General Gaming Google's Game Streaming Service is Official

[TwinIon]

This was posted in the Odyssey thread, but I think it deserves it's own discussion.

 

Google has announced that they will start testing their long rumored game streaming service, currently called "Project Stream." You can sign up here, and if selected you will be able to play Assassin’s Creed: Odyssey for free, streamed to your Chrome browser until January. The demo video on their page shows the game being played at 1080p 60fps.

 

I've said it before and I still think it's true that game streaming is the future. If the latency is good enough and if the computing is cheap enough (and those are both big ifs), Google could really open the floodgates. The rumored MS service likely wouldn't be far behind and I'd have to imagine that Amazon would be in there right quick. Oddly enough, the low resolution, underpowered Switch would in many ways be an ideal platform for game streaming, but there's zero chance that Nintendo could pull that off anytime soon.

 

Part of the sign up process is your zip code, so I have to imagine that this is only going to be available to people within a certain radius of whatever datacenters Google is running this test out of. If something like this is going to suitably work, it's almost certainly going to need a distributed architecture, and Google is quite good at that. I think it's fair to be skeptical, but this could be the game streaming service that actually takes the idea mainstream.

[The def star]

While it would be nice to have a streaming service to actually work I don't know how it would work with the US current infrastructure. I can barely get 18mbs down 1mbs upload in my area. As soon as someone starts watching Netflix my ping goes all crazy. Streaming services is still 10-15 years away I think. And that's if you are ok with 720-1080p visuals. 4k streaming at 60fps with little to no lag isn't gonna be possible anytime soon. It's barely possible now with current hardware 

[TwinIon]

8 hours ago, The def star said:

While it would be nice to have a streaming service to actually work I don't know how it would work with the US current infrastructure. I can barely get 18mbs down 1mbs upload in my area. As soon as someone starts watching Netflix my ping goes all crazy. Streaming services is still 10-15 years away I think. And that's if you are ok with 720-1080p visuals. 4k streaming at 60fps with little to no lag isn't gonna be possible anytime soon. It's barely possible now with current hardware 

The Project Stream website targets 25Mbs. The FCC estimates that 92.3% of Americans have access to 25Mbs terrestrial broadband. Of course "has access to" is different than "currently subscribes to," and you're right that not all broadband is created equal, but I think by and large the broadband infrastructure is there. When Xbox Live launched in 2002, only 7% of Americans had high speed data service (then defined as 200kbps). If they launched tomorrow, they'd have a larger potential subscriber base than Netflix did when they launched their streaming service.

 

Even if you have the bandwidth though, that doesn't mean the service will be suitably fast or cost effective at the high end (which this is targeting). To be suitably responsive very likely requires a distributed model, placing data centers as close as possible to your customers. That ends up being a real stumbling block for many, but Google is one of the few companies where that doesn't present a problem. The other question is if the computing and power costs are cheap enough for the model to be viable, and that's up to Google or whoever figure out.

 

[crispy4000]

I'm wary of the future of games subscription services, streaming or not.  My biggest fears about the 'utopia' we might be headed to:

1) Big publishers will protect their new releases by introducing a myriad of competing premium subscriptions (ie: EA Access Premiere), or premium-cable style add-ons to existing services.

2) Season Passes may not be included in these subscriptions.  Spending that money on a game you can't play without a subscription is some MMO-level shit.
3) We'll still be paying access fees like XBL Gold, PSN Plus, etc.  'Free' game additions to those services will get (even) worse.
4) Gaming will feel like more of a chore if you try to hop and skip around subscriptions.  Gotta get your money out of EA's library before you move to Activision's subscription next.

5) Game design will gravitate even more around micro-transactions and 'games as a service' ideology.  It'll be all about fueling addictions to keep subscriptions and transactions rolling.

6) In the long term: price hikes.  New games are roughly twice the price of new movies.  I think publishers will lean in on that when justifying rates.

