Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by bit-tech, 9 Oct 2018.
Sooooo.... Xbone games streaming from the cloud? What about PC games? They just won't run on that hardware. But I guess nobody cares as there are so many cross-platform games and thanks to (forced) always-online you have your profile available on any device. Well, actually on no device at all, but in the cloud. Isn't that where dreamers are supposed to have their heads?
And please, MS, don't tell me there will be support for PC games in the future. I just won't believe it.
Maybe it'll do better than every other previous try at streaming gaming.
But I doubt it.
The infrastructure still just isn't there, even in places supposedly in good shape for this sort of thing. You'd need something to stop ISPs from throttling connections, for a start...
Not really: I don't know of a single ISP that throttles latency rather than throughput, and it's latency that matters for cloud gaming. As long as you can get 5Mb/s at a reasonable latency, it'll work fine - and remember that Microsoft was the one that came up with DeLorean, capable of hiding up to 250ms of lag.
So, in other words: if your connection can hit 5Mb/s stable and less than 250ms ping, it should (in theory) feel like playing native, complete with Full HD visuals.
I'm obviously now out of date on UK ISP behaviour, but when I was paying Virgin Media when they decided to throttle me (normally in the middle of a Steam download) it would drop to 2Mbps.
My ISP here in Japan is fairly generous, but when they do throttle downloads, it's down to 3Mbps. I liked BT for the time I used them, because they never seemed to throttle my connection. But lag was mixed. Sometimes it was great, others it was terrible.
I guess, as with so much, YMMV.
Both those are throughput, not latency. Game streaming works the same as video streaming: as long as you have a connection, you'll see something. 5Mb/s is for Full HD (I'm using the Netflix guidelines here, so you can take some off the top of that if we assume Microsoft's using a posher, newer, or more proprietary compression algorithm for the video); if you were down at 3Mb/s you'd still get Standard Definition, which would be fine for a small-screen device like a smartphone; and even at 0.5Mb/s you'll get a picture, just not a very good one.
Well, so long as it was below 250ms (and assuming Microsoft's going to use DeLorean, 'cos it's entirely possible it won't) it'd feel native.
Infrastructure really isn't as much of a problem as people think for cloud gaming; the bigger problem is having enough server capacity. (It was a common flaw of PlayStation Now to have to wait in a queue 'cos your local data centre didn't have enough PS3 hardware to meet demand, and I know Nvidia has the same problems with its own cloud-powered stuff.)
Also, anecdotally: I'm with BT, and I've never seen throttling. Like, ever. At one point I was putting over a terabyte a month through the connection (running a Tor relay, so I could get a sweet T-shirt) and I never had a hint of throttling nor a single peep of complaint.
This I know. I also remember you quoting 5Mbps as a figure it needed to be over for throughput...? edit: Ah, OK, yes, will depend on codec etc...
So infrastructure is still a problem, just at their end. Gotcha. And yes, I used my BT connection pretty hard while I had it. Was a good opportunity to archive my GOG collection.
edit 2: Basically, try it, if it works, great, if not... well...
For "Full HD visuals," yes.
Server infrastructure, yes; not network infrastructure, which is what you were talking about. (Or, at least, what I took you to be talking about, having followed up with discussion about ISP throttling...)
Separate names with a comma.