The basic problem for any service that proposes to stream games over the public Internet is that flops are cheap, but bandwidth is expensive. If you don't believe me, then how much do you spend on computer hardware, and how much do you spend on your ISP? Even if you buy a brand new $2000 PC every three years and throw the old one in the garbage, that's probably still going to be a whole lot less than you spend on bandwidth. Proposing to massively inflate bandwidth requirements (and costs) in order to save a little bit on hardware costs is not going to be a win.
That doesn't necessarily mean that there won't be a market for it. But for the most part, it will be the gaming equivalent of rent-to-own furniture or payday loans. Maybe it lets you get what you want in the short term, but it's not the market you'd like to participate in if you have a choice.
The main exception that I see is that letting you skip the download really is a benefit to the people who like to download a game, play it for three minutes, decide that they hate it, and uninstall it after only those three minutes. This will allow them to spend most of their "gaming" time ranting on forums rather than waiting for games to download.
But I am already paying for the bandwidth. I mostly play strategy games and only look at updating the PC for a few new games making them very cost prohibitive. This, if it works, could solve that problem.
And you think that everyone suddenly trying to use 50 times as much bandwidth as before won't change what your ISP charges? Costs of doing business will be inevitably passed on to the customer. Playing games by streaming the rendered images is a much more expensive way of doing it than rendering the game locally. One way or another, those costs are going to be passed along to you if that's how you want to do it.
As a side note, the "internet limitation" thing is very wrong. You do not need large bandwidth to play on Stadia for exemple. The cloud is receiving information based on your mouse/keyboard/etc activities which means low sending and receiving data. If right now you have a spike in your internet connection then you will also have lag in playing the game ( online ). Sure, for single player games, that might be a small problem ( now ) , but on the online thing .. I think we will be very fine.
Sending keystrokes and such to the server isn't the problem. Getting the completed frame in the other direction is the problem.
Right now, the rate at which my video card has to generate frames to send to my monitors is about 51 Gbps. It might be able to compress out the alpha channel and avoid sending that (and you certainly would if sending it over the Internet), but that still leaves the rate over 38 Gbps. Even if you have some extremely lossy compression scheme to compress that by 99.9% and look terrible, an average user trying using tens of GB of data in an average day is going to be a huge problem for ISPs.
Having you guys forgot when companies started to relay more on Downloadable games then on physical ones and how many said the same thing? "I want to own the physical game" , "I don't have the bandwidth to download games on the internet, lololol fail" , etc ?
This is not for skeptical people like you. This is the future and like it or not, those who will grow up with this kind of tech, what do you think they will say about you?
20 years ago, a lot of people wanted to have an option to buy a physical copy in addition to having a download option. The main source of people who wanted downloading not to be an option was developers trying to kill piracy. Eventually, they'd tack on some online portion so that they could add loot boxes that you couldn't pirate.
The reason that the demand for having physical media largely went away is that game sizes didn't grow nearly as fast as storage capacities or Internet bandwidth. If it had, then people would still want a physical media option today to avoid the 10 TB download necessary to try a new game.
I do not agree with you! Killing piracy was not the main source of this. And no, is not about the 10 GB ( you meant? ) necessary to try a new game. Is about games gets update very often , with games releasing patches with over 1-2-3 GBs in 1 month for exemple, while the main game has .. 10 GBs for exemple. So .. would you prefer to go buy a CD/DVD/Blue-Ray for every big patch once a month or .. once 3/6 months ?! For a game, would be cool, but what happens when you have 10-20-50 games, with most not playing in 6 months, then when you want to play one or two, a big message appears : please go to the nearest Best-Buy and buy the 6 GBs patch which we made to the game in the last 6 months. Is fine, we add it to a Blue-Ray. Come back home when you purchased it, install it and..you are ready to go.
Above is just a way to say the things. The reality is simple. Most things (software related) are online now, like it or not, and games are no exception. I truly understand people who wishes to own a copy of said game, but guess what? They can still do that.
Same with Stadia. You will still be able to buy games ( even physical ones ) , and play on your OWN desktop/console/etc . Is true that you will be in a minority , but you would still be able to do that.
But then again, I read some of your..sceptical messages on this topic, and you make no sense. Your opinions against this, is ...limited. In fact you are limited in .. thinking bigger ( on this subject ). You see the ..problems as of today, which is very wrong. I'm sure Google ( and not only ), knows better then you know!
Did you hear how big 5G will be ? If yes, then most of "your problems", will be gone soon enough.
So, whoever sees this is as a bad thing or one which can't evolve because "internet limitation", I say you are wrong. Me and many others, of course. Please google 5G internet speed for exemple, and see what kind of internet speed we will have on our phones ( which I think many will switch from their traditional internet provider, over Mobile Hot Spot connection ). Here, let me add this if you are to lazy : 5G Network 1-10Gbps or higher. Yes, that's Gbps and there are also reports that they achieved in testing even 20Gbps. So .. "internet limitation" or "my wifi can't handle this" will be history soon enough.
Wireless will never offer more bandwidth or more reliably than wired. There will always be physical advantages to just running a wire (or possibly several wires), and the only question is just how large that advantage will be.
5G will be a major advance over 4G as wireless Internet connections go. But if the problem is that wired isn't good enough, either, then 5G isn't going to help you.
Also, it's important to be aware that bandwidth available is per base station, not per user. You can get a lot of bandwidth if you only have one person connecting to a base station, but that's not going to be the typical use case. That would be far too expensive. And as more 5G infrastructure gets built out and you start getting more interference from neighboring base stations, the amount of bandwidth available per base station is likely to go down as compared to what you can do in pristine lab conditions.
You got me until "...will never offer". Really? A man like you I think have a bigger vision then someone who has no idea about the ..evolution. Saying Wireless will never offer more bandwidth then wired is completely wrong.
The 5GB thing was for people like you who keeps saying " .. internet limitation".
Yet again, you keep talking about today's problems. Even if you are right, which I doubt it, there will be way to much bandwidth for 5G that even if you will run it at 500Mbps , will still be very , very powerful compared to 100Mbps which 4G currently have.
