-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Google Stadia will be “faster and more responsive” than local gaming hardware in the near future predicts Stadia dev
- Thread starter Deleted member 44371
- Start date
Never happened, I have a battery powered router/modem like I said anyway
Which again, if your outage knocks out your local exchange, you won't have any internet.
My power has gone out before and I played smash bros online on my switch don't know how they have it set up, its separate from my electricity though, the main reason I have that battery router is for my alarm system
Last edited:
This makes no sense whatsoever. Input lag is perceived by the time difference from when you press a button and the action appearing on screen (e.g. the frame is rendered and sent to your TV). It doesn't matter if the CPU is somehow running faster or ahead. If the rendered frame arrives later, you're still perceiving the same input lag.
Didn't know there were so many scientists working in cloud computing and networking on ERA. I'm a little bit worried that said scientists lack basic reading and comprehension skills though.
No. It dosen't make sense for you. Stop defining what is valueable to other people.
Just curious what kind of games people are expecting to play on their phones. I get that the wifi controller will make it a lot easier but I still can't imagine myself playing RDR2 or some other shooter style on a phone screen. I mostly prefer Turn based strategies so those would probably be quite possible though I imagine the text would be far too small to comfortably play a game like say Shadowrun Hong Kong which has a lot of reading.
I remote played the entirety of RDR2, Spider-Man 2 and MK11 on my iPhone X with no issues. You adjust to the small screens pretty fast. Though I have two kids with another on the way so I do it out of necessity. lol
With UI adjusmtent many could be fun to play, but it is really critical that UI fits the size and is readable.
Stadia will be totally fine for typical 30fps console games. It will even be okay-ish for some PC genres. I've been using Steam beta remote-play for many months now. It is basically single instance Stadia with no overhead and - depending on your PC - much better host hardware than what Google is using at launch.
Games that work:
- Monster Hunter World feels better through streaming than locally on PS4 Pro (prioritize graphics) - thanks to rock solid 60 fps and less inherent input lag on the PC version. This is also the ONLY instance where IQ is better than locally on PS4 because I can disable the vaseline TAA in the PC version.
- I've played through all of Valkyria Chronicles 4 and most of the time I forgot I was streaming it instead of playing it locally.
- Path of Exile works beautifully even if split-second reactions are not possible and I died more than I would have locally. It is great that the mouse cursor is rendered locally and you don't have any lag when pointing at stuff. Just the movement/abilitiy after the click is slightly delayed.
Games that do not work:
- Warframe feels like a different game. I only use melee and abilities because aiming and shooting with the delay on M/KB feels like I'm drunk.
- Destiny 2 is a complete shitshow. It requires super snappy aim to be good at stuff like Gambit and Crucible and streaming can not provide that in a FPS. I tried it with a controller and it was not noticably different than any other shooter on consoles though. If my experience with MH:W are indicative I can imagine Destiny 2 played with controller through 60fps streaming will still beat 30fps console gameplay. Shooters with a controller are just not something I can enjoy.
- Sonic Mania is really bad. The delay makes the game almost impossible to play FAST and it is not an enjoyable experience. It is very comparable to playing it on PS4 with a bad LCD TV or playing SMW on the SNES mini - as in noticable delay between button press and jump animation.
It really depends on the game and what you compare it to. If I compare it to playing any of the afformentioned games locally on my PC, streaming obviously can not beat 120+fps ultra-wide crisp 3-10ms delay. Comparing it to 30fps on a console connected to a (good) ~25ms delay TV? I might actually prefer the streaming most of the time as it still feels better to have 60fps albeit with comparable input lag to the 30fps on console.
Example of PoE typical remote scenario below:
Host is wired to a gigabit connection of ISP "A". Client is on company WiFi, 250MBit, ISP "B". Pretty much worst case for the actual connection as those packets have to go through 2 different ISPs. Overal latency is 45ms in the best case, fluctuating up to 65ms (see red line graph). There are spikes to well over 100ms that can result in a few dropped frames. Those hitches happen usually when the QoS planner of the company network prioritizes the Facebook addiction of my co-workers over receiving my streaming packets.
