MaddocI'm Bobbin Threadbare, are you my mother?Registered Userregular
They've got enough lobbying power to ensure that nobody can run new lines, so really the only hope is wireless internet getting really really good
0
Options
HacksawJ. Duggan Esq.Wrestler at LawRegistered Userregular
Stadia is a stupid idea that no one asked for. Literally no one wants this from you, Google. I'd sooner have a desktop Android OS than this useless streaming nonsense!
I saw somebody on Twitter speculate that Stadia's success or failure doesn't actually matter to Google because it's just a product being made as an excuse to argue for various ISP regulations and infrastructure changes that benefit Google's plans for future expansion.
Phil Harrison's interview is even better in that regard:
In an interview Friday with GameSpot, Google VP Phil Harrison said his confidence stems from US broadband providers' history of treating their customers well.
"ISPs are smart [and] they understand that they're in the business of keeping customers happy and keeping customers with them for a long time," Harrison said.
ISPs are in the business of running monopolies. Customer happiness is nowhere on the charts. As for keeping customers with them for a long time, yes, naturally; that is what a monopoly does.
Stadia is a stupid idea that no one asked for. Literally no one wants this from you, Google. I'd sooner have a desktop Android OS than this useless streaming nonsense!
I don't agree that it's a stupid idea, but it seems more of a solution in search of a problem. If it works well, I'd love to be able to just play any game on my PC in a browser in 4k and not have to worry about upgrading my PC and video card ever again. But Google is being incredibly obtuse about ISPs and how they operate and how they treat their customers.
Microsoft is at least being realistic about it, and creating both a streaming platform AND a regular console platform.
I like that the game has more licensed brands than species of fish
And a lot of the fish shown in that trailer look like... eh... I don’t I’d want to eat the underwater potbelly pig that one of those characters was holding so proudly.
But I’m guessing the branded merch is modeled perfectly.
Stadia is a stupid idea that no one asked for. Literally no one wants this from you, Google. I'd sooner have a desktop Android OS than this useless streaming nonsense!
I don't agree that it's a stupid idea, but it seems more of a solution in search of a problem. If it works well, I'd love to be able to just play any game on my PC in a browser in 4k and not have to worry about upgrading my PC and video card ever again. But Google is being incredibly obtuse about ISPs and how they operate and how they treat their customers.
Microsoft is at least being realistic about it, and creating both a streaming platform AND a regular console platform.
And also allowing you to stream from your own console.
q: what happens if my house burns down
a: I get why you're worried about that. We all love our houses! I personally live in a house, a house is a great place for people to live inside of. Remember, the vast majority of houses haven't burned down yet. So you can rest assured that most houses are not on fire, and you'll always have the option of saving your personal property from your burning down house as long as you're fast enough. It's okay to doubt my words, but also remember that eventually the great flame will cleanse all of us, it will burn the world down until nobody can escape. We are but fuel for its eternal blaze!
Re: Stadia and their non-answer on putting responsibility on ISPs.
I'm sure I read a thing where one of the Google people talked about ISPs upped their infrastructure and extended data caps as a result of more people getting Netflix subscriptions a few years ago. That certainly sounds like a thing that may have happened, but did it actually?
Was watching David Brevik stream the other night and he went on a long rant about Stadia. Long story short, said he couldn't see it running at less than 150ms unless you were in a big city near a data center. Pointed out that no matter how good the tech, data can only move so fast back and forth in ideal situations and with their end handling the game it would always have some lag.
Re: Stadia and their non-answer on putting responsibility on ISPs.
I'm sure I read a thing where one of the Google people talked about ISPs upped their infrastructure and extended data caps as a result of more people getting Netflix subscriptions a few years ago. That certainly sounds like a thing that may have happened, but did it actually?
it made a bunch of isps want to start bundling their own streaming content into their data plans, and zero-rate it so that it didn't count against a cap
so you can only watch 10 hours of netflix a month without paying for more bandwidth, but you can watch unlimited comcast on-demand video!
also we've upped your monthly fee by $7/month, but now you get FREE access to our UNLIMITED on demand video service!
Re: Stadia and their non-answer on putting responsibility on ISPs.
I'm sure I read a thing where one of the Google people talked about ISPs upped their infrastructure and extended data caps as a result of more people getting Netflix subscriptions a few years ago. That certainly sounds like a thing that may have happened, but did it actually?
What I recall happening is ISPs started quietly and illegally throttling bandwidth from Netflix, to which Netflix created a speed test site specifically to test whether your ISP was throttling your Netflix
Re: Stadia and their non-answer on putting responsibility on ISPs.
