4 ms·

If Valve fully backed cloud gaming, that would have downstream effects on publishers and PC gaming as a platform. Who would sign on to publish a competitive, re

If Valve fully backed cloud gaming, that would have downstream effects on publishers and PC gaming as a platform. Who would sign on to publish a competitive, reaction driven game if the market is segmented between the high-latency cloud where anyone can play, and physical hardware only purchased by a relatively diminishing market? The audience for tactical precise shooters, MOBAs, RTSs, etc would deteriorate and with it so would one competitive advantage of PC gaming. Might be tautological, but the games that thrive in the cloud are games designed not to need a PC to be played.

lutte 6y ago
Moreover Valve's hardest push in the past years was in VR. They are literally the only major (not indie or AA, and not doing a bad port of an already existing game, like Bethesda) developer to make a full game's worth of content for the platform that makes full use of the platform. Alyx was a breath of fresh air for anyone who wanted something out of VR that didn't feel like an incomplete experience. And VR is inherently incompatible with the design goals of cloud computing. The slightest of latencies destroy the illusion in VR. Valve is not going to support a world that doesn't encourage people to own the hardware necessary to run VR.
- Duralias 6y ago
  With technologies like re-projection or whatever specifically the Oculus Quest uses, wireless local streaming isn't that bad, It can easily be a terrible experience if you do not know what you are doing, but its fine most of the time, the latency honestly isn't noticeable, unless you play beat saber. Although doing over-the-internet streaming is definitely a terrible idea because of how many out-of-your-control factors exist.
riversflow 6y ago
> The audience for tactical precise shooters, MOBAs, RTSs, etc would deteriorate Maybe, but I tend to think that it wouldn’t diminish, and that this idea that very many will just “get over” latency is something VPs and PMs have convinced themselves of and not something that would bare out in the data. The first time I gamed on a 120hz display was life changing in a way, I was never totally satisfied playing any sort of competitive multiplayer game at 60hz again, it’s like wearing hazy scratched glasses when the competition doesn’t. And all it took was playing on a friends PC with a 120hz display for half an hour. I think considering how great the push to >120Hz has been in PC gaming, and that High-hertz are now being adopted in smartphones and tablets I’m not alone in this experience. My point being here that a large part of why people choose to play competitive, reaction driven games, is precisely because they are competitive and especially because they are very fast paced. So fast paced that 8ms of output latency makes a significant difference to a large segment.
- themacguffinman 6y ago
  Most people won't have to "get over" latency because they're not used to or sensitive to low latency in the first place. I'm not saying their eyes aren't good enough or something, but the fact is that a majority of them either can't or won't spend on gear necessary for the performance you're claiming. Steam's own hardware survey indicates that the most basic, cheap monitors are the norm with 1080p or lower being the most common resolution; refresh rate isn't explicitly shown but I'd be surprised if 120+hz is even above single digits of marketshare. Many gamers don't even play on PCs, they play on consoles running games as low as 30fps with cheap TVs that often don't have "Game Mode" turned on which alone can eliminate more than 8ms of latency. Tactical shooters and MOBAs are still immensely popular despite the fact that most consumers likely experience a fairly high level of latency. People play games like Fortnite because they're fun, not because they're so competitive & fast paced that 8ms of latency makes a difference. Even competitive games nowadays try to soften the direct correlation between player skill and wins using matchmaking and RNG mechanics so everyone gets a reasonably consistent rate of winning. Want to play a really competitive and fast paced game where 8ms probably does matter? Play Quake Live against the 100 or so people that still tolerate that level of competition.
  - comex 6y ago
    The problem is that the 8ms figure is wrong. If it were really 8ms of added end-to-end latency compared to local, then it would be a complete non-issue – even in the twitchiest fighting games and shooters, unless you’re a literal pro-level player, as you mentioned. Most people would not be able to tell the difference even if they were specifically looking for it. It would even be tolerable for VR. Unfortunately, the reality is more like 80-120ms, at least in one benchmark: https://www.pcgamer.com/geforce-now-beats-stadia-in-our-input-latency-testing/ https://www.pcgamer.com/geforce-now-beats-stadia-in-our-inpu...
    - themacguffinman 6y ago
      You're right it's likely closer to 80-120ms of difference, though that doesn't change much. It's still apparent that people are used to some pretty high latency (I remember that Digital Foundry counter-intuitively found that Stadia's overall latency is actually lower than the Xbox One X in a particular game) and elevated latency on that magnitude isn't a critical issue for a majority of players and games. And again, that's not to say that they can't notice the difference or something, it's just not the dealbreaker that it seems to be for some vocal people. I can definitely tell the difference but it's not intolerable for me. I'm definitely happy to trade it for better convenience in many cases just like many are evidently happy to trade it for cheaper hardware.

