It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
avatar
Dark_art_: I did a test a while ago where a pre built system (it was a old HP elite machine) used ~30W less power idling than the same setup (CPU and RAM, no dedicated GPU was used) using a no brand 700W power supply I had laying around and a z77 motherboard from Asus (can't recall the model) while idling on the desktop.
avatar
toxicTom: And idle consumption is also very dependent on the OS. Windows is notoriously busy all the time while an idle Linux is mostly really doing nothing. Of course drivers must support putting unused components to sleep too.
It's pretty complex, but a well thought out system can live with very little power consumption when unused, and very moderate consumption in use when not all the oomph is needed.
True :D
While on the subject, Linux mint 19 seem to have the CPU usage on idling more like Windows (a decent Windows, not the 10 version XD ), jumping all the time, instead of sitting on zero most of the times. Is that because the way to check the CPU usage (built in system monitor) changed or indeed the system is working much more?
avatar
timppu: A streaming gaming service doesn't really offer similar benefits over buying your games from a digital store (you don't have to exit your home and you can play your game any time you want, even if you buy it from Steam or GOG), plus there is the pricing problem as a streaming gaming services need oodles of CPU/GPU/RAM power on the server farms that someone (=customers) have to pay for, much more so than Netflix streaming servers need. So Netflix can offer a "all you can eat" service for a relatively low monthly price, while a game streaming service less likely so (if they want to make profit). OnLive failed to make profit, Netflix didn't.
avatar
StingingVelvet: You admit consumers don't really care about owning movies, but you think games are a lot different. I don't. the average mainstream gamer doesn't replay stuff or collect them. That's how Gamestop ran a huge pawnshop industry for two decades, because people would play stuff and trade them in for other stuff. If Google and the rest eventually offer subscriptions with rotating "big" titles just like Netflix, decent graphics and input lag and no hardware cost, people are going to flock to it. I don't mean this as an insult at all, but I think you're naive about how different and niche the people on this forum are.
What I said has absolutely nothing to do with how important gamers consider "ownership". That would be relevant if we were having some kind of game rental vs. game ownership discussion, but we are not. (And for that argument: why didn't we ever have successful game rental services, where you can rent a game for a weekend? Maybe because games are a more time-consuming and attention-demanding past-time, than watching a 2-hour movie?)

My point was: what perk(s) does the streaming gaming model offers, over buying the same game (digitally or on retail) from e.g. Steam, or for your favorite console, like PS4?

Will it be cheaper in the streaming model? Most probably not, in fact I am pretty sure it will cost more to a normal customer (monthly fee + extra payment for any important games that are not free-to-play with microtransactions). I still stress this: someone has to pay for the CPU/GPU and RAM on the gaming server farms. They are not free.

"Then you don't have to buy a $8000 gaming PC to play AAA games!": Ok, but then you don't have to do that either if you buy the latest gaming console.

"Your gaming is trouble-free, unlike with your gaming PCs with many configurations!": Again, that argument falls flat on its face due to gaming consoles, which offer the very same perk. For gamers to which this is a big problem, they are already console gamers (instead of PC gamers).

"All AAA game developers and publishers will flock to streaming gaming services and never to release anything on Steam or consoles anymore!": Why would they do that (unless it was their own streaming service, and not Google's or Microsoft's)? The publishers care only about how much money they will make with the game, not whether the money comes through Steam/console sales or streaming services. The good old hen & egg problem: publishers will go "streaming only" only if most of their potential customers are there, and customers would switch to streaming gaming only if most of their desired games were there.

"There is a huge untapped market of new (casual) gamers who are not interested in games now, but would run screaming to new streaming gaming services, happily paying a fixed monthly payment + extra for game purchases for a new past-time that didn't interest them the slightest before!": Well, hardly. Such casual gamers are nowadays mobile, f2p and sometimes console gamers, or not gaming at all, and they'd probably be the last persons to subscribe to a paid gaming service. Like my wife, she would certainly not pay for Stadia to play Candy Crush Saga there.

Subscribers to streaming gaming services will be the very hardest core gamers, the kind who are happily paying for e.g. World of Warcraft and such every month, and using most of their time playing games.


Here is how I believe Stadia and other streaming gaming services will probably go:

Most games on those services will be available also through Steam, consoles etc. for the foreseeable future (because, why not?). The only exceptions are self-published games (by Google, MS etc. for their own service), or contract jobs where they are paying some game studios to make games only for their service.

Also, there will probably be lots of free-to-play multiplayer games there, with microtransactions. The same you can play on e.g. Steam etc., except that on Steam etc. you don't have the monthly base payment.

I believe they will have a rocky road (which is why OnLive, one of the pioneers of streaming gaming, died before them), but Google and MS certainly have muscles to keep the services going for a long time, even if they are operating on red. After all, Youtube is still alive and well even though to my understanding it is making a loss year after year.
Post edited October 15, 2019 by timppu
avatar
timppu: "Your gaming is trouble-free, unlike with your gaming PCs with many configurations!": Again, that argument falls flat on its face due to gaming consoles, which offer the very same perk. For gamers to which this is a big problem, they are already console gamers (instead of PC gamers).
Actually, I think the argument fails for a different reason; streaming games will have its own issues that are not present with local PC gaming. For example, there are issues of lag, and the internet connection might drop out during a critical section of the game. Also, don't forget the higher input latency involved (which is fine for turn based games, but not so much for fast paced action games). Then, of course, there are other technical problems that can still happen, like if your PC (or display) can't handle streaming at whatever resolution is offered by the remote service.
low rated
avatar
dtgreene: Another thing that isn't usually brought up in these sort of discussions:

* Power consumption.

