General Gaming Google gaming thingamajig reveal

[Bacon]

3 minutes ago, Spork3245 said:

EDIT: I thought I had it disabled, but maybe not? 

Well I already too the screen caps so

 

<<<

[Captain Pickle]

1 hour ago, Mr.Vic20 said:

No select...

 

No friends!

[Spork3245]

4 minutes ago, Bacon said:

Well I already too the screen caps so

 

<<<

 

Welp. Deal with it, because that's something the tech guys here should fix, not me. 

 

[Bloodporne]

I somehow completely missed that Google is coming out with a console...or whatever this thing is?

 

If it has From Software exclusives going forward, I'm buying it. If not, I'm not buying it. 

[TwinIon]

I have better internet (300/30), networking hardware, and PC hardware than most people, and significantly more IT troubleshooting experience, and I couldn't get the beta to consistently work for me. I'm skeptical that there are currently large numbers of people out there that it will work for.

 

 

I didn't see it covered, but did they announce a business model? Are we paying $60 per game? Subscribing to a service? Both?

 

 

That said. I do think that it's likely the future, and it's a future that I'm personally interested in. The biggest thing that excites me is the idea of playing on any screen. I love that Netflix is available everywhere. If something is on there, I can watch it in 4K HDR on my big screen TV, in a window on my PC, on my phone or tablet, at home or anywhere else. I'd love to extend that same flexibility to gaming. I have a second dock for my Switch so I can play upstairs or downstairs, and that's in addition to it already being portable. To have even better flexibility than that for RDR3 or whatever would be great. 

 

I'd also appreciate not having to invest in gaming hardware to get a great experience. I don't have top of the line gear, but between my One X and a reasonable gaming rig, I currently pay a decent amount for the privilege of playing in 4K HDR.

[AbsolutSurgen]

Kind of disappointing that they didn't announce content/pricing/release date.

 

I don't feel like I really know much more than I did before, other than the name.

[Dre801]

Zero interest in game streaming.  Hard pass.  Based on the specs, it's kinda disheartening that it's not a standard console 

[bladimir2k]

1 hour ago, TwinIon said:

I can watch it in 4K HDR on my big screen TV

It's funny when you mention this because I been watching Netflix 4k HDR for a year now on my appleTV, and the fidelity looks great and never really had an issue with it as far as picture quality degrading . It's my norm now as far as netflix. But when I think of companies like xbox and now google offering a gaming streaming service I'm always skeptical. I guess because my mindset is stuck with hardware equals great graphics, but in reality 4k HDR streaming is already here and if I can watch a 2 hour 4k HDR movie on Netflix without any issues then gaming streaming is not so far fetch. Obviously the other part here is that your not only watching a video but interacting with it so that latency from your hands to the screen needs to be super good.

[mo1518]

3 hours ago, bladimir2k said:

It's funny when you mention this because I been watching Netflix 4k HDR for a year now on my appleTV, and the fidelity looks great and never really had an issue with it as far as picture quality degrading . It's my norm now as far as netflix. But when I think of companies like xbox and now google offering a gaming streaming service I'm always skeptical. I guess because my mindset is stuck with hardware equals great graphics, but in reality 4k HDR streaming is already here and if I can watch a 2 hour 4k HDR movie on Netflix without any issues then gaming streaming is not so far fetch. Obviously the other part here is that your not only watching a video but interacting with it so that latency from your hands to the screen needs to be super good.

 

The official Google controllers have their own wifi to connect directly to Googles servers just to help eliminate input lag, which is an interesting idea. Instead of controller - box - servers, it's just straight to the servers. As far getting 4k hdr lag free into your TV through a chromecast... I guess we'll see. 

[AbsolutSurgen]

Digital Foundry Looks at &nbsp;Stadia

 

Google Stadia*	Google Stadia 15mbps**	Project Stream	PC 30fps	PC 60fps	Xbox One X
Latency	166ms*	188ms*	179ms	112ms	79ms	145ms
Latency (inc display lag)***	166ms	188ms	200ms	133ms	100ms	166ms

* The Stadia tests were carried out on a Google connection vs our Stream tests 'in the wild' on a 200mbps connection. However, the Stadia tests include display latency on a Pixelbook (which we cannot measure) and were also carried out via WiFi networking. Both of these factors will add additional latency, while our Stream demo tests were carried out via a LAN hook-up to the router.

** The '15mbps' mode is a simulation mode offered to developers, designed to mimic response on unstable connections. Image streaming takes a hit also, in terms of both resolution (1080p becomes 720p) and quality.

*** This comparison stacks up overall measured latency end-to-end, with the local machines running on an LG C8 OLED display with game mode enabled, adding 21ms of lag. The Pixelbook display's latency is unknown.

 

Keep In mind that this is using a LG TV rather than a gaming monitor -- so the display lag is somewhat high.  I was surprised by the amount of controller lag on a console.

 

I haven't watched the video yet.