Also, why am I having this idea that most of you just watched this video clip and not all the presentation? Did you not seen how this also impact the developers and how they can make MULTIPLAYER games way bigger then what we have today? I though most people visiting MMORPG.COM wants LARGE worlds filled with VERY LARGE playerbase. Right? Now imagine what Stadia tech can do in this department. The possibilities are HUGE!
I'm not sure where you're getting that idea. If the problem is that modest amount of network communications to tell players what other players are doing is too hard, then requiring massive amounts of network communications to stream the entire completed frames is not going to help. That's going to hurt, and badly.
If the hope is that all inter-player communications can be within a data center so that streaming the games scales with linearly with the number of players in a small area rather than quadratically, then you're going to need ridiculous numbers of people in a very small area before that's a net gain. Maybe it would make it a little bit easier to have 100k person battles, if all 100k of those people live in the same city in real life. But no game has ever had the size of playerbase to be able to do that.
As a side note, the "internet limitation" thing is very wrong. You do not need large bandwidth to play on Stadia for exemple. The cloud is receiving information based on your mouse/keyboard/etc activities which means low sending and receiving data. If right now you have a spike in your internet connection then you will also have lag in playing the game ( online ). Sure, for single player games, that might be a small problem ( now ) , but on the online thing .. I think we will be very fine.
Sending keystrokes and such to the server isn't the problem. Getting the completed frame in the other direction is the problem.
Right now, the rate at which my video card has to generate frames to send to my monitors is about 51 Gbps. It might be able to compress out the alpha channel and avoid sending that (and you certainly would if sending it over the Internet), but that still leaves the rate over 38 Gbps. Even if you have some extremely lossy compression scheme to compress that by 99.9% and look terrible, an average user trying using tens of GB of data in an average day is going to be a huge problem for ISPs.
...what? Do you understand the term of "Streaming" ? Is like you are watching a movie but at the same time, be able to control the main ..hero. You are NOT getting the completed frame back in the way you want it to sound. If that was the case, then how Project Stream with Assassin's Creed was running at full HD at 60 FPS on ..a browser?!
Ok, for you to understand better ( which I have no idea how you don't get it since .. I know you know some things related to tech ) , I am going to say that this will work like .. giving you Remote Access to my computer, and then you will be able to play whatever you want from it, with my current hardware. The only think you'll need , will be a mouse and a keyboard ( and a sound card if you want to hear things ). Oh, and a good internet connection since this exemple is based solely on Remote Desktop thing which has nothing to do with gaming. But .. is a good exemple for you to understand.
You will basically have access to some short of a "computer" at their data center.
So, whoever sees this is as a bad thing or one which can't evolve because "internet limitation", I say you are wrong. Me and many others, of course. Please google 5G internet speed for exemple, and see what kind of internet speed we will have on our phones ( which I think many will switch from their traditional internet provider, over Mobile Hot Spot connection ). Here, let me add this if you are to lazy : 5G Network 1-10Gbps or higher. Yes, that's Gbps and there are also reports that they achieved in testing even 20Gbps. So .. "internet limitation" or "my wifi can't handle this" will be history soon enough.
Wireless will never offer more bandwidth or more reliably than wired. There will always be physical advantages to just running a wire (or possibly several wires), and the only question is just how large that advantage will be.
5G will be a major advance over 4G as wireless Internet connections go. But if the problem is that wired isn't good enough, either, then 5G isn't going to help you.
Also, it's important to be aware that bandwidth available is per base station, not per user. You can get a lot of bandwidth if you only have one person connecting to a base station, but that's not going to be the typical use case. That would be far too expensive. And as more 5G infrastructure gets built out and you start getting more interference from neighboring base stations, the amount of bandwidth available per base station is likely to go down as compared to what you can do in pristine lab conditions.
You got me until "...will never offer". Really? A man like you I think have a bigger vision then someone who has no idea about the ..evolution. Saying Wireless will never offer more bandwidth then wired is completely wrong.
The 5GB thing was for people like you who keeps saying " .. internet limitation".
Yet again, you keep talking about today's problems. Even if you are right, which I doubt it, there will be way to much bandwidth for 5GB that even if you will run it at 500Mbps , will still be very , very powerful compared to 100Mbps which 4G currently have.
Wired network connections will get better with time, and so will wireless ones. Wired connections always have been better, and always will be if you compare them at the same time. You can get a better wireless connection today than you could wired 30 years ago. It's possible (perhaps even likely) that you'll someday be able to get a better wireless connection than you can get wired today. But by the time that happens, wired connections will have improved enough to still be better than that era's wireless.
That's why 5G doesn't help you. The need is to get a good enough wired connection. Once wired is plenty good enough for some threshold, then wireless could eventually be good enough sometime after that. But whatever your threshold is, wired will get there first.
For what it's worth, one of the key ways that 4G and now 5G increased bandwidth is to make the connection more wired than before. More specifically, they build more base stations that each cover smaller areas so that the wireless hop to get to you is much shorter than before. Most of the network is wired, and it's only the small section at the end that is wireless.
Peak throughput isn't the problem. If you need to do a quick download on a 4G connection, and conditions are right to let you do it at 100 Mbps, it works. If you try to use that 100 Mbps of bandwidth for several hours per day every day so that you're now using several TB of bandwidth per month, then your carrier will step in to stop you. If everyone tried to do that, the system would get overloaded and you wouldn't get anywhere remotely near that 100 Mbps anymore.
In principle, they could build out a system that allows an average user at an average time to be using 100 Mbps of bandwidth around the clock. Maybe someday they will. But it would cost massively more than what they have built, so expect much higher prices to compensate for that.
Also, why am I having this idea that most of you just watched this video clip and not all the presentation? Did you not seen how this also impact the developers and how they can make MULTIPLAYER games way bigger then what we have today? I though most people visiting MMORPG.COM wants LARGE worlds filled with VERY LARGE playerbase. Right? Now imagine what Stadia tech can do in this department. The possibilities are HUGE!
