471–480 of 577 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Origin does not compete with Stradia, sorry.
I didn't say it did, sorry.
Origin isn't relevant to this conversation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The amount of variable cost to stream music or video to a user is significantly less than the the variable cost to render high end graphics. I don't agree. Anything is scalable.
... no, not everything is scalable, nor does everything benefit from economies of scale. This does benefit from economies of scale, but it’s not something you can just solve with infrastructure and fixed cost. No matter how many computers you have, you’re still going to do multiple orders of magnitude more calculations to render high end games than stream a song. And you’re going to deal with difficult load balances…
GPU time costs money but it's a fixed cost, doesn't matter what the GPU time is being used for, therefore it won't be per-game. The end.
I participated in the beta and was pleasantly surprised to see how the entire experience came together. I only experienced one small technical issue. The game runs in real time on Google's servers. If you have some lag on your network, the client will drop all the frames during that time. Instead I expected behavior like Youtube where you will see a small loader and the game will continue before the lag started. This…
Rewrote this a few times. Overall I think this would be really bad for the gaming world. Not buying consoles would be nice, but the natural business model will be ads or pay per hour or pay per MB. This is going to further drive the industry to towards mass multiplayer and grindy games I think. More accessible but worse content. Indie shops would probably struggle even more under this model. The cost per user will va…
I disagree. The natural business model will be a mix between subscription services and free to play games with micro transactions. Microsoft (and others like EA) is already moving in that direction with game pass (monthly subscription gets you all first party games plus partner games). The biggest concern is going to be internet availability and data caps. I tried the beta for Project Stream (now Stadia) this past wi…
Rewrote this a few times. Overall I think this would be really bad for the gaming world. Not buying consoles would be nice, but the natural business model will be ads or pay per hour or pay per MB. This is going to further drive the industry to towards mass multiplayer and grindy games I think. More accessible but worse content. Indie shops would probably struggle even more under this model. The cost per user will va…
It’s Google, which is notorious for smothering virtually everything unrelated to search or ads in the crib, and especially when it’s something they made in-house. Add to that streaming games; problematic for the (by far) most popular two genres: huge multiplayer shooters, and sports. I see almost no chance of this succeeding long-term, and I’d put the odds of it going EOL within 5 years at over 80%. These huge compan…
If it runs for 4 years and makes money, that's a success for Google. It doesn't need to be permanent to be useful.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What you smoking foo? >>The entire reason this is happening is because Google has successfully captured what once was the holy grail of markets, education, and is doing things like this to keep people on chromebooks. Care to share how this tidbit is true? >>The most important thing to realize is that they are focusing on gamers as a trial, the people who are price sensitive and who have to move first off of Windows 7…
> What gamers are still on Win7? Most are already on 10. Care to share how this tidbit is true? Sorry to use your words against you, but I'm not so certain. I'd like to see real statistics from a few sources. I agree that Windows 7 is surely phasing out, but anecdotally (which is where most conjecture like yours and mine come from), I know a number of people who specifically stayed on Windows 7 for two reasons: 1) Co…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Lag was still a rare thing during my experience Anything more specific than that, i.e. lag would occur every 10 mins on avg?
Yes that seems about right. I would say lag occurs once every 5 mins and lasts for roughly a second. Not longer than that. But since gaming is such a visual medium that 1 second seems longer than it actually is. One thing I forgot to mention is I was on wifi and the performance may have been better had I plugged in an ethernet cable. Although I would add that wifi usage is going to be what the typical user opts for.
As someone who plays through DOOM on Ultra Nightmare, this kills the game. There are times when, if I were to miss even 10 or 15 frames, there would be a good chance that will be the end of my run.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> ping google.com Pinging google.com [172.217.5.110] with 32 bytes of data: Reply from 172.217.5.110: bytes=32 time=6ms TTL=50 Reply from 172.217.5.110: bytes=32 time=8ms TTL=50 Reply from 172.217.5.110: bytes=32 time=9ms TTL=50 Reply from 172.217.5.110: bytes=32 time=10ms TTL=50 Ping statistics for google.com: Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss), Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds: Minimum…
> ping google.com --- google.com ping statistics --- 12 packets transmitted, 12 packets received, 0.0% packet loss round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 74.750/75.566/76.724/0.587 ms I'm on 1GBit Google Fibre in Orange County which should be as ideal an experience as could be expected. Now, considering there would be additional time on top of the pure ping, I image there would be 80-90ms of latency for me. No way lol.
Pretty sure both of us have a Google datacenter nearby, but could the result of your ping be due to a bad configuration on your router?