 

 

[cwood]

Games are kind of in the transition point between "why would I buy an MP3 when I could just buy the CD and own it forever and it sounds better?" and where we are now with "why would I buy an MP3 when I can just stream everything with a subscription?"   It's not a coincidence that so many major players are coming out with some form of a game subscription.

[cusideabelincoln]

One of most interesting aspects about Stadia is how it's using Linux, and Google appears to be pushing Vulkan, so developers have to port their games over to this platform like they would for any other console/PC.

 

The key for this to actually be successful is how game developers can create exclusive content for the platform.  And not just exclusive games that are a carbon copy of other franchises.  They actually need to make use of the extra processing power at their disposal and provide a gameplay experience that simply isn't possible on traditional consoles.  There is real opportunity to take MMO style games (of any genre) to the next level, because client performance won't be the limiting factor anymore.  

 

The seamless nature and the ability to share anything (save states, game instances) also has a lot of potential.  How about developing a game based on hot-potato.  One person starts off a game session, and then that session gets handed off to someone else, and then another person, and so on until the challenge is completed.  Perhaps spectators can interact with the environment to add a competitive nature to it.  Asymmetric multiplayer can now be more accessible.  Let's say one person is playing the main game on a TV, but then other people can join in using their phones and do all kinds of things - basically a more robust method than the Wii U was capable of.  Using AC: Odyssey as an example, a second player can hop on and take control of the eagle for scouting purposes.  

[legend]

11 hours ago, cwood said:

Games are kind of in the transition point between "why would I buy an MP3 when I could just buy the CD and own it forever and it sounds better?" and where we are now with "why would I buy an MP3 when I can just stream everything with a subscription?"   It's not a coincidence that so many major players are coming out with some form of a game subscription.

 

This is a decent analogy, but I would tweak it a bit: "why would I buy an inferior compressed MP3, when I could just buy the high-quality CD?"

 

Gaming as a service doesn't bother me. I'd gladly pay a service fee for instant access to any game (no install or download) that's been optimized for the system it's running on. It's the compression and latency that worries me.

 

DF's evaluation is promising, but I'm still skeptical of what it will mean out in the wild across regions and when there are heavy loads. If anyone can pull it off, it's google since they can afford the massive server infrastructure, but the internet simply brings too many variables for me to be confident in it out of the gate.

[crispy4000]

The artifacting in Project Stream at 1080p was severe at points in motion, and it looks like they haven’t fixed it in the most recent screen cap comparisons digital foundry did.  Especially in captures of the eagle.

 

My internet should be good enough to handle 4K.  But I don’t think it’ll ever replace native hardware for me.  But I am happy to hear lag has improved a bit.

[legend]

Latency matters more to me than the compression in the long run, because I expect in time as the internet improves, we'll get fatter pipes and better compression that minimizes the compression issue. But latency is tough to crack. The time itself is an issue, and I also worry the high variance in latency (relative to local hardware) will make for a worse experience, similar to how microstutter is worse than a consistent lower framerate.

[bladimir2k]

13 hours ago, mo1518 said:

 

The official Google controllers have their own wifi to connect directly to Googles servers just to help eliminate input lag, which is an interesting idea. Instead of controller - box - servers, it's just straight to the servers. As far getting 4k hdr lag free into your TV through a chromecast... I guess we'll see. 

Did not know about the controllers, very interesting indeed. Also good point on devices, my smartTV sometimes couldn't handle keeping the Netflix fidelity, on the other hand AppleTV has always been smooth sailing.

[number305]

17 hours ago, bladimir2k said:

It's funny when you mention this because I been watching Netflix 4k HDR for a year now on my appleTV, and the fidelity looks great and never really had an issue with it as far as picture quality degrading . It's my norm now as far as netflix. But when I think of companies like xbox and now google offering a gaming streaming service I'm always skeptical. I guess because my mindset is stuck with hardware equals great graphics, but in reality 4k HDR streaming is already here and if I can watch a 2 hour 4k HDR movie on Netflix without any issues then gaming streaming is not so far fetch. Obviously the other part here is that your not only watching a video but interacting with it so that latency from your hands to the screen needs to be super good.

Video can also be buffered much more easily than a video game.  A movie never changes so it can be continuously buffered.  Games are constantly changing... are you going to look up next or down, are you going to shoot him or will he shoot you etc.  I'll bet there are some very smart people that have figured out ways to buffer that to some point but it is definitely more tricky than a static video.

 

Streaming is the future but we are at the very beginning.  No doubt the next couple of years will have a few bumps.  

[AbsolutSurgen]

Some random thoughts...

 

There really are two issues that are tough to crack:

1) Latency

2) Getting a consistent pipe to the home that doesn't have momentary interruptions (buffering solves this in other media)

 

In terms of capability for cloud services, I believe Amazon and Microsoft have the same (or more) capability than Google.  So, I don't think this will be a one horse race.

 

I had originally assumed that Google would have access to the entire back catalog of PC games -- but given there decision to use Linux/Vulkan, that doesn't seem to be the case.  Lack of content could be a very real problem for them.

