Hacker News Reader

Comment by jaredmcateer | Hacker News Reader

The announcement page claims all 3000 titles are available via streaming, similar to the OnLive service but only for your internal network, I'm guessing. Effectively working around the porting issue.

View on HN

It seems to work like the nVidia Shield's streaming. Another computer on your home network handles the heavy lifting and streams the video output to your SteamOS box.

I've never had good luck with streaming a game, even on a local, wired connection. There's just way too much input lag.

That doesn't make any sense. If you can handle ~20ms of latency from your TV itself, how is <1ms of latency from a local ethernet connection a problem?

I really doubt an ethernet connection can push a full HD video frame in 1ms. The <1ms is for ping, which uses a really small network packet. Pushing 1080p HD video is a totally different matter.

ping uses whatever size packet you tell it to:

    $ ping -s 1450 192.168.11.10
    PING 192.168.11.10 (192.168.11.10): 1450 data bytes
    1458 bytes from 192.168.11.10: icmp_seq=0 ttl=255 time=0.646 ms
    1458 bytes from 192.168.11.10: icmp_seq=1 ttl=255 time=0.478 ms
    1458 bytes from 192.168.11.10: icmp_seq=2 ttl=255 time=0.469 ms

1080p video is nowhere near 1458 bytes.

For raw 720p RGBA you'd send: 1280 * 720 * 32 = 29,491,200 bits but obviously you're not going to do that. Suddenly you're not only sending data but also encoding / decoding it.

Indeed.. assuming 60fps, that works out to around 1.8 Gbps. Well within the range of HDMI, but well out of the range of your off-the-shelf router on ethernet.

..though 802.11ad is supposed to be out early 2014, and that maxes out around 7 gig, and has cooperation from the HDMI consortium to use it for streaming. I wonder if some kind of some kind of ultra-high-speed wireless dongle is in Steambox's future..

>1080p video is nowhere near 1458 bytes.

It doesn't matter, that's the point. Your MTU is almost certainly 1500 bytes. You are sending 1500 byte packets at the most. That does not cause latency. If you want to argue that we're incapable of encoding or decoding video with acceptable latency go right ahead, but doing it in response to me correcting a misconception about network latency doesn't make much sense.

Having worked on the particular issue of streaming real-time video over wireless, I can say that the main issue is not link latency.

The main lag comes from encoding/decoding. If you do it naively you encode frame-per-frame (encoding slices is more difficult), and the encoder does not only outputs iframes: you get partial frames that depend on both previous and future frames. Also the decoder does not always output frames in order. So you have to expect something around ~10 frames of latency, maybe less if you optimize everything well enough. That still means easily more than 100ms of lag.

The network is really not the main issue here.

What about scrapping the conversion to streaming video entirely and replacing it with a networked graphics protocol that allows one PC to draw on another's graphics natively?

It seems to me, intuitively, that the only ways to do that are:

1. Essentially equivalent to streaming, or

2. Essentially equivalent to normal CPU->GPU communication but over the network (and, thus, needing the bandwidth that local CPU->GPU communication has if you want to avoid slowing things down -- GigE wouldn't seem to be enough, much less WiFi, even if you consider only bandwidth and not latency.)

Well that would simplify things greatly of course, but then it means bit hit on the bandwidth.

I mean, a 720p60Hz stream in 4:2:0 (12 bits per pixel) still amounts to 663Mbits/s. You won't get that out of a gigabit link realistically (at least not over IP). Of course you could use a lightweight compression algorithm, but you'll have to divide this bandwidth by at least 5 to make it manageable for the average home network I'd say (I have absolutely nothing to back that last number, but 100Mbits/s doesn't look too scary...). And that's only for 720p remember.

I think if you plan to stream HD video over the network you have to encode and be clever about it.

>You won't get that out of a gigabit link realistically (at least not over IP)

I just got more than that using scp with no compression. Yes, you absolutely can get that realistically from gigE.

I would think that the people at Valve would be able to find a solution if anyone could... or are you claiming that this is a hard nut to crack and SteamOS's streaming solution won't end up being that great for high-resolution TVs?

Oh I'm sure if they put their minds to it they can make some improvements and clever optimizations. The thing it becomes exponentially more difficult the lowest the latency you want to achieve, obviously. <300ms? easy. <100ms? manageable. <50ms? hey, very good! <10ms? uh, I want to see it with my own eyes.

Also, you have to remember that steam won't control the encoding end of the pipeline (and if the "steambox" is third party hardware with steamOS installed, no control at all on the hardware). Which means that in the end the observed latency will depend a lot on the hardware and drivers of the desktop PC and there isn't much Valve can do about that.

So in the end I'm sure it'll be more than fine to play Civilization or Torchlight, MMOs and most RPGs but maybe not Counter Strike or Quake III.

Why are people acting like this is impossible even after it has been done? Remember onlive? Notice how the latency was entirely the same as your network latency to their servers, and there was no problem with encoding adding any (noticable) additional latency?

It would be insane to do this, but you could shove ATSC between boxes over ethernet by shoving each 188-byte MPEG transport stream packet in an ethernet frame and skipping all the layer 3 stuff. Or UDP it, if you want to route it. They probably like the idea of a difficult to route protocol keeping data on one ethernet segment.

My HDhomerun ATSC receiver certainly has no problem shoving a couple megabits of high def video over ethernet. Nor does my mythtv setup, or even just plain old NFS shares to watch videos.

You're kidding. This is perfect.

This is genius. All you need now is a micro box running windows with appropriate video card that you can stick in the corner next to your router and never have to look at again. Assuming the streaming and UX works half as well as they're playing at, they've just managed to commoditize hardware compatibility.

I don't think the importance of this can be understated.

You could do this already for years with Apple TV and Airplay mirror. The real problem is that of controls, mouse and keyboard don't match well with couch

The difference being that i can see Steam releasing the applications to make this work everywhere, while Apple has traditionally been hostile to this kind of interoperability.

It's true that Apple is hostile (= doesn't release spec, but doesn't actively make the protocol hard to reverse-engineer either, eg: the DRM stuff is limited to DRM content and not part of the protocol proper), but the protocol has been reverse engineered and there are many implementations of AirPlay nowadays.

What is the precedence on which you base your belief that, whatever protocol Valve has come up with to replicate the video stream, it will be open? I'm not that much into gaming, but Steam is a closed-source software that includes mandatory DRM for the games, it doesn't really set a precedent of openness and interoperability.

Couple of reasons. First off, Steam is the only DRM I can think of that actually adds value and makes my life easier instead of the reverse.

Second, keep in mind that they've already announced streaming inside the LAN. Having mobile apps would be a natural extension of that. (Note I didn't say that it would be open, I said they will probably release mobile apps).

That streaming is also completely not a threat to their system.

I'm not fully following you: what should these mobile apps allow you to do? Stream the video of a games running on your phone to the steambox to get to the TV?

Function as another endpoint for the stream. Instead of a TV, you have a tablet or a phone. Onlive already does this.

Many, many PC games support a controller these days.

My living room is perfect use case for this. Has an older PC just for simple games. Now it could stream my entire Windows/Steam library of games, powered by the more beefy hardware in my home office rig.

As you say, if the streaming feature works well, this is a huge win. At the very least, it should save me from running 60+ feet of HDMI/USB cables which was my original plan.

The streaming works if you have a beefy Windows machine in your house already, it's not a solution for people wanting a dedicated "Steam" console.

Granted it's a stop gap measure until they have more developers developing directly on OpenGL rather than Dx. But most people that are excited about this do have a fairly good gaming machine in their house already.

It is a brilliant tactic to migrate the considerable Steam base to the Steambox. It is transitional, of course, but brilliant for it.

Okay I have 1 beefy PC. I want a second machine upstairs.

Old Way) I have to spend all the money for equally good hardware. I also need a copy of Windows.

New Way) Just get something that can render YouTube videos well. I now have a second Gaming PC. No copy of Windows!

This opens up all the platforms depending on how they play the streaming thing. If they make this work well and release client apps on the mobile side, suddenly Steam has a domination of the whole home on a level that Microsoft has been playing at for years.

If you don't have a beefy machine, then you're probably not using Steam much anyway, which means you're not in their target demographic. (And if you were playing old games or small indies, you won't need a beefy machine to stream them).

It doesn't seem crazy that their target demographic might be people who'd otherwise buy a PS4 or Xbox; and they don't necessarily have a beefy gaming machine.

I don't know if they are going to attempt something like onlive, but this streaming is on your local lan from your Windows or Mac box.

Sure that's what I meant, I edited my comment to be more clear.

They are almost definitely going to use some sort of streaming similar to OnLive. If OnLive can beam playable game streams across the internet and all its attendant issues, then they definitely can manage to stream it across your in-home wireless/wired network.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com