4 ms·

There are so many pieces of software that are latency dependent. Aspects of them can be in the cloud, but I doubt we will ever truly lose track of bare metal.

There are so many pieces of software that are latency dependent. Aspects of them can be in the cloud, but I doubt we will ever truly lose track of bare metal. Right now I'm hoping for a real time OS that has enough of the common apps that most people are happy, but that satisfies the speed requirements necessary for digital audio, lighting controls, and other tangible and interactive behaviors. Hopefully the natural world's fundamental interactivity and tactility in real time is something that we all consider going forward enough that the cloud / thin client model becomes only a part of our human system.

adrianN 6y ago
Gaming is a pretty latency sensitive application, and yet Amazon is working hard on moving that to the cloud: https://www.amazon.com/luna/landing-page https://www.amazon.com/luna/landing-page While there are some things that are even more latency sensitive, I think that could become a very small niche in the near future.
- PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
  The technology to "move gaming to the cloud" was around at least a decade ago, when Gaikai started doing zero-day "play this game in your browser via Java". It worked well then, it works well today (HN had a article several months back by a sort of follow-up to the Gaikai concept). The problem is convincing gaming companies to actually use it(they have some good reasons to be concerned).
  - heyoni 6y ago
    I think the real issue remains latency. Gaming companies are using it but the users don’t want it. Try playing call of duty or doom over the network and it’s going to be a terrible experience.
    - arcturus17 6y ago
      Stadia disagrees (Doom is actually on there). You can say what you want about the business model or Google itself, but the UX is impeccable. I am periodically in disbelief when I think that what I’m playing on the screen is being streamed by a server.
      - eropple 6y ago
        Doom is on there, but I wouldn't say the experience is great. I've played it both locally and on Stadia and while a quality-inelastic buyer might be OK with it there it just doesn't match up for a serious/invested consumer. And that's totally fine; not all things have to be for all people. But it's a worse experience once you know what you're looking for, and will stay so. And, as a TO for fighting games, there's no substitute there for the barest minimum latency possible (to the point where older games legitimately feel better because you can play them over analog connections to a CRT).
      - bmn__ 6y ago
        > UX iS iMpEcCaBlE https://img-9gag-fun.9cache.com/photo/aDgDE8x_460svvp9.webm https://img-9gag-fun.9cache.com/photo/aDgDE8x_460svvp9.webm
        arcturus17 6y ago
        That looks like Borderlands 3... I've beaten the game and never had such a problem. I'll grant: it's impeccable under the right network conditions.
- bentcorner 6y ago
  The optimist in me says that cloud gaming will expand the category, not move it from local to cloud. Cloud gaming can't beat the laws of physics, and cloud hardware isn't free. So action/fps games will always have a home on local hardware. But cloud games have an advantage too and maybe we'll see new kinds of games/experiences that are not possible with local PCs.
- asdff 6y ago
  I've tried out Google's beta with assasin's creed, and the results weren't promising. I had gigabit fiber and while it worked pretty well for the most part, I still got quite a few gamebreaking lag spikes and fps slowdowns. It stuttered like a youtube video: freezing, then resuming in 144p quality which made the in game text completely unreadable on my screen. And that's on a beefy internet connection, imagine the situation for the median American or someone reliant on a mobile data plan. People can scarcely tolerate playing a game with high ping as it is.
  - onion2k 6y ago
    People can scarcely tolerate playing a game with high ping as it is. People who classify themselves as "hardcore gamers" perhaps, but those people will also drop upwards of $1000 on a graphics card. They're not the majority in gaming. Most people will happily play a game even if there are a few problems if it's cheap and entertaining.
    - asdff 6y ago
      Anyone will throw a controller across the room after putting a whole clip into someone taking no damage, watching them rubber band across the map, and pistol whip you in the head. That's your life on a crappy connection in most FPS games which are some of the best sellers every year.
  - Nextgrid 6y ago
    I've ran my own cloud gaming VM on AWS and with an enterprise connection (1ms latency to the AWS datacenter) it's been good enough to play multiplayer shooting games and maintain a positive kill/death ratio against those who play locally. Maybe the problem isn't that it's impossible per-se but that the consumer-grade services underprovision their machines/bandwidth, or that consumer-grade gigabit fiber isn't actually that good (or problems in the "last mile" like using Wi-Fi instead of good old Ethernet)?

adrianN 6y ago

Gaming is a pretty latency sensitive application, and yet Amazon is working hard on moving that to the cloud: https://www.amazon.com/luna/landing-page https://www.amazon.com/luna/landing-page While there are some things that are even more latency sensitive, I think that could become a very small niche in the near future.

PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
The technology to "move gaming to the cloud" was around at least a decade ago, when Gaikai started doing zero-day "play this game in your browser via Java". It worked well then, it works well today (HN had a article several months back by a sort of follow-up to the Gaikai concept). The problem is convincing gaming companies to actually use it(they have some good reasons to be concerned).
- heyoni 6y ago
  I think the real issue remains latency. Gaming companies are using it but the users don’t want it. Try playing call of duty or doom over the network and it’s going to be a terrible experience.
  - arcturus17 6y ago
    Stadia disagrees (Doom is actually on there). You can say what you want about the business model or Google itself, but the UX is impeccable. I am periodically in disbelief when I think that what I’m playing on the screen is being streamed by a server.
    - eropple 6y ago
      Doom is on there, but I wouldn't say the experience is great. I've played it both locally and on Stadia and while a quality-inelastic buyer might be OK with it there it just doesn't match up for a serious/invested consumer. And that's totally fine; not all things have to be for all people. But it's a worse experience once you know what you're looking for, and will stay so. And, as a TO for fighting games, there's no substitute there for the barest minimum latency possible (to the point where older games legitimately feel better because you can play them over analog connections to a CRT).
    - bmn__ 6y ago
      > UX iS iMpEcCaBlE https://img-9gag-fun.9cache.com/photo/aDgDE8x_460svvp9.webm https://img-9gag-fun.9cache.com/photo/aDgDE8x_460svvp9.webm
      - arcturus17 6y ago
        That looks like Borderlands 3... I've beaten the game and never had such a problem. I'll grant: it's impeccable under the right network conditions.
bentcorner 6y ago
The optimist in me says that cloud gaming will expand the category, not move it from local to cloud. Cloud gaming can't beat the laws of physics, and cloud hardware isn't free. So action/fps games will always have a home on local hardware. But cloud games have an advantage too and maybe we'll see new kinds of games/experiences that are not possible with local PCs.
asdff 6y ago
I've tried out Google's beta with assasin's creed, and the results weren't promising. I had gigabit fiber and while it worked pretty well for the most part, I still got quite a few gamebreaking lag spikes and fps slowdowns. It stuttered like a youtube video: freezing, then resuming in 144p quality which made the in game text completely unreadable on my screen. And that's on a beefy internet connection, imagine the situation for the median American or someone reliant on a mobile data plan. People can scarcely tolerate playing a game with high ping as it is.
- onion2k 6y ago
  People can scarcely tolerate playing a game with high ping as it is. People who classify themselves as "hardcore gamers" perhaps, but those people will also drop upwards of $1000 on a graphics card. They're not the majority in gaming. Most people will happily play a game even if there are a few problems if it's cheap and entertaining.
  - asdff 6y ago
    Anyone will throw a controller across the room after putting a whole clip into someone taking no damage, watching them rubber band across the map, and pistol whip you in the head. That's your life on a crappy connection in most FPS games which are some of the best sellers every year.
- Nextgrid 6y ago
  I've ran my own cloud gaming VM on AWS and with an enterprise connection (1ms latency to the AWS datacenter) it's been good enough to play multiplayer shooting games and maintain a positive kill/death ratio against those who play locally. Maybe the problem isn't that it's impossible per-se but that the consumer-grade services underprovision their machines/bandwidth, or that consumer-grade gigabit fiber isn't actually that good (or problems in the "last mile" like using Wi-Fi instead of good old Ethernet)?