Slashdot Mirror
Google Is Planning a Game Platform That Could Take On Xbox and PlayStation (kotaku.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Kotaku: We haven't heard many specifics about Google's video game plans, but what we have heard is that it's a three-pronged approach: 1) Some sort of streaming platform, 2) some sort of hardware, and 3) an attempt to bring game developers under the Google umbrella, whether through aggressive recruiting or even major acquisitions. That's the word from five people who have either been briefed on Google's plans or heard about them secondhand.
So what is this streaming platform, exactly? Like Nvidia's GeForce Now, the Google service would offload the work of rendering graphics to beefy computers elsewhere, allowing even the cheapest PCs to play high-end games. The biggest advantage of streaming, as opposed to physical discs or downloads, is that it removes hardware barriers for games. Whispers have been quieter about Google's hardware, whatever that may look like, but the rumors we've heard suggest that it will link up with the streaming service in some way. We're not sure whether Google is looking to compete with the technical specs of the next PlayStation and Xbox or whether this Google console will be cheaper and low-end, relying on the streaming service to pull weight. The streaming platform, which is code-named Yeti, was first reported by the website The Information earlier this year.
So what is this streaming platform, exactly? Like Nvidia's GeForce Now, the Google service would offload the work of rendering graphics to beefy computers elsewhere, allowing even the cheapest PCs to play high-end games. The biggest advantage of streaming, as opposed to physical discs or downloads, is that it removes hardware barriers for games. Whispers have been quieter about Google's hardware, whatever that may look like, but the rumors we've heard suggest that it will link up with the streaming service in some way. We're not sure whether Google is looking to compete with the technical specs of the next PlayStation and Xbox or whether this Google console will be cheaper and low-end, relying on the streaming service to pull weight. The streaming platform, which is code-named Yeti, was first reported by the website The Information earlier this year.
Google will soon be able to display ads at twice the frame rate of the competition.
To bad that google fiber is not bigger as that is what they need to make RDP gameing good.
They will learn absolutely everything there is to know about your brain by harvesting your gameplay data.
Stay away.....
The biggest problem with streaming will
only to find that the delay is too much for you to enjoy
always be lag. You'll press a button or take an action
the game and that your actions come out in a
different order to what you were expecting.
Don't be so pessimistic, It might actually work well in the coffee room at Googles Datacenters
The biggest advantage of streaming, as opposed to physical discs or downloads, is that it removes hardware barriers for games.
That's debatable. What's not debatable is that it adds new, probably insurmountable barriers.
The biggest "advantage" is DRM via the tightest leash imaginable, 100% to the benefit of the publisher, not the gamer. I'll quote an earlier post instead of retyping it:
https://slashdot.org/comments....
This is how I always explain streaming games to people who can't immediately see the horrible problems with them:
Imagine if the old Ubisoft always-on DRM were an inherent, unremoveable aspect of the game system rather than just something tacked on to a few individual games after the fact, such that Ubisoft couldn't even begrudgingly neuter it in a patch. Well, a streamed game is even worse than that would be.
The game doesn't even run locally. All you get is streaming video/audio and all the lag you'd expect (including controller lag), which is a recipe for disaster in North America. And any interruption in the connection that lasts more than a few tenths of a second is going to behave like the equivalent of a "freeze" or "hang" that you'd NEVER tolerate in a properly local-hosted game. Not even the most twitchy DRM existing today has that problem.
Some people consider IPS monitors unsuitable for games requiring fast reflexes (i.e. FPSes) due to their double-digit response times. Internet latency is often worse and certainly more unpredictable than LCD monitor response time, and with streamed games it applies to audio and keyboard/controller/etc input too.
Then there are the bandwidth requirements.
Let's say you're lucky enough to have a 30mb/s connection. Why would you want to use it to transfer your game's video instead of, uh, a DVI cable, which is capable of 4 Gb/s? The people who developed DVI apparently understood that that 1920 x 1200 pixels w/ 24 bits/pixels @ 60Hz results in bandwidth well over 3 Gb/s. The people who developed streamed games seem very, very confused (at best).
Those of us who know anything about bandwidth and compression and (especially) latency can see the enormous technical obstacles facing a service like this, and Onlive never did anything to explain how they intended to solve them. Instead, they did everything they could to lock out independent reviewers with NDAs and closed demonstrations. A friend of mine described it as the gaming equivalent of the perpetual motion scam, and IMO that's spot on (except that streamed games would still have the draconian DRM issues even if it worked perfectly).
Streamed games appear designed from the ground up to benefit the game publishers and fuck the customers, exactly what you'd expect from any DRM system.
P.S. Remember when Microsoft intended 24-hour XBox One check-ins, and gamers rejected that? How the fuck are mandatory check ins going to fly when measured in milliseconds?
Nowhere on earth has the latency or the bandwidth for this.