I'm not sure where you're getting that idea. If the problem is that modest amount of network communications to tell players what other players are doing is too hard, then requiring massive amounts of network communications to stream the entire completed frames is not going to help. That's going to hurt, and badly.
If the hope is that all inter-player communications can be within a data center so that streaming the games scales with linearly with the number of players in a small area rather than quadratically, then you're going to need ridiculous numbers of people in a very small area before that's a net gain. Maybe it would make it a little bit easier to have 100k person battles, if all 100k of those people live in the same city in real life. But no game has ever had the size of playerbase to be able to do that.
As a side note, the "internet limitation" thing is very wrong. You do not need large bandwidth to play on Stadia for exemple. The cloud is receiving information based on your mouse/keyboard/etc activities which means low sending and receiving data. If right now you have a spike in your internet connection then you will also have lag in playing the game ( online ). Sure, for single player games, that might be a small problem ( now ) , but on the online thing .. I think we will be very fine.
Sending keystrokes and such to the server isn't the problem. Getting the completed frame in the other direction is the problem.
Right now, the rate at which my video card has to generate frames to send to my monitors is about 51 Gbps. It might be able to compress out the alpha channel and avoid sending that (and you certainly would if sending it over the Internet), but that still leaves the rate over 38 Gbps. Even if you have some extremely lossy compression scheme to compress that by 99.9% and look terrible, an average user trying using tens of GB of data in an average day is going to be a huge problem for ISPs.
...what? Do you understand the term of "Streaming" ? Is like you are watching a movie but at the same time, be able to control the main ..hero. You are NOT getting the completed frame back in the way you want it to sound. If that was the case, then how Project Stream with Assassin's Creed was running at full HD at 60 FPS on ..a browser?!
Ok, for you to understand better ( which I have no idea how you don't get it since .. I know you know some things related to tech ) , I am going to say that this will work like .. giving you Remote Access to my computer, and then you will be able to play whatever you want from it, with my current hardware. The only think you'll need , will be a mouse and a keyboard ( and a sound card if you want to hear things ). Oh, and a good internet connection since this exemple is based solely on Remote Desktop thing which has nothing to do with gaming. But .. is a good exemple for you to understand.
You will basically have access to some short of a "computer" at their data center.
If the frame rendered on the remote server never makes it to your computer, then how did it get displayed in a browser window? If it stays on the server and never gets sent to you, you're not going to see it on your monitor.
You're not claiming that people have to physically travel to a data center in order to play games, are you?
Sounds good but we will not know if this will truly work for another 5 years. There is also a lot of challenges that need to be overcome like how to make a game that will have the Depth on a PC as on a phone. Which I hate to say it its impossible to do that, it sounds good but in truth there is no way to make a game thats going to be 10s of GB in size play well on a phone. Add to playing on a device with a 7 inch screen its not going to be the same as being on a 24 inch monitor. Its just not as much as we want to try to make it work.
So, whoever sees this is as a bad thing or one which can't evolve because "internet limitation", I say you are wrong. Me and many others, of course. Please google 5G internet speed for exemple, and see what kind of internet speed we will have on our phones ( which I think many will switch from their traditional internet provider, over Mobile Hot Spot connection ). Here, let me add this if you are to lazy : 5G Network 1-10Gbps or higher. Yes, that's Gbps and there are also reports that they achieved in testing even 20Gbps. So .. "internet limitation" or "my wifi can't handle this" will be history soon enough.
Wireless will never offer more bandwidth or more reliably than wired. There will always be physical advantages to just running a wire (or possibly several wires), and the only question is just how large that advantage will be.
5G will be a major advance over 4G as wireless Internet connections go. But if the problem is that wired isn't good enough, either, then 5G isn't going to help you.
Also, it's important to be aware that bandwidth available is per base station, not per user. You can get a lot of bandwidth if you only have one person connecting to a base station, but that's not going to be the typical use case. That would be far too expensive. And as more 5G infrastructure gets built out and you start getting more interference from neighboring base stations, the amount of bandwidth available per base station is likely to go down as compared to what you can do in pristine lab conditions.
You got me until "...will never offer". Really? A man like you I think have a bigger vision then someone who has no idea about the ..evolution. Saying Wireless will never offer more bandwidth then wired is completely wrong.
The 5GB thing was for people like you who keeps saying " .. internet limitation".
Yet again, you keep talking about today's problems. Even if you are right, which I doubt it, there will be way to much bandwidth for 5GB that even if you will run it at 500Mbps , will still be very , very powerful compared to 100Mbps which 4G currently have.
Wired network connections will get better with time, and so will wireless ones. Wired connections always have been better, and always will be if you compare them at the same time. You can get a better wireless connection today than you could wired 30 years ago. It's possible (perhaps even likely) that you'll someday be able to get a better wireless connection than you can get wired today. But by the time that happens, wired connections will have improved enough to still be better than that era's wireless.
That's why 5G doesn't help you. The need is to get a good enough wired connection. Once wired is plenty good enough for some threshold, then wireless could eventually be good enough sometime after that. But whatever your threshold is, wired will get there first.
For what it's worth, one of the key ways that 4G and now 5G increased bandwidth is to make the connection more wired than before. More specifically, they build more base stations that each cover smaller areas so that the wireless hop to get to you is much shorter than before. Most of the network is wired, and it's only the small section at the end that is wireless.
Peak throughput isn't the problem. If you need to do a quick download on a 4G connection, and conditions are right to let you do it at 100 Mbps, it works. If you try to use that 100 Mbps of bandwidth for several hours per day every day so that you're now using several TB of bandwidth per month, then your carrier will step in to stop you. If everyone tried to do that, the system would get overloaded and you wouldn't get anywhere remotely near that 100 Mbps anymore.
In principle, they could build out a system that allows an average user at an average time to be using 100 Mbps of bandwidth around the clock. Maybe someday they will. But it would cost massively more than what they have built, so expect much higher prices to compensate for that.
Forgive me if I am wrong here... but in addition to bandwidth won't we have latency issues?
