Not sure what you are getting at. Geforce Now is a cloud gaming service. Nvidia provides the servers, presumably they have images of preinstalled and configured games which can just be loaded and directed to your personal save data, something like how Stadia will likely work. They do allow you to install your own Steam games on their servers, but its currently temporary as they likely don't have the ability/investment for each user to have many gigs of their own personal data stored and accessed from any Nvidia server.
Ah I was thinking of Shield streaming. GeForce Now does cloud gaming but they don't do game sales at all, they use your library from other services and you pay them for play time.
Ah I was thinking of Shield streaming. GeForce Now does cloud gaming but they don't do game sales at all, they use your library from other services and you pay them for play time.
Subscription to play most of the library.
Other titles need to be directly purchased to have them playable/streamable.
EDIT - ahh...I see what you mean. Nvidia doesn't sell the game themselves...they actually redirect you to the digital distro site for a game you want to buy. Gotcha.
Erlkönig on
| Origin/R*SC: Ein7919 | Battle.net: Erlkonig#1448 | XBL: Lexicanum | Steam: Der Erlkönig (the umlaut is important) |
0
Options
-Loki-Don't pee in my mouth and tell me it's raining.Registered Userregular
With the NVIDIA streaming service that it was removed from, that was just a bonus "you bought the game so you can stream it if you like" and they still have their original copy. Apparently a bunch of the frustration is people who don't have a powerful enough PC to run it locally and thus were streaming it.
Which is the crux of this whole streaming move. People using GFN because their PC wasn’t powerful enough are basically Stadia users.
And this is a great example of what can happen to your purchased games.
+5
Options
EncA Fool with CompassionPronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered Userregular
I was watching some Youtubes vids last night and before one played, an ad kicked in for Stadia. I let it played the whole thing and it looks like it was just a segment from one of their Stadia Connects.
They pushed a bunch of their games (Destiny 2 being a big one, Cyberpunk, etc.), but they also flashed a lot of Mortal Kombat 11 and Samurai Shodown.
I get why the devs would do it, money is money, but pushing that genre specifically just made me raise an eyebrow. I wouldn't think those two would give the best impression.
XBL: Bizazedo
PSN: Bizazedo
CFN: Bizazedo (I don't think I suck, add me).
With the NVIDIA streaming service that it was removed from, that was just a bonus "you bought the game so you can stream it if you like" and they still have their original copy. Apparently a bunch of the frustration is people who don't have a powerful enough PC to run it locally and thus were streaming it.
Which is the crux of this whole streaming move. People using GFN because their PC wasn’t powerful enough are basically Stadia users.
And this is a great example of what can happen to your purchased games.
Except that in this case they weren't buying a purely streaming game. They were buying a normal game with no streaming guarantees that also could be streamed.
With the NVIDIA streaming service that it was removed from, that was just a bonus "you bought the game so you can stream it if you like" and they still have their original copy. Apparently a bunch of the frustration is people who don't have a powerful enough PC to run it locally and thus were streaming it.
Which is the crux of this whole streaming move. People using GFN because their PC wasn’t powerful enough are basically Stadia users.
And this is a great example of what can happen to your purchased games.
Except that in this case they weren't buying a purely streaming game. They were buying a normal game with no streaming guarantees that also could be streamed.
Right, in both cases they didn't own the streamed game so if the rights go elsewhere, like a tv show on netflix, the game is no longer able to be streamed. And if the only thing you bought was as the ability to stream it then you are left with nothing at all.
0
Options
ThegreatcowLord of All BaconsWashington State - It's Wet up here innit? Registered Userregular
I was watching some Youtubes vids last night and before one played, an ad kicked in for Stadia. I let it played the whole thing and it looks like it was just a segment from one of their Stadia Connects.
They pushed a bunch of their games (Destiny 2 being a big one, Cyberpunk, etc.), but they also flashed a lot of Mortal Kombat 11 and Samurai Shodown.
I get why the devs would do it, money is money, but pushing that genre specifically just made me raise an eyebrow. I wouldn't think those two would give the best impression.
I've seen so many videos from Maximillian Dood rage about just the basic latency frame issues in games like Guilty Gear or Street Fighter 5 and how hard it seems to be for games to manage good netcode. I can only begin to imagine the added effect of the streaming latency would have an fighting game input.
