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":<p>* Available for all browsers and comply all web standards.<p>* Available for all languages across all regions, with accessibility features.<p>* Promise not to "launch and shutdown in a few years".<p>* Imply a real future product.<p>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.<p>What requirements are you thinking which should be applied to such a "tech test"?
Does this mean I'll now need a Steam, Uplay, and Google account all simultaneously logged in to play an offline game by myself?<p>And if something goes wrong, I can expect absolutely zero tech support?<p>And I'll lose access to all my games in 11 months when Google kills it?<p>And it'll post my Achievements and owned games to my Google+ account automatically and try to make it Social?<p>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?<p>With all that value-add and free extra latency, I basically HAVE TO sign up! What a deal!
Have you checked out my company <a href="https://parsecgaming.com" rel="nofollow">https://parsecgaming.com</a>? We offer this but also the ability to connect to your own computer and invite your friends to connect to your computer too.
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.<p>[0]:<a href="https://parsecgaming.com/" rel="nofollow">https://parsecgaming.com/</a>
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.<p>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.<p>I wouldn't really sign up and pay for a service operated by Google, tho.<p>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].<p>[0]: <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18115445" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18115445</a><p>[1]: <a href="https://projectstream.google.com/aco/signup" rel="nofollow">https://projectstream.google.com/aco/signup</a><p>[2]: <a href="https://blog.google/technology/developers/pushing-limits-streaming-technology/" rel="nofollow">https://blog.google/technology/developers/pushing-limits-str...</a>
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.
How is this different from <a href="https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/geforce/products/geforce-now/" rel="nofollow">https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/geforce/products/geforce-now/</a> or <a href="http://onlive.com/" rel="nofollow">http://onlive.com/</a> ?
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.<p>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.
Oh good, the company that constantly bails on it's ventures is starting a new one in a space that is far from being realized still.<p>Seriously, if what's the goal? Being a supporting network for gaming infrastructure?
"Sorry, this project is currently open in the U.S. only" can someone make images of the webpage, please. thank you<p><a href="https://projectstream.google.com/aco/location" rel="nofollow">https://projectstream.google.com/aco/location</a>
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.<p>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.
Not to be overly negative, but <i>could</i> they have come up with a less inspired and creative name than that?<p>“Project” also make it sound like a ongoing effort of sorts, and not a (finished) product.