7) Used games industry might take a hit as people buy less physical games to focus on subscriptions.  Not just Gamestop, but eBay, etc.
8) Mid-sized publishers without a ton of clout would struggle to adapt.  Worst case scenario could be a Bandai Namco or Sega equivalent leaving the industry.
 

The issues associated with streaming services are almost besides the point, IMO.  I wouldn't expect everything on that list to happen.  But it's some concerns.


 

[Brian]

Just upgraded my FioS to 1000/1000.  I’m ready. 

[cusideabelincoln]

5 hours ago, TwinIon said:

The Project Stream website targets 25Mbs. The FCC estimates that 92.3% of Americans have access to 25Mbs terrestrial broadband. Of course "has access to" is different than "currently subscribes to," and you're right that not all broadband is created equal, but I think by and large the broadband infrastructure is there. When Xbox Live launched in 2002, only 7% of Americans had high speed data service (then defined as 200kbps). If they launched tomorrow, they'd have a larger potential subscriber base than Netflix did when they launched their streaming service.

 

Even if you have the bandwidth though, that doesn't mean the service will be suitably fast or cost effective at the high end (which this is targeting). To be suitably responsive very likely requires a distributed model, placing data centers as close as possible to your customers. That ends up being a real stumbling block for many, but Google is one of the few companies where that doesn't present a problem. The other question is if the computing and power costs are cheap enough for the model to be viable, and that's up to Google or whoever figure out.

 

I have 100 mbps connection but my ping is shit, which I'm sure is true of a large portion of the 25 mbps audience. 

[RedSoxFan9]

Have they bailed on it yet?

[TwinIon]

22 hours ago, crispy4000 said:

I'm wary of the future of games subscription services, streaming or not.  My biggest fears about the 'utopia' we might be headed to:

1) Big publishers will protect their new releases by introducing a myriad of competing premium subscriptions (ie: EA Access Premiere), or premium-cable style add-ons to existing services.

2) Season Passes may not be included in these subscriptions.  Spending that money on a game you can't play without a subscription is some MMO-level shit.
3) We'll still be paying access fees like XBL Gold, PSN Plus, etc.  'Free' game additions to those services will get (even) worse.
4) Gaming will feel like more of a chore if you try to hop and skip around subscriptions.  Gotta get your money out of EA's library before you move to Activision's subscription next.

5) Game design will gravitate even more around micro-transactions and 'games as a service' ideology.  It'll be all about fueling addictions to keep subscriptions and transactions rolling.

6) In the long term: price hikes.  New games are roughly twice the price of new movies.  I think publishers will lean in on that when justifying rates.

7) Used games industry might take a hit as people buy less physical games to focus on subscriptions.  Not just Gamestop, but eBay, etc.
8) Mid-sized publishers without a ton of clout would struggle to adapt.  Worst case scenario could be a Bandai Namco or Sega equivalent leaving the industry.
 

The issues associated with streaming services are almost besides the point, IMO.  I wouldn't expect everything on that list to happen.  But it's some concerns.

I worry a lot less about the effect that game streaming will have on the content itself. For all the talk about how streaming and mobile streaming in particular would change movies and television, we've seen virtually none of that happen. In fact, television has arguably gotten much better since streaming, though I don't expect those same incentives to apply to video games. Ultimately a game streaming service will still require good competitive content in order to earn dollars. I don't expect physical consoles to go completely away anytime soon, so as long as a game like BotW or GoW or Spider-man can drive conversions, we'll see that kind of content regardless of the delivery mechanism.

 

I do think it makes sense to worry about the various monthly fees that could end up being racked up, and I think gaming is setup to be much worse than video. With video Netflix had such a head start that it was very much the default. I don't expect Google or MS or nVidia or anyone else to become that much of a default provider of streaming video games. If titles end up being locked behind different subscriptions, that could be very frustrating. It could become a real hassle deciding that you want to play that one Microsoft game, so you have to sign up for their service, and then remember to cancel it when you're done. Maybe that'll be a better scenario for some than requiring a larger investment in hardware up front, but I guess we'll have to see it shake out.

