinda lame (see psnow on a pc)
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2019 17:50
|
|
|
limaCAT posted:Define expensive, because Ouya (download), PSTV (download + streaming) and the Onlive STB (streaming) weren't expensive yet they didn't get a market. PSTV's "streaming" was "you can play your PS4 on another TV" which isn't really streaming, and also it was maybe one of the worst marketed devices of all time.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2019 17:52
|
|
|
pixaal posted:The idea is it running on hardware that can't play the game. Your idea requires you still have an expensive gaming PC or console. You can get an Xbox One S brand new for like $200 these days, and it doubles as a 4K Blu-Ray player and streaming device.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2019 17:53
|
|
|
Zephro posted:For console games at least I wonder if it would be all that different from the status quo, where Sony or Microsoft get final say over everything. Maybe more so on PC, but even then you have to be pretty bold to deliberately choose to stay off Steam. I think the shift to your content being bundled into a subscription sold by the platform-holder, rather than your content being sold a la carte, is the biggest change and greatest business risk to the developers. Which, I suppose, means that this concern should apply to Xbox Game Pass as well as streaming services, except that Xbox Game Pass still requires dedicated hardware, and as long as there's dedicated hardware there's still an avenue for a la carte sales if developers are dissatisfied with their cut of subscription revenues. Streaming services are fundamentally incompatible with a la carte game sales, at least in the long term - Google may try it early on, but streaming is fundamentally an ongoing service, not a one-off product sale.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2019 17:55
|
|
|
limaCAT posted:Define expensive, because Ouya (download), PSTV (download + streaming) and the Onlive STB (streaming) weren't expensive yet they didn't get a market. The game would have to run on the hardware already. The service fee now has to beat the price of the games you buy. It might make sense to just include a year of service with a device. How many games did you play on each console? How many did you pay the full $50-60 for? I think buying games is going to come out ahead. The idea of the game streaming is for someone that wouldn't play games to play them. Someone like my dad, who loves sports and would probably play a Madden game but wont buy anything that can run it. He bought me a Madden game once and asked me to bring my PS4 every holiday. He isn't going to pay $200 +$20/month to play madden. He would pay $20/month to play madden on his computer though. Which streaming as Google has it would allow. That is the market they are trying to capture. Requiring hardware is just making the streaming service some form of DRM. edit:I see the problem, I meant that the gaming PC would be expensive (because it's pretty hard to build one on the cheap). or a game console, game consoles aren't always expensive.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2019 18:01
|
|
|
Yeah, the "subscription bad deal versus buying hardware" is the last thing that will stop this lol. People are huge idiots with money in general. They will be beyond happy to pay three times as much for something as long the actual visible number that dings their account is only $20 or whatever. It's the technical and usability aspects that will make or break this, not the subscription lol.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2019 18:03
|
|
|
limaCAT posted:Stadia could be a viable platform for episodic content like Telltale Games adventures... too bad Telltale died. Oh, it’s like the BS Satellaview, now I understand.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2019 18:06
|
|
|
Nobody's dad is going to buy this stuff come on. It was just tax time and Christmas, anybody who wanted a console has one and anyone that doesn't have at least one of them by now either doesn't want them or can't make use of this thing anyway. They're trying to Target people that don't exist. You can stream your PS4 or Xbox to your PC for free right now and see how it'll be yourself for everyone that has never tried it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2019 18:11
|
|
|
RBX posted:You can stream your PS4 or Xbox to your PC for free right now and see how it'll be yourself for everyone that has never tried it. narrator: it isn't good
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2019 18:14
|
|
|
Pirate Jet posted:You can get an Xbox One S brand new for like $200 these days, and it doubles as a 4K Blu-Ray player and streaming device. orrr, say xCloud is just psnow*, you sign up for 20 months instead and have access to a library of games on top of never needing a piece of hardware that will have iterations and generations.. I mean, I hate this idea as a consumer, big time. But let's be honest, the key to this is whoever can swing the biggest amount of data centers and it sure as poo poo hasn't been anyone from Sony on down... But now we're going to see how Microsoft and google fare at it, two companies already in the server space, both with insane operating budgets. This idea could be popular if the technology holds up, or it could just fall on its face again...I don't blame these companies for trying to be the netflix of game streaming, technically it's a new market that could become ubiquitous (i hope not) *psnow is 5mbs compressed to shit720/30p streaming..not exactly pushing the limits of anything e: https://killedbygoogle.com/ is kind of amazing zer0spunk fucked around with this message at 19:29 on Mar 20, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2019 18:19
|
|
|
the only natural demographics i can think of for this is people who have a spouse who freaks out if there is "gamer" stuff in the house, or kids who have parents that only allow them to buy game stuff via prepaid cards for their phones/ipad p.s. yes, there are spouses and parents who are like this
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2019 19:28
|
|
|
Feels Villeneuve posted:PSTV's "streaming" was "you can play your PS4 on another TV" which isn't really streaming, and also it was maybe one of the worst marketed devices of all time. Now worked on both PsVita and Pstv. It still had a catalog off-road games that worked on it natively (a subset of WHITELISTED Vita games but still...)
