Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

Vapourware Google Stadia - "a game streaming service for everyone"

Trithne

Erudite
Joined
Dec 3, 2008
Messages
1,191
Wait, so if this thing uses 20GB per hour, what's the point? You might as well just actually download the game itself then, and that would waste much less bandwith. There are no games worth playing that require a supercomputer and the OMG TEH INSTANT PLEY is just, why do you even need that? Who are these people with eight million different devices to play games (or streams of games) on?

Google Employees.

Game Developers.

Everyone except the people that actually play videogames.
 
Self-Ejected

unfairlight

Self-Ejected
Joined
Aug 20, 2017
Messages
4,092
The argument is that you don't have to download and you don't need any decent hardware to play. Issue is, you will just need a fibre optic connection that is not really widespread in many parts of the world (again, especially America and Britain which both have connections full of suckass outside of NY/California/London) and you can't hope to use anywhere away from home. And if you're at home, why not just play on PC or console?
 
Joined
Dec 5, 2010
Messages
1,611
And if you're at home, why not just play on PC or console?
Because if you're a god damn consoletard or nongaming casual who happens to not live in the boondocks and then there's this big bad new next generation game that everyone's talking about and you want to play but in order to do so you either have to shell out 400-500$ for a console +60-70$ for the game or simply pay 20$ for a few months worth of what -as far as you can tell- is essentially the same thing being streamed to you, what do you think your consoletard self is gonna choose when you've previously not bought a console until years after it launched when it goes for less than 300$/game included and have even gone with digital games over physical just so you don't have to get your spotty fat ass off the shitstained couch in order to switch them?

Most of the reasons why casual gamers flock to consoles over PC (price, simplicity, branding) are the same reasons why they ought to flock to something like stadia over a traditional PS5, if they can.

MS previously experimented with selling Xbox One X's with a payment plan in order to lower the cost of entry, might be their best counter for the consolo-casual market with decent internet stadia is for.

Those console gamers with shit internet will make do with buying traditional consoles, when they can eventually afford them. But just because not everyone has a decent internet connection hasn't stopped online games from thriving either.

I played BB on PSNow and input lag in that game is absolutely a problem. I'm calling fake news.
It's not like BB doesn't have input lag and frametime issues locally either, and its framerate will often go to shit with more players. And you're talking anecdotal from a different service from a different company. Onlive worked fine for me from what I tested, thus all streams are good?
Reports of google's ACOd streams seemed positive, and didn't see complaints about RE7 and ACOd streams to the Nintendo Switch in Japan.
 
Last edited:

Turjan

Arcane
Joined
Mar 31, 2008
Messages
5,047
The argument is that you don't have to download and you don't need any decent hardware to play. Issue is, you will just need a fibre optic connection that is not really widespread in many parts of the world (again, especially America and Britain which both have connections full of suckass outside of NY/California/London) and you can't hope to use anywhere away from home. And if you're at home, why not just play on PC or console?
While we have fiberoptics in the road, the lines to the houses are copper. Which means it still sucks.
 

Lutte

Dumbfuck!
Dumbfuck
Joined
Aug 24, 2017
Messages
1,967
Location
DU's mom
I played BB on PSNow and input lag in that game is absolutely a problem. I'm calling fake news.
I don't know where you live nor what is your ISP and general internet quality, peering with Sony's datacenter etc.
I don't care what you think, it worked for me well enough to complete the game. Certainly was cheaper to pay that single month of sub $10 than buying the console for the only game I cared about. No need for a PS4.
 

commie

The Last Marxist
Patron
Joined
May 12, 2010
Messages
1,865,249
Location
Where one can weep in peace
Divinity: Original Sin Project: Eternity Divinity: Original Sin 2
All these KWAN fags complaining about costly shitty internet!.....


Laughs in Romanian.....

