4 ms·

But you ignore all of the headwinds that it faces. We live in a world where players will shell out big bucks for ultra fast monitors with <1ms lag, where gamers

But you ignore all of the headwinds that it faces. We live in a world where players will shell out big bucks for ultra fast monitors with <1ms lag, where gamers measure their abilities in actions per second, and where first perspective shooters LIKE COD are the most popular games and demand split second reactions. How do you expect them to be ok with >100ms ping and dropped packets? I have google fiber with 4ms ping and I hate the experience when cloud gaming.

atraac 3y ago
> How do you expect them to be ok with >100ms ping and dropped packets? You don't. Cloud gaming is not aimed at those people. People like that, who want to compete at higher levels(that includes me) will not play in cloud competetively. But 99,9% other gamers won't care if the tech gets to sub 100ms delay. That's an insanely big market. You could just run any game you want, without worrying about your PC/console specs, there's huge value in that.
calgoo 3y ago
The players buying <1ms monitors will continue to buy them. Its the other 95% gamers that are the targeted audience. An example: As a dad of two 3 year olds, i don't have time to game more then a couple of hours a week. Its not worth it for me to keep up with the hw trends for that amount of dedication. However, using Shadow to stream my games, i get between 30 and 50ms ping on wifi. Perfectly fine for the type of games i play. I had a similar experience with GeforceNow and Stadia (40 to 60ms for them as their servers are farther away).
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
hbn 3y ago
I'm not sure if the niche of hardcore competitive guys buying expensive low-latency monitors is really something to be concerned about. But dropped packets/lag spikes are a real issue. I gave the Stadia trial a shot and never had a play session where I didn't have several instances where the game would start stuttering or straight-up freeze for a few seconds and I'd have to wait until it sorted itself out before I could continue playing. Maybe that's fine if you're playing a turn-based RPG or visual novel, but that's a complete dealbreaker for any game with real-time action (most of them). And I don't know how you fix that issue without making internet infrastructure 100% perfect and reliable. Good luck with that.
- ethbr0 3y ago
  > without making internet infrastructure 100% perfect and reliable If this really takes off, I'd expect we'd see a further stratification of ISP offerings with QoS guarantees. Currently, there's little incentive for ISPs to optimize for jitter, and yet they already often market their highest bandwidth offerings as "good for gaming."

atraac 3y ago

> How do you expect them to be ok with >100ms ping and dropped packets? You don't. Cloud gaming is not aimed at those people. People like that, who want to compete at higher levels(that includes me) will not play in cloud competetively. But 99,9% other gamers won't care if the tech gets to sub 100ms delay. That's an insanely big market. You could just run any game you want, without worrying about your PC/console specs, there's huge value in that.

calgoo 3y ago

The players buying <1ms monitors will continue to buy them. Its the other 95% gamers that are the targeted audience. An example: As a dad of two 3 year olds, i don't have time to game more then a couple of hours a week. Its not worth it for me to keep up with the hw trends for that amount of dedication. However, using Shadow to stream my games, i get between 30 and 50ms ping on wifi. Perfectly fine for the type of games i play. I had a similar experience with GeforceNow and Stadia (40 to 60ms for them as their servers are farther away).

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

hbn 3y ago

I'm not sure if the niche of hardcore competitive guys buying expensive low-latency monitors is really something to be concerned about. But dropped packets/lag spikes are a real issue. I gave the Stadia trial a shot and never had a play session where I didn't have several instances where the game would start stuttering or straight-up freeze for a few seconds and I'd have to wait until it sorted itself out before I could continue playing. Maybe that's fine if you're playing a turn-based RPG or visual novel, but that's a complete dealbreaker for any game with real-time action (most of them). And I don't know how you fix that issue without making internet infrastructure 100% perfect and reliable. Good luck with that.

ethbr0 3y ago
> without making internet infrastructure 100% perfect and reliable If this really takes off, I'd expect we'd see a further stratification of ISP offerings with QoS guarantees. Currently, there's little incentive for ISPs to optimize for jitter, and yet they already often market their highest bandwidth offerings as "good for gaming."