Particularly in the handheld market.
Notice that the headline says "Xbox and PlayStation", not "Nintendo". Sony isn't making games for the PlayStation Vita anymore, and Microsoft never made a handheld in the first place because it's not social enough. Let's say Google did make a handheld to replace the PlayStation Vita, perhaps an Android phone with buttons like the Xperia Play, and it operated by streaming. Which cellular ISP in Google's home country (the United States of America) would offer an affordable plan that competes with handheld use of the Nintendo 3DS and Nintendo Switch systems?
" 1) Some sort of streaming platform, 2) some sort of hardware, and 3) an attempt to bring game developers under the Google umbrella"
Well, plans don't get any more concrete than that, do they?
Hey, remember all those Google hardware initiatives that were runaway smash hits?
Me neither...
Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)
http://www.lawrenceperson.com/
Hey, remember all those Google hardware initiatives that were runaway smash hits?
There used to be Nexus (affordable phones running stock Android with an unlockable bootloader), but that was it.
Technology to do this with acceptable latency does not exist, and there appear to be limitations within laws of physics that prevent it from ever coming to exist.
Built-in always on camera and microphone in my living room. Let's put one or another google or amazon product in every room of my house!
I miss the days of signs in bars saying "glassholes are not welcome here". But I am looking forward to the anger in SF seething over and a mob of angry citizens tipping over tech busses and slaughtering everyone inside. That days is coming. The people can only suffer so much cluelessly smug elitism for so long
Google? Streaming me video games?
If there is a single company on Earth that could make EA look like good guys, it would be Google.
With NN removed that will free up a series of tubes all over the USA.
Push the art work and sound files down to the player and just interact with the SJW approved content.
No war games and latency is not a problem. Once the gamer has the approved SJW content the bandwidth up/down is not beyond many networks.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
While I agree that yet another way that Google (or any other big company) can interact with you on a daily basis is worrisome as is the consolidation of game developers into one platform, I would like to understand more about the "hardware" aspect of this project.
I'd like to understand how Google expects to do real time rendering for tens of thousands (or more) systems and then distribute it to them - I would think that most residential internet connections (say 50 Mbps or so) would handle more than one game system running at a time. Wouldn't they come to a screeching halt if more than two systems were active at the same time?
Mimetics Inc. Twitter
From what I've seen of streaming (at least on the PS4 for via PS Now) is that it is totally crap. I like my games to look decent, and to actually respond quickly. I'm not on a crappy connection or anything like that, but the compression of the video, and the overall gameplay was a total turnoff for me. And I wasn't even trying to play a newish game, it was something that I was feeling nostalgic for from the PS3.
Perhaps someone else is doing it better, but there are still a bunch of hurdles in my mind to overcome to make it work well.
For now, I'll pass.
Thanks.
What are they angry about? Don't they realize that Musk and the other tech CEOs are taking us to the promised land (Mars)?
Nowhere on earth has the latency or the bandwidth for this.
Or the massive number of machines that would be needed to do the rendering.
No sig today...
Google has that pretty well covered. https://cloud.google.com/about...
If we have learned anything from UBIsoft and Electronic Rats and their success with choke-chained games then that gamers just LOVE having to have their system permanently connected to a server that is more or less, kinda-sorta, maybe sometimes reachable.
Yeah. That's gonna fly.
Google? Ya know, beating the dead horse more is not gonna make it run faster.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Streaming is only useful for games where latency doesn't matter.
I'm betting "Super Smash the Patriarchy!" will be quite popular with the kids.
and there appear to be limitations within laws of physics that prevent it from ever coming to exist.
Google is a big company with a lot of lawyers, they'll just sue until this gets changed.
Re "The latency will be noticeable otherwise"
Only approve games that don't have a latency related game play problem.
Nice games that share smaller amounts of bandwidth in nice ways. Equality.
Without needing that measurement of how long a ping is.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
But Onlive already did it, and it worked relatively well...
Or if you're talking about the wireless case, --- with present technology it's pretty difficult, but there's nothing fundamental to prevent it.
Some types are endless suckers for micro-transactions for virtual bling. The target market will be virtual dress-me-ups.
No need for fast hardware, but quality pictures and sound will help a plenty.
And then comes the cuddly infomercials with a buy-now button.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Or the massive number of machines that would be needed to do the rendering.
Perhaps google has run the numbers and figured out they have plenty of free CPU and adequate memory bandwidth. The real problem is that there isn't enough internet bandwidth. A streaming game platform will only ever be a niche product in countries with half-assed internet, like the USA — traditionally one of the largest world markets for video games. People will buy it, find out that their ISP actually doesn't provide them enough bandwidth (especially on a reliable basis) and then wind up returning it because they can't actually use it.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Meanwhile, what does Google really have to offer any gamers? There are other platforms that have everything Google is talking about, plus an attractive library of first party games, decades of experience in the industry, and a large international customer base. Why would anyone choose Google? It’s going to take a long time and a lot of money for Google to get the answer it wants to that question.
if you think onlive worked well, I have a bridge to sell you.
