Google's Rumored Console Could be Revealed March 19

[Slapped]

Also the human brain can adapt very quickly to latency (to a certain degree) as long it stays consistent. I wonder though if the new service is going to have scaling problems.

That won't work in Tekken - a latency of just 0.1 of a second (6 frames at 60fps) means a fast punch has landed before you've even seen it begun. This is an example of a game where speed and timing is absolutely critical and therefore simply won't work as a stream.

 

[PocketZeven]

That won't work in Tekken - a latency of just 0.1 of a second (6 frames at 60fps) means a fast punch has landed before you've even seen it begun. This is an example of a game where speed and timing is absolutely critical and therefore simply won't work as a stream.

It wont. Games in the good old days also had some lag. As long as its consistent (meaning both with same lag) then your brain adapts to it. Less=better, but it isnt gamebreaking when you are competitive and both experience the same latency and you brain has time to adapt.

 

[baldgye]

That won't work in Tekken - a latency of just 0.1 of a second (6 frames at 60fps) means a fast punch has landed before you've even seen it begun. This is an example of a game where speed and timing is absolutely critical and therefore simply won't work as a stream.

Imagine stream artifacting for someone playing Starcraft 2 as you flash all over the map coupled with input lag!!

It’d be like playing drunk!

 

[BallPtPenTheif]

That won't work in Tekken - a latency of just 0.1 of a second (6 frames at 60fps) means a fast punch has landed before you've even seen it begun. This is an example of a game where speed and timing is absolutely critical and therefore simply won't work as a stream.

Yeah, but what's that latency in an online match? Google only has to make their input and media output lag on par with normal online lag to pull this off. Google doesn't need to measure themselves against offline gaming.

 

[SlipZtrEm]

Also, I don’t see the point of making FPS and resolution dependant on your internet connection. Surely it’s easier to buy a good console than to buy a great internet connection?

It's a matter of having to consider two things as opposed to one. Pretty much everybody I know values a solid internet connection, whether or not they game. If they do game though, that internet connection concern would still exist — Stadia just means they no longer also have to worry about picking up a system or updating their PC.

The BBC's less than positive article on Strada and the dark possible future of games

On YouTube, one of the stats that determines how much ad revenue creators get is "minutes watched”. In gaming, "minutes played” could lead to some developers introducing gameplay mechanics that are counter-intuitive to a good time, but vital if they are to gain income.

Ah, so GT Sport — and now FH4 with the Festival Playlist — are just getting a head-start.

That won't work in Tekken - a latency of just 0.1 of a second (6 frames at 60fps) means a fast punch has landed before you've even seen it begun. This is an example of a game where speed and timing is absolutely critical and therefore simply won't work as a stream.

I believe this is what people refer to as an "edge case". I don't see many people saying this will displace existing setups in competitive gaming.

Although now that you mention it, there's yet another question: I'm sure Google can keep latency down to a minimum in its own ecosystem, but how will cross-platform play affect that?

...

One thing I do worry about is that everyone will end up having some sort of program like this. It's something we're already seeing as a problem over in video land: you now need a half-dozen subscriptions to watch everything, as the market has continued to splinter. I know I'm going to end up subscribing to Disney's service simply because the Mouse House owns practically everything these days.

There's a lot of talk about how streaming will kill consoles, but really, this is just the evolution of them. You'll still have to pick and choose, it will just be a service instead of a box. It's strange to see so many "new" technologies end up more or less becoming what they were meant to replace. Streaming video is now just as complicated and potentially pricey as cable, Uber is quickly becoming no better than taxis (at least in Toronto)...

 

[baldgye]

Although now that you mention it, there's yet another question: I'm sure Google can keep latency down to a minimum in its own ecosystem, but how will cross-platform play affect that?

Would they even allow 'cross platform' ? Sony barely does and Google could have a legit tech hurdle

 

[Joey D]

Would they even allow 'cross platform' ? Sony barely does and Google could have a legit tech hurdle

With services like Steam? I don't see why not. Also, given that Microsoft's new goal is to "Xbox Live all the things", I could see crossplay with whatever the next-gen Xbox is. Sony, on the other hand, seems totally against the idea of crossplay for the most part, so I wouldn't hold my breath on that.

 

[baldgye]

With services like Steam? I don't see why not. Also, given that Microsoft's new goal is to "Xbox Live all the things", I could see crossplay with whatever the next-gen Xbox is. Sony, on the other hand, seems totally against the idea of crossplay for the most part, so I wouldn't hold my breath on that.

Sony doesn't need crossplay like Microsoft does though, they have console dominance this generation and PSN generates massive income for them. Why would they let people buy and play games possibly via a cheaper subscription on another service?

Same for Google, if their system is all about clicking YouTube videos and playing, they'd want that money. They wouldn't really want their own multiplayer experiences affected by other players lagging due to their own issues. With Stada they can basically make a walled garden of internet speed almost making sure you can't get laggers causing issues.

 

[Slapped]

The BBC's less than positive article on Strada and the dark possible future of games

To be honest I totally agree with that article, an it pretty much echos my feelings about game streaming, at least on a subscription basis.

 

[Joey D]

Sony doesn't need crossplay like Microsoft does though, they have console dominance this generation and PSN generates massive income for them. Why would they let people buy and play games possibly via a cheaper subscription on another service?

Same for Google, if their system is all about clicking YouTube videos and playing, they'd want that money. They wouldn't really want their own multiplayer experiences affected by other players lagging due to their own issues. With Stada they can basically make a walled garden of internet speed almost making sure you can't get laggers causing issues.

If you factor in PC gaming, Microsoft probably has the upper hand over Sony. But really it's less about the console makers themselves and more about third-party developers. If you're EA, wouldn't you want people to be able to game together on Madden no matter what system they were playing on? It probably results in more sales too since if you have a PS4 and your buddy has an XBONE, there's a greater chance both of you will buy the same game so you can play together.

 

[baldgye]

If you factor in PC gaming, Microsoft probably has the upper hand over Sony. But really it's less about the console makers themselves and more about third-party developers. If you're EA, wouldn't you want people to be able to game together on Madden no matter what system they were playing on? It probably results in more sales too since if you have a PS4 and your buddy has an XBONE, there's a greater chance both of you will buy the same game so you can play together.

I doubt that, I can’t imagine MS Store including PC and Xbone comes close to Sony’s PSN. There are over 70 million PS4’s as of December last year.
Though it’s hard to know because Microsoft no longer releases console sales numbers.

And while you aren’t wrong, those publishers also want people in their ecosystems. Capcom is a good example, Sony helped fund the last Street Fighter (or publish it). PlayStation and Xbox still have massive market mind share when it comes to gaming and will have a lot of clout, couple that with limited accessibility for the network speeds needed and I can see it being a big fight next gen. PS5 with it pushing for backwards compatibility and a HUGE back catalogue of exclusive titles and Microsoft with its install base and Xbox branding Vs the new kid Google trying to skip the whole ‘make a box’ expense.

Personally if I was Sony I would fight against Google as much as I could to give PSNow a fair chance, otherwise Google will just out-infrastructure them.

 

[Wolfe]

Yeah, but what's that latency in an online match? Google only has to make their input and media output lag on par with normal online lag to pull this off. Google doesn't need to measure themselves against offline gaming.

You appear to be conflating input latency with lag in multiplayer matches...? Input latency is the time it takes between a button press and the first frame of the output on the screen. It is a phenomenon independent from lag. It can be a product of latency in a wireless controller, the device's OS, the game itself, the display you're using, or all of the above.

Game streaming adds the latency from its remote input processing to the mix. No matter how quick your internet is, you'll have the sum of those first four sources of latency, plus your ping with the server and the bare minimum latency of any other processing along the way. For an online match, then you add any netcode/lag-related phenomena on top of the rest, which would manifest on Google's end before being visible on your video stream.

 

[SimTourist]

Stadia sends your controller input directly to the server, it's not mediated by a console or any type of peer to peer client structure. If the input lag from your controller to the server (and video output back) is less than the input lag of a peer to peer online game then this is a non issue.

