Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Games IT Technology

Game Streaming's Latency Problems Will Be Over in a Few Years, CEO Says (arstechnica.com) 100

Speaking at the Goldman Sachs Communicopia conference last week, Take-Two CEO Strauss Zelnick says the rise of streaming gaming was an inevitability that was just waiting on the technology to power it at scale. While Zelnick acknowledged that the streaming game servers "have to be pretty close to where the consumer is" to address latency issues, he said there are a few large-scale companies "that have hyperscale data centers all around the world," and that infrastructure will be able to address that last remaining hurdle in a few years time. A report adds: Zelnick's comments come a few months after Ubisoft CEO Yves Guillemot suggested that streaming games will completely replace consoles after one more generation. Guillemot suggested that changeover would cause a revolution in the gaming market, which will explode in size and accessibility thanks to cheap, streaming-capable boxes delivering big-budget hits. Zelnick agreed that streaming will increase the size of the high-end, big-budget gaming market -- because "you don't need to buy a box in order to play our games" -- but stopped short of expecting a massive revolution. Even if streaming boxes end up much cheaper than current consoles and PCs for the same experience, there may not be that many additional potential players who don't currently have high-end gaming hardware. "I can't sit here and argue it will be a sea change in the business," Zelnick said of future streaming game services.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Game Streaming's Latency Problems Will Be Over in a Few Years, CEO Says

Comments Filter:
  • There's no financial incentive for ISPs to ever provide better service.

    • well want to play games then buy Comcast game line to get the best pings (free with cable tv plus or higher)

  • by Stormy Dragon ( 800799 ) on Tuesday September 18, 2018 @12:58PM (#57335452)

    Even if there's a technical solution to the problem, given the general lack of competition in the broadband internet market, what makes the author think that technology will be available to most consumers within a few years?

    e.g. In my area Verizon won't upgrade beyond 2Mpbs DSL. What makes you think they care about latency?

    • easy the FCC has decided to make there be more competition by redefining things as competition. See by re-labeling 3g-4g service as competition... now ISPs have to worry about the competition in there area, and speeds will improve and costs will lower. They just need to go further in labeling old school dialup as a broadband competitor and then we'll be all set.
      • I just saw the first Verizon 5G commercial the other day. Yeah fucking right. Not only will it be the same ok but not great service, but it will allow you to hit your data cap in 1 hour of use instead of 2.

    • It's a form of myopia most multi-millionaire CEOs in Silicon Valley seem to have.
    • It is more simpler then that. The more we have the more we will use.
      The Average Website today is Megabytes large. Because most of us have network connections in the Megabits range.
      25 years ago off a 2400 bps modem this would take hours to download.

      Back in the 2400bps or more likely the 14.4k modem days we had games that were playable that worked "online" with such speeds. Doom over Modem? Or Starcraft over Battle.net.

      However as speed increased the amount of data we can send to games increased as well, to b

      • by Rockoon ( 1252108 ) on Tuesday September 18, 2018 @03:16PM (#57336652)
        Thats a lot of writing you did about bandwidth... but the topic is latency.
        • Thats a lot of writing you did about bandwidth... but the topic is latency.

          Exactly. Latency is based on media and distance. There are few technical methods to overcome latency as much of the internet already operates near the speed of light. There is room for route optimization and through caching. But I'm guessing that the "innovation" that is being referred to is prioritizing traffic (i.e. paying more for a gaming optimized service). This, of course, would end up creating a two-tiered internet. Those with money to pay for optimized gaming service and those who can't.

    • Further than that, what about the push for higher and higher resolutions?
      Neflix 1080p encoded video is at least 3Mbps (higher recommended). What about 4k? 8k? What about other parts of the stream (e.g. locally computed updates)?

      To say "we've got it handled in a few years" is incredibly naive -- they're claiming they're going to hit a moving target. Every time we get a new technology, we find ways to push its limits, then we develop better technology, rinse, repeat.

    • what makes the author think that technology will be available to most consumers within a few years?

