Slashdot Mirror
Amazon is Working on Game Streaming Service, Report Says (geekwire.com)
Amazon is looking to get into game streaming, joining its tech titan contemporaries Microsoft and Google, according to a report from The Information. From a report: Amazon is reportedly developing its own game streaming service, and it is talking to publishers about distributing games on its platform. Citing "two people briefed on the plans," The Information reports that the service likely won't launch until next year at the earliest.
I am worried that Amazon seems to be accelerating efforts to sell its own services.
Nah, there's a third type of game streaming service, where you never get to install the games locally, and instead the video and audio of the game is streamed to your computer. Your inputs are sent back to their servers.
Obviously this has latency issues, but it's apparently the new future of ultimate game DRM: you never even get a chance to buy the game, let alone pirate it, your only option is to rent games for a monthly fee.
This is what Amazon (and Sony, and Microsoft, and pretty much every major game developer) has been working on.
Not a problem I have, but don't most Americas only have slow, capped broadband connection
Cause you need the opposite for this.
Also, nothing mention on a way to lower input lag. Without a lower one, you wont be able to play a lot of games.
http://progressquest.com/spoltog.php?name=Son+Of+Son+Of+DarkRookie
We will still have the old stuff and emulators.
http://progressquest.com/spoltog.php?name=Son+Of+Son+Of+DarkRookie
It will never work. The people behind that aren't gamers, just MBAs.
Yes I know 'never' is a long time. But C is constant.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit.
They can't make your pings low enough for any sort of dexterity game. No amount of money will change the speed of light.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
or perhaps you're just a shill for financial reasons..or you've never played competitively.
cloud gaming will turn it into a shitty e-casino subscription service.. it's already bad enough with the current generation.
This is how I always explain streamed games to people who can't immediately see the horrible problems with it:
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 be 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 100mb/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 startups like 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 a streamed game service 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?
Amazon already offers Amazon AppStream so this is a natural development. It uses NICE DVE protocol.
They also have had a similar service for displaying Adobe Flash content on Fire tablets which looks and feels remarkably like AppStream.
Similar technology is used in the Amazon WorkSpaces virtual desktop service but that one uses the Teradici PCoIP protocol. I've used to display both Adobe Flash and YouTube content with virtually no latency.
The GPU-equipped instances render graphics on the server and send the framebuffer directly to your device. It's surprisingly good.
Kriston
It sounds like you don't know what cloud gaming is all about. You still buy your own games. You own your own games (as much as any Steam game is "owned"). You just play them on virtual gaming PCs in the cloud.
Most people don't play games competitively. These services will change the entire industry.
You are welcome on my lawn.
If you think the speed of light in glass is faster, you need to get a refund on your degree.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Just admit you don't play games (except perhaps Bridge).
Most people play competitively, not in tournaments, but they sure aren't there to lose.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
You're wrong, and you clearly have never tried playing your games on a virtual system in the cloud.
The most popular games on GeForce Now are the FPS arena shooters that are so popular these days. People have been playing these games on virtual systems for over a year and having a great time.
Why are you so mad at the very idea of cloud gaming. I mean, you're just fuming about it.
Here's an Engadget review of the service from a year ago.
https://www.engadget.com/2018/...
And here's a thread of some people discussing the service on Reddit from a year ago. It's improved a great deal since then, too.
https://www.reddit.com/r/nvidi...
Whether or not cloud gaming succeeds is dependent to a great extent on the pricing model they use. Right now, it's free for those of us who use it, and as the guy on Reddit said, "it's glorious".
You are welcome on my lawn.
Educated people understand how C affects network latency. I'm not going to try and explain it to you, you clearly don't have the technical grounding.
Why are you on /.? People that belong here understand this argument.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
change it how? make it more 'accessible'? ..and of course the quality of the titles will suffer, too, in order to conform to this new lower average standard of expectation, ability, and presentation technology.
It's not all that different to what 'social justice' is doing to critical institutions in order to make them more 'accessible'. I'll pass.
Well if a 'guy' on Reddit said that it must be settled.
When all players are equally laggy, it might be technically 'playable'. But it still _sucks_balls_.