With the NVIDIA streaming service that it was removed from, that was just a bonus "you bought the game so you can stream it if you like" and they still have their original copy. Apparently a bunch of the frustration is people who don't have a powerful enough PC to run it locally and thus were streaming it.
Which is the crux of this whole streaming move. People using GFN because their PC wasn’t powerful enough are basically Stadia users.
And this is a great example of what can happen to your purchased games.
Except that in this case they weren't buying a purely streaming game. They were buying a normal game with no streaming guarantees that also could be streamed.
Right, in both cases they didn't own the streamed game so if the rights go elsewhere, like a tv show on netflix, the game is no longer able to be streamed. And if the only thing you bought was as the ability to stream it then you are left with nothing at all.
I think if the only thing you bought is rights to stream, with no other value, the vendors will take preserving that much more seriously than a free beta add on product.
I was watching some Youtubes vids last night and before one played, an ad kicked in for Stadia. I let it played the whole thing and it looks like it was just a segment from one of their Stadia Connects.
They pushed a bunch of their games (Destiny 2 being a big one, Cyberpunk, etc.), but they also flashed a lot of Mortal Kombat 11 and Samurai Shodown.
I get why the devs would do it, money is money, but pushing that genre specifically just made me raise an eyebrow. I wouldn't think those two would give the best impression.
I've seen so many videos from Maximillian Dood rage about just the basic latency frame issues in games like Guilty Gear or Street Fighter 5 and how hard it seems to be for games to manage good netcode. I can only begin to imagine the added effect of the streaming latency would have an fighting game input.
Would having the work done on a central server for both parties alleviate any of this? Seems like it would potentially level the playing field if everybody is working from the same data center, but that still doesn’t solve the inherent latency problems of playing online.
On the other hand I’m pretty sure that current top-tier fighting game netcode is still a lesser experience than playing locally.
Actually, what the hell does a peer to peer connection even look like in these circumstances? If all players are connecting through Stadia, and the game instances are being run in their farms, does the concept even mean anything?
Yes, like a few others, Nvidia is already doing what Stadia claims it will do.
We've lately seen some quiet back-peddling of sorts from Microsoft about what Project XCloud will mean in the near future, and what it might mean at an unspecified date some time after that. In their case, it doesn't sound entirely like they were willfully misrepresenting what they were capable of so much as didn't wanted to dampen the enthusiasm before they remembered the beta was about to begin and they better dampen the fuck out of some enthusiasm.
"Wait, so I can stream Xbox games to my Nintendo Switch? Why am I talking to you when I could be signing up for the beta?"
"Uh, yes, you can! Once we implement support for the Switch, since we're starting with phones..."
"The whole Xbox Library? Man, that'll be awesome on the go!"
"...and you buy an Xbox One console, since the all streaming in the current model will be based off existing hardware."
"Are you still talking?"
For the average consumer who just wants to play games, the nuanced differences between a streaming service that pipes in a game magically from the ether, and one that relies on an Xbox One you own and the Wifi you already have, and has been working in Windows 10 for a couple years now, are boring technical mumbo-jumbo. Plus, Microsoft wants to make a handy profit off of this versus the costs they're already paying, and that can involve some embellishing...
Would having the work done on a central server for both parties alleviate any of this? Seems like it would potentially level the playing field if everybody is working from the same data center, but that still doesn’t solve the inherent latency problems of playing online.
On the other hand I’m pretty sure that current top-tier fighting game netcode is still a lesser experience than playing locally.
Actually, what the hell does a peer to peer connection even look like in these circumstances? If all players are connecting through Stadia, and the game instances are being run in their farms, does the concept even mean anything?
I don't know. Now that you mention it, I had previously only been focused on input lag. I.e., we have input lag now just due to monitors and controllers, the time it takes for the input to get to the data center seems like it'd make it unbearable for this specific genre. I can notice even a few frames, so I always rolled my eyes when it came to Stadia due to this....again, for this specific genre.
You bring up a great point, though. What if the blade my opponent is on is in a completely different part of the country than I am / the blade I'm on? So my inputs would have to go to the datacenter and then be re-transmitted to the datacenter the opponent is at and vice versa? Or if the opponent is located right next to their datacenter, but I'm a bit further away from where mine is?
