• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

The next big leap in gaming will be when VR and cloud gaming converge.

Amiga

Member
VR needs:

- plug and play
- no wires
- no visible aliasing
- 1/1 ragdoll simulation
- high quality textures
 

Tygeezy

Member
Do you realize how much bandwidth needed to drive an HDMI 2.1 output ?

48Gbps

No 5G or even home fiber can feed such demands.

And it always gets doubled every 2-3 years with higher resolution and refresh rates standards.
It uses hevc and h.264 and this will only improve with newer codecs.
 

FunkMiller

Member
no thank you, i'll stay with the traditional games and the normal means to play them forever.

What a weird thing to say. You make out like there hasn’t been huge evolution in gaming across the decades, with things changing massively in terms of the way we play.

Imagine someone seeing a NES in 85, saying that they’ll stick to going to the arcades forever, because that’s traditional and normal. That’s how you sound.
 
Last edited:
To be fair, that's exactly what psvr2 is about, AAA games in VR.
Yep hoping Sony makes some bangers in VR that are maybe in a more accessible genre (a lot of people won't play horror)

Imagine if someone makes a big RPG designed for VR whether it's fantasy or scifi or post apocalypse or whatever
 

Romulus

Member
Yep hoping Sony makes some bangers in VR that are maybe in a more accessible genre (a lot of people won't play horror)

Imagine if someone makes a big RPG designed for VR whether it's fantasy or scifi or post apocalypse or whatever


Yup. Asgard Wrath and Fallout 4 VR with mods really filled that itch for me. Way better than I imagined after a few patches in fallout's case. More is always better though
 

junguler

Banned
What a weird thing to say. You make out like there hasn’t been huge evolution in gaming across the decades, with things changing massively in terms of the way we play.

Imagine someone seeing a NES in 85, saying that they’ll stick to going to the arcades forever, because that’s traditional and normal. That’s how you sound.
it's not weird, i'm used to this way of playing games and see no issue with how things are.
 

Kamina

Golden Boy
Good games wouldn't exist in the first place if all developers had this mindset. We'd be stuck in the Atari era permanently.

We already have plenty of good games releasing each year, the 2021 delays being an exception due to exceptional circumstances.

Let's have good games and advancements in these areas.
I never said that they should stop developing new technologies or improving on existing ones, so your analogy doest quite make sense. Especially since those services i listed aren’t related to the mayor technological advancements that brought us the good games of the past decades.

And no, we dont need to make advancements in areas like GAAS, nor am I particularly fond of stuff like streaming games, which i seem to share with most here, as otherwise stadia and co would be more popular.

VR on the other hand is a fantastic technology for sure, however, it isn’t fit for mainstream usage as it is.

All I am saying is that we should not treat these things like a second coming and act like “it is the future of gaming” when we can clearly see that people don’t seem to be ready to jump on that wagon.
 
Last edited:
No matter how I look at this thread, it still looks like Game Streaming supporters are trying to latch onto VR to try and stay relevant.

VR is proven, it works, it is out there, and people buy them.

Game streaming? Not so much. Now i admit it works; but they are not as popular as they want it to be,

Trying to jam Game Streaming into VR is just an attempt to justify game streaming. VR doesn't need game streaming and would be worse off. Virtual Reality is just fine on its own and works. Streaming can go and find its own niche elsewhere.
 
Last edited:

ABnormal

Member
I think problem with foveated rendering is speed of eye tracking vs speed of eye. Saccades can move like 700 decrees per second. If human vision covers about 120 decrees then focus of our vision can move full range in about 1/(700/120) ~ 170 milliseconds.

Would foveated rendering be able to keep up rendering sharpish images through eye movements and then really good picture once big movement is over? I also wonder what guides our eyes within those movements, would lower class of rendering hinder our eye movements since there is no detail to be seen before eye tracking sees eye movement and dispatches higher quality rendering?

