8 ms·

I disagree, because for 99% of gamers not trying to play competitive games, it’s virtually unnoticeable. I like to play Spiritfarer and some other family games

I disagree, because for 99% of gamers not trying to play competitive games, it’s virtually unnoticeable. I like to play Spiritfarer and some other family games with my partner on Stadia, and we’ve never noticed any significant problems - even when using non-stadia controllers. Overall I’m bullish on cloud gaming, because I don’t want to invest hundreds of dollars regularly to update my PC or console hardware just to play games like Stray or something like that. There are new handheld consoles coming out focused on the cloud gaming market, and even the Switch supports “cloud version” games now, like Resident Evil. Also, Amazon’s Luna service continues to grow and improve.

AshamedCaptain 4y ago
> I don’t want to invest hundreds of dollars regularly to update my PC or console hardware just to play games like Stray or something like that. Something like Stray that doesn't really require "hundreds of dollars regularly". Stray plays fine on a 8 year old PC that was definitely < $1000 on its day. Probably not 4K but then also not on the cloud... On the other hand, it's highly likely that you won't be able to play Stray on the cloud within the next 8 years as providers will drop it down (or outright close...).
- s3r3nity 4y ago
  Maybe? But I’m also ok investing the $10-20 per month in a service that can guarantee 4k @ 60fps on any hardware I’m using.
  - outworlder 4y ago
    It's still $10-20 forever, monthly(assuming they never increase prices). Versus a few larger sums every few years. If you don't buy the latest and greatest, a $200 yearly budget can definitely keep your hardware up to date. If it's a PC, you can even use it for other purposes.
    - darkwizard42 4y ago
      Let's do a little math. Let's say you want to buy a gaming PC and have a budget of $1000. Let's also assume you play 1 hour of video games a day, 5 days a week. That is 20 hours a month. At 20 hours a month you would have to play for 50 months (4 years) on your machine before you pay off the machine. Alternatively, you could spend that same money on the streaming service. I think the math doesn't hold up if you are a casual gamer. Building a PC and maintenance just isn't worth it. That being said, if you play a lot more, maybe even 15-20 hours a week, I think it makes a lot of sense to build your own machine (I have one and it was very worth it when I was a serious LoL player).
      - nh23423fefe 4y ago
        why would playtime affect duration of payments
    - drusepth 4y ago
      Within the context of Stadia here, you could purchase a game at cost and play it forever (or, until the service shut down, heh) without paying any monthly subscription fee, which does change the math somewhat.
  - nh23423fefe 4y ago
    in what way is a subscription an investment
redox99 4y ago
> I disagree, because for 99% of gamers not trying to play competitive games, it’s virtually unnoticeable. If you take a look at the 25 games with the most current players[1] I would argue at least 20/25 would either be annoying to play with increased input lag, or outright highly disadvantageous. [1] https://steamcharts.com/top https://steamcharts.com/top
- onion2k 4y ago
  All that means is that people who choose games where lag is annoying pick Steam because that's where the lag is lowest. It's not a canonical list of all games.
- benhurmarcel 4y ago
  This ignores consoles
throitallaway 4y ago
When Super Mario 3D All-Stars for Switch came out I did alright on Super Mario 64 until I encountered a level that required precisely timed wall jumps in order to advance. I consistently missed my jumps and wondered what was up. I plugged in my controller via USB and was still failing to do the jumps properly. What finally fixed it was putting the input on my TV into "game" mode, which reduced the amount of processing/latency. If local display latency can cause issues with gaming, network latency would be a non-starter in a lot of cases.
- Grazester 4y ago
  Super Mario 3D all star is running emulation on the switch. How much latency is introduced with just that? It was not like the emulation was even top notch either.
  - fluoridation 4y ago
    It's hard to say. If the emulation to compute a single frame finishes before the frame deadline elapses then the latency caused by emulation is effectively zero.
- hedgehog 4y ago
  Surprisingly the display latency on TVs is regularly over 100ms, way more than latency at most homes these days (about 10ms for Comcast here).
  - pathartl 4y ago
    That is amazingly inaccurate. If you count the entire chain from input to processing to display you'll be under 40-50ms.
    - hedgehog 4y ago
      I only know for sure from the few displays I've looked at myself but this table from a quick Google search is consistent: https://www.rtings.com/tv/tests/inputs/input-lag https://www.rtings.com/tv/tests/inputs/input-lag
munificent 4y ago
It's absolutely noticeable. The question is whether it's tolerable, and people do seem to tolerate increasing latency both from networks and their TV. But, personally, I find the experience much less enjoyable as the latency goes up. It's not about being competitive either. (I don't play games online.) It just feels sticky and sluggish and I don't enjoy it. I miss the crisp responsiveness of older consoles. :(
hitpointdrew 4y ago
> I disagree, because for 99% of gamers not trying to play competitive games, it’s virtually unnoticeable. I agree with your disagreement here. For me streaming game services don't have a lot of technical hurdles. > Overall I’m bullish on cloud gaming, because I don’t want to invest hundreds of dollars regularly to update my PC or console hardware just to play games like Stray or something like that. I disagree here. I hate the idea of streaming/cloud gaming. I will never sign up for such a service. I don't want a monthly bill, I enjoy building computers. I want to have the content on my local machine thank you very much. The subscription model I think has already proven it self be consumer hostile. I don't want to subscribe to Adobe, I don't want to subscribe to Office, just let me buy the damn thing outright.
- s3r3nity 4y ago
  > I hate the idea of streaming/cloud gaming. I will never sign up for such a service. I don't want a monthly bill, I enjoy building computers. I want to have the content on my local machine thank you very much. I totally think this is fair - and I think the market can support both models. E.g.: I like paying for Netflix / Hulu / [insert video streaming service here], but I wouldn't hate on others who prefer buying the DVD. Same thing for Apple Music vs. people who prefer CDs / records.
kevingadd 4y ago
Splatoon 3 is already one of the best-selling Switch games ever released - a competitive online shooter on a console most popular with casual gamers. Games like Fortnite and Overwatch are massively popular. 99% is a real over-estimation.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
trap_goes_hot 4y ago
If there is demand, and the tech is fine, then why is Google shutting down Stadia?