It's funny seeing all of the negative comments. I understand the cynicism but this technology either works for your connection speed or it doesn't. It would be amazingly insanely easy for Google to allow people to play Apex Legends for FREE without having to subscribe in order to prove to consumers that this concept works as advertised.

Maybe you're young, but remember Onlive, Gaikai, PSNow, etc. Streaming games has been around for more than 10 years already and it's still not getting any traction. Stadia is just another paper in the trashbin. No 1st party devs means it's dead on arrival already.

 

[SlipZtrEm]

Personally if I was Sony I would fight against Google as much as I could to give PSNow a fair chance, otherwise Google will just out-infrastructure them.

That's a losing battle — against both Google and Microsoft. Sony simply doesn't have the same level of infrastructure for widespread game streaming.

 

[TVR27]

 

[eran0004]

It's a matter of having to consider two things as opposed to one. Pretty much everybody I know values a solid internet connection, whether or not they game. If they do game though, that internet connection concern would still exist — Stadia just means they no longer also have to worry about picking up a system or updating their PC.

But they do have to worry about their internet connection, which is not as easy to fix as it is to buy a good console or a good PC.

 

[baldgye]

That's a losing battle — against both Google and Microsoft. Sony simply doesn't have the same level of infrastructure for widespread game streaming.

Yeah it doesn’t, but it has the development studios and the back catalogue of games.

It’s fight or become Sega...



The more I think about it, the more I think Sony should be ok?
PSN Now exists, couple that with a more back catalogue PS5 with exclusive games and they have time to build up their streaming infrastructure while the rest of the world catches up in the required internet speeds.

Microsoft is kinda the one with nothing. Atm they have no streaming platform, a console that’s been destroyed to the point of them putting diluting the Xbox brand to more of a publisher than a platform.

 

[BallPtPenTheif]

You appear to be conflating input latency with lag in multiplayer matches...? Input latency is the time it takes between a button press and the first frame of the output on the screen. It is a phenomenon independent from lag. It can be a product of latency in a wireless controller, the device's OS, the game itself, the display you're using, or all of the above.

Game streaming adds the latency from its remote input processing to the mix. No matter how quick your internet is, you'll have the sum of those first four sources of latency, plus your ping with the server and the bare minimum latency of any other processing along the way. For an online match, then you add any netcode/lag-related phenomena on top of the rest, which would manifest on Google's end before being visible on your video stream.

I'm really not splitting hairs here. Refer to it as "delay" if that makes you feel better but the issue ultimately just comes down to how much time it takes for the little man on my screen to move after I press a button. Google's claim here is that their server side LAN-party-like speed reduces the issues associated with typical net code. If they can remedy those delay issues relative to user expectations for a normal PC game then they win.

Maybe you're young, but remember Onlive, Gaikai, PSNow, etc. Streaming games has been around for more than 10 years already and it's still not getting any traction. Stadia is just another paper in the trashbin. No 1st party devs means it's dead on arrival already.

I'm not young. Probably older than you. The premise to your point is literally that you don't expect technology to advance in ten years. That's just a bizarre angle on this. Someone is going to nail streaming games. If it's not Google this summer it'll be someone else. So citing a decade of developmental missteps as proof of it not being possible is silly. You're talking like a cynical guy in 1962... "They'll never get a man on the moon it's impossible. The last ten years we've only sent satellites and dead animals. Never gonna happen."

 

[Whitestar]

I wonder how many and what titles will be bought up as timed exclusives on this platform.

 

[Joey D]

Maybe you're young, but remember Onlive, Gaikai, PSNow, etc. Streaming games has been around for more than 10 years already and it's still not getting any traction. Stadia is just another paper in the trashbin. No 1st party devs means it's dead on arrival already.

So maybe you're young, but there was the Sega Channel and XBAND back in 1994. It wasn't streaming how we think of it today, but it was certainly the precursor to it.

And who's to say Google won't have first-party titles? Google is one of, if not the largest tech company in the world. It certainly has the funds, technical know-how, and market share to create its own first-party titles. Really though, it'll probably end up being something like Steam, just with streaming games instead of downloading them. That's not a bad thing either.