XBL: Bizazedo
PSN: Bizazedo
CFN: Bizazedo (I don't think I suck, add me).
0
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
I was watching some Youtubes vids last night and before one played, an ad kicked in for Stadia. I let it played the whole thing and it looks like it was just a segment from one of their Stadia Connects.
They pushed a bunch of their games (Destiny 2 being a big one, Cyberpunk, etc.), but they also flashed a lot of Mortal Kombat 11 and Samurai Shodown.
I get why the devs would do it, money is money, but pushing that genre specifically just made me raise an eyebrow. I wouldn't think those two would give the best impression.
I've seen so many videos from Maximillian Dood rage about just the basic latency frame issues in games like Guilty Gear or Street Fighter 5 and how hard it seems to be for games to manage good netcode. I can only begin to imagine the added effect of the streaming latency would have an fighting game input.
Would having the work done on a central server for both parties alleviate any of this? Seems like it would potentially level the playing field if everybody is working from the same data center, but that still doesn’t solve the inherent latency problems of playing online.
On the other hand I’m pretty sure that current top-tier fighting game netcode is still a lesser experience than playing locally.
Actually, what the hell does a peer to peer connection even look like in these circumstances? If all players are connecting through Stadia, and the game instances are being run in their farms, does the concept even mean anything?
Yes, P2P would still be a thing unless Google has created a new way for it work in Stadia they haven't shown yet.
They're independent machines working in concert, not a massive supercomputer, effectively no different than 2 consoles in 2 separate houses.
Would having the work done on a central server for both parties alleviate any of this? Seems like it would potentially level the playing field if everybody is working from the same data center, but that still doesn’t solve the inherent latency problems of playing online.
On the other hand I’m pretty sure that current top-tier fighting game netcode is still a lesser experience than playing locally.
Actually, what the hell does a peer to peer connection even look like in these circumstances? If all players are connecting through Stadia, and the game instances are being run in their farms, does the concept even mean anything?
I don't know. Now that you mention it, I had previously only been focused on input lag. I.e., we have input lag now just due to monitors and controllers, the time it takes for the input to get to the data center seems like it'd make it unbearable for this specific genre. I can notice even a few frames, so I always rolled my eyes when it came to Stadia due to this....again, for this specific genre.
You bring up a great point, though. What if the blade my opponent is on is in a completely different part of the country than I am / the blade I'm on? So my inputs would have to go to the datacenter and then be re-transmitted to the datacenter the opponent is at and vice versa? Or if the opponent is located right next to their datacenter, but I'm a bit further away from where mine is?
At that point it's just regular netcode, two Stadia computers are playing online together. They would have a very good internet connection between them, but you would have some input lag on your side the same as always.
At this point, can we firmly dispense with any chance then when Stadia folds up - and chances are statistically good it will, as it will not be the runaway success they want - you'll get you money back? I'd also give the stink eye to working with Stadia if I was a dev company leader, particularly if this was my first product.
Jeep-Eep on
I would rather be accused of intransigence than tolerating genocide for the sake of everyone getting along. - @Metzger Meister
at this point in time all we have are promises
a bunch of similar cases that didn't end well at all for consumers
and people saying "but no that won't happen because I don't want it to"
I'd be curious to hear what money google isn't refunding as the platform is remaining active for another calendar year and they are not taking any more money for the product. What said twitter user is likely referring to is the fact that the probably have a license for the next year which google is refusing to refund, which makes perfect sense as the service is still live.
SatanIsMyMotor on
0
Options
EncA Fool with CompassionPronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered Userregular
Yeah, nobody knows what is going to happen. But there are certainly enough datapoints to make some reasonable predictions.
Why? There's a bunch of anecdotal stories like @Jeep-Eep 's post above with some jumping to conclusions but if you actually go and read the associated articles and such I'm not really finding many of those data points.
Google Hire is no longer billing for Hire, and customers can use it till their contract date expiration or September 2020, whichever is first, so most of them are getting the service for free for up to a year while they decide which hiring platform to switch to.
Why the fuck don't they have XCOM:EU and 2 anyway? They have decent working Linux ports already, which is an important prerequisite, and the lag won't be an issue.