 

Ultimately I think of game streaming not necessarily as a desired destination for games, but more as the obvious and inevitable future. The one thing that I do desperately want from streaming games is the ability to play on any screen. I love that I can start a show on Netflix and watch it on any screen in my house; television, computer, tablet, or phone. That's something I'd love to have.

[Mr.Vic20]

I've had far too many issues with linear experiences like Hulu and Netflix to feel like streaming, in its current state, is a viable primary way to game. I say that with a 960Mb internet connection. That said, I welcome it as a "game anywhere" solution or a back up if my hardware somehow fails on me. 

[Zaku3]

1 hour ago, Mr.Vic20 said:

I've had far too many issues with linear experiences like Hulu and Netflix to feel like streaming, in its current state, is a viable primary way to game. I say that with a 960Mb internet connection. That said, I welcome it as a "game anywhere" solution or a back up if my hardware somehow fails on me. 

 

Same.

 

After purchasing EA Access Premier I kinda like subscription based gaming. Assuming the current trend continues. 99.99 to get access to the 99.9o edition of FIFA plus Battlefield 5 deluxe edition is worth it. I would most likely have gotten the deluxe edition of FIFA so I saved about 24 dollars over vuyung the games individually. Getting access to Battlefront 2, Madden, and a whole bunch of other games is pretty cool. 

 

Having said that I understand the reservations. Games are 60 dollars a pop and if you assume I would have gotten Battlefront 2 on sale EA is missing out on 40 dollars. Throw in Madden and its even more.

[CitizenVectron]

I'm going to love this in 15 years when it's the standard and I live in Canada and the closest server is LA or NYC so my ping is always 150.

[crispy4000]

10 hours ago, TwinIon said:

I worry a lot less about the effect that game streaming will have on the content itself. For all the talk about how streaming and mobile streaming in particular would change movies and television, we've seen virtually none of that happen. In fact, television has arguably gotten much better since streaming, though I don't expect those same incentives to apply to video games. Ultimately a game streaming service will still require good competitive content in order to earn dollars. I don't expect physical consoles to go completely away anytime soon, so as long as a game like BotW or GoW or Spider-man can drive conversions, we'll see that kind of content regardless of the delivery mechanism.

 

I do think it makes sense to worry about the various monthly fees that could end up being racked up, and I think gaming is setup to be much worse than video. With video Netflix had such a head start that it was very much the default. I don't expect Google or MS or nVidia or anyone else to become that much of a default provider of streaming video games. If titles end up being locked behind different subscriptions, that could be very frustrating. It could become a real hassle deciding that you want to play that one Microsoft game, so you have to sign up for their service, and then remember to cancel it when you're done. Maybe that'll be a better scenario for some than requiring a larger investment in hardware up front, but I guess we'll have to see it shake out.

 

Ultimately I think of game streaming not necessarily as a desired destination for games, but more as the obvious and inevitable future. The one thing that I do desperately want from streaming games is the ability to play on any screen. I love that I can start a show on Netflix and watch it on any screen in my house; television, computer, tablet, or phone. That's something I'd love to have.

 

Movies and TV don't have microtransactions.  That alone puts games in a different category.  There's many more ways publishers can abuse the system. 

They've tried to without subscriptions/streaming services, they'll do it with them.  There's even be greater incentive to go fishing for whales.

[TwinIon]

13 hours ago, crispy4000 said:

Movies and TV don't have microtransactions.  That alone puts games in a different category.  There's many more ways publishers can abuse the system. 

They've tried to without subscriptions/streaming services, they'll do it with them.  There's even be greater incentive to go fishing for whales.

I'm not sure I understand why those incentives don't already exist or why they'd be somehow greater with a subscription model? It seems to me that when those systems get shoehorned into games where they don't belong, there can be a real backlash that publishers would rather avoid.

 

Besides, the companies that are largely leading the way on this are third parties like Google and Nvidia that don't have a real hand in the game creation process, which puts a barrier between the motives of the creators and the distributors.