04-05-palarie-nicolae-ceausescu-465x390.jpg
 

Shackleton

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Dec 29, 2011
Messages
1,301
Location
Knackers Yard
Codex 2016 - The Age of Grimoire Make the Codex Great Again! Steve gets a Kidney but I don't even get a tag. Pathfinder: Wrath I'm very into cock and ball torture
Well, if dev payment is based on time spent in their game, the atrocities in design generated will make input lag a non issue for sure :D

This. This is the real kicker at the core of game streaming services. How are they going to monetize it sufficiently? If YouTube is anything to go by, they'll use some sort of metric based around time played to determine how much of the pie publishers get to take home. I'm sure publishers would just love to put an endless stream of skinner boxes in games, with the option of paying real cash to circumvent them. Decent opinion piece from bbc about it:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-47634263

Google leads gaming down a perilous path

Dave Lee North America technology reporter
  • 20 March 2019

It’s a trend that feels inevitable - just ask anyone in the music, TV or film business. Streaming is where it's at, and the possibility for what can be streamed has only ever been bound by the limitations of internet connectivity.

Google thinks its technology can make streaming games a plausible and possibly even pleasurable reality. One where gamers aren’t driven to insanity by stuttering gameplay and slow-reacting characters.

For the sake of argument, let’s assume it succeeds. Where might Google - with its track record for upending business models, often with unintended consequences - lead the industry?

Shifting costs
Games consoles are expensive. The games are (mostly) expensive.

Google’s Stadia could eliminate both costs, replacing them with a subscription fee. A ballpark figure might be $15-$30 a month - though some predict big name titles might have an additional fee on top, like buying a new movie on Amazon Prime Video.

Good news? It depends on where you’re coming from.

For gamers, there are a number of hurdles. Phil Harrison, Google’s man in charge of Stadia, told me his team's tests managed 4K gaming on download speeds of “around 25mbps”.

For context, Microsoft currently suggests a minimum of just 3mbps to play “traditional” games online. And the difference between getting 3mbps and 25mbps? Hundreds of dollars a year in payments to your internet service provider.

Or, the difference could be not being able to play at all - 25mbps is more than double the average connection speed across the US, according to research commissioned and part-funded by, er, Google.

Mr Harrison did say he's confident the technology will improve so as to allow play at lower speeds, but that's definitely not a promise.

So - good news games companies, then? History offers a mixed picture.

The big fear will be in succumbing to what has happened to the music industry. Streaming has meant royalty payments have been squeezed so dramatically, even elite musicians can struggle to make a living through record sales. (It's not the stars worst hit, it's worth noting, but the trumpet players to the stars, and so on)

In the TV/movie business, the deep pockets of Netflix et al have meant studios seem more flush than ever, but you wonder how long that can continue. The $15bn Netflix is planning to spend on new content this year is considered by most investors to be wholly untenable.

So that leaves Google, and for Google it is undoubtedly a good move. Without any existing skin in the game of gaming platforms, there is little to lose and everything to gain. Google sees YouTube, where billions of hours of gaming have been uploaded, as just one half of a very lucrative puzzle. Stadia (it hopes) will make up the rest.

‘Microtransactions inevitable'
A bigger question, though, might be how the games themselves may have to change in order to accommodate a new business model if streaming becomes the dominant way consumers access their games.

It might leave publishers bereft of a huge income stream, instead scrapping - with the rest of the industry - for a slice of those $15-30-a-months.

For big publishers, massive reach, and exclusivity deals, might make the numbers just about add up. And for tiny indie developers, with one or two people, that might work well: a huge audience a button click away. But to me, the model shows signs it could leave a very exposed middle ground of medium-sized games makers, whose costs are too high to be offset by the amount of players the title will attract. With many of the most creative ideas coming via these nimble-yet-powerful studios, I worry what an even tougher business model might do.

Now, the wild success and profitability of free-to-play Fortnite, which offers cosmetic upgrades for a fee, shows games makers can make astronomical amounts of money without an upfront cost or overly-intrusive in-game monetisation. But how many Fortnite-esque successes can the market sustain? Two? Three?

If it does indeed go for a subscription model, Google has some important decisions to make about how will dish money out to publishers.

On YouTube, one of the stats that determines how much ad revenue creators get is "minutes watched”. In gaming, "minutes played” could lead to some developers introducing gameplay mechanics that are counter-intuitive to a good time, but vital if they are to gain income.

