I don't even think network latency is the real problem, it's all the buffering needed to encode a game's output to a video stream and keep it v-synced with a network-attached display.
I've tried game streaming under the best possible conditions (<1ms network latency) and it still feels a little off. Especially shooters and 2D platformers.
Yeah - there's no way to play something like Overwatch/Fornite on a streaming service and have a good time. The only things that seems to be ok is turned based or platformers.
I can't speak from experience with their GPUs on Linux, but I know on Windows most of their problems stem from supporting pre-DX12 Direct3D titles. Nvidia and AMD have spent many years polishing up their Direct3D support and putting in driver-side hacks that paper over badly programmed Direct3D games.
These are obviously Windows-specific issues that don't come up at all in Linux, where all that Direct3D headache is taken care of by DXVK. Amusingly a big part of Intel's efforts to improve D3D performance on Windows has been to use DXVK for many titles.
ReBAR was standardized in 2006 but consumer motherboards didn't start shipping with an option to enable it until much later, and didn't start turning it on by default until a few years ago.
I think it boils down specifically to the social media pivot towards algorithmically curated feeds designed to prioritize engagement above all else. Platforms that did not make this change in the '10s still feel much healthier than dumps like Facebook and Xitter.
One of the big selling points of Bluesky right now is that it does not do this and that is why it feels so much like 2010-era Twitter.
This doesn't work well in real time games. The client needs to know another player is on the other side of that wall so it can
* Play sounds from their actions
* Actually be able to render them when either player comes around the corner without them obviously materializing out of thin air.
I'm saying no such thing. I'm saying that that wrong is no excuse for the other wrong.
There are infinite ways to attack any problem, and it's not a requirement but a choice to persue only certain ideas vs others.
For instance, these approaches are based on removing agency from all users for the supposed goal of dealing with the bad users.
But there is no law of physics that says that is the only way to do that.
You could go the opposite direction and empower all users to deal with bad actors themselves just like in real life where anbasshole simply gets avoided or punched in the nose, which works by the simple math that the bad actors are outnumbered by everyone else. They still always exist but they are relegated to operating in the corners and shadows.
But their low level presence is a fact of life no matter what. Oppressive regimes don't get rid of them either. The sales pitch is we'll protect you but in fact they don't any better than you could have yoirself.
A company that has an easier option and has no other value meter than money divorced from any consideration of how it is attained, simply has no incentive to bother doing anything but the easiest thing. That's the only reason they want the keys to your house, because you stupidly give them, not because they need them or have the tiniest right to demand them to protect their entertainment business.
We have a working solution that some games still use, dedicated servers with admins that can investigate and ban people themselves. Has its own suite of problems but it works well against cheaters.
But skill based matchmaking type games where you're matched with random people is fundamentally incompatible with this model, that is why the person you responded to you said that you're suggesting that these games should cease to exist.
It only needs to be good enough that people keep buying (or not) the Prime when their old account gets banned. There is good reason that it exist, also from cheating perspective.
The problem is that most cheaters don't just go full aimbot and track people through walls. That is a surefire way to make sure your account gets reported, reviewed, and banned regardless of what anti-cheat is in place.
Serial cheaters cheat just enough to give themselves an edge without making it obvious to the people watching them. By just looking at their stats, it can become very difficult (though not impossible) to differentiate a cheater from a pro player. This difficulty increases the odds of getting a false positive, necessitating a higher detection threshhold to avoid banning innocent players.
I've tried game streaming under the best possible conditions (<1ms network latency) and it still feels a little off. Especially shooters and 2D platformers.
reply