Jeep-Eep on
I would rather be accused of intransigence than tolerating genocide for the sake of everyone getting along. - @Metzger Meister
I think the knowledge that Google might cancel it if it fails, maybe even without compensation, is just a known risk of buying into the platform early. Not much else to be said about it, either you're willing to take that chance or you aren't. Hopefully for Google's sake they can convince enough people to be early adopters to secure the platform's success.
I'm not buying into Stadia for at least a few years to see if they can 1) pull off the streaming miracle and 2) keep the service up and running.
That's a really easy solution to almost every consumer issue: wait and see. Stadia has no choice but to get better in a year, that much is certain. If not less.
We just don't know how dependent the whole thing is on the early adopter response...
Google thinks Stadia will have less lag than your PC in two years
In an interview with Edge Magazine, Google's VP of engineering Madj Bakar claims Google Stadia will be superior to gaming on desktops and other local hardware "in a year or two." With the tech it's been developing in modeling and machine learning, Bakar says that Stadia will make games feel more responsive in the cloud, and make them run faster than they do locally "regardless of how powerful the local machine is." He says this can be done through something called "negative latency."
Now, there actually isn't such a thing as negative latency, but Bakar is talking about creating a buffer of predicated latency in which Stadia can mitigate the lag the player is seeing on their end over the cloud network. This can be done in a few ways, like rapidly increasing fps to reduce latency between player input and what's displayed on screen, but Bakar says mitigating latency will mostly come from Stadia's ability to predict your button presses.
Some more speculation on the challenges involved at the link.
Google is discontinuing the Daydream View VR headset, and the Pixel 4 won’t support Daydream
Google has essentially abandoned its Daydream virtual reality platform. The company confirmed to The Verge that the new Pixel 4 phone won’t support Daydream, and Google told Variety and The Verge that it will also no longer sell the Daydream View mobile headset. It will continue to support the app — which only works on older phones — for existing users.
“There hasn’t been the broad consumer or developer adoption we had hoped, and we’ve seen decreasing usage over time of the Daydream View headset,” a spokesperson said. Although the system had potential, “we noticed some clear limitations constraining smartphone VR from being a viable long-term solution,” said the spokesperson. “Most notably, asking people to put their phone in a headset and lose access to the apps they use throughout the day causes immense friction.” That echoes similar complaints about Daydream’s biggest competition, the Samsung Gear VR.
Add another to the pile of discontinued Google services and hardware. I feel like this one is actually a lot more significant and relevant to the question of ongoing support for Stadia.
Without going too far into my personal life, this one affects me personally in my work. I have fought with these stupid things for hours and learned all the ins and outs and have some major issues with them. They run some form of smartphone-esque Android but it's not full featured enough to give you real power user control, I don't think you can manage them with Google Admin Console, and some apps work differently in their tablet version vs. the Daydream version. Was waiting on getting some training from the company where I could ask some questions about it.
Wasted investment. Now any existing issues will never be solved.
Sometimes it's hard to believe Google is the all-powerful tech giant it is, when articles like those pop up. They're giving out hard shady-silicone-valley-startup vibes.
+10
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
"Negative Latency" is just such a stupid fucking term.
+17
Options
-Loki-Don't pee in my mouth and tell me it's raining.Registered Userregular
edited October 2019
Wouldn’t it mean that the game starts getting false positives and making you do things it thinks you were going to do but you weren’t?
Since a few of the launch titles are multiplayer FPS, it’ll be interesting to see how it predicts full camera movement, player movement and player actions in unpredictable multiplayer matches.
Also if people start trying to trick it en mass by doing things like repeatedly jumping off one particular spot to their death.
Wouldn’t it mean that the game starts getting false positives and making you do things it thinks you were going to do but you weren’t?
Since a few of the launch titles are multiplayer FPS, it’ll be interesting to see how it predicts full camera movement, player movement and player actions in unpredictable multiplayer matches.
Also if people start trying to trick it en mass by doing things like repeatedly jumping off one particular spot to their death.
I think the idea is that the input doesn't happen unless you actually do press the button when they thought you were going to. So the server has the ability to constantly be creating speculative forked instances of the game, and sending your client both a "pressed button" and "did nothing" stream at once, which the client chooses between on the fly.
