Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google gets into game streaming with Project Stream

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 117 posts

Re: Google gets into game streaming with Project Stream

#101

Post by PostOnce »

restingrobot wrote: post #96
PostOnce wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Offline meaning single player, streaming not withstanding, that's a lot of crap to go through (managing and maintaining many accounts and clients) to boot into a game that you're going to play by yourself (not multiplayer), and a lot of points of failure between you and your small amount of recreation time after work.

You already have to do this to play any AAA title? I really don't see the issue?

The issue is that it doesn't have to be that way, didn't used to be that way, and isn't that way for pirates.

Just because it's the state of affairs doesn't mean it's acceptable.

Consoles are arguably a better experience in several regards, and I want the PC to be as enjoyable, considering PCs cost more; e.g. you can play Diablo 3 without an internet connection on PlayStation, but not on PC.

You can play some random AAA game on a console without having to put in a key or maintain an account or a third party client (or multiple third party clients!), where on PC you have to do those things.

You can sell a console game or give it to your friend when you finish playing it, but on PC it's "already activated".

Google is going to take all the above and make it worse, so they can get their % of the sale too.

Just because some company wants us to do something or behave some way doesn't make us obligated to do so.

Re: Google gets into game streaming with Project Stream

#102

Post by PostOnce »

restingrobot wrote: post #98
PostOnce wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rather I'm not happy with the foreboding. I really like video games, and they keep getting worse... not the games themselves, but everything around them (due to "business" concerns), such as my above concerns, and IAP/DLC, and Xbox Live/PSN/Nintendo all charging money to play games on your already-paid-by-you internet connection, where it used to be free (since you can act as a server). For DLC, in some cases, it's n…

To be fair, many of the problems you just described are specific to console games. But more specifically to your point this service would actually eliminate the need to keep the game up to date, as the centralized server would maintain an update product. So this might actually improve your game experience, as you would never have to wait for an update again! Plus it runs in chrome so you don't even have to worry abou…

This will be adding those problems (centralization of services, recurring costs to play your existing games, and to play multiplayer) where they don't already exist.

PC game companies are already making single player games that run on your local machine require an "always-on" network connection to "thwart piracy".

I've posted more above, but I have also posted this yesterday detailing why these multiple-clients-required games can and will personally sting you, and are a benefit to absolutely no one: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18111288

tl;dr: steam doesnt tell uplay you own the game, uplay uses a separate key, it takes days to go via tech support to fix your game, or just minutes to pirate it. Google is going to amplify this already crappy situation.

Re: Google gets into game streaming with Project Stream

#103

Post by ReverseCold »

restingrobot wrote: post #96
PostOnce wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Offline meaning single player, streaming not withstanding, that's a lot of crap to go through (managing and maintaining many accounts and clients) to boot into a game that you're going to play by yourself (not multiplayer), and a lot of points of failure between you and your small amount of recreation time after work.

You already have to do this to play any AAA title? I really don't see the issue?

I know this is the exception and not the rule, but cdpr games are DRM free on GoG.

Re: Google gets into game streaming with Project Stream

#104

Post by ReverseCold »

epicide wrote: post #55
azurezyq wrote: post #45

Really feel sad about recent prevailing sentiment across HN. Some comments seem to suggest Google needs to provide the following for this kind of "tech test": * Available for all browsers and comply all web standards. * Available for all languages across all regions, with accessibility features. * Promise not to "launch and shutdown in a few years". * Imply a real future product. But I'm guessing what Google wants to…

These are the sorts of projects that make sense to me for Google to be playing around with. Namely, they are highly experimental and pushing what might even be possible, but have the potential to (especially if Google shows success) suddenly boom into a large market since games have a high demand. It also makes sense for Google to push for this sort of usage since it's more data going through pipes. Data they can ana…

> highly experimental and pushing what might even be possible

This is hardly true, Nvidia already does this, charges for it, and it works really well on a good connection.

Re: Google gets into game streaming with Project Stream

#105

Post by drivebycomment »

PostOnce wrote: post #101
restingrobot wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You already have to do this to play any AAA title? I really don't see the issue?

