Page 7 of 15 FirstFirst ...
5
6
7
8
9
... LastLast
  1. #121
    Quote Originally Posted by Remilia View Post
    Um... that URL is literally the data stream, that is not an ISP node. The service you noted is not remotely the same as a data center for compute. That service is only for grabbing cached static data quicker. Within the ISP means nothing as it doesn't denote well... anything other than monopoly if it actually occurs. I can theoretically ping a server, jump through 3 ISP nodes and come back with 10ms latency. For example if I ping to my closest youtube IP address [216.58.193.206], I'll have 15-20ms of latency. Throughout this I get 18 node hops from nodes controlled by my ISP, amusingly still using roadrunner address, then to Tata communications nodes before getting to Google's. This is not 'within network' though relatively low latency. This is just cache servers all over the place, not how youtube works. Youtube will still pull data from a major data center if the data is not there.

    Also, a game rendered off site is not the same as a cache for small data (relatively speaking). A stadia instance uses a dedicated CPU and GPU per user. This is not happening on a tiny cache server. This is also dynamic information which is inherently impossible for a cache server. Latency will be determined by distance from data centers, not what you think cache servers can do.

    The service you're linking is not what you think it is nor how ISPs and the internet work.
    Sigh. Of course, if you ping Youtube you will see the route to youtube. It's not how GCC works. Do you know how CDN works?

  2. #122
    Moderator Remilia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Avatar: Tsunako
    Posts
    14,923
    Quote Originally Posted by LazarusLong View Post
    Sigh. Of course, if you ping Youtube you will see the route to youtube. It's not how GCC works. Do you know how CDN works?
    The point of the ping was to show how even low latency will travel to different networks outside your own ISP. Plus, your entire argument based off cache servers and a video game streaming does not work, because video games are not static data.

    Do you even know what you're talking about? Cause cache servers or content delivery networks are not remotely the same as a data center made for compute and streaming.
    First off, you made this statement, saying it's not over the internet, which is absolutely absurd and makes no sense.
    Quote Originally Posted by LazarusLong View Post
    I think a lot of people here missing that it's not exactly over the internet. Google will stream from the inside ISP partners networks, just like with Youtube.
    Then you proceed to mention completely unrelated services to the topic at hand.

  3. #123
    Yeah I'm skeptical to say the least. Since my internet connection is kind of garbage and even normal HD video streams start to studder when a higher bitrate is required (high speed battle scenes for example) I very much question the use of a service like that to me and many others. Not to mention that features like 4k become kind of moot when you piss away most of the gain over 2k - or in some cases even HD - with compression anyway. It's also not like you can compensate input lag anymore (less of an issue though for many), as you no longer have a local application pretending everything is fine like WoW.

    That is on top of all the issues regarding consumer rights, as I'm fundamentally against weakening the postions of end users to aquire hardware and software without going through middle men with questionable rental models or impact comapnies supplying to this market in the first place. Not to mention that google is known to be a bunch of assholes when it comes to service and customer support. The prospect of signing them over all rights to my hobby feels just wrong on a fundamental level. Where that leads to can be seen on youtube.
    Last edited by Haidaes; 2019-03-22 at 07:44 AM.

  4. #124
    Quote Originally Posted by LazarusLong View Post
    I think a lot of people here missing that it's not exactly over the internet. Google will stream from the inside ISP partners networks, just like with Youtube.
    Quote Originally Posted by LazarusLong View Post
    The average TV also has input lag somewhere between 40 and 70 ms, sometimes more. If they can aim for these numbers, it will work.
    Actually, it is a fair bit more complicated than just "Well Youtube broadcasts quality video just fine" or "Well TV also has lag".

    One of the tech heads on another forum summed it up pretty concisely:
    Youtube does not reencode/encode on the fly. They encode once during/after upload. Youtube transcodes every uploaded video into the different video profiles they support, starting with the lowest one. That's why you often only get the 240p stream at first when you watch a recently uploaded video. Once this is done the player simply switches between the different 'versions' depending on your current bandwidth.