Thing is, with high-end gaming in particular, there's the rush to get a machine as powerful as possible, but to do so requires power-hungry high-end CPUs and GPUs. It is at this point that I worry about the power consumption, and as a result the effect on the environment, that gaming has. (There's also the fact that such high requirements, at least when they are bona-fide requirements rather than situations where the game doesn't properly yield the CPU, add an extra cost barrier to gaming.)
Isn't the amount of power used determined by the "size" of the power supply anyways? If so then just use a supply big enough for your needs plus a tiny bit of wiggle room, and perhaps check into using more power efficient components?



========================
avatar
dtgreene: (Extreme case: How does it compare to using something like a Raspberry Pi instead (which admittedly can't run xx86 games without emulation)?)
Not him, but I am guessing a Raspberry Pi without many extras uses a bunch less power than running a regular rig to to size/etc.

=============================
avatar
Niggles: It isnt only the download sizes that concern me (come on 100Gb ...) but also minimum 8GB ram some games require etc.....
avatar
Pheace: RAM is absolutely cheap these days though, unless you're still on an older format?
I am guessing that user might mean those also who use 32 bit OSs, some of which only recognize up to around 4GB of ram maximum.

=======================
avatar
Dark_art_: Despite all this conversation, there is NO reason nowadays, other than "arm measure" to waste power on high end stuff for gaming. A radeon Rx580 is a freaking Rx480 overclocked to get 10% more performance wasting 30% more energy (something like that). There are a lot of exceptions of course but as a general rule it doesn't make sense.
One good reason to do such "arm measuring" might be to future proof a system to allow one to use it for new games/etc for many years to come as their requirements go up. Of course, one should also try to find components that are better and which also use power more efficiently.....
=============================
avatar
Niggles: It isnt only the download sizes that concern me (come on 100Gb ...) but also minimum 8GB ram some games require etc.....
avatar
Dark_art_: Since I know next to nothing about software development, RAM usage is not a big problem for me. If you eventually have a computer with a little less RAM than ideal to playing the game you want and by no means you can upgrade, usually a SSD will have much higher performance than a old HDD. This is because once the RAM gets saturated (not the correct word probably) the page file will start to get bigger and used as the RAM itself, rather than a compliment to the RAM.
The same happens on GPU's, if the VRAM gets used, the pc will start to use the RAM itself.

TLDR: your computer use the HDD/SDD as a compliment for the RAM if is too small. A SSD helps enourmously here.
Don't some older games require actual physical ram to be a certain minimum size or they won't boot or run well?

Or am I misremembering?
Post edited October 15, 2019 by GameRager
Clients... Clients EVERYWHERE!!!

And good old games gifted for free, on sh_tty clients, instead of being sold through DRM-Free storefronts!!!
avatar
KiNgBrAdLeY7: Clients... Clients EVERYWHERE!!!

And good old games gifted for free, on sh_tty clients, instead of being sold through DRM-Free storefronts!!!
That's why if the games are DRM free on other clients and one can make a throwaway account to get them without giving away personal info one should and take advantage of such freebies at the other site's expense.
avatar
timppu: What I said has absolutely nothing to do with how important gamers consider "ownership". That would be relevant if we were having some kind of game rental vs. game ownership discussion, but we are not. (And for that argument: why didn't we ever have successful game rental services, where you can rent a game for a weekend? Maybe because games are a more time-consuming and attention-demanding past-time, than watching a 2-hour movie?)

My point was: what perk(s) does the streaming gaming model offers, over buying the same game (digitally or on retail) from e.g. Steam, or for your favorite console, like PS4?

Will it be cheaper in the streaming model? Most probably not, in fact I am pretty sure it will cost more to a normal customer (monthly fee + extra payment for any important games that are not free-to-play with microtransactions). I still stress this: someone has to pay for the CPU/GPU and RAM on the gaming server farms. They are not free.
Dude I'm not reading 10 paragraphs every time, keep it snappy.

We did rent games, all the time, when movie rental places existed. They don't exist anymore, hence no renting games (or DVDs). Not sure if Gamefly still exist, which rents games through the mail, but I think Gamestop largely filled the void there by selling super cheap old games and letting you trade them in for other super cheap old games.

As for benefits, they're pretty obvious. 1)No hardware costs, 2) Convenience and ease of use, play your stuff anywhere at the click of a button, 3) Subscriptions give you a large selection of random stuff to play when you get home from work on a Wednesday without having to research titles or pay out $60 up front. These are very compelling things to the average consumer. We are not average consumers, and you seem to not get that. Consumers care about two things above all else by a huge margin: price and convenience. There's a reason streaming services are starting to dominate media, and it's because they excel in those two areas.
Kyphosis.
Releasing newsletters stating that a game is released when it's not. Early Access games are not released.
Early Access games requesting money. You should be paying the people testing it (if you are getting useful information) not the other way around.
Streaming
Microtransactions
Preservation
If it's old then kill it or forget it mindset. It's trash.
Dozens or hundreds of game launchers
Bloated game launchers. You launch games. Stop with the CEF BS because you're lazy.
Political BS affecting games or anything really for $$$ not because they care. When you try to call them out you get accused.You can't discuss it so don't even try.
Gamers throwing their money away on crap.
Games being designed for all hardware usually means it's mediocre on all platforms because devs are lazy and pubs want $$
Short term thinking instead of long term.
Games not working on release day due to lack of QA, lack of planning and generally lack of giving a ****.
Post edited October 16, 2019 by DosFreak