• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
  • We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.

Alucardx23

Member
Nov 8, 2017
4,713
Cloud gaming will give a lot more power to developers compared to consoles, because it will be possible to make the servers that are playing the same game work together to calculate more demanding simulations. There is no way for an individual console to compete with that. I expect for this generation of consoles to be surpassed by a lot long before it ends by what is possible on regards to processing power in the cloud.

"To be fair, people have SSDs in their PCs already, so it's not that much of a revolution. Streaming is a very important technology for modern games, so the faster you can stream your data, you can put more of it, and you're going to have higher quality assets, which is pretty much what everybody expects there to be. The big questions are going to be how much memory do you get to actually do that? Is there sufficient memory to fool around with? How much CPU power are we getting? Because that's also important, but it's the classic things that we see with every generation. I mean, how much GPU power do we get? But at the end of the day, it's always going to be more, it's going to be more detailed, it's going to allow us to do more accurate simulations.

I think that the more interesting question is how stuff like Google Stadia will change things. It gives developers something different. In the data center, these machines are connected to each other, and so you could start thinking of doing things like elastic rendering, like make a couple of servers together to do physics simulations that may not be possible on current local hardware. I think you'll see a lot of evolution in this direction."

"When you have an almost uncapped amount of computation sitting in a data centre that you can use to support your game design and ambition – whether it's in vastly superior multiplayer, whether it's in distributed physics, or massive simulation – there are things we can do inside a data center that you could never do inside a discreet, standalone device."


An example of how Stadia can use multiple GPUs to enhance the physics calculations.
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 1635

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
6,800
Is Stadia even offering this? I thought they had a pretty set base hardware spec that developers needed to target. I imagine any desire to do crazy things beyond that will require some separate and costly deals.

Still, I'd be down with playing a big massively multiplayer cloud-exclusive game that does crazy stuff with physics in a shared world. Something like what EverQuest Next was trying to be except way more ambitious.

Yes, but Google actually has the technology for it

Do they more than Microsoft did back then? Did I miss something where they demonstrated an example actually running?
 

FreezePeach

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
12,811
Isn't that what Microsoft said like 6 years ago?
Everyone is just gonna latch on this while ignoring everything else he said, but at the end of the day it all comes down to the support that is behind it. If devs invest research and google invests infrastructure, then it will do more than whatever Microsoft tried.
 

Kolx

Member
Oct 25, 2017
8,505
He's one of the featured developers on Stadia, so I feel there's a bit of bias in here.
 

@dedmunk

Banned
Oct 11, 2018
3,088
Don't we already have games that run on dedicated servers on the internet though? 🤔

Streaming isn't necessarily required...
 

TubaZef

Member
Oct 28, 2017
3,565
Brazil
Do they more than Microsoft did back then? Did I miss something where they demonstrated an example actually running?

They demonstrated some examples in their presentation back at GDC.

Anyway, on Stadia, everything is running on the cloud already, so it's much simpler to do this kind of stuff.
 

OnionPowder

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
9,323
Orlando, FL
Uhm... Microsoft has a comparable cloud service with Azure and they've been investigating cloud gaming for longer than Google. They obviously tried to do something like this but turned out it wasn't so easy at the end.

that's because they tried to supplement an already existing machine vs having a unique entity that handles everything that the viewer is just looking at.

It's obviously a lot different.
 

FreezePeach

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
12,811
Have you ever heard of Azure?
Yeah, and it's different than what Stadia offers.
Anyway the strength of stadia as he also points out is in its mutliplayer possibilities. Thats the real strength. MMO type massive online games that already require a constant internet connection could thrive on stadia.
 

TubaZef

Member
Oct 28, 2017
3,565
Brazil
Uhm... Microsoft has a comparable cloud service with Azure and they've been investigating cloud gaming for longer than Google. They obviously tried to do something like this but turned out it wasn't so easy at the end.

It's different, on Stadia you have everything running on the cloud, so it's simpler to check and update how the players are reacting to the world and vice-versa.

The idea here is that Stadia is like one big console where everyone is playing, all the data is being processed there, so there's no delay between each player actions and the actions inside the game world. Of course there are other new types of delay but that's another story.
 

Deleted member 52823

User requested account closure
Banned
Jan 29, 2019
342
Isn't the opposite now true in that now that the next gen consoles have SSDs as standard, if you game on PC you're pretty much required to have one?