Games that work:
- Monster Hunter World feels better through streaming than locally on PS4 Pro (prioritize graphics) - thanks to rock solid 60 fps and less inherent input lag on the PC version. This is also the ONLY instance where IQ is better than locally on PS4 because I can disable the vaseline TAA in the PC version.
- I've played through all of Valkyria Chronicles 4 and most of the time I forgot I was streaming it instead of playing it locally.
- Path of Exile works beautifully even if split-second reactions are not possible and I died more than I would have locally. It is great that the mouse cursor is rendered locally and you don't have any lag when pointing at stuff. Just the movement/abilitiy after the click is slightly delayed.
Games that do not work:
- Warframe feels like a different game. I only use melee and abilities because aiming and shooting with the delay on M/KB feels like I'm drunk.
- Destiny 2 is a complete shitshow. It requires super snappy aim to be good at stuff like Gambit and Crucible and streaming can not provide that in a FPS. I tried it with a controller and it was not noticably different than any other shooter on consoles though. If my experience with MH:W are indicative I can imagine Destiny 2 played with controller through 60fps streaming will still beat 30fps console gameplay. Shooters with a controller are just not something I can enjoy.
- Sonic Mania is really bad. The delay makes the game almost impossible to play FAST and it is not an enjoyable experience. It is very comparable to playing it on PS4 with a bad LCD TV or playing SMW on the SNES mini - as in noticable delay between button press and jump animation.
It really depends on the game and what you compare it to. If I compare it to playing any of the afformentioned games locally on my PC, streaming obviously can not beat 120+fps ultra-wide crisp 3-10ms delay. Comparing it to 30fps on a console connected to a (good) ~25ms delay TV? I might actually prefer the streaming most of the time as it still feels better to have 60fps albeit with comparable input lag to the 30fps on console.
Example of PoE typical remote scenario below:
Host is wired to a gigabit connection of ISP "A". Client is on company WiFi, 250MBit, ISP "B". Pretty much worst case for the actual connection as those packets have to go through 2 different ISPs. Overal latency is 45ms in the best case, fluctuating up to 65ms (see red line graph). There are spikes to well over 100ms that can result in a few dropped frames. Those hitches happen usually when the QoS planner of the company network prioritizes the Facebook addiction of my co-workers over receiving my streaming packets.
You are absolutely right, that was absolutely ridiculous!.
I got carried away by the term "Negative Latency" and was treating the stream/images from the GPU render (with all the latency) as a constant.
Don't know if he meant this exactly, but you can have a game that renders at 30fps on the GPU, but have the internal simulation running at 60fps on the CPU. That is not exactly related to how Google defines negative latency, but it definitely helps to reduce latency, as the polling rate for the controller would be increased.The game draws or renders 30 frames every second, but checks what button was pressed 60 times a second. I expect to see more of this going forward for cloud games.
Last edited:
Mmm, read my previous post to see if that is what you had in mind, because it sounds similar to me.
It doesn't have to be your phone either could be a tablet, my phone screen is 6 inches though around the same size as switch
What difference does it make if the result of all those polled controls still reach your eyes with a fair delay? You won't perceive any difference really.
The idea here is that the game engine will be aware sooner of the button that was pressed and render the frame that reflects that earlier. That is equal to lower input latency.
I don't regularly have power outages but we do get wind storms so they happen. And it is nice to have a device I can play with while it is out. It's a big reason I'm against a game that is online only for no real good reason. Now Stadia I could understand why, but... honestly I'm also not a fan of paying full price for something google could easily take away (basically it's up to them how long I get to keep the game). At least with hardware of my own and games of my own I can try to take care of them to make them last longer.
If they ever take a game down from the store you will still probably be able to stream it if you bought it, the same way you can download a game from steam that you bought that's no longer on the store
I'm happy there seems to be some real discussion in between the insults lol
I found some examples you might find interesting.
Need for Speed Hot Pursuit
"The way the architecture works is to run the game simulation internally at 60FPS, and it's polling the controller once for every simulation step so you get as up-to-date inputs as possible," Fry explained.
