In terms of latency (i.e. input response) it's physically impossible, unless they put servers in the backyards of everyone who wants to use it. Doesn't matter how good your internet connection is, the latency to a server X km away will always be higher than to a console two meters away.
The rest, sure.
That's not strictly true if you take into consideration the total latency from the entire stack (controller to your eye).
What is an acceptable latency for the entire stack?
I won't put a number on it because it will differ from person to person and game to game.
You get latency from the controller, through the console, latency from the game that's running and probably the largest from the TV itself. We went from superior CRT response times to LCD flat panel and not too many people complained that the games got less responsive even though it was a considerable increase.
If you can reduce the latency in these other areas whilst also improving latency from the stream itself then there is always the possibility that the total latency from the stack when streaming can get to a similar level to what we all find acceptable currently with native hardware. Ok, you could argue that if they can improve latency with controllers, consoles and TVs then native will always be superior and that is very true but it's about getting it down to a point where it's acceptable for the vast majority and I believe that this is possible.
You left off Breath of the wild. The greatest wiiU game. And Mario kart 8
This is true, but theres a point where most users dont care, or even notice.
Wireless controllers add latency compared to wired ones, and no one apart from pros seem to care.
Not to mention what would happen if people actually started to use the service. We've seen how hard it is to simply keep servers up when new games release, imagine a new game releasing over cloud streaming with a massive peak of users on release.It will still always come down to the physical distance to where the game is running in the end, and local will always win over remote at that.
Yes, if you live close enough to a server hall it might feel as good as local hardware to you, but what if you don't? They are never going to have wide enough coverage to make it flawless for everyone, that would be prohibitively expensive.
It will still always come down to the physical distance to where the game is running in the end, and local will always win over remote at that.
Yes, if you live close enough to a server hall it might feel as good as local hardware to you, but what if you don't? They are never going to have wide enough coverage to make it flawless for everyone, that would be prohibitively expensive.
If you can reduce the latency in these other areas whilst also improving latency from the stream itself
Also depends on the game. I was out of town last week and played Octopath Traveler on xCloud and it was great on the hotel wifi. But the latency is much more noticeable in games like Forza Horizon. Entire game just feels sluggish and not enjoyable to me.
Yes, that's why I kept it open ended rather than going into specifics.
But if you want to get into specifics...
I would guess that average TVs have a latency of around 40ms. Some are <10ms whilst a lot are getting up towards 100ms but lets say 40ms for arguments sake as a rough average?
I just checked my latency to Azure (UK South) and i'm getting around 30ms multiply by 2 for the return journey and that puts it at 60ms for the round trip. Which is not too far outside the latency for an average TV, a bit on the high side but not too far away.
I understand what you are saying about physical distance but, I live over 250 miles away from the Azure UK South data centre so it's not like its just around the corner for me. Sure the mileage definitely will vary but low latency connections in and around the ballpark figure for what a TV adds are not too far fetched.
For me Xcloud works fine and it's not like I am using an ultra low latency TV and live very near to the data centre. Yes I fully understand that not everyone in the world can get as good a result as I can and conversely there are many millions of people who are getting way better. It's not going to take too much of an improvement with the entire latency stack to get streaming down to a point where its as good as native is today.
In terms of latency (i.e. input response) it's physically impossible, unless they put servers in the backyards of everyone who wants to use it. Doesn't matter how good your internet connection is, the latency to a server X km away will always be higher than to a console two meters away.
The rest, sure.
obviously along with latency added on from the controller, the console and the game.Ok, but that server latency is in addition to the TV latency. It's not 40 vs 60ms in your example, it's 40 vs 100.
This is our first logical thought.
I thought the same until i tried Stadia and GFN...
You're right only with more or less similar hardware.
Yeah, at 60FPS a PS5 will have lower latency than Stadia.
On the other hand, Stadia at 60FPS has lower latency than PS4/Xbox One games at 30FPS.
Judgment on PS4 struggled to reach stable 30FPS, the result was noticeable lag...
The 60FPS Stadia version was more responsive.
Same for RDR2 which has been tested by DF. Stadia > One X on RDR2...
Conclusion: Latency depends of the console, FPS, distance to data center,etc...
With more than 30mbps fiber the result is often like this:
Master race PC > GFN3080 tier (due to 120FPS it often beats the PS5)> PS5 >PS4 at 60 FPS > Stadia/GFN free tier at 60FPS > PS4 at 30FPS.
With a non fiber internet i still had better results with Judgment on Stadia.(which means FPS are crucial). Because there were so many unstable 30FPS games on PS4, many casual players like me found Stadia and GFN very efficient in terms of latency and ease (no DL, no update, unlimited storage)
The "suckers" played for free for several years because of full refund (i would be a sucker if there wasn't refund)Imagine being one of the suckers that bought games for this service?
obviously along with latency added on from the controller, the console and the game.
but, I'll say it again...
It's not going to take too much of an improvement with the entire latency stack to get streaming down to a point where its as good as native is today.