(amazing how many marks you can spot on here!!!)
No... please God no! Curse you CHK6! CURSE YOU TO HELL!!!
" 1) Some sort of streaming platform, 2) some sort of hardware, and 3) an attempt to bring game developers under the Google umbrella"
Well, plans don't get any more concrete than that, do they?
Hey, remember all those Google hardware initiatives that were runaway smash hits?
Me neither...
Well... there was the Nexus 7.... It was small enough and portable enough that I could throw it in my cargo-shorts and large enough to browse the web (phones are too small for this), read books, etc. But that was built by ASUS and Google discontinued it... stupid Google!!
and Google Chromecast... I've never used it but it's been selling.....
But, I agree. I don't see the room for another gaming system. I figured that this had been proven by the lack of interest in the Steam gaming systems.
https://www.pcgamer.com/what-h...
Gaben is one of the few people with enough money to tell google to fuck off, and seeing as how Valve is pretty much his vanity project I'd imagine he probably would.
I'm more concerned about all those Google software initiatives that are no longer in existence.
The ability to from a situation where you had to buy and have set up three games consoles in order to have access to all the major AAA stuff, but in practice where you'd buy one and have access to maybe 50% of the AAA stuff, to a situation where you have to buy and set up four games consoles or only have access to maybe 40% of the AAA stuff.
Because that's what we want, to have to buy more consoles or have less choices.
In a weird way, I see this failing precisely because of that. Game publishers don't to have to port games to four platforms, and they don't want to lose 60-70% of potential buyers by only supporting one console. They didn't go for the Steambox even though the latter was really easy to port to. I don't see them letting Google in unless they all in unison decide to stop Nintendo, Sony, or Microsoft; and they're not going to do that.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Even without a limited data plan... graphics processing across a mobile network?
That is probably the dumbest idea I have heard of.
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
It's hard to believe Google's engineers don't include a significant percentage of gamers, but this idea seems to suggest that may be the case. There is little chance that gamers will get what they want from streaming.
Games like the Sims, Angry Birds, and Candy Crush sure, you could stream The Sims.
Although Hollywood movies look great at 24fps, and HDTV is fine running at 30fps, gamers will want 120fps, minimum 60fps.
Easier said than done. Valve is privately held and as far as I know GabeN is more than happy with the amount of $$$ in his possession.
Google doesn't have its own towers, but it does operate an MVNO on Sprint and T-Mobile called Project Fi. Service with unmetered data is $720 per year, and that's without renting any games. For that price, you could buy a New Nintendo 2DS and a dozen games.
> Hey, remember all those Google hardware initiatives that were runaway smash hits?
> Me neither...
Chromecast, Nexus, Pixel, Chromebooks, Google Home, Google wifi? None of those ring a bell? To say nothing of what they've bought such as Nest?
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
Except that Steam has none of the functionality listed in the article. Sure it has streaming from one local PC to another but that's in a controlled high bandwidth, > DVI, and effectively no latency environment. But that's not what Google's aim is.
I find being offended by me offensive.
Ignoring for a moment whatever we make think of Google and their evil, stalky ways, having more companies involved in cloud gaming can only be a good thing for gamers.
I've been a beta user of GeForce NOW for about four months, and it's spectacular. I can play the latest AAA games on an old potato with everything on ultra and it's perfect. I can use a MacBook pro to play games that have never been released for Mac. The idea of upgrading my gaming PC every year or two may be a thing of the past. It uses a lot of bandwidth, and it remains to be seen how killing off Net Neutrality will impact cloud gaming, but this game streaming stuff is as revolutionary as when we went from floppy disks to DVDs or from DVDs to Steam.
You are welcome on my lawn.
The benefit of streaming games is that you don't need high-end hardware. But streaming only works well for slow-paced low-fidelity games. So I see no use for for streaming games at all. The casual ones don't benefit from streaming, and the high-end ones don't work well.
Tencent would probably outbid Google.
The gaming system will only work for about a year or two, then suddenly support gets dropped without warning, all the servers go offline, and everyone's left with a useless hunk of hardware.
Which means they'll never have me buying one.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
4) cancel the project after a few years.
You have to separate the rendering pipeline into multiple parts. The server side can do a lot of the heavy lifting of calculating polygons, etc but it does not need to send every pixel to the client device. It only needs to send the description. Think something along the lines of a PDF doc that describes the scene to be rendered. If the hardware on the client side is optimized to render that then it can be done. At least, that's how I would do it if someone paid me tons of money to attempt to do it.
You've just invented OpenGL and X11 circa 1997 or so. Basically you could shove the geometry into the card, which would get sent over the network and stored on board. Then, you could just poke new model view matrices or whatever and it would pull all the geometry and textures out of local memory.