Or, developers might have to make up the loss of funds by encouraging players to pay for additional items to progress more quickly, in a far more aggressive manner than console gamers are used to today.

The ad-laden, endorphin-pumping, lootbox-peddling mobile gaming industry might be considered the canary in a very miserable coal-mine, here. Paying for a games console, and its games, may not be such a bad thing after all.
 

Heretic

Cipher
Joined
Dec 1, 2015
Messages
844
Absolutely agree. If these streaming services lead to developers optimizing for gameplay length, we haven't seen such grind and padding yet.

The games with the best ROI will be idle clickers.
 

Dexter

Arcane
Joined
Mar 31, 2011
Messages
15,655
This. This is the real kicker at the core of game streaming services. How are they going to monetize it sufficiently?
If anything like this ever took off, they would likely use commercials while interrupting your Stream every specific time period (like 20, 30 minutes?). They might also ask people to pay for hours of gameplay e.g. want to play a game for 5 hours or more than 10, you have to pay extra! Also In-Stream purchases - forget the concept of "DLC" and "Microtransaction" fuckery, when a game is streamed to you, the entire game is DLC! "Want to skip that grind or play this particular mission, or enter this dungeon? No problem, PAY US! Want to unlock High Graphics Options and increased resolution? No problem, subscribe to our Platinum Plus service!". Also it would mean the death of Modding, Ownership and various other things.
 

J_C

One Bit Studio
Patron
Developer
Joined
Dec 28, 2010
Messages
16,947
Location
Pannonia
Project: Eternity Wasteland 2 Shadorwun: Hong Kong Divinity: Original Sin 2 Steve gets a Kidney but I don't even get a tag. Pathfinder: Wrath
Here is another video about the input lag:


TLDW: The input lag is around 166ms. Compared, even a wired Xbox controller on a console only has 15ms of lag. The wired controller has even much less.
 

Jarpie

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Oct 30, 2009
Messages
6,603
Codex 2012 MCA
There's one thing Google (and people glamouring for Stadia) are IMO not taking into account, beside all the technical issues, the console players are very brand loyal, and they're not gonna switch to the new console unless Google really shells out big bucks and buys a lot of exclusives, which I bet Sony and Microsoft will fight for tooth and the nail. They're not gonna get Nintendo's exclusive games, as there's no way they'll let the competitor to get hands on Zelda, Mario and other Nintendo-games. For me this comes off as Google's N-Gage moment, and probably will be a big flop, or what was that Apple's console called, Pippin? which was dead on arrival?
 

Makabb

Arcane
Shitposter Bethestard
Joined
Sep 19, 2014
Messages
11,753
Sony will have the best exclusives once again, because they are the ones with turn-based jrpg companies, and most likely PS5 at launch will be once again the top hardware available at the moment for consoles.
 

cosmicray

Savant
Joined
Jan 20, 2019
Messages
436
TLDW: The input lag is around 166ms. Compared, even a wired Xbox controller on a console only has 15ms of lag. The wired controller has even much less.
You didn't include the video lag, which more of a problem than controller's. 60fps game will have at least a 50ms lag by definition.

Stadia could actually minimize it if cloud servers render games at 240fps for example, which is 12 ms lag. Then there will only remain a ping lag. So even with 100ms "ping"(it is roundtrip already, so you don't need to multiply further) you'll have a comparable lag to 30fps games, which console games are so accustomed to. Of course they need their codecs to be quite fast, so they don't introduce an additional lag. So, speed of light or not, they could make it happen. 100ms ping means you need server
10000km away. Pretty doable, I guess.

https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-lag-factor-article

Xbox 360:
afpq2AI.png
 
Self-Ejected

unfairlight

Self-Ejected
Joined
Aug 20, 2017
Messages
4,092
I think the issue is that input lag and every other source of lag will be added to video lag, they aren't mutually exclusive. Input lag will always feel worse than an occasional stutter to me as well.
240FPS rendering is highly optimistic, I doubt it could get a stable 120 FPS in any AAA game at comparable settings to a PC with a Vega 56 card and a decent Intel i5 or i7 from the last 2 generation which is what Stadia most closely resembles. Stadia also begs the question on how often they intend to upgrade the hardware. It's on the tier of a good gaming PC today, but what about next gen? Next gen consoles will very likely be an AMD Navi GPU based design, and with 7nm on their side they could exceed the current specs of the Stadia. Stadia has the benefit of multiple GPUs, of course, but that's more headaches for developers.
 