    Encoding quality and efficiency is in this case limited only by available memory and CPU and given that you have the complete video available to you you can do all kinds of nifty predictive encoding and variable bitrate shenanigans using P- and I-frames to give the user the best quality per bitrate. You also don't have to encode in 'real time' because you only need to encode a video once per supported profile. This is the reason why you can stream a 3840x2160 10 bit HDR video @ 60 frames and still get a 'reasonable' bandwidth requirement (still several MBit/s). Even live video streaming services add an encoding delay of several seconds so that their encoders can work more efficiently and use predictive 'look-ahead' encoding options.

    Also, since everyone who watches a certain video gets the same data YouTube could theoretically do multicasting to conserve even more bandwidth.

    Even with all of those nifty features in place a 1080p YouTube video requires 3 Gigabyte/hour and a 4K 2160p video will use up to 12 GB/h. This is already practically impossible for mobile users given the data caps and overrun fees and would still be a problem for many wired internet connections because of data caps and network congestion issues.

    If you have to do low latency real time encoding of video you lose almost all of the features of modern codecs that enable high compression rates while still retaining good image quality, that's because those features need to process upcoming frames in order to compress the current frame more efficiently. If you can't do that - and with low latency real time encoding you can't because buffering and looking ahead is what causes latency in the first place - you'll either end up with a video stream that retains the image quality but has a much lower compression ratio or a stream that retains the compression ratio but has much worse image quality. There's also always the upper limit of 16.6 ms per frame for 60 Hz you need to consider because it sets a bound for the amount of work the encoder can reasonably do before it has to put out a frame and the amount of work that needs to be done per frame depends on the actual contents and is not constant time. Real time codecs are also much more susceptible to noise and the type of video content.

    This is the main reason why Twitch usually has an up to 20 second stream delay and also why most digital broadcasting adds 3 - 5 seconds of delay compared to plain old analogue TV. I'd reckon that a significant portion of the 160 ms to 200 ms of latency is actually encoder delay so that they can do at least some video compression.

    You can check how this affects your IQ (image quality). Just watch Twitch when a streamer plays a game that has lots of red colors (codecs perfom worst on content that contains lots of red) or where a lot of the on screen contents change quickly. The encoder completely shits itself because the encoding time per frame increases with the rate of change per frame but the output still needs to be processed in 'real time' while keeping the selected bitrate. As the actual encoding time per frame reaches the limit (16.6 ms per frame for 60 Hz) the codec can either reduce the compression rate to keep up or reduce the amount of frame processing done on the video feed while retaining the compression ratio (worse image quality).

    Google certainly knows how to run a data center and can handle the bandwidth required for video streaming but they can't magically remove all of the issues that you have if you have 'unpredictable' content with high rates of change on a frame per frame basis that needs to be streamed 'real-time' with low latency.

    If they target the same IQ as YouTube video at the same resolution the required bitrate will be significantly higher (50% or more) and if they target the same bitrate as YouTube video they'll end up with a significantly worse image quality. Or latency increases to a point where actually playing a game becomes impossible.
    Now just try to wrap your head around the idea of hundreds of thousands of people, all playing different games, that all have to be streamed on the fly essentially in real time at 1080p and just imagine what that is going to do to traffic across an ISP. Or how well it is going to cope with anything that has a shitload of action going on on the screen at once. The data overhead alone is going to literally kill anyone not on an unlimited Internet package.

  5. #125
    Warchief Vorkreist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    ATVI Board Room
    Posts
    2,197
    Quote Originally Posted by Video Games View Post
    Time to play some games! Oops im lagging or my internet is out guess ill just sit in my chair.

    Streaming games is and will always be terrible.
    I'm sorry you still have shit internet in 2019. Meanwhile I'm enjoying playing my steam/bnet libraries on 1080p maxed details, no lag using Geforce Now on a random shitty laptop.

    The tech and concept is great. Whats not great is that every big publisher is making his own separate service and making its titles exclusive to that service forcing you to essentially pay for multiple streaming services if you want access to every game.

