A Look at Game Streaming Tech in the Browser
blog.parsecgaming.com
blog.parsecgaming.com
> ...
> This is not to say that one couldn’t get a decent working implementation in Firefox, but Chrome’s low delay mode works in the ideal way without having to complicate the implementation or diverge too heavily from the way Parsec’s native applications behave. And while we love Firefox, the harsh reality is that 82% of Parsec users are using Chrome, with only 5% using Firefox, which made us more comfortable starting with a Chrome only implementation. For Firefox users, you can always use the Parsec native applications, which will probably perform better anyway .
I think this is quite sad to see. It’s not really game streaming tech in a web browser, it’s game streaming tech in Google Chrome.
What happens if Google decides they don’t want to play with other streaming services? They’re only a quick auto update of locking Parsec services out.
I know both people from both the MSE team and the Project Stream team. Project Stream doesn't use MSE (it uses WebRTC) and the code in Chrome to detect live streams and optimizing them has been around long time, (see, for example, this change from almost 4 years ago: https://codereview.chromium.org/692323002) and they've steadily added better support for live streams over the years. It's not "game-streaming tech in a web browser". It's just a few simple heuristics to function better for low-latency streams. You can read the code for yourself if you'd like:
https://cs.chromium.org/chromium/src/media/renderers/video_r...
Amusingly, we added the implicit signal a long time ago for 1FPS security cameras: https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=338529
Coincidentally, we're at FOMS right now talking to other browsers about standardizing an explicit signal that will provide additional effects on MSE buffering and audio preroll size.
If they have to make their own proprietary browser, the situation will just be streaming “with a client you need to download” rather than “in the browser” generally.
(Disregard this if I’m misunderstanding and by “their own browser” you meant an existing project like Firefox.)
Edit - it was absolutely stunning to see my accepted email, login to google and ubisoft, and be playing within 5 minutes. Zero download time, zero load time, just instant gaming.
Think of all the basic ways we already see services make money- from the subscription, to metered access, to congestion pricing, early access fees- and those are only the basics. This is an industry that figured out the loot crate, after all.
On a different note, once the profitability is figured out, publishers can give direction to developers that games need to be designed around the latency, or whatever issue appears. Games can also be designed around the assumption that they'll be streamed, allowing things to be a lot more cross platform.
There has been quite a few streaming services already that have already folded such as Onlive, Gaikai, Gamefly. The other part of the problem is that Digital Renting for video games has also failed to kick off in any meaningful way since the pricing structure is just to restrictive; especially for modern games that can last 40+ hours.
Netflix and Redbox were able to use Blockbuster to make a business model but that hasn't translated as well to video games. Maybe the problem is that people don't play enough games to warrant a high subscription price or play so much that they might as well buy it outright.
I have a decent computer and hard wired gigabit internet, if game streaming can't work there it won't work for the 99% of americans who have worse internet than me.
I hate watching computing turn into a fucking rental model
I've been using Parsec to play games like No Man's Sky and it's really impressive technologically speaking, but the pricing model is a bit obtuse. It's made worse by the fact that the big cost for someone who doesn't game all that often is storage.
Basically, you sign up to a VM with an impressive GPU and it runs games really well, and the streaming tech is top notch. But to run it all you need to pay for at least 50 GB of storage and you need to pay for it on a time basis, which means you're left with anxiety of leaving it turned off, as well as sudden deletion of your cloud PC if you're not paying attention.
I wish they would come up with some kind of clever storage solution so that the basic Windows image is a shared (read only) storage component and the additional games are additional pluggable hard drives, also shared between users. This would mean you as the end user loses control of modding/patches for some games, but it could save so much storage. The save games etc would go on a tiny hard drive that you ultimately pay for (but I'd say Parsec should eat that cost to reduce anxiety and instead encourage a monthly subscription for any-time access).
TL;DR: Parsec is awesome. I want to pay a fixed price and not be exposed to their tech stack costs, so I don't get FOMO when I'm not using it every day.
The fact that this hasn't been solved yet shows that Valve isn't willing to invest in fixing it either through new technology or cooperation with developers, which is really sad.
Optimistically, something you're describing for Parsec would be possible, but maybe it isn't realistic.
An actual patch utility that goes in and applies binary diffs would be much more economical in terms of bandwidth, but then that complicates Steam's ability to confirm a game is in a good state with file checksums, and is much more likely to have odd errors as a diff somehow correctly applies to a file with an incorrect starting starting state.
Secondly, at home I have a modest internet connection and a busy home life that leaves me at most an hour to play games at a time, and usually less than that. If I open Steam infrequently and there are multiple patches on the order of gigabytes, then that eats into my play time and makes my PC gaming experience feel like a PC update experience.
When you consider how large some of these games are like The Witcher or Final Fantasy or MGS5, the number of games in my library, and the shortage of time I have, I easily spend more time installing or updating any of my games than playing them.
Any way you cut it, it's a bad experience.
Steam doesn't allow players to play out-of-date games in online mode and doesn't allow multiplayer games in offline mode. When going between online and offline mode it keeps track of which games are out-of-date as well. Whether using on-demand updates or leaving my computer on with Steam running I'm either wasting my time or wasting power and bandwidth (with a monthly cap).
I didn't make my post to complain about the state of things (which I found poor). What I am saying is that I think there are creative engineering solutions to this problem that would make experiences like mine better. Google found a creative way to compress Chrome updates by using disassembly changes rather than file diffs to push small critical updates. I'm sure Valve could spend any amount of resources looking for solutions like that tailored to game assets.
What's more, you can get the exact experience I described by playing Fortnite on an iPad on a weekly basis.
Anyway, if you could get individual games on disk images they aren’t patched every hour anyway so it’s a non issue. The real issue will be dealing with Windows’ file system and Steam’s DRM.
just set it so games only update when u decide to play?
>100 GB of downloads
does this really happen
Imagine waiting for a game to download, playing it, then having to download it again the next day. If you've experienced it once you will remember. If you've never seen it happen, then maybe it seems like a mystery to you. Some people have slower internet, bandwidth caps, busier schedules or different game libraries.
When I have time to play games, I have maybe 20 or 30 minutes to do so. If I delay updates until I want to play, and the amount of updates is over a few GB's, then it will take that entire time to update.
I also cannot see the justification on a technical level for why this behavior would exist. All in all I'm pretty confused by this comment, tbh
GTA V
Mortal Kombat X
Metal Gear Solid 5 / GZ
Doom
The Witcher
Final Fantasy
Given that you don’t have to worry too much about keeping storage you’re not using, just make sure to dump your non-cloud save games in Dropbox or something now and again.
Parsec as tech/app is indeed awesome! Together with Steam Link app, they're the best we currently have.
And they offer this service under their own brand and never leaving their site, so I don’t agree with your dismissal that this is just an integration. It’s a service they offer and they are taking my money for it. Money I gladly paid, I just wish the service I got was simplified.
Anyway, my use of parsec is my home computer, so I don't really have the difficulties you're facing.
[1] https://blog.parsecgaming.com/testing-game-streaming-input-l...
I would absolutely pay for this service, for the convenience of being able to play AAA games from portable devices without strong GPUs.
I suspect that a new generation of game development tools will make future games cheaper to deploy as well.
I think any kind of shooter, platformer, or fighter game would be nearly unplayable, at least on my internet connection. For RPG-type games like Assassin's Creed though it does have potential.
So, you'll need a ~20 ping, which is reasonable for a fast connection.
I don't know what my input lag was during gameplay, but it was certainly enough to be noticeable.