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2019 20:09
|
|
|
Tormented posted:Yes. Google is just being dumb by trying to show off games that require good reaction times and aren't normally limited by internet. There are so many "slower" games that would be fine with having 166ms response time. I mean any turn based games or even multiplayer only games as you limited by your connection anyway. turn based games are also frequently the ones that least require expensive hardware to run in the first place though (which negates a lot of the advantage of not having to buy your own), and while multiplayer games are indeed connection-limited you're committing to doubling down on the degree to which your experience is degraded by any connection issues/inadequacy and serving games to people in format that makes any hiccups much harder to hide since you don't have a client to fake/cover for it locally and any lack of responsiveness will be observed/felt by the user immediately
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2019 20:18
|
|
|
Andrast posted:Laggy and unresponsive menus suck in turn-based games Yeah and a laggy mouse cursor feels absolutely horrible.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2019 20:28
|
|
|
RBX posted:Nobody's dad is going to buy this stuff come on. It was just tax time and Christmas, anybody who wanted a console has one and anyone that doesn't have at least one of them by now either doesn't want them or can't make use of this thing anyway. They're trying to Target people that don't exist. Agreed but on the other hand, after using Netflix for a while, I can appreciate having a catalog with a lot of content that I can watch without having to own the disk. But to me it looks like with Stadia they are targeting people like me with a technology that might not exist (decent low latency streaming) and with content that does not exist yet. TV shows existed long before Netflix and therefore it was easy to create TV shows for streaming. On the other hand there are no good games that would strictly require cloud services if not for being masqueraded Mmos (in which case they suck by definition).
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2019 20:28
|
|
|
The future of gaming is remotely-rendered, TAB target MMO's with three second global cooldowns.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2019 20:34
|
|
|
Won't heavy traffic on google's game-streaming servers create noticeable lag/stuttering/freezes or could their servers handle that kind of load? I can't imagine they could replicate the 166MS input lag outside of their "controlled-environment" which involves more than a handful of demo testers and lovely ISP monopolies.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2019 20:47
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/GraveyardDuck1/status/1108131288014188545
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2019 21:15
|
|
|
this is an interesting example because it's clearly hosed up but the image remains fine which implies it's non-network related
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2019 21:52
|
|
|
Chomp8645 posted:The future of gaming is remotely-rendered, TAB target MMO's with three second global cooldowns. I was in a group with a guy in FFXIV (2.5s global cooldown, before stat adjustments) and he was failing 100% of mechanics and did about 20% of the damage of the other damage dealer. I truly believe no internet-based, multiplayer game can be streamed unless it's a game built from the ground up to accomodate the service. And even then, it'll be hosed because of last-mile issues.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2019 21:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 16:07 |
|
|
P-Mack posted:Yeah and a laggy mouse cursor feels absolutely horrible. I think the guy he’s responding to was mixing up two different kinds of latency. Playing Counterstrike 1.6 with a 120ms ping was tolerable because your inputs were still reflected relatively instantly on the client side and the network latency only became apparent when there was a major disagreement between clients. 40ms is the threshold where average people start to notice a delay in actions like clicks and keystrokes. 100ms+ would feel pretty bad for basic UI functions and camera controls. That’s when you start fudging up inputs because what you’re seeing on the screen doesn’t match what your hands are doing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2019 22:36
|
|
