It's never wise to say never, but I think cloud gaming will never go far with gaming. Physics means there's going to be input latency. So it simply won't work for VR where you really need at least 90FPS with no input latency. Of course the year of VR seems to be coming just about after the year of Linux, so maybe that doesn't matter. But even for normal games, the input latency is major. This [1] article shows input latency of more than 1/4th a second on one game ran at 4k. Then there's reduced visuals and of course recent times have also demonstrated beyond any doubt that the whole argument that the cloud won't go down, or won't lose your data, are both marketing fictions.
[1] - https://www.pcgamer.com/heres-how-stadias-input-lag-compares...
Is that antiquated? PC gaming requires either (1) some technical knowledge to assemble a computer on par with modern consoles without breaking the bank, (2) spending more than $1000 to buy a complete computer on par with modern consoles, or (3) settling for worse performance to buy a system that costs the same as a console.
Consoles subsidize hardware on the bet that they'll make more in the long run on game licenses, and they have much better economies of scale than most PC builders. See: Steam Machine.
I don't own a console, but the offer of saving money now at the expense of spending more over time is still a solid business model
I do not believe any current-gen console is subsidised? Though old stock thereof is probably cheaper because they locked the component prices in before RAM prices started going crazy
And actually, the "what has this hardware enabled" works kinda backwards. I work in video games and every single design that we come up with usually hits the wall of "oh that's cool on PS5/XSX, but how will we make this run on the Switch" - and the answer is we won't, so the feature gets scrapped. Increases NPC counts, better AI, multiplayer sessions with hundreds of people on the screen - these are arguably gameplay features that the current gen enables but because games are always made for the lowest common denominator they rarely get implemented. And yes, of course there are always tricks to do these things regardless, switch has some impressive games despite being positively ancient now. But I've been part of the discussion about so many gameplay systems that got scrapped not because they couldn't run on the PS5 but because they also had to perform well on lesser hardware.
> The TrueAudio Next SDK was released as open source through AMD's GPUOpen suite in August 2016...TrueAudio Next uses the GPU's ray-casting technology to do the audio computation
It's a rather niche feature, don't think too many games ever used it.
Honestly, I think Civ games benefit the most from hardware advancement- the end game become more playable due to shorter wait times.
//Consoles subsidize hardware on the bet that they'll make more in the long run on game licenses,
The PlayStation 5 @ $499 became profitable to manufacture within its first year on the market.
https://www.pcmag.com/news/sony-says-499-ps5-no-longer-sells...
Sony Is also Making 59% More Revenue Per PlayStation User since Lockdown, with $230 more spent by the average active PlayStation user now than in 2018.
https://www.ign.com/articles/sony-is-making-59-more-revenue-...
* Yes they’ve started making their own but it’s hardly a primary business.
So for instance imagine you're playing an FPS and if you pressed the fire button, the weapon didn't fire until that packet traveled to the server, was processed, scene rendered, and finally returned. An extra 100ms or whatever might not seem like much, but it nonetheless feels very wrong, and also can have a majorly detrimental effect on skilled players' ability to play the game because you're basically adding that time to their reflex rate. And 100ms is more of an aspirational goal than a typical norm. Stadia, for instance, had latency that could reach upwards of 250ms.
I love being downvoted for this statement by people who don’t know what I had worked on in the past.
Counterpoint: The benefit of consoles is that they're locked down hard. A lot of PC games are either unplayable in online mode due to rampant cheating or require a level of system access for their anticheat solutions that rivals antivirus software but without the scrutiny.
With consoles, the best cheat can only ever be as good as a human with zero latency - you need to parse the video signal and feed it into some kind of ML model. With PCs, these FPGA based hardware cheat cards can do much, much more.
And frankly, I'm not sure how to solve this dilemma. I do not want to spend north of a thousand of euros for a console I don't own and, most importantly, can and will get my account locked when I attempt to own it. But on the other side I have zero desire to waste the precious free time I have dealing with cheaters. The usual trolls and sex pests are bad enough - but there I can just mute the chat and go on with my life. With cheaters, there is no escape.