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
So, whoever sees this is as a bad thing or one which can't evolve because "internet limitation", I say you are wrong. Me and many others, of course. Please google 5G internet speed for exemple, and see what kind of internet speed we will have on our phones ( which I think many will switch from their traditional internet provider, over Mobile Hot Spot connection ). Here, let me add this if you are to lazy : 5G Network 1-10Gbps or higher. Yes, that's Gbps and there are also reports that they achieved in testing even 20Gbps. So .. "internet limitation" or "my wifi can't handle this" will be history soon enough.
Wireless will never offer more bandwidth or more reliably than wired. There will always be physical advantages to just running a wire (or possibly several wires), and the only question is just how large that advantage will be.
5G will be a major advance over 4G as wireless Internet connections go. But if the problem is that wired isn't good enough, either, then 5G isn't going to help you.
Also, it's important to be aware that bandwidth available is per base station, not per user. You can get a lot of bandwidth if you only have one person connecting to a base station, but that's not going to be the typical use case. That would be far too expensive. And as more 5G infrastructure gets built out and you start getting more interference from neighboring base stations, the amount of bandwidth available per base station is likely to go down as compared to what you can do in pristine lab conditions.
You got me until "...will never offer". Really? A man like you I think have a bigger vision then someone who has no idea about the ..evolution. Saying Wireless will never offer more bandwidth then wired is completely wrong.
The 5GB thing was for people like you who keeps saying " .. internet limitation".
Yet again, you keep talking about today's problems. Even if you are right, which I doubt it, there will be way to much bandwidth for 5GB that even if you will run it at 500Mbps , will still be very , very powerful compared to 100Mbps which 4G currently have.
Wired network connections will get better with time, and so will wireless ones. Wired connections always have been better, and always will be if you compare them at the same time. You can get a better wireless connection today than you could wired 30 years ago. It's possible (perhaps even likely) that you'll someday be able to get a better wireless connection than you can get wired today. But by the time that happens, wired connections will have improved enough to still be better than that era's wireless.
That's why 5G doesn't help you. The need is to get a good enough wired connection. Once wired is plenty good enough for some threshold, then wireless could eventually be good enough sometime after that. But whatever your threshold is, wired will get there first.
For what it's worth, one of the key ways that 4G and now 5G increased bandwidth is to make the connection more wired than before. More specifically, they build more base stations that each cover smaller areas so that the wireless hop to get to you is much shorter than before. Most of the network is wired, and it's only the small section at the end that is wireless.
Peak throughput isn't the problem. If you need to do a quick download on a 4G connection, and conditions are right to let you do it at 100 Mbps, it works. If you try to use that 100 Mbps of bandwidth for several hours per day every day so that you're now using several TB of bandwidth per month, then your carrier will step in to stop you. If everyone tried to do that, the system would get overloaded and you wouldn't get anywhere remotely near that 100 Mbps anymore.
In principle, they could build out a system that allows an average user at an average time to be using 100 Mbps of bandwidth around the clock. Maybe someday they will. But it would cost massively more than what they have built, so expect much higher prices to compensate for that.
Forgive me if I am wrong here... but in addition to bandwidth won't we have latency issues?
Yep for the people who live out in areas where there is no broadband internet.
I am guessing if you don't have fiber internet with an unlimited plan you are not going to be doing this. Can't see mobile infrastructures handling this for the next 10 to 15 years at least. Hell most of the US doesn't even have access to fiber and are still using cable lines for their internet usage. Companies have already tried this in the past an they failed mostly because they were thinking to far ahead of what was technically able to be done by the masses. Think this could work in the future, but I don't really see this as something that is going to blossom until the internet infrastructure at least in this country is 1000% better than it is now.
Wired network connections will get better with time, and so will wireless ones. Wired connections always have been better, and always will be if you compare them at the same time. You can get a better wireless connection today than you could wired 30 years ago. It's possible (perhaps even likely) that you'll someday be able to get a better wireless connection than you can get wired today. But by the time that happens, wired connections will have improved enough to still be better than that era's wireless.
That's why 5G doesn't help you. The need is to get a good enough wired connection. Once wired is plenty good enough for some threshold, then wireless could eventually be good enough sometime after that. But whatever your threshold is, wired will get there first.
For what it's worth, one of the key ways that 4G and now 5G increased bandwidth is to make the connection more wired than before. More specifically, they build more base stations that each cover smaller areas so that the wireless hop to get to you is much shorter than before. Most of the network is wired, and it's only the small section at the end that is wireless.
Peak throughput isn't the problem. If you need to do a quick download on a 4G connection, and conditions are right to let you do it at 100 Mbps, it works. If you try to use that 100 Mbps of bandwidth for several hours per day every day so that you're now using several TB of bandwidth per month, then your carrier will step in to stop you. If everyone tried to do that, the system would get overloaded and you wouldn't get anywhere remotely near that 100 Mbps anymore.
In principle, they could build out a system that allows an average user at an average time to be using 100 Mbps of bandwidth around the clock. Maybe someday they will. But it would cost massively more than what they have built, so expect much higher prices to compensate for that.
The problem with "wired connections" is that no one will use it in the near future ( customers, not companies ). That's why I said Wireless will offer the same bandwidth as a wired connection at some point ( again, from customers point of view ). I was not argued that Wireless will be better then Wire in every shape or form ( or who knows? )
...what? Do you understand the term of "Streaming" ? Is like you are watching a movie but at the same time, be able to control the main ..hero. You are NOT getting the completed frame back in the way you want it to sound. If that was the case, then how Project Stream with Assassin's Creed was running at full HD at 60 FPS on ..a browser?!
Ok, for you to understand better ( which I have no idea how you don't get it since .. I know you know some things related to tech ) , I am going to say that this will work like .. giving you Remote Access to my computer, and then you will be able to play whatever you want from it, with my current hardware. The only think you'll need , will be a mouse and a keyboard ( and a sound card if you want to hear things ). Oh, and a good internet connection since this exemple is based solely on Remote Desktop thing which has nothing to do with gaming. But .. is a good exemple for you to understand.