  6. #126
    Over 9000! Vash The Stampede's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Better part of NJ
    Posts
    9,701
    Quote Originally Posted by Vorkreist View Post
    I'm sorry you still have shit internet in 2019. Meanwhile I'm enjoying playing my steam/bnet libraries on 1080p maxed details, no lag using Geforce Now on a random shitty laptop.
    You're probably the only person using it. Also, what games?
    The tech and concept is great. Whats not great is that every big publisher is making his own separate service and making its titles exclusive to that service forcing you to essentially pay for multiple streaming services if you want access to every game.
    It's not unlike how Sony has exclusives and Nintendo has exclusives to their platform. The only difference is you don't pay a monthly fee. Not wait, you do, I forget that console peasants have this problem.

  7. #127
    Warchief Vorkreist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    ATVI Board Room
    Posts
    2,197
    Quote Originally Posted by Vash The Stampede View Post
    You're probably the only person using it. Also, what games?
    Oh crap . Exposed. Nvidia developed a streaming service just for me. What games? Any games you own in your steam/blizzard/uplay.

  8. #128
    Quote Originally Posted by Surfd View Post
    Actually, it is a fair bit more complicated than just "Well Youtube broadcasts quality video just fine" or "Well TV also has lag".

    One of the tech heads on another forum summed it up pretty concisely:


    Now just try to wrap your head around the idea of hundreds of thousands of people, all playing different games, that all have to be streamed on the fly essentially in real time at 1080p and just imagine what that is going to do to traffic across an ISP. Or how well it is going to cope with anything that has a shitload of action going on on the screen at once. The data overhead alone is going to literally kill anyone not on an unlimited Internet package.
    He is generally right, except there Youtube also use GCC for live videos. It's just that complicated. https://www.netmanias.com/en/post/bl...as-well-or-not


    Now while I do work for the telecoms, I do not pretend that I know all the details (since it's mostly NDA anyway), But Google built a ton of their own fiber all over the world, so if anyone can succeed at game streaming, it's them. I am also skeptical by the way. It's just that a lot of people don't really grasp just how complicated are modern cloud services and give wrong arguments why it won't work.

  9. #129
    How much bandwidth would be required?
    You think you do, but you don't ©
    Rogues are fine ©
    We're pretty happy with rogues ©
    Haste will fix it ©

  10. #130
    Quote Originally Posted by D3athsting View Post
    How much bandwidth would be required?
    they're claiming its only 25 mb/s for 1080p max settings and i think i saw 30mb/s for 4k...those are recommended..i played in their stream test in january and have gigabit internet and whatever resolution i was playing at looked like shit. so who really knows.

  11. #131
    Quote Originally Posted by RuneDK View Post
    they're claiming its only 25 mb/s for 1080p max settings and i think i saw 30mb/s for 4k...those are recommended..i played in their stream test in january and have gigabit internet and whatever resolution i was playing at looked like shit. so who really knows.
    ofc it looks like shit, you can't stream uncompressed video without a giant bandwitdh
    You think you do, but you don't ©
    Rogues are fine ©
    We're pretty happy with rogues ©
    Haste will fix it ©

  12. #132
    Over 9000! Vash The Stampede's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Better part of NJ
    Posts
    9,701
    Quote Originally Posted by RuneDK View Post
    they're claiming its only 25 mb/s for 1080p max settings and i think i saw 30mb/s for 4k...those are recommended..i played in their stream test in january and have gigabit internet and whatever resolution i was playing at looked like shit. so who really knows.
    I like how going from 1080p to 4k is only an extra 5mb/s. Totally makes sense.

  13. #133
    Quote Originally Posted by Vash The Stampede View Post
    I like how going from 1080p to 4k is only an extra 5mb/s. Totally makes sense.
    Compression.

  14. #134
    Over 9000! Vash The Stampede's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Better part of NJ
    Posts
    9,701
    Quote Originally Posted by kaelleria View Post
    Compression.
    Then you'll lose image quality. Obviously the 4k version of Stadia is probably no where near as good a real 4k experience, while 1080p is probably much closer to the real thing. But this makes sense since very few of their customers will have a 4k display. Remember this is for the casuals.