I'm sure I read a thing where one of the Google people talked about ISPs upped their infrastructure and extended data caps as a result of more people getting Netflix subscriptions a few years ago. That certainly sounds like a thing that may have happened, but did it actually?
What I recall happening is ISPs started quietly and illegally throttling bandwidth from Netflix, to which Netflix created a speed test site specifically to test whether your ISP was throttling your Netflix
It was illegal, but isn't any more thanks to net neutrality being killed!
Re: Stadia and their non-answer on putting responsibility on ISPs.
I'm sure I read a thing where one of the Google people talked about ISPs upped their infrastructure and extended data caps as a result of more people getting Netflix subscriptions a few years ago. That certainly sounds like a thing that may have happened, but did it actually?
What I recall happening is ISPs started quietly and illegally throttling bandwidth from Netflix, to which Netflix created a speed test site specifically to test whether your ISP was throttling your Netflix
It was illegal, but isn't any more thanks to net neutrality being killed!
Yeah I just saw that via Day9. Can't believe it. What kind of fucked up illness was that?!
Also I really hope Anna Prosser is properly shielded from the inevitable garbage from the usual suspects
Oh is that her husband? He seemed like a genuinely nice dude. Fuuuuck, that is sad.
Yeah. I remember (back in the day) how Anna was simply "inControl'S girlfriend", who would eventually be on the State of the Game podcast once or twice. He helped her get on the scene and all that, or rather her being around eG and starting to do interviews was her start
I can't play Fractured But Whole, and solely for a personal bias. I fall asleep to TV, and for a while now I've just defaulted to a bunch of PVR'd south parks, mostly because rarely need to see video and can just listen, and also because pvr will override TV's sleep mode, so it doesn't turn off in the night and wake me up.
And I've done that for too long now apparently, because I have tried 6 times now to play Fractured, and have passed out hard in the chair within 10 minutes no matter what I do, it's become a subconscious thing it seems rofl.
South Park is now a Pavlov's bell that makes me sleep.
Stadia is a stupid idea that no one asked for. Literally no one wants this from you, Google. I'd sooner have a desktop Android OS than this useless streaming nonsense!
I don't agree that it's a stupid idea, but it seems more of a solution in search of a problem. If it works well, I'd love to be able to just play any game on my PC in a browser in 4k and not have to worry about upgrading my PC and video card ever again. But Google is being incredibly obtuse about ISPs and how they operate and how they treat their customers.
Microsoft is at least being realistic about it, and creating both a streaming platform AND a regular console platform.
It's not something we need or asked for. Because it hinges largely on the notion that American ISPs won't be shitty little pricks about bandwidth caps, throttling, and unethical anti-competitive practices, it's stupid.
EDIT: Google's non-answers about title ownership, as well, is a huge red flag. If they can't give definitive answers about what, if any, part of the service ensures or protects ownership of titles, that's a bad sign.
as someone who runs the network operations for an ISP that will soon be offering 1Gbps (via fiber) without datacaps
you can bet i signed my privileged ass up for stadia
but it's incredibly stupid, ISPs have no reason to upgrade and most aren't physically capable of offering solutions without significant investment and OSP construction
as someone who runs the network operations for an ISP that will soon be offering 1Gbps (via fiber) without datacaps
you can bet i signed my privileged ass up for stadia
but it's incredibly stupid, ISPs have no reason to upgrade and most aren't physically capable of offering solutions without significant investment and OSP construction
EDIT: Google's non-answers about title ownership, as well, is a huge red flag. If they can't give definitive answers about what, if any, part of the service ensures or protects ownership of titles, that's a bad sign.
Do they even need to care about this, from a legal point of view? As I understand it (and I can't emphasize enough how much of a lawyer I am not) we don't actually own our games anyway, we're just getting a license to play them. Obviously prospective Stadia customers don't want to hear "Oh, you literally don't any of your digital stuff, servers can go down on a whim and you'll lose everything, so our service will be exactly like all those other services you already use", but from a legal perspective, does Google need to bother about this?
EDIT: Google's non-answers about title ownership, as well, is a huge red flag. If they can't give definitive answers about what, if any, part of the service ensures or protects ownership of titles, that's a bad sign.
Do they even need to care about this, from a legal point of view? As I understand it (and I can't emphasize enough how much of a lawyer I am not) we don't actually own our games anyway, we're just getting a license to play them. Obviously prospective Stadia customers don't want to hear "Oh, you literally don't any of your digital stuff, servers can go down on a whim and you'll lose everything, so our service will be exactly like all those other services you already use", but from a legal perspective, does Google need to bother about this?
It's not a legal issue, it's a customers would like to own something and not have to lose everything if google cancels the program, issue.