AshamedCaptain 4y ago

> I don’t want to invest hundreds of dollars regularly to update my PC or console hardware just to play games like Stray or something like that. Something like Stray that doesn't really require "hundreds of dollars regularly". Stray plays fine on a 8 year old PC that was definitely < $1000 on its day. Probably not 4K but then also not on the cloud... On the other hand, it's highly likely that you won't be able to play Stray on the cloud within the next 8 years as providers will drop it down (or outright close...).

s3r3nity 4y ago
Maybe? But I’m also ok investing the $10-20 per month in a service that can guarantee 4k @ 60fps on any hardware I’m using.
- outworlder 4y ago
  It's still $10-20 forever, monthly(assuming they never increase prices). Versus a few larger sums every few years. If you don't buy the latest and greatest, a $200 yearly budget can definitely keep your hardware up to date. If it's a PC, you can even use it for other purposes.
  - darkwizard42 4y ago
    Let's do a little math. Let's say you want to buy a gaming PC and have a budget of $1000. Let's also assume you play 1 hour of video games a day, 5 days a week. That is 20 hours a month. At 20 hours a month you would have to play for 50 months (4 years) on your machine before you pay off the machine. Alternatively, you could spend that same money on the streaming service. I think the math doesn't hold up if you are a casual gamer. Building a PC and maintenance just isn't worth it. That being said, if you play a lot more, maybe even 15-20 hours a week, I think it makes a lot of sense to build your own machine (I have one and it was very worth it when I was a serious LoL player).
    - nh23423fefe 4y ago
      why would playtime affect duration of payments
  - drusepth 4y ago
    Within the context of Stadia here, you could purchase a game at cost and play it forever (or, until the service shut down, heh) without paying any monthly subscription fee, which does change the math somewhat.
- nh23423fefe 4y ago
  in what way is a subscription an investment

