4 ms·

yes! this is the same reason I’m glad Stadia died. “cool demo” does not equal “practical business”, and local compute will always be superior to cloud compute.

liuliu 4y ago
"always" is not given. But yes, glad more computing on clients. More power to the people.
andrewvc 4y ago
What? Stadia worked great (I say this as a user). What didn’t work was the business model, the lack of games, and the lack of trust in google to invest to fix those other things. It worked flawlessly for me for years over Wi-Fi. GeForce now which I currently use is rockier due to being more bandwidth sensitive and not as controller friendly since you’re really using a PC, not a console as stadia was.
Kiro 4y ago
Stadia was amazing and worked great even for games that required semi-high latency. The problem was the business model.
- bloody-crow 4y ago
  Even under ideal conditions where most people were claiming it's working great, I never found the latency even remotely acceptable. Maybe it's due to my preference to esports titles that requires all the responsiveness possible, but the point stands. Remote rendering would never be able to achieve anything even close to acceptable performance to be competitive with on-client rendering.
- smaudet 4y ago
  Agree with co-commenter, I have never seen anyone who used it for low latency apps say it was sufficient. The target market for displacing e.g. gpus is heavily geared towards low latency. It might have been OK for mobile games, but then they were just competing with themselves, with an arguably inferior product (if I can't play my mobile game anywhere, only in the vicinity of my house where I already have my high powered rig, what's the point?) I do think it was an attempt to defeat a very legit, widespread use case to try tk justify pushing thin clients on everyone, glad it failed.

liuliu 4y ago

"always" is not given. But yes, glad more computing on clients. More power to the people.

andrewvc 4y ago

What? Stadia worked great (I say this as a user). What didn’t work was the business model, the lack of games, and the lack of trust in google to invest to fix those other things. It worked flawlessly for me for years over Wi-Fi. GeForce now which I currently use is rockier due to being more bandwidth sensitive and not as controller friendly since you’re really using a PC, not a console as stadia was.

Kiro 4y ago

Stadia was amazing and worked great even for games that required semi-high latency. The problem was the business model.

bloody-crow 4y ago
Even under ideal conditions where most people were claiming it's working great, I never found the latency even remotely acceptable. Maybe it's due to my preference to esports titles that requires all the responsiveness possible, but the point stands. Remote rendering would never be able to achieve anything even close to acceptable performance to be competitive with on-client rendering.
smaudet 4y ago
Agree with co-commenter, I have never seen anyone who used it for low latency apps say it was sufficient. The target market for displacing e.g. gpus is heavily geared towards low latency. It might have been OK for mobile games, but then they were just competing with themselves, with an arguably inferior product (if I can't play my mobile game anywhere, only in the vicinity of my house where I already have my high powered rig, what's the point?) I do think it was an attempt to defeat a very legit, widespread use case to try tk justify pushing thin clients on everyone, glad it failed.