3 ms·

I was thinking initially that this is not very useful in a world where we have unreal and unity. Then I thought about the coming world of game streaming, and re

I was thinking initially that this is not very useful in a world where we have unreal and unity. Then I thought about the coming world of game streaming, and reconsidered. Any average joes making a startup could nvenc or amf this engine up. Just like that, no more streaming licensing fees to unity or unreal. That's actually attractive. Of course, a set of joes or janes capable of writing a server supporting enough concurrents to make an economically viable service is probably not a set of "average" joes. But you get the idea. These ancillary open source engines are probably the place where indies will end up having to operate in a hypothetical future where game streaming is important. Provided the engines are fast enough. I'm not saying we'd see a python or javascript engine serving as a streaming server, but the C++ and Java open source engines could well be where we'll see the first indie hits in that space. And in that sense, O3DE might be useful.

nightowl_games 5y ago
> Just like that, no more streaming licensing fees to unity or unreal. What makes you think streaming a game made in Unity requires licensing fees to Unity or Unreal? Where in the terms of service does it say that? > Provided the engines are fast enough. What do you mean by this? If the game engine is fast enough to push 60fps to the monitor, then it's fast enough to push 60fps to the network. > indie hits in that space Why do you think there will be 'indie hits in that space'? Game streaming (ie Stadia, Nvidia, Playstation, etc) already exists and seems to primarily target heavy AAA games that players dont have the beefy hardware to run. Why should we expect there to be an 'indie hit' on a service like stadia?
- marshray 5y ago
  > If the game engine is fast enough to push 60fps to the monitor, then it's fast enough to push 60fps to the network. How much is that in bandwidth costs? Is it better or worse than providing periodic multi-GiB updates to every player?
  - echelon 5y ago
    > How much is that in bandwidth costs? In ten years, we'll have fatter pipes. > Is it better or worse than providing periodic multi-GiB updates to every player? Not everyone can afford a 3090. But imagine even higher tiers that really only make sense for data centers to purchase. How much GPU time sits idle at home? As much as I hate thin client-ization of everything, rendering moving offsite makes sense.
- meheleventyone 5y ago
  > What do you mean by this? If the game engine is fast enough to push 60fps to the monitor, then it's fast enough to push 60fps to the network. Whilst this is true the more efficiently it pushes 60 FPS the less hardware grunt you need. Which could be the difference between a project that works financially or not.
- bilbo0s 5y ago
  Having a machine support one user at 60 is trivial. Having a machine support 100 users or a 1000 users at 60 is a different issue entirely. (Assuming you want to make money.)
  - eloisant 5y ago
    Streaming only replaces the machine that runs the game (instead of the local computer). If you need servers for a massive multiplayer game, game streaming services won't help you.

nightowl_games 5y ago

> Just like that, no more streaming licensing fees to unity or unreal. What makes you think streaming a game made in Unity requires licensing fees to Unity or Unreal? Where in the terms of service does it say that? > Provided the engines are fast enough. What do you mean by this? If the game engine is fast enough to push 60fps to the monitor, then it's fast enough to push 60fps to the network. > indie hits in that space Why do you think there will be 'indie hits in that space'? Game streaming (ie Stadia, Nvidia, Playstation, etc) already exists and seems to primarily target heavy AAA games that players dont have the beefy hardware to run. Why should we expect there to be an 'indie hit' on a service like stadia?

marshray 5y ago
> If the game engine is fast enough to push 60fps to the monitor, then it's fast enough to push 60fps to the network. How much is that in bandwidth costs? Is it better or worse than providing periodic multi-GiB updates to every player?
- echelon 5y ago
  > How much is that in bandwidth costs? In ten years, we'll have fatter pipes. > Is it better or worse than providing periodic multi-GiB updates to every player? Not everyone can afford a 3090. But imagine even higher tiers that really only make sense for data centers to purchase. How much GPU time sits idle at home? As much as I hate thin client-ization of everything, rendering moving offsite makes sense.
meheleventyone 5y ago
> What do you mean by this? If the game engine is fast enough to push 60fps to the monitor, then it's fast enough to push 60fps to the network. Whilst this is true the more efficiently it pushes 60 FPS the less hardware grunt you need. Which could be the difference between a project that works financially or not.
bilbo0s 5y ago
Having a machine support one user at 60 is trivial. Having a machine support 100 users or a 1000 users at 60 is a different issue entirely. (Assuming you want to make money.)
- eloisant 5y ago
  Streaming only replaces the machine that runs the game (instead of the local computer). If you need servers for a massive multiplayer game, game streaming services won't help you.