  15. #135
    Quote Originally Posted by Vash The Stampede View Post
    Then you'll lose image quality. Obviously the 4k version of Stadia is probably no where near as good a real 4k experience, while 1080p is probably much closer to the real thing. But this makes sense since very few of their customers will have a 4k display. Remember this is for the casuals.
    No matter what the video is going to be compressed, almost all video is compressed because raw files are absolutely enormous. Same goes for audio, remember how Titanfall was a 48GB install at launch? Yeah, 35GB of that was audio. Not animation data, not high-res textures, not any of that stuff. It was 35GB of uncompressed audio - https://www.pcgamer.com/titanfall-install-audio/

    With video it's far, far, higher. It's a matter of how compressed the video is and the techniques they use to compress it. Nothing you'll get via streaming will be remotely close to something run on local hardware due to that compression alone.

    I mean hell, go watch 1080p videos on a 1080p monitor in fullscreen. You see compression artifacts all over the place even with that and the only way to "deal" with it is by streaming a higher quality than your monitor can output (2K at 1080p usually cleans up most of that).

  16. #136
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    I mean hell, go watch 1080p videos on a 1080p monitor in fullscreen. You see compression artifacts all over the place even with that and the only way to "deal" with it is by streaming a higher quality than your monitor can output (2K at 1080p usually cleans up most of that).
    TBH regular 1080p BRs look better then 4k streaming from netflix. UHD BRs blow it out of the water so yea we already see this with movies. With games it will be even more noticeable with fast paced action on the screen which is the biggest offender of wrecking bit rates.

  17. #137
    Quote Originally Posted by Tech614 View Post
    TBH regular 1080p BRs look better then 4k streaming from netflix. UHD BRs blow it out of the water so yea we already see this with movies. With games it will be even more noticeable with fast paced action on the screen which is the biggest offender of wrecking bit rates.
    Yep, and we've already seen some of that in action in the DF video earlier. The 4K stream looked good, but between artifacting and a generally fuzzier image it's clear that there's a long way to go before it approaches a native 4K game on local hardware.

  18. #138
    Over 9000! Vash The Stampede's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Better part of NJ
    Posts
    9,701
    Quote Originally Posted by Tech614 View Post
    TBH regular 1080p BRs look better then 4k streaming from netflix. UHD BRs blow it out of the water so yea we already see this with movies. With games it will be even more noticeable with fast paced action on the screen which is the biggest offender of wrecking bit rates.
    You wanna know a secret? Digital broadcast TV has a much better picture than your cable or satellite provider due to compression. But Blu-Rays are nearly dead technology because everyone streams now, because it's convenient and cheaper to use Netflix. But the fallacy here is that people think this will also apply to video games. We like our imagine quality and we like our response time. Anything that breaks this is dead to gamers. After all the PS4 won over the Xbox One because it was slightly better and cheaper. The specs between the two consoles are identical except for the GDDR5 memory in the PS4 and the DDR3 memory in the Xbox One.

    Remember we're not the target audience. They're hoping to attract people who maybe play games once or twice a year, not people who build gaming PCs or buy a PS4. They're hoping JoeSixPack won't notice the latency or the image quality. Image quality I think they can get away with, and honestly the 4K thing isn't a big deal cause JoeSixPack can't tell the difference anyway. Hence why JoeSixPack doesn't have a Blu-Ray player and just subscribes to Netflix. But latency is hard to ignore and would take a great deal of patience to turn a blind eye. Remember these are casuals so they don't take the time to run an Ethernet wire to their gaming device. They have a wireless router/modem provided by their ISP that bugs out every so often and is probably at the other end of their home behind a thick brick wall. I wouldn't be surprised if there's a microwave often in between it as well. JoeSixPack probably rents an apartment as well so there's probably enough wifi around that it sometimes clashes with each other. This would never work. Maybe better on a gaming PC with an Ethernet cable going to the modem but anyone with this setup probably won't touch Stadia with a ten foot pole.
    Last edited by Vash The Stampede; 2019-03-23 at 01:21 AM.