The cloud naysayers always say, impossible, speed of light yadda yadda yadda and try to make out like the latency that is added to and from the data centre is insurmountable when in reality it's in the same ball park as the amount that the TV adds. Go back in time with TV technology to the CRT age and that TV latency is gone.
Even today you can get some ultra low latency TVs with LG having a range that get's that latency down to 1ms. Just switching TVs today can bridge the gap in latency that cloud game presents today!
The cloud naysayers always say, impossible, speed of light yadda yadda yadda and try to make out like the latency that is added to and from the data centre is insurmountable when in reality it's in the same ball park as the amount that the TV adds.
Yeah, most of the time PS5 >Stadia.Yeah, of course the most basic retirement is to have low input latency in the game engine itself. But we've had extremely few PS5/XSX games without 60fps modes so far (any?). And I think not all Stadia games run at 60 either? Seems like many games on there run at about PS4 quality even though the hardware is closer to a PS5, which is strange.
But all those improvements can apply to local gaming as well, which doesn't have the server latency that physically cannot be overcome.
But again, you still ALSO have the TV latency. Any server latency will always be in addition to that.
But sure, cloud gaming can be "good enough" as long as you're not too far from the data center. It can just never be AS good.
That's not strictly true if you take into consideration the total latency from the entire stack (controller to your eye).
What is an acceptable latency for the entire stack?
I won't put a number on it because it will differ from person to person and game to game.
You get latency from the controller, through the console, latency from the game that's running and probably the largest from the TV itself. We went from superior CRT response times to LCD flat panel and not too many people complained that the games got less responsive even though it was a considerable increase.
If you can reduce the latency in these other areas whilst also improving latency from the stream itself then there is always the possibility that the total latency from the stack when streaming can get to a similar level to what we all find acceptable currently with native hardware. Ok, you could argue that if they can improve latency with controllers, consoles and TVs then native will always be superior and that is very true but it's about getting it down to a point where it's acceptable for the vast majority and I believe that this is possible.
That's not strictly true if you take into consideration the total latency from the entire stack (controller to your eye).
What is an acceptable latency for the entire stack?
I won't put a number on it because it will differ from person to person and game to game.
You get latency from the controller, through the console, latency from the game that's running and probably the largest from the TV itself. We went from superior CRT response times to LCD flat panel and not too many people complained that the games got less responsive even though it was a considerable increase.
If you can reduce the latency in these other areas whilst also improving latency from the stream itself then there is always the possibility that the total latency from the stack when streaming can get to a similar level to what we all find acceptable currently with native hardware. Ok, you could argue that if they can improve latency with controllers, consoles and TVs then native will always be superior and that is very true but it's about getting it down to a point where it's acceptable for the vast majority and I believe that this is possible.
andYes, that's why I kept it open ended rather than going into specifics.
But if you want to get into specifics...
I would guess that average TVs have a latency of around 40ms. Some are <10ms whilst a lot are getting up towards 100ms but lets say 40ms for arguments sake as a rough average?
I just checked my latency to Azure (UK South) and i'm getting around 30ms multiply by 2 for the return journey and that puts it at 60ms for the round trip. Which is not too far outside the latency for an average TV, a bit on the high side but not too far away.
I understand what you are saying about physical distance but, I live over 250 miles away from the Azure UK South data centre so it's not like its just around the corner for me. Sure the mileage definitely will vary but low latency connections in and around the ballpark figure for what a TV adds are not too far fetched.
For me Xcloud works fine and it's not like I am using an ultra low latency TV and live very near to the data centre. Yes I fully understand that not everyone in the world can get as good a result as I can and conversely there are many millions of people who are getting way better. It's not going to take too much of an improvement with the entire latency stack to get streaming down to a point where its as good as native is today.
obviously along with latency added on from the controller, the console and the game.
but, I'll say it again...
It's not going to take too much of an improvement with the entire latency stack to get streaming down to a point where its as good as native is today.
The cloud naysayers always say, impossible, speed of light yadda yadda yadda and try to make out like the latency that is added to and from the data centre is insurmountable when in reality it's in the same ball park as the amount that the TV adds. Go back in time with TV technology to the CRT age and that TV latency is gone.
Even today you can get some ultra low latency TVs with LG having a range that get's that latency down to 1ms. Just switching TVs today can bridge the gap in latency that cloud game presents today!
Enjoy your controllers I guessGamers were wrong on this one though:
"You'll loose all your money"
I'll have full refund.
I played for free for several years and google offered me free controllers and CCU.
Not bad, huh ?
We are going round in circles here. If you read back to my post earlier in this thread where I originally challenged your opinion;
https://www.neogaf.com/threads/goog...loud-streaming-service.1642215/post-266647695
It comes down to;
Currently gamers have an amount of latency and can determine for themselves what level they can tolerate and at what level it becomes un-noticeable. Most people will already have a setup that is fine for them (a good chance it's with an average TV of 40ms latency) so, if you switch to cloud gaming and also change TV to one of the new LG 1ms or use a monitor it puts the latency back into a similar region as you had previously. If TV manufacturers put some development time into reducing latency on their game mode then it's been proven that this can be significantly reduced to near zero.
Which brings me back to;
and
Great controllers (it works on PC), a load of chromecast ultra very useful and i played many games (not as much as gamepass i admit but on the other hand i didn't pay anything in the end).Enjoy your controllers I guess
But all those improvements can apply to local gaming as well, which doesn't have the server latency that physically cannot be overcome.
Not if they are locked to your Google account so you have to use it on android apps.I see. I will check the account in a few days. Sounds too good to be true, tbh.
Not if they are locked to your Google account so you have to use it on android apps.
The "suckers" played for free for several years because of full refund (i would be a sucker if there wasn't refund)
Let's be specific.
Cyberpunk launch:
PS4 owners > crash fest, 15FPS.
PS5 > Good performances but paid 500 bucks.
Master Race > Excellent performances but high price + mega electricity bill.
GFN > good performances but long queues
Stadia > Good performance, no queue + free controller + free CCU.
How about that ?
Not if they are locked to your Google account so you have to use it on android apps.
I think we can definitely agree that native will always be lower latency. I was just putting a counter argument that cloud can be as low latency as what people are currently getting natively by upgrading their gear and also as telecommunications infrastructure steadily improves.Sure, but once I've switched to that 1ms TV I will get even better results for local gaming. And that's my point, that it will always be better. Not that cloud gaming can never be good enough.
But still, it will always depend on distance to the server, number of hops, etc. And that's not even getting into things like capacity. Stadia never had problems with that (I think?) because there were never enough people using it, but we know that other services have (Xcloud in certain regions, etc). For cloud gaming to have a chance to actually replace local gaming it will need to have capacity for everyone to play any game at any time, because hell no to waiting in a queue to play a game I've paid for. That means they will need a very significant overhead that most of the time won't be utilized. So latency is just one of the problems.
The point of cloud is for people on the go too. You could stream games on a low powered piece of hardware or current cell phone, not have to install giant files, and just resume your game from any compatible piece of hardware that has the cloud streaming service. At least that's the theory. And it's a big bonus for people in poorer countries because just about everyone has a smartphone, but not everyone has money to buy a console or good PC rig. So just cloud it on whatever device you have.Stadia struggles with the exact same issue that most other streaming service deal with: Who is this for? Cloudstreaming is a solution that is looking for a problem to fix. The fact of the matter is that video game consoles are, all things considered, not that expensive. If you are someone who has access to the high speed internet required to play streamable video games, then the price for a console probably isn't a big issue for you.
Streaming video games just isn't as good of an experience as playing them locally, and the few perks that streaming games do bring simply don't outweigh the compromises you have to make.
That said, another issue is the fact that the server blades for Stadia were fairly underpowered. They were more in the ballpark of PS4 pro and Xbox One X, rather than PS5/XSX. That said, Stadia port of Cyberpunk 2077 was quite good, actually.
....did google just closed down stadia?Oh wow, that's an interesting opinion.
Don't see how is that possible considering microsoft did buy the studios and it's not steamrolling the competition.
....did google just closed down stadia?
I think you might have misread something here.
Yes, that's true. But only if it had some amazing custom games. For example Netflix, it was an excellent streaming service from the start, but it didnt gain any particular momentum until Stranger Things came on.The free tier was probably a big mistake too. Likely one of the things that lead them to set prices as high as they did for software that was available everywhere else for less. I guess the big Fifa cloud exclusive didn't last for long.
Bro. It over. No more need to advertise my friend.So yeah, people can laugh but ...
The "sucker" narrative doesn't work.
On the contrary, with the full refund we saved monthly fees of Game pass like services and we won controllers, CCU...
I don't know why devs think they should have been told it was shutting down in advance of all the Stadia teams and all the public. To be fair Google couldn't have done it any other way. Closed with immediate effect.I can understand giving a "warning" about changes to a service, but not when we are talking about closing the service permanently.
No need to be upsetGreat controllers (it works on PC), a load of chromecast ultra very useful and i played many games (not as much as gamepass i admit but on the other hand i didn't pay anything in the end).
So yeah, people can laugh but with cold facts some will understand i won hardwares and free game sessions for years.
The "sucker" narrative doesn't work.
On the contrary, with the full refund we saved monthly fees of Game pass like services and we won controllers, CCU...
Nobody took him or Stadia seriously, clearly.The Fat Frog guy was always trolling you guys, i'm surprised you guys took him serious.
dude, just let it go.The "suckers" played for free for several years because of full refund (i would be a sucker if there wasn't refund)
Let's be specific.
Cyberpunk launch:
PS4 owners > crash fest, 15FPS.
PS5 > Good performances but paid 500 bucks.
Master Race > Excellent performances but high price + mega electricity bill.
GFN > good performances but long queues
Stadia > Good performance, no queue + free controller + free CCU.
How about that ?