 

[GT6mebe]

So many misinformed statements here. Stadia ain't even a threat to Sony.

Sony is in the fortunate position where their hardware has sold near 100 million and their software sales are nearing 1 billion. The majority of third parties rely on PS4 for the majority of their sales. Sony's 1st party have been coming out with hit after hit and selling on unprecedented levels (only matched or outdone by Nintendo).

Sony have a subscription model with near 40 million subscribers and PSN alone brings in more revenue than the entirety of MS's gaming division and Nintendo.

In reality Google can't compete with Sony in the gaming space. They are hoping on software sales being extraordinarily high or high subscription numbers.

Sony already has all three: hardware, software and sub, and all in high positions.

On the take of Sony can't compete with Google / MS in cloud. Sony did game streaming 5 years ago with PS Now, its already up and running. Extra cloud units can be bought easily from vendors. Netflix is using AWS, pretty sure PSN uses AWS so saying Sony can't compete because they don't have data centers is just being misinformed.

MS is the one in trouble. XB1 got destroyed this gen by PS4, their first party output has been disappointing to say the least, they are still largely irrelevant in Europe (bar UK) and Asia and now Google is competing with their cloud vision.

Also game streaming will never be the future of gaming simply because many people play consoles without internet or slow internet across the world. The connection is inherently not constant (physics) and hence latency will vary.

 

[Northstar]

So maybe you're young, but there was the Sega Channel and XBAND back in 1994. It wasn't streaming how we think of it today, but it was certainly the precursor to it.

I had a neighbor who had that, to a kid who was lucky just to have an NES it was truly amazing!

Stadia ain't even a threat to Sony.

Right this second they're not, but nothing in the future is guaranteed (Just ask Atari, Sega, Nintendo, Microsoft and yes, even Sony). Doubly so when the company in question has the infrastructure and funding to pull off what they are planning to.

Also game streaming will never be the future of gaming simply because many people play consoles without internet or slow internet across the world. The connection is inherently not constant (physics) and hence latency will vary.

Why does it seem like people always say stuff like this about any technological advancement? If it were true playing Pong on a 13" CRT TV would still be the extent of our home gaming.

 

[GT6mebe]

Only those that don't know much about tech draw the analogy of every tech advancement being the same amount of utility and worth. There have been countless pointless endeavours throughout the industry.

Google itself is home to many

 

[ImaRobot]

Only those that don't know much about tech draw the analogy of every tech advancement being the same amount of utility and worth. There have been countless pointless endeavours throughout the industry.

Google itself is home to many

True - But who did that?

 

[Northstar]

There have been countless pointless endeavours throughout the industry.

Of course, but streaming isn't one of them. It's already widely used for music, movies and television, the next logical step is gaming.

 

[SlipZtrEm]

"Guys, digital game purchasing will never take off, physical media will always be the majority."

 

[PocketZeven]

That's a losing battle — against both Google and Microsoft. Sony simply doesn't have the same level of infrastructure for widespread game streaming.

Im no expert, but doesnt Sony already have infrastructure with PSNow? In fact they are even further down the line compared to Google.
If streaming really takes off, wouldnt it just be a matter of investing in scaling their servers and optimizing the tech that is already implemented?

Or am I missing something fundamentally different between Stadia and PSNow?

 

[PzR Slim]

It always amazes quite how triggered some people get to any perceived threat to their favourite. Weird!

 

[PocketZeven]

It always amazes quite how triggered some people get to any perceived threat to their favourite. Weird!

That was a genuine question though. Am I missing something? Doesnt Sony/microsoft already have a headstart on streaming? What is so revolutionary about Stadia?

I remember google touting google+ and google glass as the next big thing.

 

[PzR Slim]

That was a genuine question though. Am I missing something? Doesnt Sony/microsoft already have a headstart on streaming? What is so revolutionary about Stadia?

I remember google touting google+ and google glass as the next big thing.

That wasn’t aimed at you in any way.