  19. #139
    The whole concept tests well.

    But here is my concern.

    It's not going to be just a handful of players in a cluster, it's going to be thousands, or tens or thousands (small subset of their customer base, in a defined areas: some small areas, some very large areas). All demanding no latency.

    There are going to be bottlenecks without a direct connection to the source (as was tested), and service will occasionally suck. There are too many waypoints between you and "them".

    The technology isn't currently as good as running the physical game in your home (whether via HD or Cartridge).

    It's potentially an IP's nightmare to stress their systems during prime time, to each of their clusters. And to do so reliably without loss. Nightmare, I tell you.

    IP's will get more angry calls / hostile PR than any Next-Gen Console and Google (and Walmart) combined.

    Many butts will be hurt.
    Last edited by Vineri; 2019-03-23 at 01:21 AM.

  20. #140
    Over 9000! Vash The Stampede's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Better part of NJ
    Posts
    9,701
    Quote Originally Posted by Vineri View Post
    The whole concept tests well.

    But here is my concern.

    It's not going to be just a handful of players in a cluster, it's going to be thousands, or tens or thousands (small subset of their customer base, in a defined areas: some small areas, some very large areas). All demanding no latency.

    There are going to be bottlenecks without a direct connection to the source (as was tested), and service will occasionally suck. There are too many waypoints between you and "them".

    The technology isn't currently as good as running the physical game in your home (whether via HD or Cartridge).

    It's potentially an IP's nightmare to stress their systems during prime time, to each of their clusters. And to do so reliably without loss. Nightmare, I tell you.

    IP's will get more angry calls / hostile PR than any Next-Gen Console and Google (and Walmart) combined.

    Many butts will be hurt.
    That is like just a fraction of the 101 problems this presents. Google is like Microsoft and Sony in that they're making a lot of assumptions here, and surprisingly a lot of YouTubers are behind this. The kind of YouTubers that I hold to a higher standard like AdoredTV and GoodOldGamer who should be knowledgeable in technology to know that this is just a failure with money behind it in slow motion. Maybe if Google's Fiber service was all across the United States then it might have a chance here. Might, maybe, somewhat.

    You have to worry about what the average home consumes in bandwidth cause I doubt you could use Stadia while someone watches Netflix while someone watches YouTube all at the same time. The wifi router alone can't handle that. I have relatives nearby who use Optimum and the whole house congests it to no end cause they all access the internet through the wifi router. They have Netflix, YouTube, a PS4 that goes online, and etc. Then you have the problem where people can use DDOS attacks on this service, which is something you didn't have to deal with before on a console or PC. Even if Google's anti DDOS setup thwarts it, I'm sure it'll just add to the already existing latency, and that's enough to piss off their customers.

    ISP's who currently don't have Net Neutrality working against them are just going to start throttling these connections cause the bandwidth this will consume will make Netflix look like dialup in comparison. You're not streaming a 24 fps 1080p 2 hour movie, you're streaming a 60 fps 1080p game for hours a day, maybe even all day depending on the person. If Stadia works like any other streaming service then it will likely dynamically adjust image quality while lowering the bit-rate so the final image on your stream has more blocky pixels than the original Super Mario game from 1985. If you want the ISP to stop doing this then you have to pay them or turn on your favorite VPN and watch as your already terrible latency gets much worse.

    I get why Google thinks this may work cause their employee's probably come home to a very generous Google Fiber connection that's directly connected through Ethernet and the nearest server is like 20 miles away. But that's not what most people have to work with. Sony, Nvidia, Verizon, and etc have all figured this out which is why they stopped trying to push Cloud Gaming. Even if this had the most ideal conditions you still have to deal with many other impossible hurdles that you can't overcome like pricing, backwards compatibility, mods, 120hz displays, VR, and the list goes on. Try using VR Chat with this, it would never work for a myriad of reasons.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •