5 ms·

This is a pretty smart move, considering that rumors point to Google's "game streaming service" being available on every device that runs Chrome, without additi

This is a pretty smart move, considering that rumors point to Google's "game streaming service" being available on every device that runs Chrome, without additional installation. That would mean a launch across: * Windows * Mac * ChromeOS * Linux * Mobile ...overnight. Pretty compelling way to draw in new users given millions of people already own a Switch controller and could start without needing to buy Google's one.

geofft 8y ago
Is there a reason to believe this is a Google strategic change instead of some individual Chromium hacker who happens to own a Switch and wants to use its controller for fun? (I don't see any more context on the bug, so it seems to be it could be either.)
- martius 8y ago
  The author has a @google.com email address.
  - geofft 8y ago
    Sure, still could be personal interest. I certainly commit things to my employer's source control that are personally interesting and not company strategic priorities (but still correct changes to make) on occasion.
  - jchw 8y ago
    I'm neither confirming nor denying this theory since I have no idea, but googlers can and do work on stuff that has nothing to do with their job function, even aside from formal 20% projects. Also, I don't know if it's commonplace anymore, but I remember in the past a lot of people that worked on Chrome had @chromium.org addresses, too.
    - mehrdadn 8y ago
      I feel like if it was unrelated to their official work they wouldn't use a google.com address?
      - geofft 8y ago
        That doesn't tell you much - it's not unrelated to their official work, it's just not related to company priorities. If it's a project you work on at / for work, copyright is likely still owned by the employer. See also the number of personal projects that are not official Google projects at https://github.com/google https://github.com/google .
      - raphlinus 8y ago
        No, the policy is to use your google.com address, with some exceptions[1]. This confuses a lot of people, as things done for fun by one person on weekends (maybe not even official 20% time) are mixed in with official projects. [1]: https://opensource.google.com/docs/patching/ https://opensource.google.com/docs/patching/
        mehrdadn 8y ago
        Is this for patches that occur on your own time without company resources? Even in jurisdictions (like CA) where they can't enforce ownership over what you did?
        geofft 8y ago
        I am neither a Googler nor a laywer, but I think yes and yes - if you don't care about copyright ownership and only licensing (which most of the time is fine - you usually only care if you either want to commercialize it later or you want to make sure either you have standing to sue infringers or Google doesn't), there's an easy process for open-sourcing something and letting Google retain ownership, and a much more involved process for confirming that Google doesn't own it. So it's easier to let Google claim copyright and not argue about whether they really have had ownership. Some relevant links are https://opensource.google.com/docs/releasing/ https://opensource.google.com/docs/releasing/ for the personal-project-with-Google-copyright flow and https://opensource.google.com/docs/iarc/ https://opensource.google.com/docs/iarc/ for the personal-copyright flow.
pjc50 8y ago
> Google's "game streaming service" A number of companies, both startups and established game companies, have tried this. It's not taken off because you can't beat latency.
- simlevesque 8y ago
  Not every gamer cares about latency.
  - dgzl 8y ago
    If there's enough of it, yes they do.
  - bpye 8y ago
    Personal opinion: I suspect it's something most gamers care about even if they don't realise they do. If your controls feel disconnected from your gaming experience then you will get frustrated pretty quick.
- geofft 8y ago
  It seems like the "obvious" way for Google to do this is to have a thin client with smarts instead of just a video terminal, similar to line editing and local echo in terminals (or Mosh's predictive input). The Chromecast is a smart thin client: when you play YouTube videos, it's actually running YouTube in a Chromium instance on the Chromecast, not streaming it from your laptop or phone, even though you control it from your laptop or phone. And with Google's experience in NaCl, WebAssembly, WebGL, etc., it wouldn't surprise me if they figured out how to ship enough of the game locally but still do heavy processing on the server. Of course, it's technically involved to make a local client for every video game they want to support. With local echo or even YouTube the scope of the problem is smaller.
- mastax 8y ago
  I used the Google project stream beta. I have a gigabit internet connection but live a few hundred miles from a Google data center. The experience was pretty good. Assassin's Creed is not super latency sensitive, and most of the time I didn't even notice. I'd probably prefer to stream 1080p60 than play at 30fps on a console. I'm still not convinced it can be commercially successful though: not that many people have a good enough connection, and most people who care about games at all will already have a better way to play them.