"The render code (building display lists for the GPU to consume the next frame) immediately follows the two controller poll/simulate loops, and then it waits for v-sync. Thus on CPU we get two 60FPS updates and one 30Hz render in a total of 33ms.
"When the CPU is done and v-sync is hit, the GPU kicks off and renders the scene while the next simulate/render frame happens in parallel on CPU. Once done the GPU also waits for v-sync (which also syncs it to the CPU), thus adding another 33ms. Then TV scan-out happens to get the final image to screen, which adds a final 16.6ms."
The total of all of this is 83ms, and theoretically this is the absolute fastest controller response we're likely to see from a 30FPS title. But the 50ms measurement from the PC version also demonstrates that the approach Criterion has taken yields dividends running at 60FPS too.
"On the PC version, it's obviously able to go to 60FPS so we don't clamp it to two simulate loops per render," Fry continued.
"So, if both the CPU and GPU are fast enough, we only do one controller poll/simulate loop before we need to render, thus achieving 60FPS with only 50ms latency (16ms controller poll/simulate then render, 16ms GPU, then 16ms scan-out)."
So having reached the theoretical limit for controller response on a 30FPS title, could Criterion do the same for in a 60FPS console game?
"In theory, if we were able to achieve 60FPS on console, this architecture would get to 50ms latency on console... but we're not at 60FPS, so we can't. You can test it in the Autolog menus though, since they do run at 60FPS (as long as you're not in the car select screen which runs at 30 again)."
Hot Pursuit cuts pad lag to new lows
"So, 30Hz... it'll be really interesting to see what your latency measurements come out as. We think latency is pretty …
www.eurogamer.net
Killer Instinct
"So let's be clear: The game you're playing runs at 60FPS
Internally, the game runs the simulation faster than 60FPS, which is what my 90FPS comment was meant to convey. This faster polling we do behind the scenes is part of the magic that allows us to have such great netplay in KI and allows rollback to really shine – hitting 60 FPS on-screen alone isn't enough to make amazing netplay a reality."
That's...literally what I said though. It makes sense for the person I was quoting. That's great. It doesn't make sense for me and millions of other people (literally what the subject of this thread is) and everyone else who has said it doesn't appeal to them (the majority of people in every Stadia thread).
Cloud is future of everything, more people will be streaming games than playing them locally in 15-20 years but there will still be a decent amount playing locally
the same way there's a lot more people playing games on phones than switch, but switch still has a decent amount and is successful
Don't understand what is your point or logic is here. There are 7.7 billion people in the world and every console generation only sells a range of around 150 to 270 million consoles, between all of the console manufacturers. The important number here is not and has never been the amount of people that don't want something, in order to make a service or console successful. It is yet to be seen the amount of people that will try Stadia and will enjoy the service. We will know that over time as soon as the service is available to try, but not before.
My point is that most people aren't all that interested in Stadia. Maybe that will change if the service can prove itself.
that is if they still offer the service. Or alternatively some one hacks your account and you can't get them to reinstate it (Sony has shown this is a real world scenario) byebye all your games. Or in my case with steam something happened with my original steam account and was not able to get them to find it (luckily it only had one game I got free) bye bye games. You are basically putting all your trust in google to keep your games and for various reasons, not all that would be google's fault, you'd lose all your games at once.
This sounds extremely rare and unlikely and not something I'm worried about, I have digital games on steam, eshop, PSN I'm not worried about losing them. If I do I don't really care I've finished all the games I own anyway
I'm going to lose everything I own one day when I die lol
Most people are not aware of the service and that will remain the case until next year
Of course, the service is not even out yet, so if you really want to be accurate, we need to actually wait until it's out. We don't know if most people will have a horrible or awesome experience yet. Whatever happens it will be shared over and over online and that will decide in great part if the service if successful or not.