Foveated rendering is interesting and I hope we get there. I have no idea about current capability of state of the art VR tech maybe they are quite capable already?
That's not the way it works. Saccades are very quick, almost instantaneous, like the press of a button on the joypad. If the eye tracker registers the eye position ate least at a frequency of 480 samples per second, it can take the eye position (input) fast enough to allow proper eye tracking with a frame rate of 120 fps (two samples per frame).
Eye tracking can work with infrared light, ultrasounds, or other means. It just have to send a wave and then register the wave reflection, which will give the eye position. With light, the tracking can be really fast. Then the rendering pipeline will render the next frame with the needed detail according to the eye position. Saccades themselves are fast, but they are not very frequent, and several tens of milliseconds pass before the next saccade (because after the saccade the eye takes between 20 to 30 milliseconds to regain focus of image - try to move the gaze on the words on the screen, and you will notice that after each sccade there's a time needed to regain focus). So there's no problem with the rendering, there are at least 20 milliseconds for the eye to see again the image, after the saccade, an plenty of time for changing the rendering of that portion of screen (which takes only the frame render time plus the pipeline from input to screen output).
 

Romulus

Member
No matter how I look at this thread, it still looks like Game Streaming supporters are trying to latch onto VR to try and stay relevant.

VR is proven, it works, it is out there, and people buy them.

Game streaming? Not so much. Now i admit it works; but they are not as popular as they want it to be,

Trying to jam Game Streaming into VR is just an attempt to justify game streaming. VR doesn't need game streaming and would be worse off. Virtual Reality is just fine on its own and works. Streaming can go and find its own niche elsewhere.


Pretty interesting how VR is pretty much across the board accepted as a viable gaming medium now. Just a couple of short years ago on gaf no one believed that was a thing. Now, almost no one is completely against it.
 

Ryu Kaiba

Member
I've thought about this before but came to the conclusion it'll never work this way OP
Latency will always be a problem with cloud gaming and it will be especially bad in VR.

Not just that but Cell phone companies won't let you use their 5G networks to play games for anything less than $520 per month so good luck with that.
 

Tygeezy

Member
It’s almost as if people are skipping over the posts about vr streaming working now including posts that cite experts on why it works and then continue to post it will never work due to latency.
 

Haggard

Member
To combine something that can induce motion sickness if the movements aren`t in sync with something that inevitably raises the latency sounds like a really bad idea.
 

Claus Grimhildyr

Vincit qui se vincit
No. Streaming actively makes games *worse*. Objectively. Fuck that.

Just give me a larger SSD and VR. That is the future of gaming.
 

Tygeezy

Member
No. Streaming actively makes games *worse*. Objectively. Fuck that.

Just give me a larger SSD and VR. That is the future of gaming.
If we get to a point where the coding and encoding happens at 1 ms or less( its like 10 ms now, so that's very possible) there are many data centers around the world and fiber becomes more widespread allowing 5 ms or lower along with improvements to video encoding to eliminate compression artifacts I don't see how this wouldn't be a serious option for both standard flat gaming and VR that a lot of people will flock to. Having your own dedicated hardware will probably always be an option, but there will be a point where it's very difficult to tell native from streaming and these servers will have top of the line hardware since Nvidia is getting in the game.

How long will this take? Not sure, but local streaming is already very good and cloud is really good if you have fiber. I only really notice compression in darker vr games, flat games it's very difficult to tell the difference.
 

Claus Grimhildyr

Vincit qui se vincit
If we get to a point where the coding and encoding happens at 1 ms or less( its like 10 ms now, so that's very possible) there are many data centers around the world and fiber becomes more widespread allowing 5 ms or lower along with improvements to video encoding to eliminate compression artifacts I don't see how this wouldn't be a serious option for both standard flat gaming and VR that a lot of people will flock to. Having your own dedicated hardware will probably always be an option, but there will be a point where it's very difficult to tell native from streaming and these servers will have top of the line hardware since Nvidia is getting in the game.

How long will this take? Not sure, but local streaming is already very good and cloud is really good if you have fiber. I only really notice compression in darker vr games, flat games it's very difficult to tell the difference.

That would only be viable with people who live with decent internet service providers (with no data caps), and only in major metropolitan cities... which is only a fraction of the audience and getting smaller every year due to more companies adding data caps and people moving to suburban locations.