Or possibly you've invented scene graphs depending on how you envisaged it precisely.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Is this now? Analysis. Why have you frozen my motor functions? Must I keep wearing the hat? My fidelity is perfect.
Google, just buy Valve Corp. for Steam and call it a day. That would be a lot easier than starting from scratch.
Please don't. Google has a history of suddenly closing services they buy and leaving their users in the dust.
I hate their guts for closing Panoramio and Picasa.
Nothing fundamental except fundamental laws of physics, which is why onlive failed miserably and was shut down. No idea where you got your misconception that "onlive worked relatively well". It's a blatant lie.
I played Onlive for a month, it was reasonably good. The problems were A) massive capital burn from needing to run datacenters everywhere, and B) shitty deals with publishers, so the economics of buying on Online were awful.
It doesn't take *that* many datacenters to be within 20ms of 90% of the US population.
How are you still shilling for a service that is well documented to have been utter garbage even with the "magical 20ms latency"?
I'm not shilling for it. I bet at the time it would fail. It was an *awful* deal for games.
Even now, PS Now is doing alright, despite a much smaller deployed footprint (and worse user experience/average latency).
The biggest problems aren't the speed-of-light latency increase (physics) but things like other people in your house using the internet connection (bufferbloat/no reasonable QOS in most consumer edge routers).
Plenty of people play with TVs that add 100ms of latency. 20ms of round trip latency plus 10ms of encoder latency is not the end of the world.
If your measurement stick is "this or the end of the world", we do indeed agree. I also think that end of the world is worse than world existing. I'm quite agnostic as to details of quality of specific forms of entertainment in this scenario, simply because the scale of comparison is frankly inane to the extreme.
By any reasonable measurement on the other hand, as was noted in countless public critiques of onlive, it was a garbage system that was awful at what it was supposed to accomplish.
That's just not how it went. And in any case, physical limits are hardly preventing PS Now from finding success and getting good reviews-- though people still say you're way better off with ethernet than wifi presently. Even that isn't a fundamental physical limit.
Onlive scoring good (not perfect) reviews for game performance in 2010-2011, as demonstrated below, with much worse than current consumer internet connections... is evidence that we're not up against physical limits. But it was an awful deal, and that + the Microsoft litigation killed them. After the fire sale of assets the service was indeed awful, from what I understand.
Top 3 reviews of found googling the words onlive 2011:
https://www.engadget.com/2010/...
> With an up-to-18Mbps AT&T U-Verse connection in San Jose, California, we found OnLive games loaded as quickly as on console -- sometimes much quicker -- and were actually quite playable. The controller never felt quite as responsive as that of a dedicated console nor the images quite as crisp, but we'd say that most of the time the overall experience was only slightly behind what we expect, only bogged down by the occasional annoying stutter. Frantic first-person shooters and driving games weren't as accurate as we like, but over the course of a couple days we adjusted to the mild lag, racking up plenty of kills, scoring the occasional headshot and drifting around some fairly tight corners as well. In Prince of Persia, a game that can require fairly precise timing in combat, we were still able to parry foes' swords and execute tricky jumps with a little bit of forethought, and a multiplayer game of Unreal Tournament III was intriguingly balanced -- if slightly laggy -- thanks to the fact that all players had 0 ping to the (virtual) host server.
https://www.pcgamer.com/onlive...
> And yet streaming from the net via OnLive is remarkably playable. Obviously it feels a bit sluggish compared with playing on your own native hardware, but for many games, especially those designed with laggy console controllers in mind, including the likes of Arkham Asylum and Human Revolution, it's far from unpleasant.
http://www.businessinsider.com...
> The game had minimal loading times, and while the graphics weren't as crystal clear as on a video game console (because of OnLive's compression technology), the level of detail was pretty amazing. It looks just as good as watching Netflix streaming. Controls originally felt a little delayed, but after a few minutes I felt right at home. I wanted to notice latency and laggy controls (due to my input getting beamed to the over the web, then a response getting beamed back), but I didn't find any in this game.
Seriously, why are you still shilling through such disingenuous methods? Practice?
Why do you still insist it's physically impossible, given that lots of people used it and liked it 7 years ago on connections that were half the speed and double the latency of what's commonly available now? "Physically impossible" is an extraordinary claim. 500 miles at the speed of light is 2.5 milliseconds.
All I'm saying is I played it and I liked it, but games were going to be too uneconomical to justify it. That's pretty much what most of the reviews said, too. This seems to rule out "physically impossible" on the face, because a physical instance actually existed, when consumer internet connections had like one third the speed and double the last mile latency that they have today. Likewise, PS Now's current market success seems to rule out "physically impossible".
Also, you're a dipshit--- you can hardly shill for something that no longer exists. :P