It seems completely impossible in practice though. Even 30 FPS means 30 potential times when the user could press any one of their buttons. Even if Stadia knows exactly what button you're going to press and roughly when, it's not going to line up perfectly with the timing of your input. They would have to use a "close enough" style of matching, so like if the system's guess is within 10 frames of the actual timing then it goes with it. But the result of that would be clearly visible hitching.
The only other way I can imagine it working is if you utilized a mix of client and server rendering working in tandem, so the client handles player rendering and the server handles world rendering. But they haven't mentioned anything about that, and it would require very specialized engine support. So realistically I think this is nonsense given the technology that exists today.
Wouldn’t it mean that the game starts getting false positives and making you do things it thinks you were going to do but you weren’t?
Since a few of the launch titles are multiplayer FPS, it’ll be interesting to see how it predicts full camera movement, player movement and player actions in unpredictable multiplayer matches.
Also if people start trying to trick it en mass by doing things like repeatedly jumping off one particular spot to their death.
It means that people will be suspiciously better at parries all of a sudden when playing on Stadia vs other platforms.
Posts
From what I can find about the service (I'm not in the beta program), it's almost the same model as Stadia:
Subscription to play most of the library.
Other titles need to be directly purchased to have them playable/streamable.
EDIT - ahh...I see what you mean. Nvidia doesn't sell the game themselves...they actually redirect you to the digital distro site for a game you want to buy. Gotcha.
Which is the crux of this whole streaming move. People using GFN because their PC wasn’t powerful enough are basically Stadia users.
And this is a great example of what can happen to your purchased games.
They pushed a bunch of their games (Destiny 2 being a big one, Cyberpunk, etc.), but they also flashed a lot of Mortal Kombat 11 and Samurai Shodown.
I get why the devs would do it, money is money, but pushing that genre specifically just made me raise an eyebrow. I wouldn't think those two would give the best impression.
PSN: Bizazedo
CFN: Bizazedo (I don't think I suck, add me).
Except that in this case they weren't buying a purely streaming game. They were buying a normal game with no streaming guarantees that also could be streamed.
Right, in both cases they didn't own the streamed game so if the rights go elsewhere, like a tv show on netflix, the game is no longer able to be streamed. And if the only thing you bought was as the ability to stream it then you are left with nothing at all.
I've seen so many videos from Maximillian Dood rage about just the basic latency frame issues in games like Guilty Gear or Street Fighter 5 and how hard it seems to be for games to manage good netcode. I can only begin to imagine the added effect of the streaming latency would have an fighting game input.
Wud yoo laek to lern aboot meatz? Look here!
I think if the only thing you bought is rights to stream, with no other value, the vendors will take preserving that much more seriously than a free beta add on product.
Would having the work done on a central server for both parties alleviate any of this? Seems like it would potentially level the playing field if everybody is working from the same data center, but that still doesn’t solve the inherent latency problems of playing online.
On the other hand I’m pretty sure that current top-tier fighting game netcode is still a lesser experience than playing locally.
Actually, what the hell does a peer to peer connection even look like in these circumstances? If all players are connecting through Stadia, and the game instances are being run in their farms, does the concept even mean anything?
We've lately seen some quiet back-peddling of sorts from Microsoft about what Project XCloud will mean in the near future, and what it might mean at an unspecified date some time after that. In their case, it doesn't sound entirely like they were willfully misrepresenting what they were capable of so much as didn't wanted to dampen the enthusiasm before they remembered the beta was about to begin and they better dampen the fuck out of some enthusiasm.
"Wait, so I can stream Xbox games to my Nintendo Switch? Why am I talking to you when I could be signing up for the beta?"
"Uh, yes, you can! Once we implement support for the Switch, since we're starting with phones..."
"The whole Xbox Library? Man, that'll be awesome on the go!"
"...and you buy an Xbox One console, since the all streaming in the current model will be based off existing hardware."
"Are you still talking?"
For the average consumer who just wants to play games, the nuanced differences between a streaming service that pipes in a game magically from the ether, and one that relies on an Xbox One you own and the Wifi you already have, and has been working in Windows 10 for a couple years now, are boring technical mumbo-jumbo. Plus, Microsoft wants to make a handy profit off of this versus the costs they're already paying, and that can involve some embellishing...