You will basically have access to some short of a "computer" at their data center.
If the frame rendered on the remote server never makes it to your computer, then how did it get displayed in a browser window? If it stays on the server and never gets sent to you, you're not going to see it on your monitor.
You're not claiming that people have to physically travel to a data center in order to play games, are you?
/facepalm
What part from my exemple you did not understood ?! I said you do not get the completed frame back in the way you want it to sound. All you will receive will be an image/video, just like you are watching a movie online. Or better, just like you are watching a YouTube Video. Yup, that's the correct thing. It looks like a YouTube Video. There you go!
So, if your hardware , be it computer, laptop, phone, tablet, etc can handle a YouTube Video at 1080p, then you will be ready to go. Having bad internet? Then you will buffering just like you are buffering while watching a YouTube video. Yes, is that simple. There is nothing else involved. It ignores your awesome video card and how many frames can send to your monitor, or whatever else "problem" you've wrote in this topic.
"That’s the idea of Google’s cloud gaming service, Stadia. From Chrome tab to 4K, 60fps game, in five seconds. No installation. Google promises that Google Stadia's cloud computing power is the equivalent of a console running at 10.7 GPU terraflops, that's more than the PS4 Pro and Xbox One X combined. If Google delivers on this promise, then it could be a game-changer."
As I said, basically you are connected on their .. "computer" and comes back to you as a ..YouTube Video!
The only thing that worries me - it's Google. They've started and abandoned more projects that I can even remember.
Might be all the rage for a while - and then after a year - "we are shutting down this product - thanks for your support".
google in a nutshell.
Fair point … if this was some other Project like ..Hangouts or Plus. This time, the CEO was there, some important companies in the gaming industry, and let's not forget that they will release this year. Plus, they opened a company which will create games.
"This generation of gaming is not a box," said the Google guy.
Because it's actually a series of tubes. Ted Stevens was right.
But it's a bunch of boxes (servers) that are running everything.
Also the fucking CLOUD - never have I hated the term more - it's just a bunch of datacenters that are connected with high speed links that you don't own.
Hey lets put this app up in the datacenter that's run by Amazon - management - "no lets put it in the cloud" - /facepalm
In the end there's always a box (server) that's involved still - you can get rid of one box - but never the other.
You two are against evolution I assume. Seems you are living in the past. Do you know how people who will grow up with this technology will call you? Well .. take a wild guess
The only thing that worries me - it's Google. They've started and abandoned more projects that I can even remember.
Might be all the rage for a while - and then after a year - "we are shutting down this product - thanks for your support".
google in a nutshell.
Fair point … if this was some other Project like ..Hangouts or Plus. This time, the CEO was there, some important companies in the gaming industry, and let's not forget that they will release this year. Plus, they opened a company which will create games.
So...it's pretty much safe to say that we good.
Amazon's game studio was formed in 2012. How did all the games they launched since then turn out? Which ones are your personal favorites?
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
The only thing that worries me - it's Google. They've started and abandoned more projects that I can even remember.
Might be all the rage for a while - and then after a year - "we are shutting down this product - thanks for your support".
google in a nutshell.
Fair point … if this was some other Project like ..Hangouts or Plus. This time, the CEO was there, some important companies in the gaming industry, and let's not forget that they will release this year. Plus, they opened a company which will create games.
So...it's pretty much safe to say that we good.
Amazon's game studio was formed in 2012. How did all the games they launched since then turn out? Which ones are your personal favorites?
Whether people like it or not, this is the future of gaming period. Once it gets perfected and the quality is there, then it will take over whether its Google or another company very similar to what Netflix did to blockbuster.
How do you perfect latency?
1ms latency for every 100miles of fiber is the best we can do - there's nothing that's even suggesting that this will change within our lifetime.
Add about 20ms of latency for last mile due to crappy oversubscribed ways of ISPs delivering internet into the neighborhoods and you are looking at 40+ms latency from like Dallas TX to Houston TX - when the fiber latency is 3ms between the 2.
Latency is what's holding any cloud gaming service back - might be fine for slower paced or turned based games.
But super latency sensitive games like Fortnite, Apex Legends etc... a big no
What will be the difference here? I am seriously asking this question.
If my current latency/ping to Apex servers is say .. 60ms and if Google Nodes are very close to the Apex servers , what will be the difference?
The only thing that worries me - it's Google. They've started and abandoned more projects that I can even remember.
Might be all the rage for a while - and then after a year - "we are shutting down this product - thanks for your support".
google in a nutshell.
Fair point … if this was some other Project like ..Hangouts or Plus. This time, the CEO was there, some important companies in the gaming industry, and let's not forget that they will release this year. Plus, they opened a company which will create games.
So...it's pretty much safe to say that we good.
Amazon's game studio was formed in 2012. How did all the games they launched since then turn out? Which ones are your personal favorites?
Apples and Oranges ? So you took a point I said, that they opened a gaming company and you throw it up with a very different exemple/situation?
The only thing that worries me - it's Google. They've started and abandoned more projects that I can even remember.
Might be all the rage for a while - and then after a year - "we are shutting down this product - thanks for your support".
google in a nutshell.
Fair point … if this was some other Project like ..Hangouts or Plus. This time, the CEO was there, some important companies in the gaming industry, and let's not forget that they will release this year. Plus, they opened a company which will create games.
So...it's pretty much safe to say that we good.
Amazon's game studio was formed in 2012. How did all the games they launched since then turn out? Which ones are your personal favorites?
Apple and Oranges ? So you took a point I said, that they opened a gaming company and you throw it up with a very different exemple/situation?
Nice logic there.
No. You used their opening of a company to produce games as some sort of evidence that this was an uncancellable project. I pointed out that an even BIGGER company launched a game studio almost 7 years ago with little to show for it today.
If you think because "the CEO was there" has any bearing at all on whether Google would shut it down in a few years YOU are the one that needs to rethink their logic.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
The same thing will happen to gaming. Once you can play high quality streaming without having to pay 1400 euro on a videocard or 600 for a new console, no one is going to do that. Of course the quality isn't there. Yet. But when it is, it will blow everything away.