      What are you talking about? That technology was available to consumers years ago: http://onlive.com/ [onlive.com]

  • by HornWumpus ( 783565 ) on Tuesday September 18, 2018 @01:05PM (#57335520)

    High end gaming hardware? Consoles? Bullshit.

    Double bullshit on 'next generation' gaming hardware being 'high end'. Phones will be powerful enough for everything but VR/AR. More or less, already are.

    They are expecting to make money renting you mid priced CPU/GPUs, you will already have 'good enough' in your pocket.

    If they think the PC gamers are going to use this, they ARE crazy.

    • but "the new stuff is better"! P
    • Big snag is that this will only be economically viable for big popular games. If you want to keep playing the game that isn't popular anymore then you'll be out of luck. Modern gaming, especially console gaming, seems to be oriented towards the fashion of the month, not Indie titles. It makes money, but it's targeting maybe 85% of the market only.

  • By the time they can reliably stream HD game video at low latency, everyone will be wanting 8K-per-eye VR.

  • Usually it's gaming or pr0n that drives innovation. But in this case, where latency is the problem for streaming, it's Wall Street that is driving the tech and the improvements.

    HFT. Latency = $. It gets addressed. of course, for HFT, it's all distance, but all the other clever tricks will be deployed to stream games. And the end ISPs will be in the hot seat if they monetize specialized performance. Maybe.

    • Did you have a point or did you just want to throw out a Tropic Thunder reference?

      You bring up high frequency trading. Then you point out that, of course, "it's all distance".

      Then you go on to say "but all the other clever tricks will be deployed to stream games.". What "other clever tricks" are you referring to? You JUST said that it's, of course, all distance.

      Making sure you have a minimal number of hops and the routers/switches along the path aren't slowing you down isn't a trick or clever.
      There's no

      • Since you either have no technical background or imagination...

        First, edge servers. Akamai does this for static content (caching) and that would work for streaming. Game servers could work with this.

        And improved peer connections of course. Bypass the intermediate NAPs.

        Certainly more direct physical paths.

        I doubt better hardware would be a primary solution, but part of the mix.

        • How would caching work for LIVE GAMEPLAY? (It wouldn't.)
          If there's some static content that doesn't need intensive rendering (maybe you want to cache the menus for some stupid reason), why wouldn't you just cache them on the end user's device?

          As far as connections go, in what way is that a "clever trick"? I already mentioned taking the most direct route possible:

          Making sure you have a minimal number of hops and the routers/switches along the path aren't slowing you down isn't a trick or clever.

          • A caching (content provider) on the akamai model would use better links from servers to edge 'caches' that would be delivering that content as a stream. Having game providers drive those high speed links out to ISP gateways might work, but piggybacking on the Akamai system.

            It would look virtually identical, except the content would be changing... Just using the Akamai network model.

            But game systems could make their own of course. Me, I want better than 30ms latency end to end, and that's gonna be hard to de

      • BTW, the Tropic Thunder reference is to clever for me to catch on to. Sorry, not in my frame of reference.

  • Unless they manage to repeal special relativity.

    So the question is will people that are willing to spend money to have a good to great gaming experience decide that trash for free is OK with them ?

    • by darkain ( 749283 )

      That isn't the #1 latency issue however. Larger time slices in time-division multiplexing is. For example, on DOCSIS, it is usually in the area of 10-20ms. On GPON, it is closer in the neighborhood of 1ms. Right now with my GPON connection, I have ~3ms round-trip-time to several major datacenters, including Google. That is more than faster enough on the latency front to be able to stream games in real-time with input/response being a single frame of animation well north of 60 FPS.

      • I have ~3ms round-trip-time to several major datacenters, including Google

        Then you live near them.
        Assuming you have your own private fiber from the datacenter to your home, you're less than 600 wire kilometers from the datacenter.
        AT&T is currently showing real-world latency between Denver and Dallas as 19ms: https://ipnetwork.bgtmo.ip.att... [att.net]

        That's about 1,000km in 19ms, so using that as a guide, you're about 158km from a datacenter.

        If you're on the East Coast of the USA, or in Europe, then it may seem reasonable to be that close to one.