geofft 8y ago

Is there a reason to believe this is a Google strategic change instead of some individual Chromium hacker who happens to own a Switch and wants to use its controller for fun? (I don't see any more context on the bug, so it seems to be it could be either.)

martius 8y ago
The author has a @google.com email address.
- geofft 8y ago
  Sure, still could be personal interest. I certainly commit things to my employer's source control that are personally interesting and not company strategic priorities (but still correct changes to make) on occasion.
- jchw 8y ago
  I'm neither confirming nor denying this theory since I have no idea, but googlers can and do work on stuff that has nothing to do with their job function, even aside from formal 20% projects. Also, I don't know if it's commonplace anymore, but I remember in the past a lot of people that worked on Chrome had @chromium.org addresses, too.
  - mehrdadn 8y ago
    I feel like if it was unrelated to their official work they wouldn't use a google.com address?
    - geofft 8y ago
      That doesn't tell you much - it's not unrelated to their official work, it's just not related to company priorities. If it's a project you work on at / for work, copyright is likely still owned by the employer. See also the number of personal projects that are not official Google projects at https://github.com/google https://github.com/google .
    - raphlinus 8y ago
      No, the policy is to use your google.com address, with some exceptions[1]. This confuses a lot of people, as things done for fun by one person on weekends (maybe not even official 20% time) are mixed in with official projects. [1]: https://opensource.google.com/docs/patching/ https://opensource.google.com/docs/patching/
      - mehrdadn 8y ago
        Is this for patches that occur on your own time without company resources? Even in jurisdictions (like CA) where they can't enforce ownership over what you did?
        geofft 8y ago
        I am neither a Googler nor a laywer, but I think yes and yes - if you don't care about copyright ownership and only licensing (which most of the time is fine - you usually only care if you either want to commercialize it later or you want to make sure either you have standing to sue infringers or Google doesn't), there's an easy process for open-sourcing something and letting Google retain ownership, and a much more involved process for confirming that Google doesn't own it. So it's easier to let Google claim copyright and not argue about whether they really have had ownership. Some relevant links are https://opensource.google.com/docs/releasing/ https://opensource.google.com/docs/releasing/ for the personal-project-with-Google-copyright flow and https://opensource.google.com/docs/iarc/ https://opensource.google.com/docs/iarc/ for the personal-copyright flow.

pjc50 8y ago

> Google's "game streaming service" A number of companies, both startups and established game companies, have tried this. It's not taken off because you can't beat latency.

simlevesque 8y ago
Not every gamer cares about latency.
- dgzl 8y ago
  If there's enough of it, yes they do.
- bpye 8y ago
  Personal opinion: I suspect it's something most gamers care about even if they don't realise they do. If your controls feel disconnected from your gaming experience then you will get frustrated pretty quick.
geofft 8y ago
It seems like the "obvious" way for Google to do this is to have a thin client with smarts instead of just a video terminal, similar to line editing and local echo in terminals (or Mosh's predictive input). The Chromecast is a smart thin client: when you play YouTube videos, it's actually running YouTube in a Chromium instance on the Chromecast, not streaming it from your laptop or phone, even though you control it from your laptop or phone. And with Google's experience in NaCl, WebAssembly, WebGL, etc., it wouldn't surprise me if they figured out how to ship enough of the game locally but still do heavy processing on the server. Of course, it's technically involved to make a local client for every video game they want to support. With local echo or even YouTube the scope of the problem is smaller.
mastax 8y ago
I used the Google project stream beta. I have a gigabit internet connection but live a few hundred miles from a Google data center. The experience was pretty good. Assassin's Creed is not super latency sensitive, and most of the time I didn't even notice. I'd probably prefer to stream 1080p60 than play at 30fps on a console. I'm still not convinced it can be commercially successful though: not that many people have a good enough connection, and most people who care about games at all will already have a better way to play them.