Originally Posted by Dargonplay
Would be nice to see it coming, but I think it'd be weird buying 1ms response mouse, 1ms response monitors and 1 ms response keyboard to be used along with 200ms response games, it just doesn't sync.
Until Google Fiber hits the general consumer market it's all a fantasy.
Even when Google Fiber is the national standard
"high speed" internet, this won't be a reality.
Or at least I hope it doesn't become one, and even more do I hope it doesn't become big enough to have exclusive games.
The lag in cloud gaming will never go away. It's not a flaw in the system, it's just not physically capable of delivering performance equal to what we have now, and won't for many years to come.
Maybe when we figure out how to send data faster than the speed of light, and can achieve around 1ms ping from halfway across the US cloud gaming could be cool.
While our internet may suck in terms of bandwidth
, it is almost as fast as it could physically be with our current technology.
Read the following, it has some nice information.
If you're lazy, just read this quote.
A typical Ethernet card has a latency less than 1ms. The Internet backbone as a whole also has very good latency. Here's a real-world example:
The distance from Stanford to Boston is 4320km.
The speed of light in vacuum is 300 x 10^6 m/s.
The speed of light in fibre is roughly 66% of the speed of light in vacuum.
The speed of light in fibre is 300 x 10^6 m/s * 0.66 = 200 x 10^6 m/s.
The one-way delay to Boston is 4320 km / 200 x 10^6 m/s = 21.6ms.
The round-trip time to Boston and back is 43.2ms.
The current ping time from Stanford to Boston over today's Internet is about 85ms:
[cheshire@nitro]$ ping -c 1 lcs.mit.edu
PING lcs.mit.edu (18.104.22.168): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 22.214.171.124: icmp_seq=0 ttl=238 time=84.5 ms
So: the hardware of the Internet can currently achieve within a factor of two of the speed of light.
So the Internet is doing pretty well. It may get better with time, but we know it can never beat the speed of light. In other words, that 85ms round-trip time to Boston might reduce a bit, but it's never going to beat 43ms. The speed's going to get a bit better, but it's not going to double. We're already within a factor of two of the theoretical optimum. I think that's pretty good. Not many technologies can make that claim.
In terms of bandwidth, even google fiber is far from being able to provide enough for a good high end gaming experience.
For good quality, you want an uncompressed / lossless stream.30 FPS UncompressedSingle Monitor
1280x720 - 79 MB/s
1920x1080 - 178 MB/s
3840x2160 - 712 MB/sTriple Monitor
3840x720 - 237 MB/s
5760x1080 - 534 MB/s
11520x2160 - 2.08GB
Lots of people want 60 FPS, so double those values and you have the raw bandwidth requirements.
This can be reduced to a fraction of the raw uncompressed bandwidth, but compression and decompression will further add to latency and increase processing requirements, and with lossless compression the latency will be much higher as a lot more processing is necessary.
The best we can hope for with Cloud Gaming in the near future is for something along the lines of MJPG compressed interactive streams of turn-based strategy games, or for it to play an unimportant role in the core gameplay like purely aesthetic physics simulations, I believe a COD game has a background fluid-simulation ocean rendered through the cloud.
And even then, assuming we do get 1ms latency.. nothing will beat being able to game uninterrupted when your internet goes out. The cloud brings with it it's own type of "always online DRM" that is and will forever be inescapable. Single Player games on cloud will be awful.