[crispy4000]

1 hour ago, TwinIon said:

I'm not sure I understand why those incentives don't already exist or why they'd be somehow greater with a subscription model? It seems to me that when those systems get shoehorned into games where they don't belong, there can be a real backlash that publishers would rather avoid.

Because addiction fuels subscription retention.  Having people spend hundreds of hours on a single game can easier rake in money.  It only makes sense to design games to do that, and more:

Step 1: Get people interested in trying your subscription.
Step 2: Hook them on a GaAS game to keep them subscribed. (and not dropping it full stop for a competitor's plan)
Step 3: Extract more cash from whales and dolphins via transactions in said game, making them feel even more invested.
 

They can have their cake and eat it too.

A lot of the backlash has been over games being $60 products while containing loot boxes, buyable in-game currency, etc.  As righteous as people feel about those things now, subscriptions will be an easier way for publishers to get us to accept them.  Many people will insist you're already getting more than your money's worth when you subscribe.
 

1 hour ago, TwinIon said:

Besides, the companies that are largely leading the way on this are third parties like Google and Nvidia that don't have a real hand in the game creation process, which puts a barrier between the motives of the creators and the distributors.

That's a bit naive.  Sony's been at this just as long.  Microsoft will be soon.  Google appears to be operating in partnership with Ubisoft.  Even Capcom's doing some experiments.  If streaming catches on, you can bet every major publisher will have a horse in the race.

As I've said, I don't see the download-only subscription services so differently.  It's the same subscription library concept, just a different execution.  If the future is all-streaming, as you say, services like Origin Access and Games Pass are bound to make the transition.  We'll probably see it done in reverse too, with streaming services adding digital download options, like PS Now just did.

 

 

[TwinIon]

46 minutes ago, crispy4000 said:

Because addiction fuels subscription retention.  Having people spend hundreds of hours on a single game can easier rake in money.  It only makes sense to design games to do that, and more:

Step 1: Get people interested in trying your subscription.
Step 2: Hook them on a GaAS game to keep them subscribed. (and not dropping it full stop for a competitor's plan)
Step 3: Extract more cash from whales and dolphins via transactions in said game, making them feel even more invested.
 

They can have their cake and eat it too.

A lot of the backlash has been over games being $60 products while containing loot boxes, buyable in-game currency, etc.  As righteous as people feel about those things now, subscriptions will be an easier way for publishers to get us to accept them.  Many people will insist you're already getting more than your money's worth when you subscribe.

That's a bit naive.  Sony's been at this just as long.  Microsoft will be soon.  Google appears to be operating in partnership with Ubisoft.  Even Capcom's doing some experiments.  If streaming catches on, you can bet every major publisher will have a horse in the race.

As I've said, I don't see the download-only subscription services so differently.  It's the same subscription library concept, just a different execution.  If the future is all-streaming, as you say, services like Origin Access and Games Pass are bound to make the transition.  We'll probably see it done in reverse too, with streaming services adding digital download options, like PS Now just did. 

Again, I don't see how any of this changes just because the distribution methodology does. Microsoft, Sony, and EA already have subscription services for their games, and we haven't seen the existence of those services change the games they've released. In fact, the games where we do see predatory microtransactions are the exact opposite, free games depending on an entirely different revenue model. 

 

I don't doubt that Microsoft and Sony will be close behind, and I've said as much in previous posts. My point is that it seems highly unlikely that we'll see too many games siloed behind a specific subscription. Maybe you'll be able to stream the next AC game direct from Ubisoft, but you'll probably be able to get it through Google or Nvidia or Microsoft as well. Given that we haven't even seen any of these services yet, it's also entirely possible that we could still "buy" a game from Google or Amazon or Microsoft in the same way we buy digital movies, no subscription required. Ultimately then, the business model doesn't really change all that much just because the delivery method does. I imagine that these services will end up being much more like streaming music services, with an enormous overlap of availability and a limited selection of exclusives. In such a case, the incentive for releasing a game riddled with microtransactions doesn't change.