It is neither probably nor useful for companies to do this. Its the same concept of moving to digital only. It literally cuts out a portion of the audience - plenty of profit that they are leaving on the table.
 

Tygeezy

Member
That would only be viable with people who live with decent internet service providers (with no data caps), and only in major metropolitan cities... which is only a fraction of the audience and getting smaller every year due to more companies adding data caps and people moving to suburban locations.

It is neither probably nor useful for companies to do this. Its the same concept of moving to digital only. It literally cuts out a portion of the audience - plenty of profit that they are leaving on the table.
The thread title is the FUTURE of gaming, not the present. Fiber is rolling out now and will be a staple in the future.

 

Claus Grimhildyr

Vincit qui se vincit
The thread title is the FUTURE of gaming, not the present. Fiber is rolling out now and will be a staple in the future.


Read what you posted. Metro areas. I don't forsee any future where we will have high powered fiber and stable, data cap-less connections for the majority of the US (as metro areas only make up a tiny portion of the country). I will gladly eat my words if we get high quality fiber for folks who reside in small sub 10,000 person towns across the midwest and those, like me, who reside hours outside of any town.
 

FunkMiller

Member
Guys…

Two big points:

This is a discussion about the future. Not the way things are now. The Internet will only continue to improve with 5G and cable advancements.

VR streaming is possible now without latency being an issue, if you have the Internet for it.
 
Last edited:

Tygeezy

Member
Read what you posted. Metro areas. I don't forsee any future where we will have high powered fiber and stable, data cap-less connections for the majority of the US (as metro areas only make up a tiny portion of the country). I will gladly eat my words if we get high quality fiber for folks who reside in small sub 10,000 person towns across the midwest and those, like me, who reside hours outside of any town.
You expect people to have poor internet connections for all of eternity? This was just an example of rollouts happening now in the present.
 

Claus Grimhildyr

Vincit qui se vincit
You expect people to have poor internet connections for all of eternity? This was just an example of rollouts happening now in the present.

I expect internet connections to improve in major metro areas and in smaller areas around them, but yes I do expect shitty internet connections to continue to be the norm for decades across the midwest and distant locations. In 50 years, I fully expect someone in my position to have the average internet experience someone in Chicago or NYC had in 2010. That is the reality of how rollouts happen for non-metro areas. There are still plenty of places in the US that barely have internet that would have been acceptable in the 90s. Some even still have dial-up connections as the standard.

Unless you are talking like a century from now, in which case - who cares? We will all be dead and gone by then.
 
Last edited:

Tygeezy

Member
I expect internet connections to improve in major metro areas and in smaller areas around them, but yes I do expect shitty internet connections to continue to be the norm for decades across the midwest and distant locations. In 50 years, I fully expect someone in my position to have the average internet experience someone in Chicago or NYC had in 2010. That is the reality of how rollouts happen for non-metro areas. There are still plenty of places in the US that barely have internet that would have been acceptable in the 90s. Some even still have dial-up connections as the standard.

Unless you are talking like a century from now, in which case - who cares? We will all be dead and gone by then.
Millions of people live in or near metro hubs and will be served in the not too distant future. I'm not sure why we factor in people that live in BFE as an example of why things won't work. For some reason only VR and streaming are examples where everything has to be 100 % technology wise and conditions or it just isn't viable when that's not the case for anything else.
 

Claus Grimhildyr

Vincit qui se vincit
Millions of people live in or near metro hubs and will be served in the not too distant future. I'm not sure why we factor in people that live in BFE as an example of why things won't work. For some reason only VR and streaming are examples where everything has to be 100 % technology wise and conditions or it just isn't viable when that's not the case for anything else.

Millions of people don't live in Metro cities. Why would developers actively design something that denies that large of a player base? They wouldn't as it would be fucking retarded.

VR doesn't need the constraints of being reliant to streaming. Ever decreasing sizes of chips, increasing in storage sizes, and computational horsepower can continue to improve VR. as we have seen over the past few years alone. VR will be the next big thing in gaming and it has nothing to do with the asinine requirements of streaming.
 

Tygeezy

Member
Millions of people don't live in Metro cities. Why would developers actively design something that denies that large of a player base? They wouldn't as it would be fucking retarded.

VR doesn't need the constraints of being reliant to streaming. Ever decreasing sizes of chips, increasing in storage sizes, and computational horsepower can continue to improve VR. as we have seen over the past few years alone. VR will be the next big thing in gaming and it has nothing to do with the asinine requirements of streaming.
its in or NEAR metro areas. Millions of people do indeed live in major cities or suburbs.
 

Claus Grimhildyr

Vincit qui se vincit
its in or NEAR metro areas. Millions of people do indeed live in major cities or suburbs.

Yes? I never said they didn't. You however seem intent to ignore the fact that millions of people *don't* live in those regions and no company is going to ignore that large of a customer base. That is my whole point.
 

Tygeezy

Member
Yes? I never said they didn't. You however seem intent to ignore the fact that millions of people *don't* live in those regions and no company is going to ignore that large of a customer base. That is my whole point.
It doesn't need all the people that live in BFE to be successful. Why is there this unique requirement with VR and streaming that requires everybody to have access to it for it to be a mainstream success? I'm sure sometime in the future even BFE will have access to this, but they don't even need to for it to be successful and we are trending towards millions of more people getting access now.
 

Claus Grimhildyr

Vincit qui se vincit
It doesn't need all the people that live in BFE to be successful. Why is there this unique requirement with VR and streaming that requires everybody to have access to it for it to be a mainstream success? I'm sure sometime in the future even BFE will have access to this, but they don't even need to for it to be successful and we are trending towards millions of more people getting access now.

Companies want to make the most money. They won't ignore millions of possible customers. It is as simple as that.
 

Bernd Lauert

Gold Member
Read what you posted. Metro areas. I don't forsee any future where we will have high powered fiber and stable, data cap-less connections for the majority of the US (as metro areas only make up a tiny portion of the country). I will gladly eat my words if we get high quality fiber for folks who reside in small sub 10,000 person towns across the midwest and those, like me, who reside hours outside of any town.
83% of the US population is urban.
 

Claus Grimhildyr

Vincit qui se vincit
83% of the US population is urban.

That is still nearly 55 million + potential customers they would ignore? That isn't even counting the various other countries outside of the US which only adds hundreds of millions more to that number.

Honestly beginning to think some of you have some sort of funds tied into the success of streaming and are desperately trying to push that it is the future of gaming.
 

Bernd Lauert

Gold Member
That is still nearly 55 million + potential customers they would ignore? That isn't even counting the various other countries outside of the US which only adds hundreds of millions more to that number.

Honestly beginning to think some of you have some sort of funds tied into the success of streaming and are desperately trying to push that it is the future of gaming.
You don't need a 100% of the population as potential customers. That's complete nonsense, no business works like this.
 

Claus Grimhildyr

Vincit qui se vincit
You don't need a 100% of the population as potential customers. That's complete nonsense, no business works like this.

When did I ever say you did? You aren't getting all 83% of those Urban Americans buying into your product. Hell, maybe 5 to 10% at most (and that is assuming more than what we statistically see even today by a good portion) and that is assuming VR becomes affordable/common place in that future. Let's use the current population of the US rounded up a bit assuming we continue to have good birth rates - around 350,000,000 people. That would be 17 to 35 million customers in urban areas. Now add a similar percentage of buyers in non-urban areas. That is 2-5.5 million customers they would ignore. That is a *large* amount of money being left on the table.

And again, that is *only* counting the US and not the numerous other countries where these games would also be sold - of which are even more increasingly non-urban potential customers. And hell, we are being heavily optimistic with the amount of customers in this quick example. Reality would be that there would be even *less* customers and then every possible customer would become even more valuable for the company.

This isn't rocket science. Companies aren't going to ignore those customers. Streaming is not the future. It will no doubt be one option among many, but the insistence that it *needs* to be here for VR and the future of gaming is beyond idiotic.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom