Support NeoGAF

[Fahdis]

Please make sure to read the Article for more information:

Japan sets new record, brings world closer to internet 100,000 times faster than current speeds

- PetaBIT is 125,000x faster than a GigaBYTE and not the suggested 1,000,000 Times faster.
- With 1.02 PB traveling over 32 miles per second, we could soon send 127,500 GB of data every second.
- Article does not account for ping or latency.
- Most of the world is still on <5 MB Cable internet outside of some 1st World Countries which have Optic Fiber Cable.

Biggest Takeaway:
The newest record set by NICT is not only faster than previous attempts, it transmits data using a standard optic fiber cable, meaning it is technology that is potentially available for immediate and wide use.

Implication towards Cloud Gaming IMO:
You will own Nothing and be happy.

 

[Zannegan]

And yet, my NTT line is slower than my garbagy Comcast connection in semirural PA was.

Until this becomes something like standard, it doesn't mean anything for streaming. Even then, will it help with latency or just download speeds? It might mean more for local digital gaming than the cloud. *shrug*

 

[Hobbygaming]

Internet providers are giggling as they cap our speeds

 

[Orbital2060]

Making some kind of innovation in how much you have to download to play a game is more important than speeds, for cloud gaming imo. Thats whats going to cap how much people can actually stream.

Just as an heuristic exercise: right now Im using somewhere between 3-5 GB per hour playing on the cloud, thats easily 100 GB+ a month datacap. For it to become mainstream and reach as many as possible with a smartphone or other device, the requirements on datacaps should be brought down to a 1/10 of what they are today. So around 300-500 MB per hour played. I dont know how it can be done but thats the biggest hurdle for cloud gaming right now imo. Maybe one way is to comprimate the downloads and unpack locally but thats just a random idea.

 

[BadBurger]

I have Verizon FiOS. It's 1gbps down, 300 Mbps-something up. When I play games streaming on PS Now or Xbox Cloud I can't tell a difference between playing it locally. So I am not sure if additional bandwidth and reduced latency would help.

The largest impediments to an all-streaming future in the US are all regulatory and legislative. For example, ISP's being able to pull scams like datacaps, or regional monopolies being tolerated so those ISP's always provide subpar product and horrendous service.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

My internet package increases it's speed every so often. When I'm downloading games I can see the difference in speed.

When I'm surfing the net I've havent seen a difference in 20 years. There's that fraction of second delay that is always there loading pages or doing searches. Probably cant any more faster.

Interestingly about the article is that it uses existing fiber cables. I always wondered what the max bandwidth threshold an internet cable can do. Well, it looks like 1 Petabit is doable.

 

[TransTrender]

NOTHING!!!

 

[BadBurger]

My internet package increases it's speed every so often. When I'm downloading games I can see the difference in speed.

When I'm surfing the net I've havent seen a difference in 20 years. There's that fraction of second delay that is always there loading pages or doing searches. Probably cant any more faster.

Interestingly about the article is that it uses existing fiber cables. I always wondered what the max bandwidth threshold an internet cable can do. Well, it looks like 1 Petabit is doable.

At the datacenter I work at (back when I had an office....), we have a fiber optic network just for a certain segment of our storage area network that can theoretically reach 100 Gbps. It connects various storage controllers to mainframes and other high compute servers that need to move tons of data per minute at times. I'm pretty sure that's the fastest off-the-shelf fibre channel equipment can push right now - 100 Gbps.

 

[Sophist]

i don't think the latency has improved, they are raising the bitrate by using multiple chanels per cable. to explain quickly (i am no expert), different signals are unified/separated into/from a single ray of light like a prism does.
this picture shows the principle. if each color is one bit, you can send/receive multiple bits at the same time, multiplying the bandwidth.

picture taken from https://adambelt.com/Pride-the-Love-of-God-and-the-Refraction-of-Light-2019

 

[ParaSeoul]

Cloud gaming is terrible and you shouldn't trust any company pushing it.

 

[TrebleShot]

i don't think the latency has improved, they are raising the bitrate by using multiple chanels per cable. to explain quickly (i am no expert), different signals are unified/separated into/from a single ray of light like a prism does.
this picture shows the principle. if each color is one bit, you can send/receive multiple bits at the same time, multiplying the bandwidth.

picture taken from https://adambelt.com/Pride-the-Love-of-God-and-the-Refraction-of-Light-2019

Latency is almost instant on my fibre connection.

I get 2/3ms so I think latency even at slower speeds is more than capable.

 

[Reizo Ryuu]

Nothing, your cloud gaming experience will vary based on the distance to the datacenter.

 

[Withnail]

Nothing, your cloud gaming experience will vary based on the distance to the datacenter.

Yup.

You only need about 40-50Mbps to stream in 4K with decent multi-channel audio. Anything above that is completely redundant. Latency/ping is what makes the difference.

 

[CrustyBritches]

Nothing, your cloud gaming experience will vary based on the distance to the datacenter.

Yup. The server-side frame rate can affect latency as well.

 

[Skifi28]

It means nothing. Speed isn't really a factor after a certain modest point. It's all about latency and how far the data center you are streaming from is. Unless you have one close to you, it's the same whether you're on a 50mbps or 10gbps connection.

 

[nominedomine]

It doesn't matter, cloud services already work as long as there is a server near you (yet almost no one cares about it).

More bandwidth would just result in the possibility of less compressed videos down the line, hardly a game changer.

My question is, why would anyone that like video game be excited about cloud gaming?

 

[Beechos]

Sounds like not much for streaming atm since this will be hardwired connection. Most people who stream games are doing it off of wifi or cellular unless theres similar advancements.

 

[Fahdis]

It doesn't matter, cloud services already work as long as there is a server near you (yet almost no one cares about it).

More bandwidth would just result in the possibility of less compressed videos down the line, hardly a game changer.

My question is, why would anyone that like video game be excited about cloud gaming?

It's was the same argument between Physical and Digital gaming years ago. If you had tried services like GeForce Now at the highest tier, you wouldn't really be asking this question with low latency and a Gigabyte internet while also keeping the license to your games that you paid for on any PC storefront.

It is actually the future due to its low barrier of cost entry but the short comings are literally dependent on server geography and latency. And that's about it. Its nothing different than gamepass, only your mobility is greatly increased without the need for hardware as long as the service is also available in a country you're visiting.

 

[nominedomine]

It's was the same argument between Physical and Digital gaming years ago. If you had tried services like GeForce Now at the highest tier, you wouldn't really be asking this question with low latency and a Gigabyte internet while also keeping the license to your games that you paid for on any PC storefront.

It is actually the future due to its low barrier of cost entry but the short comings are literally dependent on server geography and latency. And that's about it. Its nothing different than gamepass, only your mobility is greatly increased without the need for hardware as long as the service is also available in a country you're visiting.

Wrong. I used all of them to try. My entire point is that the service already work yet there is very little interest from the public.

Again, If I already like to game why would I care about cloud? Cloud was the future 20 years ago as well, yet here we are.

You use digital as an example and that only show how cloud gaming isn't disruptive at all. Digital was an instant success on PC and pretty much destroyed physical media instantly (because physically had no benefits on PC due to CD-keys), used games is why disc still survived on console (it is still the cheapest way to play by far if you are willing to buy used and resell games).

There is nothing magic about cloud gaming, the cost of hardware/bandwidth will still be paid by you one way or another.

 

[RoadHazard]

Bandwidth already isn't the problem (we already have high enough speeds for 4K streaming, at least in most developed countries), latency is. And nothing can fix that, unless wormholes are discovered (or everyone gets a server very close to them).

 

[Makoto-Yuki]

not much unless you are eligible for it, can afford it, and are near a server.

 

[RPSleon]

With speeds like this you could delete massive games every time you finish playing and download and play something else that takes up alot of space without really knowing its happening. Could just be integrated in to the game loading up.

Games could be the size of the ssd without really caring. Obviously its silly and ssds would suffer and developers would get lazy with download sizes.

 

[CatLady]

I'm guessing I am very close to a datacenter since there is virtually no difference between xCloud and native. I use xCloud to check out games and if I like it and it's a smaller game I just continue on xCloud. If it's a bigger game that I'll be playing a long time I usually download it since xCloud doesn't use Quick Resume.

 

[MarkMe2525]

It doesn't matter, cloud services already work as long as there is a server near you (yet almost no one cares about it).

More bandwidth would just result in the possibility of less compressed videos down the line, hardly a game changer.

My question is, why would anyone that like video game be excited about cloud gaming?

This is like an oxymoron, the whole pitch is to have access to video games with little to no hardware barrier. I understand that for many this is not yet a reality, but that is the whole idea behind it.

The real question should be "why would anyone that likes video games not be excited about cloud gaming". If one likes to enjoy the hobby, isn't access to more content preferable? Isn't the ability to continue play away from your dedicated hardware preferable to not being able to?