5 ms·

Google would need to solve speed of light problems for Stadia to be successful. It's not that people are betting against Google, they are betting on their under

Google would need to solve speed of light problems for Stadia to be successful. It's not that people are betting against Google, they are betting on their understanding of physics. Stadia is going to be the luke warm product that OnLive was and then Google will shutter it. AT&T also tried to do this kind of service in limited markets with fiber optics to the home, servers near the last mile, and a partnership with nvidia for rapid decode/encode. Didn't stick. Why will Google be successful?

pier25 7y ago
I'm skeptical too about lag, but OTOH this is not super critical for all types of games. Also not everyone is as sensitive to it. Time will tell.
v7p1Qbt1im 7y ago
People forget that latency is actually pretty big on a console already. Many of the more casual gamers might not mind. From what I‘ve heard from the test run of AC Odyssey lag wasn‘t too bad. If anything I‘m interested to see of we‘ll see any difference in graphics quality with regards to artifacts. Also, how scalable and future proof their stack is (or how they upgrade). Especially once PS5/Scarlett come along. But most of the more casual players won‘t mind I think.
sidibe 7y ago
Light travels 186 miles per ms and a company like Google can put machines all over the place. The speed of light is really not an issue compared to other network overheads which can be improved.
- tzakrajs 7y ago
  Again, AT&T tried this and there was still noticeable lag.
  - SmirkingRevenge 7y ago
    Nvidia's current service (in beta) does really well. Google's project stream demo went really well for many people. But obviously, one's experience will be contingent upon internet providers, ultimately. So... Stadia, along with all other current and future streaming services, are going to really suck for a lot of people. But... they are going to be really amazing for a lot of people too. Best-case latency should be as low or lower than the latency many play with on their consoles.
  - sidibe 7y ago
    Doesn't matter who has tried it or whether it's feasible, speed of light or physics are not reasons this won't work if a company is willing to put machines every couple hundred miles.

pier25 7y ago

I'm skeptical too about lag, but OTOH this is not super critical for all types of games. Also not everyone is as sensitive to it. Time will tell.

v7p1Qbt1im 7y ago

People forget that latency is actually pretty big on a console already. Many of the more casual gamers might not mind. From what I‘ve heard from the test run of AC Odyssey lag wasn‘t too bad. If anything I‘m interested to see of we‘ll see any difference in graphics quality with regards to artifacts. Also, how scalable and future proof their stack is (or how they upgrade). Especially once PS5/Scarlett come along. But most of the more casual players won‘t mind I think.

sidibe 7y ago

Light travels 186 miles per ms and a company like Google can put machines all over the place. The speed of light is really not an issue compared to other network overheads which can be improved.

tzakrajs 7y ago
Again, AT&T tried this and there was still noticeable lag.
- SmirkingRevenge 7y ago
  Nvidia's current service (in beta) does really well. Google's project stream demo went really well for many people. But obviously, one's experience will be contingent upon internet providers, ultimately. So... Stadia, along with all other current and future streaming services, are going to really suck for a lot of people. But... they are going to be really amazing for a lot of people too. Best-case latency should be as low or lower than the latency many play with on their consoles.
- sidibe 7y ago
  Doesn't matter who has tried it or whether it's feasible, speed of light or physics are not reasons this won't work if a company is willing to put machines every couple hundred miles.