Enshittification galore.
Your article is 6 years old(!) , cloud gaming has gone a long way. If anything , try it first.
Also I muck around with mods, emulators etc. PC Gaming isn't just whatever is on the Steam Store.
I've got something like 1400 hours in HellDivers 2, playing Level 10 I don't want to experience any lag. I recently changed the configuration of my machine and I've able improve framerates/frame pacing and it make a lot of difference when playing the game i.e. some melee counters I can much more easily perform.
Any game I played with GeForce now I also played local, yes there is a minimal difference, but sometimes I got better feeling with multiplayer as the cloud service had better connection to the game servers than my local provider.
And I will prefer most multiplayer games with my local machine, but it impressed me very much (more than stadia and Xbox cloud)
A $1k laptop could dualbox WoW.. depending on the type of game you were playing consoles were not that much cheaper. Hardware prices in the mid oughts were getting very good.
$400 buys you a decent laptop from 10 years before.
My $400 used Dell laptop from eBay is able to emulate PSX games and most PS2 games (albeit dipping in < 100% emulation speed at times) with its integrated Intel card.
20 years ago (2006) a $400 laptop from 1996 had a pre-Pentium CPU barely able to run Windows 95. In fact I’m not even sure you could find laptops that cheap, used or new.
Console are also single (or lately dual) target so it's theorically easier to debug and optimize compared to PC.
Lowering the stream resolution to 1440p (from 4k) I was able to get 1440p@120Hz flawlessly playing DOOM TDA, <1ms input latency according to the overlay and display latency in the ~17ms range.
It took 900Mb/s of network bandwidth to stream that, so very close to the limit of my 1Gb LAN and still not at the quality and frame rate I'd normally play.
Add WiFi or internet streaming into the mix, and we're going to have to take a significant hit in visual fidelity and frame rates on top of all of the other issues you mention with cloud gaming.
When I had 30 ms of display lag (a frame) I could not accomplish anything for my team in League Of Legends. With my old Samsung TV I would just get hit playing Titanfall and never be able to hit anybody (except with a falling Titan) until I turned on "game mode". I even had the same problem with certain single player games like SAO: Fatal Bullet. (Although there are some games, say DW 9 [fast action but not time sensitive] or Orcs Must Die [not twitchy at all] that I can play just fine with the wired LAN in my house in the first case and over the microwave link to my rental property in the second case)
And of course the lag is unreasonably distributed. The developers and executives might have offices across the street from a cloud gaming data center and of course it is OK. For the "rest of us" behind congested or underinvested networks not so much.
What I found the most disappointing about cloud gaming was despite it being all the rage for "Big Tech" for a year or so they never made an attempt to build a game that really took advantage of it. I mean, you can get machines in the cloud with an absurd amount of RAM, CPUs and GPUs. Such a machine could put 20-30 players in a shared world with 20-30 the complexity of a conventional game and stream out video to all of them... Google has fantastic resources and could have made a game which would have had gamers demanding cloud gaming but no, they didn't.
As doubtful as I am about the viability of cloud streaming, this IS going to cause a bigger push into live service functionality where maybe you have a light client but the server is authoritative over more and more aspects of the game. Even then, AI can write its own server, so it needs to be full of FOMO if you're not on the official server.
There goes 95% of your market. If not more.
Or is it something you get used to like playing at 60hz, then going back to a PS2/etc at 30hz for awhile?
I don't have any reason to believe this would translate into a good cloud gaming experience though, because it mostly seems to have become viable from local wifi just getting a lot better in recent years. I would expect the latency to still be pretty high for a remote server, and it's possible that the streaming server I use is just able to "correct" things more easily for a local connection in a way that a fully remote connection might not be able to.
Nintendo is excellent at providing that value using low tech. They managed to make a compelling product using cardboard and sell it for 80$. They are the masters at providing good experiences with relatively cheap local hardware.