[bladimir2k]

5 minutes ago, number305 said:

Video can also be buffered much more easily than a video game.  A movie never changes so it can be continuously buffered.  Games are constantly changing... are you going to look up next or down, are you going to shoot him or will he shoot you etc.  I'll bet there are some very smart people that have figured out ways to buffer that to some point but it is definitely more tricky than a static video.

 

Streaming is the future but we are at the very beginning.  No doubt the next couple of years will have a few bumps.  

Good point as well.... forgot that streaming movies use buffering, basically pre-loading a few seconds/minutes of the video. This would not work with games. 

[Keyser_Soze]

 

[TwinIon]

10 hours ago, cusideabelincoln said:

One of most interesting aspects about Stadia is how it's using Linux, and Google appears to be pushing Vulkan, so developers have to port their games over to this platform like they would for any other console/PC.

 

The key for this to actually be successful is how game developers can create exclusive content for the platform.  And not just exclusive games that are a carbon copy of other franchises.  They actually need to make use of the extra processing power at their disposal and provide a gameplay experience that simply isn't possible on traditional consoles.  There is real opportunity to take MMO style games (of any genre) to the next level, because client performance won't be the limiting factor anymore.  

 

The seamless nature and the ability to share anything (save states, game instances) also has a lot of potential.  How about developing a game based on hot-potato.  One person starts off a game session, and then that session gets handed off to someone else, and then another person, and so on until the challenge is completed.  Perhaps spectators can interact with the environment to add a competitive nature to it.  Asymmetric multiplayer can now be more accessible.  Let's say one person is playing the main game on a TV, but then other people can join in using their phones and do all kinds of things - basically a more robust method than the Wii U was capable of.  Using AC: Odyssey as an example, a second player can hop on and take control of the eagle for scouting purposes.  

I hadn't thought much about the unique capabilities that this could provide, but you're right that it could become very interesting.

 

One current example of what you're describing that comes to mind is JackBox. Right now you can play it on pretty much anything (xbox, PC, Apple TV, etc.), and everyone uses their phone as controllers. Apply that same model but with this tech and you could do similar things with more interactive games.

 

 

If it worked well enough, it could really revive LAN parties for me. I've got a few TVs in the house, plus tablets and PCs. Right now it would be nearly impossible to utilize all those screens for the same game, but streaming could make it easy (provided I have the bandwidth).

 

 

I also thought it was interesting how much they're integrating it with YouTube, and how that could become their primary entry point. If you could watch a trailer for a game, and instantly click the play button to either demo it or buy it right there, it could really hook people. Imagine it with a free to play game where at the end of every youtube video of the next battle royale game you could click to play instantly on any device. That's potentially powerful, and a hell of a way to onboard people to your platform.

[cusideabelincoln]

24 minutes ago, TwinIon said:

I hadn't thought much about the unique capabilities that this could provide, but you're right that it could become very interesting.

 

One current example of what you're describing that comes to mind is JackBox. Right now you can play it on pretty much anything (xbox, PC, Apple TV, etc.), and everyone uses their phone as controllers. Apply that same model but with this tech and you could do similar things with more interactive games.

 

 

If it worked well enough, it could really revive LAN parties for me. I've got a few TVs in the house, plus tablets and PCs. Right now it would be nearly impossible to utilize all those screens for the same game, but streaming could make it easy (provided I have the bandwidth).

 

 

I also thought it was interesting how much they're integrating it with YouTube, and how that could become their primary entry point. If you could watch a trailer for a game, and instantly click the play button to either demo it or buy it right there, it could really hook people. Imagine it with a free to play game where at the end of every youtube video of the next battle royale game you could click to play instantly on any device. That's potentially powerful, and a hell of a way to onboard people to your platform.

 

You're right, the streaming/Youtube stuff could have interesting interactions.  Depending on the game, what if you're watching gameplay and when you decide to play the game you can jump into the exact instance you were watching.  Or perhaps a streamer is playing a co-op (even counter-op) style of game, and presses a button to call for help, and someone watching could instantly join in.

 

The biggest issue here is latency.  If this platform is limited to being treated like a traditional console, with traditional games being focused (twitch shooters, action games), then latency will kill it.  I live in the Midwest, and I never get anything lower than a 30 ms ping to the closest major city, and it's typically closer to 50 ms.  So if Stadia simply leverages what it is good at, and doesn't try to fight a battle it won't win, then it has a greater chance to succeed. 

 

And if you watched the keynote, one developer made mention of how you can create specific scenarios in any game and then share those same circumstances to the world to challenge people to beat them.  Google could turn any game into an NES Remix style of game.

[monkk]

With the new state feature, every game that implements it essentially gets its own Diablo 3 Challenge Rift system. That's compelling.

[TheGreatGamble]

On 3/19/2019 at 11:21 AM, mikechorney said:

Not at my local gaming store.  All of the "regulars" bought PlayStation on Day 1.

same. I remember N64 getting all the shit at that time. 

[SuperSpreader]

lol