cosmicray

Savant
Joined
Jan 20, 2019
Messages
436
240fps is only possible if Google forces developers to it. You can have any fps you want on consoles, but it's always competing with picture quality, which is why they still have 30 fps games. But I'm only saying that speed of light, while detrimental to cloud gaming, it could be dealt with and might not be a deal breaker. Console gamers endured GTA4's 200ms lag. The price of subscription will determine how much of lag is "good enough". I quit playing Dark Souls on 360, because fuck that 20fps shit(which is why Blighttown was so scary). It was unbearable, but I'm sure some decided to soldier on.
 

baud

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Dec 11, 2016
Messages
3,992
Location
Septentrion
RPG Wokedex Strap Yourselves In Steve gets a Kidney but I don't even get a tag. Pathfinder: Wrath I helped put crap in Monomyth
I used Onlive a little like 7 years ago (for a class presentation on cloud services; only time I ever played video game for school!), from what I remember the input lag was not much of a bother then, I played a little of Darksiders 2, the Witcher 2 and a racing game. The racing game was not fun, but I didn't had any issue with Darksiders 2.
The main issue was more the resolution going up and down as the available bandwidth changed.

I think Google has the infrastructure, with their loads of data-centers, to reduce the latency to a minimum to most of the population and the technical competences to build something solid technically.
In addition to its subscription price, it will live and die by the game it will offer: if it's the same calibre of mobile shovelware on their play store, I'm pretty sure most people won't see the point. Also the design of games tailor-made for it will most likely be garbage to take into account the lag and the payement being time-based. And I'm not a fan of such subscription model where ownership is even more diluted than with Steam.
 

Venser

Erudite
Joined
Aug 8, 2015
Messages
1,766
Location
dm6
I don't really like the idea of Netflix style streaming service for games but I can see it's potential when it comes to VR. One of the main obstacles to experiencing high end VR gaming is the cost of owning a powerful gaming PC. But Stadia eliminates that requirement and all you'd need is headset capable of playing high res video stream and good internet connection. They say that at launch Stadia will run the newest games on 4K HDR on 60FPS and they have plans to upscale it to 8K on 120FPS in the future. So with Oculus Go style headset we could get amazing looking VR games for the price of the headset only and no need to fuck around with cables. The only drawback are the potential latency problems.
 

tritosine2k

Erudite
Joined
Dec 29, 2010
Messages
1,468
I don't really like the idea of Netflix style streaming service for games but I can see it's potential when it comes to VR. One of the main obstacles to experiencing high end VR gaming is the cost of owning a powerful gaming PC. But Stadia eliminates that requirement and all you'd need is headset capable of playing high res video stream and good internet connection. They say that at launch Stadia will run the newest games on 4K HDR on 60FPS and they have plans to upscale it to 8K on 120FPS in the future. So with Oculus Go style headset we could get amazing looking VR games for the price of the headset only and no need to fuck around with cables. The only drawback are the potential latency problems.
Why not add a third quixotism while you're at it, let's go all the way. Star Citizen ?
 

HansDampf

Arcane
Joined
Dec 15, 2015
Messages
1,471
Latency wouldn't just be a drawback for VR, it would make it outright impossible for streaming services.
 

tritosine2k

Erudite
Joined
Dec 29, 2010
Messages
1,468
VR bigwigs said they won't deal with >20ms OVERALL latency because "muh presence" and established 20ms maximum "motion to photon " latency. The only way streaming works with near eye displays if textures are streamed instead framebuffer, and thats pretty hard to do for multiple reasons (remember how static idtech5 was) . See nv "cloudlight" paper, even that small subset of texture streaming is hard, and thats not dealing with visibility just tries to offload shading workload.
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom