Really feel sad about recent prevailing sentiment across HN. Some comments seem to suggest Google needs to provide the following for this kind of "tech test":
* Available for all browsers and comply all web standards.
* Available for all languages across all regions, with accessibility features.
* Promise not to "launch and shutdown in a few years".
* Imply a real future product.
But I'm guessing what Google wants to do is to just prove if "game streaming" is technically / financially viable for mass crowds based on their technology in hand. If not, maybe shelf and wait for a couple of years without dumping a lot of resources and drawing bad sentiment.
What requirements are you thinking which should be applied to such a "tech test"?
They can do whatever they want; I signed up for the trial, but bullet points 3 and 4 are why I would be extremely hesitant to pay a dime for it today.
In contrast, I made a Steam account back in 2003, right when they launched. In college and grad school, I fell out of gaming, but when I came back in around 2012 with a brand new computer, all my old games were still available in my account, ready to be downloaded.
This seems to be a test that may turn into a future cloud product? Google has a lot of Pops which provide great latency for users, If they start filling these pops with gpus so that companies like ubisoft or epic or $gamecompany can pay for the infrastructure and let users pay them a subscription and then I don't have to drop 500+ dollars every year to stay relevant with AAA titles, maybe it all works out?
I'd like to see a contingency in the agreement that allows one to download the games you own if they shut down the service. Would have been nice if OnLive had done that.
These are the sorts of projects that make sense to me for Google to be playing around with. Namely, they are highly experimental and pushing what might even be possible, but have the potential to (especially if Google shows success) suddenly boom into a large market since games have a high demand.
It also makes sense for Google to push for this sort of usage since it's more data going through pipes. Data they can analyze in some way, make money, etc.
The Google projects that make less sense to me are projects that are largely about data retention, long term stability, and are generally considered solved problems. I.e. email and office suites.
I know where you are coming from, and I am sympathetic to Googlers who just want to do a quick test.
But "Google" means something specific in regards to quality for Billions of people, and you start to have a responsibility to the brand regarding dependability at some point if you want to do things under the Google Banner.
But it's so easy to give these projects their own name, branding, and websites while they are in this tech test phase. If they hit on something great, then they should absolutely fold it in with the rest of the G Suite, but until they know why not sell to people with out the Google connection to see how it does?
Have you checked out my company https://parsecgaming.com? We offer this but also the ability to connect to your own computer and invite your friends to connect to your computer too.
I think you're being down-voted because the comment is kind of advertise-y (maybe that'll be different in an hour).
Since it is your company, do you have any insight into potential challenges that the average reader wouldn't consider? I understand that a benefit to "game streaming" is that a game originally not networked (like splitscreen only) can be played by multiple people over a streamed connection.
I used Parsec for the first time maybe a week ago and I was really impressed by the site and software. It worked exactly for what I needed it for and was one of the easiest signup and setup processes I've seen.
It was all-in-all easy, fast, and worked which is becoming more and more rare imo.
I've used various game streaming services and have found parsec[0] to be the best in this domain. Their service prioritizes latency above all else and it performs well though there's alot of artifacts. It runs on top of amazon services so server placement is a non issue.
Correct me if I'm wrong but these services are quite different no?
The idea of Parsec is that a machine you own is rendering and uploading a game that you also own. Google seems to be playing around with the idea of games as a service, where they render a game you don't own on a machine you don't own, and let you play it for presumably a monthly subscription.
The biggest bottle-neck to any game streaming service is latency and I've some major doubts that they're going to be able to resolve it unless the client is located really close-by to servers. I messed around with Steam InHome Streaming, Xbox Streaming and PS RmotePly a bunch from work where we have the same ISP as I do at home. The speed between the two is around 6-700mbit and yet the added latency can still be felt and I don't live very far from work.
From my own experience the extra delay can be tolerable in a few game genres, especially on console-optimised games where, to my knowledge, developers optimise controls for higher latency due to a possibility of a slower tv. Obviously PC FPSes and the like suffer the worst. It does work really well on the same LAN, though: I decided to use a tiny SteamLink for my living room gaming needs instead of messing around with long HDMI cables and the added fiddliness of having to directly use the desktop launch games.
I wouldn't really sign up and pay for a service operated by Google, tho.
By the way, while a future affordable game streaming service that works well might lower the bar of entry to the hobby, I have a serious fear of such a thing enabling the worst parts of the video game industry to take over. The software-as-a-service model and renouncing the last vestiges of actually owning a copy of a game seems like a terribly tempting way to turn the entire industry off of actual creativity and onto even more "whale-chasing".
Looks like there is an older article but it didn't float as quickly as this one [0]. This is a direct link to the signup page [1], and this is a link to the about page [2].
AFAIK Ubisoft was already planning to stream AC: Origins to the Nintendo Switch in Japan (it's not coming to the Switch outside of Japan, I think). I wonder if they'll sell it on cartridge; that'll have to be one of the first games where the publisher can turn off the server and you now have a cartridge that doesn't do anything.
I don't see problems here. It's a tech pilot, not a product. The goal is to prove it viable, maybe the team size is even small. Spending much time on browser compability too early may not be that wise if they just need hundreds or thousands of testers.
This is literally testing streaming to Chrome. I'm guessing that optimizing this required some serious client side support, so it would make sense why it would only work for Chrome. That being said if it takes off, I can easily other browsers supporting a standard.
Seems similar to me, I've been exclusively using geforce now for the past 6 months. Works extremely well if you're just a casual gamer with no dedicated gaming computer (I'm playing on my Mac). I'm curious to see how it stacks up against it and what the price of it would be
The big challenge here isn't the tech side, it's getting the games that people want to play. Many, many companies fail to compete with the likes of Steam for instance because they can't attract enough interest from developers and publishers, meaning their libraries are lacking.
Google partnering with Ubisoft is promising here, but the question will be whether they could get the likes of Activision, EA, Square Enix, Capcom, Konami, Take Two, etc to work with this service as well. If they can't, they'll end up with the streaming equivalent of Origin or what not, while whoever does get everyone on board will take the market.
HN loves to point fingers when company stands still. Heck, we made a teaching moment out of Kodak and others who failed to innovate and relied too much on their cashcows.
On the other hand, we proclaim nice-sounding ideas such as being aware of sunk cost fallacy and how everybody should say no more. We talk about being data-driven and dont go by what gut says. Beware of the vocal minority. Dont be afraid to pivot or let go. We tell others dont wait for your products to be perfect to launch. Get it out there, test the market and iterate.
HN has their biases (I can build that in a weekend!) but the recent discourse of "OMG! they are going to desecrate it" is very silly.
Google's promotion and incentive structure is built around launching products. This will launch, putter along for a couple of years and then get shuttered unless it's a surprise success.
Because if your connectivity and their servers are able to handle the load, this reduces the need for a gaming PC for a lot of people which in turn makes Android and ChromeOS very attractive. Or, promising the ability to play it within Chrome the browser regardless of platform, this would be the dream of games being truly cross platform. Pay for it on PC, play it on an Android device? Awesome. Release Chrome for PS4 and/or Xbox One and that same game works there? Very, very nice.
Admittedly, there are other people in this space, but I figure they'd find a way to make the incentives pretty hard to pass up.
I hate that Google can pour money from its infinite ad revenue into other things and beat out competitors by virtue of being able to sustainably run unsustainable (for others) businesses.
EDIT:
For people who are interested in this, I would recommend studying the history of AT&T, especially the 1956 consent decree.
In the old days, Google would have bought an existing player and scale it. Now seeing Google bootstrap this kind of mainstream business seems awkward. Also I personably am very doubtful of any new app/service that Google releases.
Google has always bootstrapped services, especially stuff from their 20%-time program. Orkut, Google Lively, Google Video, Wave, Google Offers, Google Health, and on and on.
I think there's something to be said for choosing an obvious and informative name such as "Project Stream" over a flashier but non-intuitive name.
Also, at least for now it really isn't a finished product. Perhaps they'll re-brand if the test pans out and they actually start selling a service, or maybe they'll just keep the moniker like Project Fi has.
[+] [-] azurezyq|7 years ago|reply
* Available for all browsers and comply all web standards.
* Available for all languages across all regions, with accessibility features.
* Promise not to "launch and shutdown in a few years".
* Imply a real future product.
But I'm guessing what Google wants to do is to just prove if "game streaming" is technically / financially viable for mass crowds based on their technology in hand. If not, maybe shelf and wait for a couple of years without dumping a lot of resources and drawing bad sentiment.
What requirements are you thinking which should be applied to such a "tech test"?
[+] [-] throwaway080383|7 years ago|reply
In contrast, I made a Steam account back in 2003, right when they launched. In college and grad school, I fell out of gaming, but when I came back in around 2012 with a brand new computer, all my old games were still available in my account, ready to be downloaded.
[+] [-] tweenagedream|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] org3432|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] epicide|7 years ago|reply
It also makes sense for Google to push for this sort of usage since it's more data going through pipes. Data they can analyze in some way, make money, etc.
The Google projects that make less sense to me are projects that are largely about data retention, long term stability, and are generally considered solved problems. I.e. email and office suites.
[+] [-] unknown|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] ghostbrainalpha|7 years ago|reply
But "Google" means something specific in regards to quality for Billions of people, and you start to have a responsibility to the brand regarding dependability at some point if you want to do things under the Google Banner.
But it's so easy to give these projects their own name, branding, and websites while they are in this tech test phase. If they hit on something great, then they should absolutely fold it in with the rest of the G Suite, but until they know why not sell to people with out the Google connection to see how it does?
[+] [-] PostOnce|7 years ago|reply
And if something goes wrong, I can expect absolutely zero tech support?
And I'll lose access to all my games in 11 months when Google kills it?
And it'll post my Achievements and owned games to my Google+ account automatically and try to make it Social?
And if I get banned from the games stuff for some reason, I'll lose my other Google accounts like Gmail, since they're all linked?
With all that value-add and free extra latency, I basically HAVE TO sign up! What a deal!
[+] [-] boxerbk|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mooman219|7 years ago|reply
Since it is your company, do you have any insight into potential challenges that the average reader wouldn't consider? I understand that a benefit to "game streaming" is that a game originally not networked (like splitscreen only) can be played by multiple people over a streamed connection.
[+] [-] Tehnix|7 years ago|reply
Great job!
[+] [-] starshadowx2|7 years ago|reply
It was all-in-all easy, fast, and worked which is becoming more and more rare imo.
[+] [-] thebigspacefuck|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] JoshuaAshton|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wpdev_63|7 years ago|reply
[0]:https://parsecgaming.com/
[+] [-] bspammer|7 years ago|reply
The idea of Parsec is that a machine you own is rendering and uploading a game that you also own. Google seems to be playing around with the idea of games as a service, where they render a game you don't own on a machine you don't own, and let you play it for presumably a monthly subscription.
[+] [-] boxerbk|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] beezischillin|7 years ago|reply
From my own experience the extra delay can be tolerable in a few game genres, especially on console-optimised games where, to my knowledge, developers optimise controls for higher latency due to a possibility of a slower tv. Obviously PC FPSes and the like suffer the worst. It does work really well on the same LAN, though: I decided to use a tiny SteamLink for my living room gaming needs instead of messing around with long HDMI cables and the added fiddliness of having to directly use the desktop launch games.
I wouldn't really sign up and pay for a service operated by Google, tho.
By the way, while a future affordable game streaming service that works well might lower the bar of entry to the hobby, I have a serious fear of such a thing enabling the worst parts of the video game industry to take over. The software-as-a-service model and renouncing the last vestiges of actually owning a copy of a game seems like a terribly tempting way to turn the entire industry off of actual creativity and onto even more "whale-chasing".
[+] [-] mooman219|7 years ago|reply
[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18115445
[1]: https://projectstream.google.com/aco/signup
[2]: https://blog.google/technology/developers/pushing-limits-str...
[+] [-] phjesusthatguy3|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bunnycorn|7 years ago|reply
https://kotaku.com/in-japan-the-nintendo-switch-is-streaming...
[+] [-] grezql|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] azurezyq|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Jonnax|7 years ago|reply
Instead of ActiveX I wonder what would be an appropriate way to describe it.
[+] [-] restingrobot|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] utopcell|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] EKLM-ZK88|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jonandersense|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] merb|7 years ago|reply
it is not on liquidating (at least not yet)
[+] [-] FartyMcFarter|7 years ago|reply
OnLive came out in 2010. I assume that there has been a significant improvement in average consumer Internet connection speed in the last ~8 years.
[+] [-] CM30|7 years ago|reply
Google partnering with Ubisoft is promising here, but the question will be whether they could get the likes of Activision, EA, Square Enix, Capcom, Konami, Take Two, etc to work with this service as well. If they can't, they'll end up with the streaming equivalent of Origin or what not, while whoever does get everyone on board will take the market.
[+] [-] tedajax|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jamesgeck0|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bribri|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] desmondw|7 years ago|reply
Seriously, if what's the goal? Being a supporting network for gaming infrastructure?
[+] [-] bitpush|7 years ago|reply
HN loves to point fingers when company stands still. Heck, we made a teaching moment out of Kodak and others who failed to innovate and relied too much on their cashcows.
On the other hand, we proclaim nice-sounding ideas such as being aware of sunk cost fallacy and how everybody should say no more. We talk about being data-driven and dont go by what gut says. Beware of the vocal minority. Dont be afraid to pivot or let go. We tell others dont wait for your products to be perfect to launch. Get it out there, test the market and iterate.
HN has their biases (I can build that in a weekend!) but the recent discourse of "OMG! they are going to desecrate it" is very silly.
[+] [-] tspike|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jsgo|7 years ago|reply
Admittedly, there are other people in this space, but I figure they'd find a way to make the incentives pretty hard to pass up.
[+] [-] unknown|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] bitL|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] notjackson|7 years ago|reply
https://projectstream.google.com/aco/location
[+] [-] nikkiofearth|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] twtw|7 years ago|reply
EDIT: For people who are interested in this, I would recommend studying the history of AT&T, especially the 1956 consent decree.
[+] [-] srge|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] icebraining|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] josteink|7 years ago|reply
“Project” also make it sound like a ongoing effort of sorts, and not a (finished) product.
[+] [-] azurezyq|7 years ago|reply
The gap between a "test" and a product is huge. I don't think it's wise to dump resources into building a product based on unproven technology.
[+] [-] vatueil|7 years ago|reply
Also, at least for now it really isn't a finished product. Perhaps they'll re-brand if the test pans out and they actually start selling a service, or maybe they'll just keep the moniker like Project Fi has.
[+] [-] remir|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] concernedctzn|7 years ago|reply