The people that it doesn't work 100% perfect for are going to be the loudest too
I can see it now, someone with 5mbs internet try's stadia and it doesn't work and says it worst service ever 1 Star out of 5 do not buy
For some people it is. For a lot of people actually. You're just not their target audience, just like I'm not. But if there's a PC game I want to play that it's available on stadia and not on ps5, I'm not buying a PC for that, I'll surely play it on stadia gladly. It's way better than cashing out $500+ on a PC. I believe a lot of people like me that are Nintendo and Sony owners and never cared about PC gaming will feel this way.
Stadia won't replace dedicated consoles just like phones didn't replace Nintendo's handhelds.
Tablets didn't replace PCs. This is simply not happening.
Yea I mostly play switch and PS, stadia is perfect for me for that multiplatform game that I want to play every once in awhile at max settings, no need to spend money on a pc for that
That is correct.
But what AtomicShroom mentioned is also correct, it still won't solve the input latency from button press -> Stadia -> observing the updated images on screen.
You can already try this in practice by setting up a game at 120FPS, then increasing CPU_render_ahead value high like 8 frames. This should be very evident in games with fast camera control (FPS, racing, etc), where input latency is naturally lower due to higher FPS.
Don't know what you mean by "solve the input latency from button press", but if you read the post about Need for Speed Hot Pursuit and Killer Instinct, you can see examples of how it does help to reduce input latency when you decouple the game simulation rate from the frame rate and increase the simulation rate. As a normal user, there are no options for you to change how fast the game simulation runs individually. The sooner the frame that reflects your input is ready on the server, the faster it can be sent and the faster you can see it on your screen. That is equal to lower input lag.
Sony and MS will probably just jump on the streaming bandwagon eventually. The concept of dedicated home console just seems so 1980s. And phones basically did replace handhelds. I think we can both agree that far more people play games on phones than on any dedicated handheld. Sure, handhelds still kinda exist with the switch, but it's a minor player in the total mobile game spending universe.
Way too early for that. At best Streaming will get a small but viable market for now, which will slowly keep growing till it suddenly explodes, but we're nowhere near that at the moment.
Not sure about Xbox since they seem to be making their own console almost obsolete with their gamepasses but Playstation and Nintendo still have plenty of system sellers in their stock and digital downloads really only grew in this gen. I have no doubt they'd like to go all digital downloads if they could but last gen, and because they have competition, it's a hard sell because they're screwed if the other one doesn't do it.
I'm very excited for Stadia and it will be my primary platform for my wife and I going forward.
Keep in mind I have great internet which I pay $175 a month for.
Keep in mind I have great internet which I pay $175 a month for.
How long it takes to grow doesn't matter to people that can already use it
Unfortunately for Google these are engine side solutions. The mileage Stadia can get by running at a higher frame-rate and streaming at a lower target will very much depend on how well a game handles input latency in the first place.
Obviously? Though faster growth would probably result in better options sooner.
🤔
Sony jumped in years ago and MS has been talking their plans for almost as long.
Sure, we still don't know exactly how each developer will modify their games when they port them to Stadia. If you already have a local low input lag game like Call of Duty as the starting point, it will be easier to make it work on Stadia, as an experience that will be good enough for many. The point is that there are a lot of optimizations that can be done and this is just the beginning. Higher framerates, higher simulation/polling rates for the controller inputs, Asynchronous Space Warp and motion vectors to reuse the data from previous frames, to generate new ones faster and predicting controller inputs are just some of the ways we will see developers reduce input lag.
I wonder what the cost and time to port to stadia is? Like if stadia only had 1 million users for a long time I wonder if ports would be cheap enough that it would still be worth it for only 1 million people
I haven't seen concrete information on the cost to port games over to Stadia. The only vague statement I have seen is from Ubisoft. Stadia at launch cannot make a AAA game successful enough to recoup the development cost, but most of the games on Stadia will be multi platform or timed exclusives. So the idea here is that Stadia will allow developers to reach the market of people that currently don't have current gen consoles or a good enough gaming PC to play their latest games. So as long as developers recoup the cost to port the games and generate some profit it should be good enough at the beginning.
"The extra cost to put to make sure the games work well on Stadia is not that high," said Guillemot. "It's part now of our pipelines and we have a good relationship with Stadia to make sure it is profitable for us."