The issue is that it doesn't have to be that way, didn't used to be that way, and isn't that way for pirates. Just because it's the state of affairs doesn't mean it's acceptable. Consoles are arguably a better experience in several regards, and I want the PC to be as enjoyable, considering PCs cost more; e.g. you can play Diablo 3 without an internet connection on PlayStation, but not on PC. You can play some random…

You're perfectly entitled to your own opinion of why you think it's terrible and why it will fail and is useless, etc (and I would agree with some of your points). But I just don't understand:

> Just because some company wants us to do something or behave some way doesn't make us obligated to do so.

Don't use it if you don't like it ? Google launching something doesn't mean you're "obligated" in any way, so I don't know what you're trying to say with that sentence.

Re: Google gets into game streaming with Project Stream

#106

Post by PostOnce »

drivebycomment wrote: post #105
PostOnce wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue is that it doesn't have to be that way, didn't used to be that way, and isn't that way for pirates. Just because it's the state of affairs doesn't mean it's acceptable. Consoles are arguably a better experience in several regards, and I want the PC to be as enjoyable, considering PCs cost more; e.g. you can play Diablo 3 without an internet connection on PlayStation, but not on PC. You can play some random…

You're perfectly entitled to your own opinion of why you think it's terrible and why it will fail and is useless, etc (and I would agree with some of your points). But I just don't understand: > Just because some company wants us to do something or behave some way doesn't make us obligated to do so. Don't use it if you don't like it ? Google launching something doesn't mean you're "obligated" in any way, so I don't k…

You can opt out in the beginning, but later it becomes a monopoly.

You can't even buy a game on a DVD anymore without it requiring Steam to install, activate, and play.

So, in theory, if they succeed, it won't be optional anymore.

"Oh then you can just stop playing games!" ... yes, but I would prefer not to. I would prefer a fair exchange of money for an unencumbered product.

Hopefully, if I speak out now about the potential and likely dangers of such a service, then I may hinder its adoption and prevent the further decline of an art form that I hold very dear.

Re: Google gets into game streaming with Project Stream

#107

Post by themacguffinman »

ghostbrainalpha wrote: post #53
azurezyq wrote: post #45

Really feel sad about recent prevailing sentiment across HN. Some comments seem to suggest Google needs to provide the following for this kind of "tech test": * Available for all browsers and comply all web standards. * Available for all languages across all regions, with accessibility features. * Promise not to "launch and shutdown in a few years". * Imply a real future product. But I'm guessing what Google wants to…

I know where you are coming from, and I am sympathetic to Googlers who just want to do a quick test. But "Google" means something specific in regards to quality for Billions of people, and you start to have a responsibility to the brand regarding dependability at some point if you want to do things under the Google Banner. But it's so easy to give these projects their own name, branding, and websites while they are i…

Or you can read the large text that says "Test a new way to play" and calibrate your expectations.

Re: Google gets into game streaming with Project Stream

#109

Post by wpdev_63 »

bspammer wrote: post #88
wpdev_63 wrote: post #11

I've used various game streaming services and have found parsec[0] to be the best in this domain. Their service prioritizes latency above all else and it performs well though there's alot of artifacts. It runs on top of amazon services so server placement is a non issue. [0]: https://parsecgaming.com/

Correct me if I'm wrong but these services are quite different no? The idea of Parsec is that a machine you own is rendering and uploading a game that you also own. Google seems to be playing around with the idea of games as a service, where they render a game you don't own on a machine you don't own, and let you play it for presumably a monthly subscription.

Well you don't upload but parsec provides everything google is planning on offering with the freedom of allowing you to use it as your own computer. So I am not sure what you are getting at.

Unless google undercuts competing small businesses in the same space, they're dead on arrival. They do not offer anything that's not on the market today.

Re: Google gets into game streaming with Project Stream

#110

Post by bunnycorn »

phjesusthatguy3 wrote: post #59

AFAIK Ubisoft was already planning to stream AC: Origins to the Nintendo Switch in Japan (it's not coming to the Switch outside of Japan, I think). I wonder if they'll sell it on cartridge; that'll have to be one of the first games where the publisher can turn off the server and you now have a cartridge that doesn't do anything.

It's nothing new in Japan, it's normal.

https://kotaku.com/in-japan-the-nintendo-switch-is-streaming...

Post reply on HN