Not disagreeing, and I know this is kind of off topic, but in terms of SSDs, what was once a PC luxury is now pretty much a requirement if you want to play next gen games on PC, right?
 

nib95

Contains No Misinformation on Philly Cheesesteaks
Banned
Oct 28, 2017
18,498
Stadia has a ceiling to the performance permitted to each user, which is 10.7 Tflops. It's not remotely economically, technically or financially feasible for Cloud gaming service providers to just willy nilly grant users far more than that, on a dynamic and inconsistent whim, at least not without charging more for a fixed performance increase.

If they did not only would the gaming experience and development process be too variable (what would devs even target as their baseline, and what happens when things fall well below that on the fly?), but the cost would be far higher, since they'd be unnecessarily using more servers, more hardware, more electricity, requiring greater upkeep, maintenance and so on. These cloud gaming service providers are in the business of making money at the end of the day.

Secondly, as I've posted before, the SSD's many people have in their PC's and laptops are SATA and support up to 600 megabytes per second. The SSD drives rumoured to be in the next gen consoles are PCIe which support up to 32 gigabytes per second (in reality we'll probably get closer to 1500-2500 MB/s), so not only do they have the potential to be orders of magnitude quicker, but they increase the entire next gen gaming output baseline in a major way, which is a huge positive.

Lastly, if a Cloud service provider did offer a more premium performance package (eg 15 Tflops for example instead of 10.7 Tflops) at an added monthly premium, it's not like there can't or won't be mid cycle console refreshes that do a similar thing either. Then there's the added latency, image quality, consistency and other benefits that local performance grants that cloud streaming simply can't.
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 11413

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 27, 2017
22,961
You are still competing for resources with other devs and games using the Stadia platform, not to mention the server load required for streaming to however many users are trying to stream different games. Like you would have to have entire data centers or sections of data centers dedicated to specific functions in a single game to get what he's talking about, which seems incredibly unrealistic unless we are talking about a single game with millions of players and huge demand and money coming in all the time (something like WoW at its peak).

Like I'm sure what he's saying is theoretically, technically possible, but don't expect to get that with Stadia right away.
 

FF Seraphim

Member
Oct 26, 2017
13,725
Tokyo
I'll believe it when it actually works or have a product that i can get my hands on and it shows off these qualities
 

spman2099

Member
Oct 25, 2017
10,892
He may be right, but I think those consumers feeling skeptical are warranted to feel that way. I mean, we heard this stuff with Sim City, we heard it with Crack Down, and it was all bullshit. It never materialized. That isn't to say that it never will, but it is hard to put much faith in it at this point. I think, for a lot of people, this is going to be an "I will believe it when I see it" situation.
 

Kolx

Member
Oct 25, 2017
8,505
I mean yes but also would he have signed on to develop for Stadia if he didn't believe in the tech?
I don't know. Maybe he really believes in the tech, or maybe Google was the one willing to feature his game the most. AFAIK we're yet to see a single game taking advantage of that despite the fact Stadia is fully revealed by now. Meanwhile, you can bet MS and Sony will have multiple games at reveal taking advantage of the fast SSD.
 

dennett316

Member
Nov 2, 2017
2,982
Blackpool, UK
It's just empty blurbs until they actually deliver something. It's been coming for years....stop talking and actually do it, deliver it. The best way to do that would be to ensure that your customers have the capability of taking advantage of it. Invest in getting fibre onto as many streets as possible. Lobby for data caps to either be way more generous, or non-existent. Do all that, then make a game experience that isn't just a flashy tech demo.
If you want streaming to be the future, make it happen and put it in people's reach.
 

cgcg

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
430
Lol and who's going to pay for the extra servers that just happens to sit around doing nothing else but physics calculations?
 

Dennis8K

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
20,161
Locally Impossible Physics is the name of my recent quantum physics paper.

And my punk rock band.
 

bsigg

Member
Oct 25, 2017
22,556
I mean, MS had the same idea that never came to fruition. Also, are devs going to take advantage of something like that when say only Stadia of all things would actually benefit from the additional work for it?
 
OP
OP
Alucardx23

Alucardx23

Member
Nov 8, 2017
4,713
Isn't that what Microsoft said like 6 years ago?