lutte 6y ago

Moreover Valve's hardest push in the past years was in VR. They are literally the only major (not indie or AA, and not doing a bad port of an already existing game, like Bethesda) developer to make a full game's worth of content for the platform that makes full use of the platform. Alyx was a breath of fresh air for anyone who wanted something out of VR that didn't feel like an incomplete experience. And VR is inherently incompatible with the design goals of cloud computing. The slightest of latencies destroy the illusion in VR. Valve is not going to support a world that doesn't encourage people to own the hardware necessary to run VR.

Duralias 6y ago
With technologies like re-projection or whatever specifically the Oculus Quest uses, wireless local streaming isn't that bad, It can easily be a terrible experience if you do not know what you are doing, but its fine most of the time, the latency honestly isn't noticeable, unless you play beat saber. Although doing over-the-internet streaming is definitely a terrible idea because of how many out-of-your-control factors exist.

riversflow 6y ago

> The audience for tactical precise shooters, MOBAs, RTSs, etc would deteriorate Maybe, but I tend to think that it wouldn’t diminish, and that this idea that very many will just “get over” latency is something VPs and PMs have convinced themselves of and not something that would bare out in the data. The first time I gamed on a 120hz display was life changing in a way, I was never totally satisfied playing any sort of competitive multiplayer game at 60hz again, it’s like wearing hazy scratched glasses when the competition doesn’t. And all it took was playing on a friends PC with a 120hz display for half an hour. I think considering how great the push to >120Hz has been in PC gaming, and that High-hertz are now being adopted in smartphones and tablets I’m not alone in this experience. My point being here that a large part of why people choose to play competitive, reaction driven games, is precisely because they are competitive and especially because they are very fast paced. So fast paced that 8ms of output latency makes a significant difference to a large segment.

themacguffinman 6y ago
Most people won't have to "get over" latency because they're not used to or sensitive to low latency in the first place. I'm not saying their eyes aren't good enough or something, but the fact is that a majority of them either can't or won't spend on gear necessary for the performance you're claiming. Steam's own hardware survey indicates that the most basic, cheap monitors are the norm with 1080p or lower being the most common resolution; refresh rate isn't explicitly shown but I'd be surprised if 120+hz is even above single digits of marketshare. Many gamers don't even play on PCs, they play on consoles running games as low as 30fps with cheap TVs that often don't have "Game Mode" turned on which alone can eliminate more than 8ms of latency. Tactical shooters and MOBAs are still immensely popular despite the fact that most consumers likely experience a fairly high level of latency. People play games like Fortnite because they're fun, not because they're so competitive & fast paced that 8ms of latency makes a difference. Even competitive games nowadays try to soften the direct correlation between player skill and wins using matchmaking and RNG mechanics so everyone gets a reasonably consistent rate of winning. Want to play a really competitive and fast paced game where 8ms probably does matter? Play Quake Live against the 100 or so people that still tolerate that level of competition.
- comex 6y ago
  The problem is that the 8ms figure is wrong. If it were really 8ms of added end-to-end latency compared to local, then it would be a complete non-issue – even in the twitchiest fighting games and shooters, unless you’re a literal pro-level player, as you mentioned. Most people would not be able to tell the difference even if they were specifically looking for it. It would even be tolerable for VR. Unfortunately, the reality is more like 80-120ms, at least in one benchmark: https://www.pcgamer.com/geforce-now-beats-stadia-in-our-input-latency-testing/ https://www.pcgamer.com/geforce-now-beats-stadia-in-our-inpu...
  - themacguffinman 6y ago
    You're right it's likely closer to 80-120ms of difference, though that doesn't change much. It's still apparent that people are used to some pretty high latency (I remember that Digital Foundry counter-intuitively found that Stadia's overall latency is actually lower than the Xbox One X in a particular game) and elevated latency on that magnitude isn't a critical issue for a majority of players and games. And again, that's not to say that they can't notice the difference or something, it's just not the dealbreaker that it seems to be for some vocal people. I can definitely tell the difference but it's not intolerable for me. I'm definitely happy to trade it for better convenience in many cases just like many are evidently happy to trade it for cheaper hardware.