4 ms·

That's true, I'm not saying it comes without trade-offs. But in return you get a perfectly consistent and physically accurate simulation. It would mostly be exp

That's true, I'm not saying it comes without trade-offs. But in return you get a perfectly consistent and physically accurate simulation. It would mostly be expensive, I think, but it's technically feasible (services like Shadow or GeForce Now already demonstrate that).

filcuk 7mo ago
Which one of your friends can host an mp physics heavy game with a number of low-latency high-resolution video streams? I would estimate the average answer to be zero.
- gcr 7mo ago
  Perhaps the solution could be to have all players stream the game from a centralized instance, rather than all clients streaming from the host’s instance. That would have a number of advantages, come to think of it. For starters, install size could be much lower, piracy would be a non-issue, and there would be no need to worry about cross-platform development concerns.
  - jerf 7mo ago
    We don't have to theorize about this. We've had cloud gaming for years, and the companies have immense motivations to turn us all into renters in the cloud so they've poured a lot of effort into it and we can see half-a-dozen highly-resourced results now. We can just look at it and we can see that it... almost... works. If you don't care much about latency it definitely works. However, Teardown is in the set of games where it just barely works and only if all the stars and the moon align. I'd characterize it as something like, cloud gaming spends 100% of the margin, so if anything, anything goes wrong, it doesn't work very well. (Plus, as excited as the companies are about locking us into subscriptions rather than purchases that we own, when it comes time to actually pay for the service they are delivering they sure do like to skimp, because it turns out it's kind of expensive to dedicate the equivalent of a high-end gaming console per person. Most stuff that lives in the cloud, a single user averages using a vanishing fraction of a machine over time, not consuming entire servers at a time. Which doesn't pair well with "you spent 100% of the margin just getting cloud gaming to work at all".)
    - gcr 7mo ago
      For the record, my comment was a joke. I was quoting from Stadia’s marketing. :-)
kg 7mo ago
Most consumer GPUs have a limit on the number of video streams their hardware encoder can handle at once, and in some cases the limit is as low as 2.
- DimitriBouriez 7mo ago
  Okay, I didn't know that
- 2postsperday 7mo ago
  We should note, this is entirely a Nvidia software imposed limitation, as the hardware can easily handle more, the purpose is to upsell to non-gaming cards. With that being said, its trivial to bypass with tools like: https://github.com/keylase/nvidia-patch https://github.com/keylase/nvidia-patch Regardless, this does throw a spanner in the works for a video based game streaming solution for P2P multiplayer.
Aeolun 7mo ago
Running several raytracers on a single videocard isn’t free either. Syncing the world changes as they do is the least intensive for the server, and the last bandwidth. It’s probably optimal in all ways.
deleted 7mo ago
[deleted]

filcuk 7mo ago

Which one of your friends can host an mp physics heavy game with a number of low-latency high-resolution video streams? I would estimate the average answer to be zero.

gcr 7mo ago
Perhaps the solution could be to have all players stream the game from a centralized instance, rather than all clients streaming from the host’s instance. That would have a number of advantages, come to think of it. For starters, install size could be much lower, piracy would be a non-issue, and there would be no need to worry about cross-platform development concerns.
- jerf 7mo ago
  We don't have to theorize about this. We've had cloud gaming for years, and the companies have immense motivations to turn us all into renters in the cloud so they've poured a lot of effort into it and we can see half-a-dozen highly-resourced results now. We can just look at it and we can see that it... almost... works. If you don't care much about latency it definitely works. However, Teardown is in the set of games where it just barely works and only if all the stars and the moon align. I'd characterize it as something like, cloud gaming spends 100% of the margin, so if anything, anything goes wrong, it doesn't work very well. (Plus, as excited as the companies are about locking us into subscriptions rather than purchases that we own, when it comes time to actually pay for the service they are delivering they sure do like to skimp, because it turns out it's kind of expensive to dedicate the equivalent of a high-end gaming console per person. Most stuff that lives in the cloud, a single user averages using a vanishing fraction of a machine over time, not consuming entire servers at a time. Which doesn't pair well with "you spent 100% of the margin just getting cloud gaming to work at all".)
  - gcr 7mo ago
    For the record, my comment was a joke. I was quoting from Stadia’s marketing. :-)

kg 7mo ago

Most consumer GPUs have a limit on the number of video streams their hardware encoder can handle at once, and in some cases the limit is as low as 2.

DimitriBouriez 7mo ago
Okay, I didn't know that
2postsperday 7mo ago
We should note, this is entirely a Nvidia software imposed limitation, as the hardware can easily handle more, the purpose is to upsell to non-gaming cards. With that being said, its trivial to bypass with tools like: https://github.com/keylase/nvidia-patch https://github.com/keylase/nvidia-patch Regardless, this does throw a spanner in the works for a video based game streaming solution for P2P multiplayer.

Aeolun 7mo ago

Running several raytracers on a single videocard isn’t free either. Syncing the world changes as they do is the least intensive for the server, and the last bandwidth. It’s probably optimal in all ways.

deleted 7mo ago

[deleted]