You bring up a great point, though. What if the blade my opponent is on is in a completely different part of the country than I am / the blade I'm on? So my inputs would have to go to the datacenter and then be re-transmitted to the datacenter the opponent is at and vice versa? Or if the opponent is located right next to their datacenter, but I'm a bit further away from where mine is?
PSN: Bizazedo
CFN: Bizazedo (I don't think I suck, add me).
Yes, P2P would still be a thing unless Google has created a new way for it work in Stadia they haven't shown yet.
They're independent machines working in concert, not a massive supercomputer, effectively no different than 2 consoles in 2 separate houses.
At that point it's just regular netcode, two Stadia computers are playing online together. They would have a very good internet connection between them, but you would have some input lag on your side the same as always.
At this point, can we firmly dispense with any chance then when Stadia folds up - and chances are statistically good it will, as it will not be the runaway success they want - you'll get you money back? I'd also give the stink eye to working with Stadia if I was a dev company leader, particularly if this was my first product.
a bunch of similar cases that didn't end well at all for consumers
and people saying "but no that won't happen because I don't want it to"
I'd be curious to hear what money google isn't refunding as the platform is remaining active for another calendar year and they are not taking any more money for the product. What said twitter user is likely referring to is the fact that the probably have a license for the next year which google is refusing to refund, which makes perfect sense as the service is still live.
Legends of Runeterra: MNCdover #moc
Switch ID: MNC Dover SW-1154-3107-1051
Steam ID
Twitch Page
That's a really easy solution to almost every consumer issue: wait and see. Stadia has no choice but to get better in a year, that much is certain. If not less.
We just don't know how dependent the whole thing is on the early adopter response...
The controller felt exactly like all the other Xbox 360 controller knockoffs
And I played mortal Kombat 11 which felt like garbage, but I don't like fighting games and I always think they feel like garbage.
So, yeah, nothing special to report on my end
https://www.pcgamer.com/google-says-stadia-will-be-faster-than-local-gaming-hardware-in-two-years/
Some more speculation on the challenges involved at the link.
I also just saw this today:
https://www.theverge.com/2019/10/15/20915609/google-pixel-4-no-daydream-support-view-vr-headset-discontinued
Add another to the pile of discontinued Google services and hardware. I feel like this one is actually a lot more significant and relevant to the question of ongoing support for Stadia.
Without going too far into my personal life, this one affects me personally in my work. I have fought with these stupid things for hours and learned all the ins and outs and have some major issues with them. They run some form of smartphone-esque Android but it's not full featured enough to give you real power user control, I don't think you can manage them with Google Admin Console, and some apps work differently in their tablet version vs. the Daydream version. Was waiting on getting some training from the company where I could ask some questions about it.
Wasted investment. Now any existing issues will never be solved.
Since a few of the launch titles are multiplayer FPS, it’ll be interesting to see how it predicts full camera movement, player movement and player actions in unpredictable multiplayer matches.
Also if people start trying to trick it en mass by doing things like repeatedly jumping off one particular spot to their death.
Tomorrow: Why did the photon cross the road?
I think the idea is that the input doesn't happen unless you actually do press the button when they thought you were going to. So the server has the ability to constantly be creating speculative forked instances of the game, and sending your client both a "pressed button" and "did nothing" stream at once, which the client chooses between on the fly.
It seems completely impossible in practice though. Even 30 FPS means 30 potential times when the user could press any one of their buttons. Even if Stadia knows exactly what button you're going to press and roughly when, it's not going to line up perfectly with the timing of your input. They would have to use a "close enough" style of matching, so like if the system's guess is within 10 frames of the actual timing then it goes with it. But the result of that would be clearly visible hitching.
The only other way I can imagine it working is if you utilized a mix of client and server rendering working in tandem, so the client handles player rendering and the server handles world rendering. But they haven't mentioned anything about that, and it would require very specialized engine support. So realistically I think this is nonsense given the technology that exists today.
...there's still latency?
Like, they just tried to redefined latency as negative latency?
It means that people will be suspiciously better at parries all of a sudden when playing on Stadia vs other platforms.
Armchair: 4098-3704-2012