IT CAN'T WORK!
Do you realize how many tricks they do with game state packets to overcome lag? They are passing around 2nd and 3rd derivatives to project motion of other players into frames not yet communicated and reconciling that data later. That just isn't going to help when you're waiting on your video frames, frames can't be shown until they are communicated.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Listen up, retard. He referenced c because c and the distance between you and the game streaming server dictate the absolute minimum latency involved.
Hello PopeRatzo!!
It works.
You are welcome on my lawn.
The best games to play on cloud systems are the AAA titles. You can play them on ultra even with a machine that doesn't meet even basic system requirements.
It's uncanny how well it works. If you weren't such a jerk, I'd hook you up. Since I've been beta-testing it for a year, they sent me some invitations to share with people. Maybe there's someone here who's skeptical but not an asshole. If so, I'll be happy to provide you an invite to the beta so you can try it and report back.
You're such a big asshole that you think bringing "social justice" into a discussion of gaming systems is going to help your argument? I get the feeling that if we continue this discussion, you'll soon be bringing up "the jews" and why your an MGTOW.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Not the GP, but I think the issue is that it's just too tough to make the math work from an end user perspective.
The "get all the games" argument is tough to make. I tend to play one of maybe half a dozen games when I have time to play games. Steam sales and the Humble Bundles make it cheap to get last year's AAA games; even EA has figured that out - I just bought Titanfall 2 Kitchen Sink Edition for $8. Unless one is buying AAA releases every month, it's likely that just buying games outright will be cheaper than this service. Moreover, if a different commenter is correct, then it's only games that are owned anyway, so then the cost argument for the content flat out doesn't apply.
"But Voyager, the real value is in not having to get those expensive GPUs!"
Uhm, okay...so let's mop the floor with this one. For starters, even a $150 GPU can play most current titles at 1080p on 'high' settings. Next, let's talk about "better GPUs on the back end". Those frames need to make it to the end user, who is probably on Wi-Fi, so the compression is going to offset any quality improvements from the better GPUs. Then, there would actually need to be higher end GPUs on the back end, which costs the provider money, and they need to be in machines that can also handle that image compression in realtime...and whether it's easier to get super-high-end GPUs and split them, or smaller GPUs and use them 1:1, is basically academic.
So, the content is the same, the image quality isn't going to be justified, the latency issues are simply a matter of physics, the cost of a year's subscription is unlikely to compare favorably to just buying a GPU...and what was the benefit again?
The best I can figure is that it's good for kids who has a Chromebook, doesn't have a console, wants to play not-mobile games, and wants to play all of the AAA titles back to back, but also is willing to pay $30-$50 a month to do so.
The only way it's going to take of is exclusive content. Sometimes it works (Origin), sometimes it doesn't (CBS All Access). Amazon, however, isn't well known for its game publishing acumen. They are, however, known for writing big enough checks to displace Oracle, so bigger money diplomacy may well do the job.
They don't need "gamers" to like this. We have been a minority for decades, now.
They want to sell this thing to everyone else.
You better take a look at the system requirements for some of the current AAA titles.
OK, you misunderstand what the service does. You don't pay to get the games, you have to already own the games. They're yours. You just run them on nVidia's or Amazon's hardware in the cloud. Your Steam account fires up in the cloud and you can just play any game you own. Same with UPlay. Origin isn't part of this (I'm guessing they're going to end up offering their own service).
Thing is, we have no idea what the price point is going to be yet. If it's $20/month, it would be cheaper than upgrading my PC every 2 years. We just have to wait and see.
Also, it's not just going to be Chromebook users. I can play current AAA games that have not been released for OSX on an old Macbook Pro. Don't have to download the game, just fire it up. You can run Steam without having it installed on your computer. And everything runs on ultra.
Now, maybe I'm blessed by being relatively close to one of the servers. I've been playing games a long time and I really can't detect much in the way of lag. On a game like Witcher 3 or Far Cry 5 or Wolfenstein, or Prey, I doubt even a pro gamer would notice.
You are welcome on my lawn.