 

I could well be wrong, games are a new and unique medium, but I think if their history proves anything it's that business models aren't universal. There was a time at the height of WoW when it seemed obvious to many that subscription games would take over. The same has been said of microtransactions and free to play. What usually happens though, is that we figure out that given the wide variety of video games themselves and those that play them, no one model fits everything.

[crispy4000]

1 hour ago, TwinIon said:

Again, I don't see how any of this changes just because the distribution methodology does. Microsoft, Sony, and EA already have subscription services for their games, and we haven't seen the existence of those services change the games they've released.

 

pfft, no.  EA's been one of the worst offenders this gen.  I do think their subscription plans have only encouraged that.  At least Battlefront 2 gave them a bit of a scare.  Though surging sports microtransactions more than made up for it.

 

I also think Sea of Theives would have been delayed further if not for Games Pass.  So that's another.

... I don't expect the worst of it to come from the console manufacturers.  There's slightly more accountability, since they also have to maintain their hardware business.
 

1 hour ago, TwinIon said:

 In fact, the games where we do see predatory microtransactions are the exact opposite, free games depending on an entirely different revenue model.  

We might have a different definition of predatory microtransactions then.  Regardless, this gen has been marked by microtransaction tactics found in F2P games crossing streams into $60 retail titles.  The only thing we haven't seen is "pay more to speed up build process" junk.  Although you could say in-game currency purchases are a close cousin.

 

1 hour ago, TwinIon said:

 

I don't doubt that Microsoft and Sony will be close behind, and I've said as much in previous posts. My point is that it seems highly unlikely that we'll see too many games siloed behind a specific subscription. Maybe you'll be able to stream the next AC game direct from Ubisoft, but you'll probably be able to get it through Google or Nvidia or Microsoft as well. Given that we haven't even seen any of these services yet, it's also entirely possible that we could still "buy" a game from Google or Amazon or Microsoft in the same way we buy digital movies, no subscription required. Ultimately then, the business model doesn't really change all that much just because the delivery method does. I imagine that these services will end up being much more like streaming music services, with an enormous overlap of availability and a limited selection of exclusives. In such a case, the incentive for releasing a game riddled with microtransactions doesn't change.

 

I could well be wrong, games are a new and unique medium, but I think if their history proves anything it's that business models aren't universal. There was a time at the height of WoW when it seemed obvious to many that subscription games would take over. The same has been said of microtransactions and free to play. What usually happens though, is that we figure out that given the wide variety of video games themselves and those that play them, no one model fits everything.

 

I don't think buying games to own will ever fully go away.  But I doubt you'll see Ubisoft (or others) drop new releases on competing streaming services without their own up-charges.

Look at the PC client landscape.  You've got your Valve launcher, your EA launcher, your Ubisoft launcher, your Microsoft launcher, your Blizzard (/Activision) launcher, your Rockstar launcher, etc.  Sure, many games from these publishers do cross services.  But they purposefully put the large discounts on their own clients.  They want people in their own ecosystems, even without subscriptions.  They don't want to have to pay royalties.

 

Why would it be any different with streaming games?   I'm not expecting publishers to be generous.  I'm expecting a mess of the major ones each trying to carve out their own piece of the pie.  With subscription services, I don't see that as a good thing, for the reasons I gave earlier.

As for microtransactions being a fad, it's doubtful.  They've been a reality for two generations now.  Publishers take two steps forward to make them more intrusive, then one step back to address blowback if they need to.  We all get dragged along with it.  After all, Horse Armor is perfectly acceptable by today's standards.

[AbsolutSurgen]

So I got in!  And played about 10 minutes..  First impressions (I am playing with an internet connection that is 50 mbps, wired Cat6 ethernet).

-  Graphics look a little blurry -- I'm guessing 1080p with compression -- I'm used to 1440p

--  Framerate felt low (~30fps or lower)  - I am used to G-Sync 60+ on most games -- VERY noticeable jerkiness on pans

-- Controls felt A LITTLE laggy -- AC has never required precise timing, so its hard to tell for sure

I had one instance of big-time macro-blocking --- which was VERY distracting.  (I am guessing there was a hiccup in my connection -- keep in mind I only played for 10 minutes).

 

But....

 

It was MUCH better than I expected, and was very playable.  For someone with a low(er) end computer (or a cheap console), and isn't too picky....  Casual joe six-pack will probably be fine.

 

For me, however, I'm going to wait for AC:O to go on sale, and play it the way it was meant to be played...

[AbsolutSurgen]

Just tried it over Wi-Fi.  Unplayable.

[TwinIon]

I just got my invite, so I guess they're going to keep going out. Hopefully I'll give it a try tonight, but I might not get a chance until Wednesday.

[AbsolutSurgen]

Apparently the sound is mono at the moment as well.

[cusideabelincoln]

I also got in, and tried it for for about 10 minutes.  

 

Works just fine over wired Internet.

 

I noticed some artifacts from the video compression.

 

Image was indeed a bit blurry on my 1080p PC monitor.  But the blurriness does soften the edges and remove aliasing.  This will look fine on a smaller screen or sitting farther away.

 

Input lag was noticeable, but not a problem for gameplay.  I would say input lag was less than I've experienced from some bad HDTVs.

[TwinIon]

Well, I just tried it and my experience has not been so positive. The gameplay has been essentially unplayable, I've been getting a lot of chop and terrible lag. I've been troubleshooting my setup, but it's mostly consisted of updating the firmware on all my devices. I can stream 4k video just fine from multiple sources, I'm an IT professional, I run unifi gear throughout my house (which I'd call small enterprise class equipment). My speedtest from multiple sources (including google), rate my internet speed as ~200/20 (that's about the lower bound on multiple measurements tonight). My PC is capable of running this game just fine in 1080p, but somehow the game just doesn't play well at all. 

 

I'm comfortable calling myself a Google fanboy and incredibly bullish on this tech in particular, regardless of the provider, but despite some considerable technical expertise and what should be overpowered hardware, I can't get this to work well at all. I might be slightly drunk, but this should work for me, of all people. 

 

(*please excuse my inebriated grammar. I came here to vent after wanting to play a game I've become excited to play) 

[Brian]

All players participating in Project Stream receive, for free, 1,000 Helix credits (a $10 value) to spend as they see fit, and any players that spend a minimum of an hour playing Assassin's Creed Odyssey in Project Stream between now and January 15 will receive a free Uplay PC copy of the game via their linked Uplay account as a special thanks for being a part of the test.

[Xbob42]

On 10/17/2018 at 7:08 PM, TwinIon said:

Well, I just tried it and my experience has not been so positive. The gameplay has been essentially unplayable, I've been getting a lot of chop and terrible lag. I've been troubleshooting my setup, but it's mostly consisted of updating the firmware on all my devices. I can stream 4k video just fine from multiple sources, I'm an IT professional, I run unifi gear throughout my house (which I'd call small enterprise class equipment). My speedtest from multiple sources (including google), rate my internet speed as ~200/20 (that's about the lower bound on multiple measurements tonight). My PC is capable of running this game just fine in 1080p, but somehow the game just doesn't play well at all. 

 

I'm comfortable calling myself a Google fanboy and incredibly bullish on this tech in particular, regardless of the provider, but despite some considerable technical expertise and what should be overpowered hardware, I can't get this to work well at all. I might be slightly drunk, but this should work for me, of all people. 

 

(*please excuse my inebriated grammar. I came here to vent after wanting to play a game I've become excited to play) 

 

Unifi gear? You were trying to play this over Wifi??

 

C'mon, boys, they're trying to get this shit playable over a wired connection first, Wifi still sucks ass in general for anything that isn't basic web browsing or some simply video watching.

[AbsolutSurgen]

I already picked up the game  on Black Friday -- because I didn't want my game to be caught in a cloud that was disappearing on Jan 15th.  Looks like with this news. I just wasted my money...