Microsoft will try and force their customers into something they don't want, because it's obviously better for Microsoft than their customers. They may succeed - success being "not completely losing all of their market share".
Nintendo will figure it out somehow, even if it means pivoting out of gaming altogether. Chances are - they will choose to make their customers happy instead of shooting themselves in the face. But they will try to shoot in the face youtubers and modders who make their customers happy.
On balance, Sony will most likely shoot themselves in the face, and survive to take whatever market share Microsoft gives up. Somehow.
1. already have their foot in the door
2. are not overwhelmingly hostile towards their customers
Needless to say though, vendor lock-in still sucks, and the switch store is pretty terrible.
Before the PS4/WiiU era (I'm not including XBox for reasons that will be obvious), they actually tried to create hardware that was "ground breaking" and/or "revolutionary" (to some extent of those words).
The PS3 had the "Cell Processor" and the Wii was loosely based on a PPC architecture.
The PS4 and WiiU were essentially x86 AMD CPU's.
The PS5, Switch 1/2 and every XBox are basically just desktop COTS hardware slightly modified for power consumption to be "consoles".
Are you surprised that 10,000,000 machine hours compressed into a quantized token can "reverse" a very well known and documented architecture?
I'm not.
And that, in my humble opinion, is the unfortunate part.
WiiU is the same architecture as the Wii and the Switch is the same platform as Nvidia Shield.
Ugh I know the answer but it’s just sad. I don’t want all media to become cotton candy.
For example, ever since roughly the mid 2010s when I finished Star Trek: Enterprise, I've been thinking about someone using some sort of generative AI to complete this series, once its good enough to be entirely convincing.
Two quotes from Star Trek "The Ultimate Computer" - a very prescient episode.
KIRK There are certain things men must do to remain men. Your computer would take that away.
---
BONES Compassion. That's the one thing no machine ever had. Maybe it's the one thing that keeps men ahead of them. Care to debate that, Spock?
SPOCK No, Doctor. I simply maintain that computers are more efficient than human beings, not better.
It's dumb and derivative and isn't getting a lot of laughs from me, but at the same time, it is freakishly realistic, and absolutely ripping off every character and scene and locale of the Lucas series.
I don't know how long it will last against Disney's DMCA juggernaut, but the "Imperial HR Lady" is way funnier and she just has to throw on a turquoise necklace and grating accent.
Speaking of self-vibe-coding games, I wouldn't see the point. When I was a younger boy, I did write games for myself, and it was an arduous project that was mostly aimed at teaching myself programming rather than gaming per se. And eventually the big didactic moments were hacking someone else's game code in terms of debugging and extending it, and that was more exciting than building my own from scratch.
Also, copyright is an issue! If consumer AI could ignore copyright and just code me, say, "Freecell but it's Harry Potter" or "Put me in the cockpit of a Y-Wing video game!" then it'd be exciting. People pay big bucks and invest big bucks for in-universe games of certain franchises like that. But AI won't provide for the consumer in this way, ever.
Much of the joy of gaming for me, is seeing a polished product that is well-balanced in terms of rules and fairness, and has good sound/graphic assets, and challenges or surprises me in novel ways as I go along. I don't think I would mind if someone else vibe-codes a game for me to play, if it's good enough and engaging, but it seems that designing/coding one for myself would feel empty and unfulfilling. And I wouldn't apply the same principle to utility software, but really I'd rather not invest a lot of time in building an office suite for myself, rather than just grabbing it off the shelf.
I’m genuinely asking here. This isn’t bait or a challenge, and I’m not really sure how to avoid that tone so apologies if seems antagonistic.
Basically, quick arcade-style games that can give them "points" so they feel good about just doing problems over and over for repetition. I can handle the conceptual discussions myself, but I find that gamifying works well for the portions where there's no alternative but to just practice until memorized.