League of Legends: Sorakanmyworld
FFXIV: Tchel Fay
Nintendo ID: Tortalius
Steam: Tortalius
Stream: twitch.tv/tortalius
+4
Options
JedocIn the scupperswith the staggers and jagsRegistered Userregular
EDIT: Google's non-answers about title ownership, as well, is a huge red flag. If they can't give definitive answers about what, if any, part of the service ensures or protects ownership of titles, that's a bad sign.
Do they even need to care about this, from a legal point of view? As I understand it (and I can't emphasize enough how much of a lawyer I am not) we don't actually own our games anyway, we're just getting a license to play them. Obviously prospective Stadia customers don't want to hear "Oh, you literally don't any of your digital stuff, servers can go down on a whim and you'll lose everything, so our service will be exactly like all those other services you already use", but from a legal perspective, does Google need to bother about this?
You are correct. Publishers very carefully blew the kneecaps off the first-sale doctrine when they wrote up the licensing agreements for digital media. It's why nobody can stop you from selling your old games on discs, but you can't resell your Steam games once you've played them. And it's why librarians have been fighting tooth and nail over fair licensing for the past decade just so we can lend ebooks like physical books.
EDIT: Google's non-answers about title ownership, as well, is a huge red flag. If they can't give definitive answers about what, if any, part of the service ensures or protects ownership of titles, that's a bad sign.
Do they even need to care about this, from a legal point of view? As I understand it (and I can't emphasize enough how much of a lawyer I am not) we don't actually own our games anyway, we're just getting a license to play them. Obviously prospective Stadia customers don't want to hear "Oh, you literally don't any of your digital stuff, servers can go down on a whim and you'll lose everything, so our service will be exactly like all those other services you already use", but from a legal perspective, does Google need to bother about this?
It's not a legal issue, it's a customers would like to own something and not have to lose everything if google cancels the program, issue.
Yeah from a strictly legal standpoint we're all already fucked when it comes to ownership of non-physical media.
The second it becomes unprofitable, they'll lay down plans to discontinue the service forever.
I doubt it will ever be profitable
but for now they're able to sell shareholders on it, despite it being a money pit
at some point they'll have to disclose that it's not meeting projections for user growth
then they'll announce the stadia project and its tech is being folded into "Youtube Gaming+" as part of their game rental service
and then over the next year or two there will be fewer and fewer games that come to the service
and eventually they'll announce that the team itself is gone, giving users 18 months to get their remaining saves and shit sorted out, before the service is gone altogether
The second it becomes unprofitable, they'll lay down plans to discontinue the service forever.
I doubt it will ever be profitable
but for now they're able to sell shareholders on it, despite it being a money pit
at some point they'll have to disclose that it's not meeting projections for user growth
then they'll announce the stadia project and its tech is being folded into "Youtube Gaming+" as part of their game rental service
and then over the next year or two there will be fewer and fewer games that come to the service
and eventually they'll announce that the team itself is gone give users 18 months to get their remaining saves and shit sorted out before the service is gone altogether
The processing farms are going to be so fucking expensive to run, and they're going to have to be constantly upgraded if they actually want to maintain "top of the line settings". And the first time that there's a queue to play during a big game release people are going to lose their shit
BroloBroseidonLord of the BroceanRegistered Userregular
yeah the most interesting thing about the tech is if they have a good way of doing incremental scaling for gpu/cpu demand
is it a separate graphics processor dedicated per user? or is there some novel way of distributing an arbitrary amount of shader cores from multiple processors simultaneously, so they can dynamically split the load between them?
i've never heard of any way to do the latter option for something that requires low latency like gaming, it would fuck with all kinds of instruction timings and result in a massive amount of wasted cycles
but buying massive amounts of graphics processors also seems like it couldn't possibly scale economically, particularly as last-year's GPUs go out of date and need to be replaced across the board
Damn. Not surprised it was an embolism, that's the first thing that springs to mind when I think of dying of a sudden illness in your 30s, especially if you sit down at a computer a lot.
there's definitely something weird about the AI behind the leviathans
I saw a Ghost Leviathan on the near side of the crater edge and took the opportunity to attack it. After each pass, it retreated farther in, towards the shallows. And, like the reapers before it, got stuck. In possibly the same place? I don't know what that's about.
Posts
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
I don't agree that it's a stupid idea, but it seems more of a solution in search of a problem. If it works well, I'd love to be able to just play any game on my PC in a browser in 4k and not have to worry about upgrading my PC and video card ever again. But Google is being incredibly obtuse about ISPs and how they operate and how they treat their customers.
Microsoft is at least being realistic about it, and creating both a streaming platform AND a regular console platform.
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
Oh is that her husband? He seemed like a genuinely nice dude. Fuuuuck, that is sad.
Steam profile.
Getting started with BATTLETECH: Part 1 / Part 2
And a lot of the fish shown in that trailer look like... eh... I don’t I’d want to eat the underwater potbelly pig that one of those characters was holding so proudly.
But I’m guessing the branded merch is modeled perfectly.
And also allowing you to stream from your own console.
Cleanse us. Cleanse us. Cleanse us.
I'm sure I read a thing where one of the Google people talked about ISPs upped their infrastructure and extended data caps as a result of more people getting Netflix subscriptions a few years ago. That certainly sounds like a thing that may have happened, but did it actually?
it made a bunch of isps want to start bundling their own streaming content into their data plans, and zero-rate it so that it didn't count against a cap
so you can only watch 10 hours of netflix a month without paying for more bandwidth, but you can watch unlimited comcast on-demand video!
also we've upped your monthly fee by $7/month, but now you get FREE access to our UNLIMITED on demand video service!
What I recall happening is ISPs started quietly and illegally throttling bandwidth from Netflix, to which Netflix created a speed test site specifically to test whether your ISP was throttling your Netflix
It was illegal, but isn't any more thanks to net neutrality being killed!
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
"lol u mad bro?"
Yeah. I remember (back in the day) how Anna was simply "inControl'S girlfriend", who would eventually be on the State of the Game podcast once or twice. He helped her get on the scene and all that, or rather her being around eG and starting to do interviews was her start
Didn't know that. Either way, that's how she got on the e-sports and now twitch scene
And I've done that for too long now apparently, because I have tried 6 times now to play Fractured, and have passed out hard in the chair within 10 minutes no matter what I do, it's become a subconscious thing it seems rofl.
South Park is now a Pavlov's bell that makes me sleep.
It's not something we need or asked for. Because it hinges largely on the notion that American ISPs won't be shitty little pricks about bandwidth caps, throttling, and unethical anti-competitive practices, it's stupid.
EDIT: Google's non-answers about title ownership, as well, is a huge red flag. If they can't give definitive answers about what, if any, part of the service ensures or protects ownership of titles, that's a bad sign.
you can bet i signed my privileged ass up for stadia
but it's incredibly stupid, ISPs have no reason to upgrade and most aren't physically capable of offering solutions without significant investment and OSP construction
On-Site Procurement, huh?
It's not a legal issue, it's a customers would like to own something and not have to lose everything if google cancels the program, issue.
FFXIV: Tchel Fay
Nintendo ID: Tortalius
Steam: Tortalius
Stream: twitch.tv/tortalius
You are correct. Publishers very carefully blew the kneecaps off the first-sale doctrine when they wrote up the licensing agreements for digital media. It's why nobody can stop you from selling your old games on discs, but you can't resell your Steam games once you've played them. And it's why librarians have been fighting tooth and nail over fair licensing for the past decade just so we can lend ebooks like physical books.
Results so far have been...mixed.
Yeah from a strictly legal standpoint we're all already fucked when it comes to ownership of non-physical media.
I'd need to wait and see until it gets well established, and if too many people are thinking the same way it won't
I doubt it will ever be profitable
but for now they're able to sell shareholders on it, despite it being a money pit
at some point they'll have to disclose that it's not meeting projections for user growth
then they'll announce the stadia project and its tech is being folded into "Youtube Gaming+" as part of their game rental service
and then over the next year or two there will be fewer and fewer games that come to the service
and eventually they'll announce that the team itself is gone, giving users 18 months to get their remaining saves and shit sorted out, before the service is gone altogether
The processing farms are going to be so fucking expensive to run, and they're going to have to be constantly upgraded if they actually want to maintain "top of the line settings". And the first time that there's a queue to play during a big game release people are going to lose their shit
PSN: Robo_Wizard1
is it a separate graphics processor dedicated per user? or is there some novel way of distributing an arbitrary amount of shader cores from multiple processors simultaneously, so they can dynamically split the load between them?
i've never heard of any way to do the latter option for something that requires low latency like gaming, it would fuck with all kinds of instruction timings and result in a massive amount of wasted cycles
but buying massive amounts of graphics processors also seems like it couldn't possibly scale economically, particularly as last-year's GPUs go out of date and need to be replaced across the board
huh
looks good
After how much I ended up disliking the first one and also Lords of the Fallen I’m probably gonna pass on this
I just don’t think those folks design good combat
PSN ID : DetectiveOlivaw | TWITTER | STEAM ID | NEVER FORGET
The first one had some neat ideas and designs, but yeah. It didn't feel super great.
I saw a Ghost Leviathan on the near side of the crater edge and took the opportunity to attack it. After each pass, it retreated farther in, towards the shallows. And, like the reapers before it, got stuck. In possibly the same place? I don't know what that's about.