On ‎10‎/‎17‎/‎2018 at 10:08 PM, TwinIon said:

Well, I just tried it and my experience has not been so positive. The gameplay has been essentially unplayable, I've been getting a lot of chop and terrible lag. I've been troubleshooting my setup, but it's mostly consisted of updating the firmware on all my devices. I can stream 4k video just fine from multiple sources, I'm an IT professional, I run unifi gear throughout my house (which I'd call small enterprise class equipment). My speedtest from multiple sources (including google), rate my internet speed as ~200/20 (that's about the lower bound on multiple measurements tonight). My PC is capable of running this game just fine in 1080p, but somehow the game just doesn't play well at all. 

 

I'm comfortable calling myself a Google fanboy and incredibly bullish on this tech in particular, regardless of the provider, but despite some considerable technical expertise and what should be overpowered hardware, I can't get this to work well at all. I might be slightly drunk, but this should work for me, of all people. 

 

(*please excuse my inebriated grammar. I came here to vent after wanting to play a game I've become excited to play) 

I found that it was "playable" over a wired connection, and "unplayable" over Wi-Fi.

 

And when I say playable, I mean mono sound, slightly fuzzy 1080p/30 with some perceptible lag -- and some macro-blocking every 10 minutes or so.

[TwinIon]

On 12/14/2018 at 8:12 PM, Xbob42 said:

 

Unifi gear? You were trying to play this over Wifi??

 

C'mon, boys, they're trying to get this shit playable over a wired connection first, Wifi still sucks ass in general for anything that isn't basic web browsing or some simply video watching.

Unifi makes routers and switches as well, which is what I was referring to. I was playing on my desktop with a wired connection.

[Pikachu]

Played an hour on Project Stream to get my copy. The technology is definitely cool, but it was a long ways to go. I wouldn't pay for it at this point.

[Xbob42]

10 hours ago, TwinIon said:

Unifi makes routers and switches as well, which is what I was referring to. I was playing on my desktop with a wired connection.

Ah, okay. Had me worried for a second there!

[AndyD]

I've played about 5 hours and I've been ok with the quality. I rarely see lag issues and yeah I see macro-blocking every once in a while but overall I've been happy with it. Should be interesting to see how the game looks when the Uplay copy is provided

[crispy4000]

HDR doesn't work within this right?

[crispy4000]

To answer my own question... no.

Played a bit of this last night.  I'm somewhat impressed with the image quality, but the controller latency is very noticeable.  I would say this technology would be best for handhelds and tablets, but it still looks fairly murky with a hardwired connection.

[AbsolutSurgen]

On 12/18/2018 at 1:08 PM, crispy4000 said:

To answer my own question... no.

Played a bit of this last night.  I'm somewhat impressed with the image quality, but the controller latency is very noticeable.  I would say this technology would be best for handhelds and tablets, but it still looks fairly murky with a hardwired connection.

Given how bad my experience was on WiFi, I think they have a long way to go before they can support tablets and handhelds “in the wild”. 

[DarkStar189]

I played around 2 hours so far and i didn't have a single issue. I'm dead serious. If I went in blind I would have said it was being played locally on my computer.  Fucking amazing. 

[Brian]

I finally tried it yesterday and I was really impressed. I streamed it on my laptop over WiFi and had very little issues. I noticed no input lag though I am not sensitive to it unless it is blatantly bad. The picture and sound were fine. Only two times did the picture pixelate badly, which occurred when I left the game idle for 30 mins. Besides that, I was very pleased.  

 

All I could think about is that this needs to happen on the Switch. Nintendo will need to release an update for the Switch that has a better WiFI and a dock with an Ethernet port.  

 

[crispy4000]

I only put 57 minutes into the game on Project Stream.  Thought I wouldn't get a copy, but I found it in my uPlay account.  Email notifications are sent to the account you signed up to Uplay with:



Sounds like it's better that I didn't invest much time before, haha.