This is something completely different. Crackdown 3 was about offloading processing power to the cloud so it can calculate the physics of destructible elements. It proved to be more difficult that expected to sync local and offsite hardware. This is about making hardware that is already under the same building work together.
 
Last edited:

Azerach

Member
Oct 29, 2017
1,196
cover2.jpg
 
OP
OP
Alucardx23

Alucardx23

Member
Nov 8, 2017
4,713
Is Stadia even offering this? I thought they had a pretty set base hardware spec that developers needed to target. I imagine any desire to do crazy things beyond that will require some separate and costly deals.

Still, I'd be down with playing a big massively multiplayer cloud-exclusive game that does crazy stuff with physics in a shared world. Something like what EverQuest Next was trying to be except way more ambitious.



Do they more than Microsoft did back then? Did I miss something where they demonstrated an example actually running?

They touched on this superficially when showing Stadia for the first time. Think about it this way. You have a 60 player match of Battlefield. The 60 players will be on the same map, so why not share the simulation of the world between the 60 available CPUs? A developer could create a world that is a lot more complex than a single CPU doing the calculations.

 

CatAssTrophy

Member
Dec 4, 2017
7,619
Texas
Interesting? Sure.

Practical? Not yet.

This is my take. How many instances will be available for these enhanced physics at once? Will the physics be enhanced enough that we will be able to notice a difference in games? Will increasing the hardware capabilities of *all* the servers increase the cost of the service itself because there will need to be hardware that's no longer helping with graphics but instead of handling physics? Will there only be *some* servers with the added horsepower to handle the physics and only the games that require that will run on those?

Like, I need to understand how it's going to work from that perspective before I can even decide if it's something I want or even worth it.

EDIT: ^Interesting, that reminds me of what Sony sort of talked about with PS3 and CELL way back when. Multiple PS3's linked together all helping with the same instance for stuff that one couldn't do alone.
 

nib95

Contains No Misinformation on Philly Cheesesteaks
Banned
Oct 28, 2017
18,498
This is something completely different. Crackdown 3 was about offloading processing power to the cloud so it can calculate the physics of destructible elements. It proof to be more difficult that expected to sync local and offsite hardware. This is about making hardware that is already under the same building work together.

The feasibility restrictions are still the same though. For every server unit that is being used to help push a particular piece of software for a particular single user to beyond advertised performance specs, the more hardware resources, electricity, upkeep and ultimately money it is costing a cloud service provider per unique game streaming session.

On top of that there are variables in development and experience to consider too.

At the end of the day, just because they could theoretically allow more performance with such chaining, doesn't mean they would, because it simply wouldn't make any economical sense. What is more likely going to happen is that somewhere down the line game streaming service providers will simply up their performance ceiling for users, but most likely charge a premium for it (unless it's to meet a new standard in the competition), eg the way video streaming services charge a premium for 4K, or ISP's charge for more data or faster Internet speeds, or mobile telecoms providers charge for more minutes or whatever else.
 
Last edited:

bane833

Banned
Nov 3, 2017
4,530
So we're back in 2013 again.

Power of the cloud.
Consoles are doomed.
Streaming is the future.
 

Issen

Member
Nov 12, 2017
6,819
Low latency and offline availability are far more important to me than pretty or complex simulations, sorry. By several orders of magnitude.

We'll see what the worldwide game audience thinks about that though.
 

dex3108

Member
Oct 26, 2017
22,601
That is nice and true but you lose a lot too with streaming. Biggest things you lose are modding support and ownership.
 

Wereroku

Member
Oct 27, 2017
6,236
He's telling the truth but the ultimate question is who is going to pay for all of that. Google can't subsidize the service forever and for a game that utilizes tons of cloud resources there has to be a revenue stream behind it.
 

Hella

Member
Oct 27, 2017
23,405
I don't know that I can believe this after Crackdown 3 was sacrificed at the altar of "cloud computing". Like it can, sure, but will it? The path of least resistance says no.

If Google doesn't make that sort of game for their platform, no one will.
 

spman2099

Member
Oct 25, 2017
10,892
Who said consoles are doomed?

In 2013? A surprising amount of people. Many game journalists seemed doubtful that console sales would be particularly strong. A lot of people were saying the next gen (the PS4/XBO) would be the last generation of traditional consoles. It was very strange, as consoles were selling brilliantly at the end of last gen. It was a dumb prediction that a lot of people bought into (and proved to be painfully wrong).