And then there is the matter of bandwidth. There's a vast difference between having a connection that can handle playing online, and one that can receive a constant video stream in 1080p.
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
You sure aren't winning much blathering about the speed of light in a vaccum and failing to browbeat people with your 1337_511LLZ, derp. If there's anything "competitive" about you it's your self-proclaimed worship of dishonesty.
Can I come live in your world of zero transmission time?
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
as long as it won't turn into the same exclusivity story as we see happening now with video streaming.
games from publisher x only available on game streaming service y and games from a only available on b.
On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.
You better take a look at the system requirements for some of the current AAA titles.
Far Cry 5's requirements list an a Radeon R9 270 or GTX 670. Newegg has RX570's and GTX1050Ti's for $150-$200. Running it on Ultra on a MBP for $0/month, I get. Even if they charge $20/month for the service, it's still a wash vs. getting a card in a desktop in under a year.
Unless one is buying AAA releases every month, it's likely that just buying games outright will be cheaper than this service.
OK, you misunderstand what the service does. You don't pay to get the games, you have to already own the games. They're yours. You just run them on nVidia's or Amazon's hardware in the cloud. Your Steam account fires up in the cloud and you can just play any game you own. Same with UPlay. Origin isn't part of this (I'm guessing they're going to end up offering their own service).
That makes it even less of a bargain. If it's only offsetting the cost of hardware, then I can't imagine there being a price point high enough for Amazon to make a profit while also being low enough to compare favorably to just getting a GPU or a Playstation.
he best I can figure is that it's good for kids who has a Chromebook, doesn't have a console, wants to play not-mobile games, and wants to play all of the AAA titles back to back, but also is willing to pay $30-$50 a month to do so.
Thing is, we have no idea what the price point is going to be yet. If it's $20/month, it would be cheaper than upgrading my PC every 2 years. We just have to wait and see.
I mean, yes, but the math isn't a no-brainer, either. If we're using a two-year amortization time, $20/month = $480 over that period, and for that price, you can get a PS4 Pro and a game or two. Admittedly rumors of the PS5 releasing in 2020 mean it's not the greatest example now, but since the release was in 2014, that's still 5 years of use. At the $399 release price and assuming 5 years of use, that's $6.67/month for a Playstation. The aforementioned R9 270 was released in November 2013 and cost $200. If you're going to assume a $1,000 CPU/RAM/GPU/SSD upgrade every two years then yeah, maybe, but that's almost deliberately stacking the deck to make your point; since the Far Cry 5 requirements are essentially "a $1,200 PC from 2014", the amortization on that through Dec 2018 ends up being $20/mo - the best-case-scenario pricing of Amazon's service...and you have a computer for other things as well.
Now, let's put some scrutiny on that $20/month number. Assume Amazon standardizes on the GTX1080. Newegg is still selling that for $519. But it's Amazon, and we'll assume MSI will do a custom run on them such that Amazon pays $399 a card. Assuming 2-year depreciation, that's $16.67/month *just* for the cards. Add in power, support, platform development, and bandwidth, and I sincerely doubt they'll be able to make $20/month the final cost of the service.
Also, it's not just going to be Chromebook users. I can play current AAA games that have not been released for OSX on an old Macbook Pro. Don't have to download the game, just fire it up. You can run Steam without having it installed on your computer. And everything runs on ultra.
I mean, that's awesome, but I guess it's still a puzzling black box about Amazon can stream games in realtime such that compression doesn't offset the rendering quality - after all, if there's more nuance on the textures, it's harder to compress.
More to my point, I guess I'm also having a rough time estimating the number of people using older Macbooks to game *and* who care about running those games in ultra such that using Parallels or Boot Camp isn't good enough to the point where they're
I like games too much to use a console.
I don't know. There are more big companies entering this space. It'll be interesting to see how it shakes out. I'm glad I got to use nVidia's service for a year for free though.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Brother, I hope it stays in beta forever. I'm using it for free and loving it. I don't know how much I'd be willing to pay for it. But they seem to be building it out with servers all over and adding lots of new beta testers. The service seems to scale.
You are welcome on my lawn.