5 ms·

> 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

> 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.
GlennS 6y ago
It's not that long ago people were playing with 300+ ms delays on 56k modems. If you design lag-prediction into the game it isn't so bad. People even used enjoy working the "lag shield" (be erratic, change direction frequently). It's the dropped packets and consequent stuttering that is really frustrating.
- Reason077 6y ago
  > ”It's the dropped packets and consequent stuttering that is really frustrating.” I agree. As a casual gamer, lag/latency has never been a problem on Stadia. Visual glitching and stuttering has. But have you noticed it only happens in certain titles? Some games seem to suffer from periodic stutters (ahem, PUBG) no matter how good your connection is. While others are always butter smooth and crystal clear. This has lead me to suspect that it’s not entirely a connection issue, but maybe an issue with the ports/hardware at Stadia’s end?

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.

GlennS 6y ago

It's not that long ago people were playing with 300+ ms delays on 56k modems. If you design lag-prediction into the game it isn't so bad. People even used enjoy working the "lag shield" (be erratic, change direction frequently). It's the dropped packets and consequent stuttering that is really frustrating.

Reason077 6y ago
> ”It's the dropped packets and consequent stuttering that is really frustrating.” I agree. As a casual gamer, lag/latency has never been a problem on Stadia. Visual glitching and stuttering has. But have you noticed it only happens in certain titles? Some games seem to suffer from periodic stutters (ahem, PUBG) no matter how good your connection is. While others are always butter smooth and crystal clear. This has lead me to suspect that it’s not entirely a connection issue, but maybe an issue with the ports/hardware at Stadia’s end?