I'll happily keep paying my hard earned money for those products, do you know why? because i own everything i pay for. Cloud/Stream gaming is just a glorified renting service, you stop paying you lose access, and if the service dies then you wasted your money. Not the way i'll be spending my money.
It is certainly an option for those who prefer that. I simply don't.
The only games i don't own are mmorpgs that run on the publishers servers. The 99% remaining games in my library are owned by this guy right here and can be fully played with no internet.
The only thing that worries me - it's Google. They've started and abandoned more projects that I can even remember.
Might be all the rage for a while - and then after a year - "we are shutting down this product - thanks for your support".
google in a nutshell.
Fair point … if this was some other Project like ..Hangouts or Plus. This time, the CEO was there, some important companies in the gaming industry, and let's not forget that they will release this year. Plus, they opened a company which will create games.
So...it's pretty much safe to say that we good.
Amazon's game studio was formed in 2012. How did all the games they launched since then turn out? Which ones are your personal favorites?
Apple and Oranges ? So you took a point I said, that they opened a gaming company and you throw it up with a very different exemple/situation?
Nice logic there.
No. You used their opening of a company to produce games as some sort of evidence that this was an uncancellable project. I pointed out that an even BIGGER company launched a game studio almost 7 years ago with little to show for it today.
If you think because "the CEO was there" has any bearing at all on whether Google would shut it down in a few years YOU are the one that needs to rethink their logic.
They opened a gaming company to produce games FOR Stadia! I though you watched the stream. My bad you didn't.
You are delusional to believe that this is yet other "google hangsout" type of product.
This is the first time google is taking it into the gaming market. I won't rethink anything, but seems you guys didn't even watched the stream, let alone knowing exactly what this is all about. I mean I argued with "the best" of mmorpg.com guru and I tried to explain to the poor guy, that user hardware has nothing do with Stadia. In the end, it seems he understands now since he didn't answered back.
Is ok, I'm sure you were also the ones who screamed back in the days that Downloadable games will not be a thing, because what's more awesomeness then owning a physical CD, right?
Whether people like it or not, this is the future of gaming period. Once it gets perfected and the quality is there, then it will take over whether its Google or another company very similar to what Netflix did to blockbuster.
How do you perfect latency?
1ms latency for every 100miles of fiber is the best we can do - there's nothing that's even suggesting that this will change within our lifetime.
Add about 20ms of latency for last mile due to crappy oversubscribed ways of ISPs delivering internet into the neighborhoods and you are looking at 40+ms latency from like Dallas TX to Houston TX - when the fiber latency is 3ms between the 2.
Latency is what's holding any cloud gaming service back - might be fine for slower paced or turned based games.
But super latency sensitive games like Fortnite, Apex Legends etc... a big no
What will be the difference here? I am seriously asking this question.
If my current latency/ping to Apex servers is say .. 60ms and if Google Nodes are very close to the Apex servers , what will be the difference?
The difference is that Google wont be hosting Apex servers, so you will have to connect to Google which will then connect to EA servers which will connect back to Google and then to your end device.
We dont even know if Google will stream games hosted by other companies - but that's how it would work.
Unless EA hosted serves on Google Cloud and then you would be able to connect to those directly
Yes, but I was saying if their NODs will be very close to the Apex servers, then the ping will (almost) be the same.
Anyway , I agree that sometimes, or for some games, ping/latency will play a big role at the beginning. Hopefully, Google infrastructure, will get better and better.
The same thing will happen to gaming. Once you can play high quality streaming without having to pay 1400 euro on a videocard or 600 for a new console, no one is going to do that. Of course the quality isn't there. Yet. But when it is, it will blow everything away.
I'll happily keep paying my hard earned money for those products, do you know why? because i own everything i pay for. Cloud/Stream gaming is just a glorified renting service, you stop paying you lose access, and if the service dies then you wasted your money. Not the way i'll be spending my money.
It is certainly an option for those who prefer that. I simply don't.
The only games i don't own are mmorpgs that run on the publishers servers. The 99% remaining games in my library are owned by this guy right here and can be fully played with no internet.
If you are not talking about physical games you want to own, then you might want to re-think about Stadia.
It seems it will be more of a..Steam type of service when it comes to games you own, and that's a good thing.
When players use Stadia, they'll be able to access their games at all times, and on virtually any screen.
So .. I think there will be no fees to access Stadia, but rather it will be a free Could/Stream Gaming, where you play the games you buy from "Stadia Gaming Store".
Now, if this means it will be a Steam like service when it comes to games you own, then is safe to say that Steam will have serious competition starting later this year.
And competition is always a good think!
Now, there is also the problem you said about "...with no internet" , of which .. this might be the downside of Stadia for some users.
Anyway, just out of curiosity , how many games have you played in the past few months, where it does not requires an internet connection? And also, how many times have you played an "offline" game where you did not had an active internet connection?
For me, almost all my games requires an internet connection since I mostly play MMO's, Apex Legends, Hearthstone, etc. Even when I do play games which does not requires an internet connection, I am still connected to the internet So for me, is no biggy.
The only thing that worries me - it's Google. They've started and abandoned more projects that I can even remember.
Might be all the rage for a while - and then after a year - "we are shutting down this product - thanks for your support".
google in a nutshell.
Fair point … if this was some other Project like ..Hangouts or Plus. This time, the CEO was there, some important companies in the gaming industry, and let's not forget that they will release this year. Plus, they opened a company which will create games.
So...it's pretty much safe to say that we good.
Amazon's game studio was formed in 2012. How did all the games they launched since then turn out? Which ones are your personal favorites?
Apple and Oranges ? So you took a point I said, that they opened a gaming company and you throw it up with a very different exemple/situation?
Nice logic there.
No. You used their opening of a company to produce games as some sort of evidence that this was an uncancellable project. I pointed out that an even BIGGER company launched a game studio almost 7 years ago with little to show for it today.
If you think because "the CEO was there" has any bearing at all on whether Google would shut it down in a few years YOU are the one that needs to rethink their logic.
They opened a gaming company to produce games FOR Stadia! I though you watched the stream. My bad you didn't.
You are delusional to believe that this is yet other "google hangsout" type of product.
This is the first time google is taking it into the gaming market. I won't rethink anything, but seems you guys didn't even watched the stream, let alone knowing exactly what this is all about. I mean I argued with "the best" of mmorpg.com guru and I tried to explain to the poor guy, that user hardware has nothing do with Stadia. In the end, it seems he understands now since he didn't answered back.
Is ok, I'm sure you were also the ones who screamed back in the days that Downloadable games will not be a thing, because what's more awesomeness then owning a physical CD, right?
Nobody said it IS a Google hangout version 2. What people have said is that Google has a history of loud and promising launch events with little to show for it years later. (What’s the penetration of Google fiber? How many units of Google Glass have sold?)
What you literally said was that we shouldn’t worry about that because “ the CEO was there”. I’ll just leave that hanging there again for everyone to see when evaluating your statements.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
Guys, they don't care about your latency, or opinions on their game studios.
Google Cloud Platform, Amazon AWS, Microsoft Azure. Talk about those.
Open up your search engine and look up Web Assembly and Unreal Engine tech demo.
Look up what Parsec was doing years ago, and imagine that on gamma rays + CDNs and all the caching, microservice, technology that has come about since.
My money is on the corporations who literally took their hardware and technology and rammed them up our collective bottoms. They're all marching together on this direction.
Don't talk about OnLive, don't talk about pressing jump in a video game and it showing half a second later.
Most of y'all have 144hz 4K HDR OLED TVs and don't even know what content is being served by any of the providers.
"As far as the forum code of conduct, I would think it's a bit outdated and in need of a refre *CLOSED*"
The only thing that worries me - it's Google. They've started and abandoned more projects that I can even remember.
Might be all the rage for a while - and then after a year - "we are shutting down this product - thanks for your support".
google in a nutshell.
Fair point … if this was some other Project like ..Hangouts or Plus. This time, the CEO was there, some important companies in the gaming industry, and let's not forget that they will release this year. Plus, they opened a company which will create games.
So...it's pretty much safe to say that we good.
Amazon's game studio was formed in 2012. How did all the games they launched since then turn out? Which ones are your personal favorites?
Apple and Oranges ? So you took a point I said, that they opened a gaming company and you throw it up with a very different exemple/situation?
Nice logic there.
No. You used their opening of a company to produce games as some sort of evidence that this was an uncancellable project. I pointed out that an even BIGGER company launched a game studio almost 7 years ago with little to show for it today.
If you think because "the CEO was there" has any bearing at all on whether Google would shut it down in a few years YOU are the one that needs to rethink their logic.
They opened a gaming company to produce games FOR Stadia! I though you watched the stream. My bad you didn't.
You are delusional to believe that this is yet other "google hangsout" type of product.
This is the first time google is taking it into the gaming market. I won't rethink anything, but seems you guys didn't even watched the stream, let alone knowing exactly what this is all about. I mean I argued with "the best" of mmorpg.com guru and I tried to explain to the poor guy, that user hardware has nothing do with Stadia. In the end, it seems he understands now since he didn't answered back.
Is ok, I'm sure you were also the ones who screamed back in the days that Downloadable games will not be a thing, because what's more awesomeness then owning a physical CD, right?
Nobody said it IS a Google hangout version 2. What people have said is that Google has a history of loud and promising launch events with little to show for it years later. (What’s the penetration of Google fiber? How many units of Google Glass have sold?)
What you literally said was that we shouldn’t worry about that because “ the CEO was there”. I’ll just leave that hanging there again for everyone to see when evaluating your statements.
How many of those had this kind of a presentation?! Google Glass was from the beginning a "test" of google. It had no market, and it was more of "let's see how this new thing will go". Comparing Google Glass with Stadia , is again, Apples and Oranges. Also , it seems Google Glass is still a thing for companies https://www.x.company/glass/ . So .. I don't know how many they sold, but .. they did sold.
Now, Google Fiber, again .. is a very , very different thing then Stadia ( and Gaming Industry ). And also, last time I check, is still a thing and they have subscribers. Amazing, right?!
And no, I said that THIS time, beside this big presentation and the other gaming companies and people who took the stage, we also had the CEO. I am sure you didn't watched the Live Stream to see how far they are in this process. They would be so so crazy, to invest so much money into this, just to "see how things work".
Comments
Right now, the rate at which my video card has to generate frames to send to my monitors is about 51 Gbps. It might be able to compress out the alpha channel and avoid sending that (and you certainly would if sending it over the Internet), but that still leaves the rate over 38 Gbps. Even if you have some extremely lossy compression scheme to compress that by 99.9% and look terrible, an average user trying using tens of GB of data in an average day is going to be a huge problem for ISPs.
Above is just a way to say the things. The reality is simple. Most things (software related) are online now, like it or not, and games are no exception. I truly understand people who wishes to own a copy of said game, but guess what? They can still do that.
Same with Stadia. You will still be able to buy games ( even physical ones ) , and play on your OWN desktop/console/etc . Is true that you will be in a minority , but you would still be able to do that.
But then again, I read some of your..sceptical messages on this topic, and you make no sense. Your opinions against this, is ...limited. In fact you are limited in .. thinking bigger ( on this subject ). You see the ..problems as of today, which is very wrong. I'm sure Google ( and not only ), knows better then you know!
Did you hear how big 5G will be ? If yes, then most of "your problems", will be gone soon enough.
The 5GB thing was for people like you who keeps saying " .. internet limitation".
Yet again, you keep talking about today's problems. Even if you are right, which I doubt it, there will be way to much bandwidth for 5G that even if you will run it at 500Mbps , will still be very , very powerful compared to 100Mbps which 4G currently have.
...what? Do you understand the term of "Streaming" ? Is like you are watching a movie but at the same time, be able to control the main ..hero. You are NOT getting the completed frame back in the way you want it to sound. If that was the case, then how Project Stream with Assassin's Creed was running at full HD at 60 FPS on ..a browser?!
Ok, for you to understand better ( which I have no idea how you don't get it since .. I know you know some things related to tech ) , I am going to say that this will work like .. giving you Remote Access to my computer, and then you will be able to play whatever you want from it, with my current hardware. The only think you'll need , will be a mouse and a keyboard ( and a sound card if you want to hear things ). Oh, and a good internet connection since this exemple is based solely on Remote Desktop thing which has nothing to do with gaming. But .. is a good exemple for you to understand.
You will basically have access to some short of a "computer" at their data center.
Here :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUih5C5rOrA&feature=youtu.be&t=2337
Enjoy!
That's why 5G doesn't help you. The need is to get a good enough wired connection. Once wired is plenty good enough for some threshold, then wireless could eventually be good enough sometime after that. But whatever your threshold is, wired will get there first.
For what it's worth, one of the key ways that 4G and now 5G increased bandwidth is to make the connection more wired than before. More specifically, they build more base stations that each cover smaller areas so that the wireless hop to get to you is much shorter than before. Most of the network is wired, and it's only the small section at the end that is wireless.
Peak throughput isn't the problem. If you need to do a quick download on a 4G connection, and conditions are right to let you do it at 100 Mbps, it works. If you try to use that 100 Mbps of bandwidth for several hours per day every day so that you're now using several TB of bandwidth per month, then your carrier will step in to stop you. If everyone tried to do that, the system would get overloaded and you wouldn't get anywhere remotely near that 100 Mbps anymore.
In principle, they could build out a system that allows an average user at an average time to be using 100 Mbps of bandwidth around the clock. Maybe someday they will. But it would cost massively more than what they have built, so expect much higher prices to compensate for that.
You're not claiming that people have to physically travel to a data center in order to play games, are you?
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
/facepalm
What part from my exemple you did not understood ?! I said you do not get the completed frame back in the way you want it to sound. All you will receive will be an image/video, just like you are watching a movie online. Or better, just like you are watching a YouTube Video. Yup, that's the correct thing. It looks like a YouTube Video. There you go!
So, if your hardware , be it computer, laptop, phone, tablet, etc can handle a YouTube Video at 1080p, then you will be ready to go. Having bad internet? Then you will buffering just like you are buffering while watching a YouTube video. Yes, is that simple. There is nothing else involved. It ignores your awesome video card and how many frames can send to your monitor, or whatever else "problem" you've wrote in this topic.
"That’s the idea of Google’s cloud gaming service, Stadia. From Chrome tab to 4K, 60fps game, in five seconds. No installation. Google promises that Google Stadia's cloud computing power is the equivalent of a console running at 10.7 GPU terraflops, that's more than the PS4 Pro and Xbox One X combined. If Google delivers on this promise, then it could be a game-changer."
As I said, basically you are connected on their .. "computer" and comes back to you as a ..YouTube Video!
So...it's pretty much safe to say that we good.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
If my current latency/ping to Apex servers is say .. 60ms and if Google Nodes are very close to the Apex servers , what will be the difference?
Apples and Oranges ? So you took a point I said, that they opened a gaming company and you throw it up with a very different exemple/situation?
Nice logic there.
If you think because "the CEO was there" has any bearing at all on whether Google would shut it down in a few years YOU are the one that needs to rethink their logic.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
It is certainly an option for those who prefer that. I simply don't.
The only games i don't own are mmorpgs that run on the publishers servers. The 99% remaining games in my library are owned by this guy right here and can be fully played with no internet.
You are delusional to believe that this is yet other "google hangsout" type of product.
This is the first time google is taking it into the gaming market. I won't rethink anything, but seems you guys didn't even watched the stream, let alone knowing exactly what this is all about. I mean I argued with "the best" of mmorpg.com guru and I tried to explain to the poor guy, that user hardware has nothing do with Stadia. In the end, it seems he understands now since he didn't answered back.
Is ok, I'm sure you were also the ones who screamed back in the days that Downloadable games will not be a thing, because what's more awesomeness then owning a physical CD, right?
Yes, but I was saying if their NODs will be very close to the Apex servers, then the ping will (almost) be the same.
Anyway , I agree that sometimes, or for some games, ping/latency will play a big role at the beginning. Hopefully, Google infrastructure, will get better and better.
It seems it will be more of a..Steam type of service when it comes to games you own, and that's a good thing.
When players use Stadia, they'll be able to access their games at all times, and on virtually any screen.
Based on the above quote, which they wrote on their blog, especially "...their games", it seems you have to buy the game in order to be able to play it on Stadia. https://www.blog.google/products/stadia/stadia-a-new-way-to-play/
So .. I think there will be no fees to access Stadia, but rather it will be a free Could/Stream Gaming, where you play the games you buy from "Stadia Gaming Store".
Now, if this means it will be a Steam like service when it comes to games you own, then is safe to say that Steam will have serious competition starting later this year.
And competition is always a good think!
Now, there is also the problem you said about "...with no internet" , of which .. this might be the downside of Stadia for some users.
Anyway, just out of curiosity , how many games have you played in the past few months, where it does not requires an internet connection? And also, how many times have you played an "offline" game where you did not had an active internet connection?
For me, almost all my games requires an internet connection since I mostly play MMO's, Apex Legends, Hearthstone, etc. Even when I do play games which does not requires an internet connection, I am still connected to the internet
What you literally said was that we shouldn’t worry about that because “ the CEO was there”. I’ll just leave that hanging there again for everyone to see when evaluating your statements.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Now, Google Fiber, again .. is a very , very different thing then Stadia ( and Gaming Industry ). And also, last time I check, is still a thing and they have subscribers. Amazing, right?!
And no, I said that THIS time, beside this big presentation and the other gaming companies and people who took the stage, we also had the CEO. I am sure you didn't watched the Live Stream to see how far they are in this process. They would be so so crazy, to invest so much money into this, just to "see how things work".