I had also been working on a Treasure Mountain/Mathstorm/Galaxy clone with expanded activities, but I think the arcade format actually works better and is easier to make.
My daughter can also read a couple years ahead, but her writing's still very basic/phonetic. So I had codex whip up a standard template where I can put a picture (that codex generates) and she can write about what's happening in the picture and then color it. The template includes a word bank where I can add words relevant to what's happening (e.g. that I used to prompt the picture creation) that have irregular spelling, and I had it print a reminder sheet of different ways to spell the same sounds (ai, a_e, ay, etc) that she can refer to while trying to remember how to spell words. Previously when she was earlier in learning to read, I had used it to generate a couple simple coloring storybooks as a little fun activity.
That doesn't really answer your question about how I know it's effective, but I get a general sense that educational research struggles with that question too.
Moreover, the exploration of Data’s personhood as an android is like… incredibly pervasive throughout all of the seasons of the show.
Absolutely and I was thinking about this when I wrote my initial comment. It's a good consideration. Star Trek _does_ have an AI computer capable of generating code and stories and all it requires of the user is a little prompting.
TNG shows humans are using this technology to engage themselves. People rock climb, ski, perform Shakespeare. Holodeck authors are well-respected throughout the galaxy. They also warned us of holodeck psychosis.
Data is an android, but what about his story suggests we should slurp up doggerel? His existence is the pursuit of humanity's "essence."
A pretty photo is not enough on its own. Hotel lobbies have all kinds of pretty photography. That’s not the stuff people hang on the walls in their home. There is nothing wrong with it, it is fine to have hotel lobby photos. But acting like that is the ultimate target, that we should use AI to just manufacture this at a large scale… I mean what is even the purpose of that? Am I missing something here? Do people really just want to sit around with their local agent generating facsimiles of existing shows/movies for cheap entertainment?
There is always space for cotton candy and general purpose work, but we should not be advocating for a massive facsimile machine to drown out all media. People have been whining about Hollywood not writing new things for decades, so the alternative is to accelerate that? I just don’t understand the draw. I have no desire to sit around watching my computer make a fake, derivative Star Wars show for me to watch later.
Call of Duty 27, the myriad sports franchises, Halo 8, Fast and Furious 11, a remake of some Disney movie, the latest Marvel-slop...
It also bears mentioning that Coke and Pepsi are popular too.
I am reminded of a scene from the Jobs movie where they were arguing Open vs Closed systems. This feels similar...
Considering the economics, the graphics rendering would have to be shifted to the server too and output as video
Sony's greed has been incredible, let's just accelerate tbh
Even if it starts out really crappy, people will iterate and contribute until it's virtually identical to the real thing.
I have only had success with single player games.
Genres are design problems rather than descriptions
No one thinks RuneScape is a "topdown RPG", rather than a "fantasy game with a lot of freedom and many things to do" The genre can be made secondary to the design, so I don't doubt game designers can make turn-based games widely appealing
RuneScape as an example is a funny one because it is comparable to turn based games at a competitive level due to its slow tick rate. You're basically taking very fast (0.6s) turns and can stack certain actions within those turns to do better. But there is no pause between turns so it's just (ab)using game mechanics, which also means it is latency sensitive.
Within 5-10 years, kids will just be asking AI to generate customized games for them on the spot.
Maybe some indie games will even be delivered as prompts too, and the current download/installation times will be replaced by generation times :)
(not saying this is the future I want very much, but it's not unlikely)
Except the UX is horrid. If studios will certainly try it but there will be massive backlash.
Also if that's what you believe, players who start after day 1 will not have mystery. Even players who start day 1 but can't dedicate all of their time to the game will inevitably spoil themselves when they have to do anything else, meaning someone will progress farther than they and will share that info.
How does the equation change?
I am saying I'd rather enjoy POSSIBLY human content, than AI generated ones. And if cloud gaming cannot deliver on this, I'd rather stop gaming altogether. The idea of consuming AI generated content is completely disgusting to me.