        For those in rural areas, it will be a l

  • The only problem with game streaming is latency due to the distances involved and the double rendering (once at the datacenter, once at home).

    Even if you're talking about simply stringing a wire from your house directly to the output of a video card in a regional datacenter, you have ~1 mS of delay. Every transistor that has to switch in between there, does so with a maximum frequency.

    • Streaming is an interesting technical problem, and not necessarily one worth solving for gaming. They're in the wrong market.

      For gaming, streaming is trying to solve enormous problems with decoding highly-compressed video data: you have a description of where visual elements go, and you want to turn that into pixel data. In practice, this is cheap until you hit a point of diminishing returns: even an Intel Core i7 4750K with HD4500 does a pretty good job, and a more-specialized console will trade the

    • by harl ( 84412 )
      Latency has nothing to do with it. People have been gaming online for decades. Bandwidth is the real issue. Assuming I'm doing my math right one second of 1080p 32 bit color video at 24 frames a second is just under 190 megabytes of data to move every second. 4K video is 759 megabytes of data to move every second. 24 frames is generally considered a shit frame frame for PC gaming. Games are routinely called out on consoles when they are locked to 30 frames. Granted that assumes zero compression which
      • I generally play under 24fps just to keep costs of the space heater down. I don't really notice a big difference. I also don't have a full HD resolution monitor (it's 1650x1080 which still looks great). Are customers willing to give up the resolution, or frame rate, or both, just so that they can stream? Right now even 4K TV is a ridiculous waste of bandwidth given that most people can't detect the difference unless they move real close to the TV, 8K is just immensively stupid.

        The idea of on-demand stre

    • Most big console titles run at 30 fps, so they don't have super low latency anyway. Having a data center within a couple of thousand kilometers might be good enough. Also latency hiding tricks like input prediction could be used.

      • by guruevi ( 827432 )

        I don't think flappy birds has latency issues. But in most of the cases we're talking about high-impact FPS shooters going at 120fps. Even so, the current cost to the datacenter is ~50-100mS for most games and ~32mS in computers (triple buffering and all that). That issue doesn't go away because you put your system in a datacenter, most of the time it will double it because you're re-rendering the compressed streams on your computer + adding the latency between your computer and the game.

        Once input latency

        • Once input latency goes over 100mS it starts being noticeable

          And that's extremely generous.

        • You mean Angry Birds? Flappy Bird is a game that I think would suffer from high latency. The importance of latency differs a lot per game: I once played Final Fantasy using a TV capture card to turn my PC into a makeshift monitor and I didn't notice the higher latency. But as soon as I tried Frequency (a rhythm game), I was behind on all the beats, while usually I get at least half of them right.

          In any case, I agree that there will be considerable extra latency, but you might underestimate how much latency

  • by Anonymous Coward

    "Our new technology moves data at a million times the speed of light, so latency is a thing of the past." said Take-Two CEO Strauss Zelnick.

    "Now where's my investment money?"

  • by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Tuesday September 18, 2018 @01:22PM (#57335670)
    pretty much kill this? My ISP just started metering the connections around here. I'm not going to be streaming a 1080p game when it costs me $20/gigabyte to go over my cap. And no parent in their right mind would. They do sell unlimited, but that's pushing $160/mo here. And all that's before we start talking about large swaths of the world that don't have fast enough broadband to do this.

    Oh well, I guess I'll stick to indie games on Gog.
  • by UnknownSoldier ( 67820 ) on Tuesday September 18, 2018 @01:24PM (#57335686)

    And when these servers shut down in a few years because the masses have moved on to the next fad you won't be able to play. Sorry, do not want.

    I've actually been playing Minecraft (Java) with my gaming buddies on our private server this past year and it is nice not to have to put up with the bullshit of loot boxes, DLC, or micro transactions. I can make texture packs, data packs, etc. without some company holding our entertainment hostage.

    Regardless of how good an internet connection they can guarantee it will NEVER beat 0ms input lag from the box sitting right in front of me.

    -- /r/Minecraft Redditard censorship:
    It is against the rules to ask about the history of famous Minecraft servers such as 2B2T !

    • This is Take Two, who make hundreds of millions a year with GTA Online. If you want games without microtransaction bullshit, you're not the kind of customer they're looking for.

  • Just dumb the gameplay down. Then people using the wrong hardware can feel like badasses. That's what Halo did with aim assist, yes? To be fair, that's exactly how many PC fps's worked before mouse aiming was a thing. I recall it was a toggle as late as Shadow Warrior. As the desire to never "sell" another title grows, this mentality will creep across all aspects of gaming that require timing or reflex. They don't want to test your skill, they want to make you FEEL skilled.

    Now, if you'll excuse me, I have t

  • by Chas ( 5144 ) on Tuesday September 18, 2018 @01:25PM (#57335694) Homepage Journal

    Not going to sign up for remote gaming services with shit latency and a false promise of said issues being eliminated "in a few years".

    If you can just sell me the fucking game to install on my own PC whenever the fuck that I want? Screw you. I'll do without.

    I'm completely adverse to being fucked in the ass without even the courtesy of a reach-around.

  • Anyone else here play agar.io? If you can win that game with the latency you have you can win pretty much anything.

  • by Rick Schumann ( 4662797 ) on Tuesday September 18, 2018 @01:38PM (#57335854) Journal
    Do you all see where they want things to go? They want people to own nothing and rent everything instead.

    Put up barriers to owning a home: rent instead (and put up with someone else's rules, and never build equity)
    Make it prohibitively expensive to own a car: lease instead (and still pay for maintenance)
    Fool people into believing 'streaming' all forms of entertainment is somehow cheaper than buying your own copies of music and movies
    'OS and applications as a service' instead of actually owning copies of them (and pay, pay, pay forever)
    ..and the list goes on and on

    It's the new feudalism; before too long you'll be told you're lucky to be allowed to own the clothes on your back.

    • I will say that for many types of entertainment (experience once), streaming is usually cheaper. Because there is zero value to owning it (well, the ability to lend it to a friend). But that works far better for movies/TV than for games that are 20+ hour experiences.

  • Just stop obeying the laws of physics, then latency will be perfect. Right? Wrong. Just like monitors and big TVs with latency, good enough isn't good enough when it comes to competitive gaming.

  • maybe in the rest of the world, but there are still Americans who don't have access to broadband despite billions of dollars having been provided for deployments
  • I like to think all the work we've done in fixing bufferbloat all over the edge will make interactive gaming more popular and pleasant. It would be nice if some gaming CEO acknowledged the benefits of sqm and rfc8290! Less bufferbloat will also make streaming games more feasible - IMHO, the biggest reason onlive failed was due to the widely variable latencies they encountered while trying to shove that much data down the pipe. I agree strongly however with those that think good interactive gaming requires
  • Amazing that they've kept finding an FTL communication method this quiet.

  • They say cheaper streaming boxes will explode the number of customers. But if the reason those people don't play is that they can't afford the hardware how are they gonna be able to afford the games then? Especially since the cost of a console is 5x to 8x the price of an AAA game.
    Maybe they will lower the prices expecting to make it up with the increased number of players but I doubt that.
  • It still runs on hardware. It runs on the same exact hardware you always need it to run on. And many of the "benefits" of it not always needing to be run by the same person can easily be snapped up by needing to run a ton of damned networking hardware.

    Every games exec that brings up streaming seems to think hardware will come from the magical hardware fairy who gifts it to the wonderous cloud for free!
  • This is great! I've had way too much control for years at this point!

  • Finally there will be a group that the console peasants can look down upon.

    PC Master Race
    Console Peasants
    ???

    Also, I laugh at the though of latency getting better. Higher bandwidth connections typically have *higher* latency because interleaving is used or extended for better noise rejection. And on top of this they are going to add compression and decompression latency? Hah! And wait for the ISPs to get involved "managing" their network.

FORTRAN is not a flower but a weed -- it is hardy, occasionally blooms, and grows in every computer. -- A.J. Perlis

Working...