redox99 4y ago

> I disagree, because for 99% of gamers not trying to play competitive games, it’s virtually unnoticeable. If you take a look at the 25 games with the most current players[1] I would argue at least 20/25 would either be annoying to play with increased input lag, or outright highly disadvantageous. [1] https://steamcharts.com/top https://steamcharts.com/top

onion2k 4y ago
All that means is that people who choose games where lag is annoying pick Steam because that's where the lag is lowest. It's not a canonical list of all games.
benhurmarcel 4y ago
This ignores consoles

throitallaway 4y ago

When Super Mario 3D All-Stars for Switch came out I did alright on Super Mario 64 until I encountered a level that required precisely timed wall jumps in order to advance. I consistently missed my jumps and wondered what was up. I plugged in my controller via USB and was still failing to do the jumps properly. What finally fixed it was putting the input on my TV into "game" mode, which reduced the amount of processing/latency. If local display latency can cause issues with gaming, network latency would be a non-starter in a lot of cases.

Grazester 4y ago
Super Mario 3D all star is running emulation on the switch. How much latency is introduced with just that? It was not like the emulation was even top notch either.
- fluoridation 4y ago
  It's hard to say. If the emulation to compute a single frame finishes before the frame deadline elapses then the latency caused by emulation is effectively zero.
hedgehog 4y ago
Surprisingly the display latency on TVs is regularly over 100ms, way more than latency at most homes these days (about 10ms for Comcast here).
- pathartl 4y ago
  That is amazingly inaccurate. If you count the entire chain from input to processing to display you'll be under 40-50ms.
  - hedgehog 4y ago
    I only know for sure from the few displays I've looked at myself but this table from a quick Google search is consistent: https://www.rtings.com/tv/tests/inputs/input-lag https://www.rtings.com/tv/tests/inputs/input-lag

munificent 4y ago

It's absolutely noticeable. The question is whether it's tolerable, and people do seem to tolerate increasing latency both from networks and their TV. But, personally, I find the experience much less enjoyable as the latency goes up. It's not about being competitive either. (I don't play games online.) It just feels sticky and sluggish and I don't enjoy it. I miss the crisp responsiveness of older consoles. :(

hitpointdrew 4y ago

> I disagree, because for 99% of gamers not trying to play competitive games, it’s virtually unnoticeable. I agree with your disagreement here. For me streaming game services don't have a lot of technical hurdles. > Overall I’m bullish on cloud gaming, because I don’t want to invest hundreds of dollars regularly to update my PC or console hardware just to play games like Stray or something like that. I disagree here. I hate the idea of streaming/cloud gaming. I will never sign up for such a service. I don't want a monthly bill, I enjoy building computers. I want to have the content on my local machine thank you very much. The subscription model I think has already proven it self be consumer hostile. I don't want to subscribe to Adobe, I don't want to subscribe to Office, just let me buy the damn thing outright.

s3r3nity 4y ago
> I hate the idea of streaming/cloud gaming. I will never sign up for such a service. I don't want a monthly bill, I enjoy building computers. I want to have the content on my local machine thank you very much. I totally think this is fair - and I think the market can support both models. E.g.: I like paying for Netflix / Hulu / [insert video streaming service here], but I wouldn't hate on others who prefer buying the DVD. Same thing for Apple Music vs. people who prefer CDs / records.

kevingadd 4y ago

Splatoon 3 is already one of the best-selling Switch games ever released - a competitive online shooter on a console most popular with casual gamers. Games like Fortnite and Overwatch are massively popular. 99% is a real over-estimation.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

trap_goes_hot 4y ago

If there is demand, and the tech is fine, then why is Google shutting down Stadia?