@BassMan:

Performance level GPU pooling isn’t possible at this point for real-time graphics rendering and gaming. Virtualization of GPUs to smaller instances is just taking off. Possible in the future we will have transparent pooled virtual GPUs. Right now we can’t even get SLI working properly and transparently with GPUs connected directly next to each other.

@loco145:

Well yes and no.

The v340 is literally two Vega 56 cards stuck together with a pool of 32GB of HBM2. Googles specs are them literally just dedicating one card to an instance and half the VRAM. No SLI or infinity fabric needed. Any claims of something “new” in that vein is just marketing magic. Honestly it’s both very mundane and insane that such a server exists.

@xantufrog:

This isn’t splitting the rendering across different GPUs, Google will be using v340s which are pretty much just a bunch of Vega 56s stuck together: anyone claiming they are using multiple discreet GPUs per instance doesn’t know what they are talking about at all. Yes their servers have multiple GPUs, put is not stitching and pulling resources across them its dividing up the resources across a v340.

I've already talked about this multiple times but 90% of future Game streaming services will be running on the newly released V340.

https://www.amd.com/en/products/professional-graphics/radeon-pro-v340

https://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-radeon-pro-dual-vega-v340,37694.html

The gpus specs down to the 56 cus and even the bandwidth divide completely evenly with these cards.

AMD official launched it in August with release in Q4 of 2018... The same time Google announced its service and released its public demos.

AMD also has this beauty out in the wild since October.

https://community.amd.com/community/radeon-pro-graphics/blog/2018/11/13/amd-server-cpus-gpus-the-ultimate-virtualization-solution

It has the exact same specs down to using the Epyc 7601 dual processor.

https://www.amd.com/en/products/cpu/amd-epyc-7601

The idea would be that they could scale cores per game. But the greater point is that the server in the above has 4 V340s for a total of 8 56 cus GPUs, and 64 cores/128 threads. Anyway, this is also the servers that's been going into AWS datacenters and what PSNow now uses. That being said, it's almost a lock that a PS4 will be 10.2-10.7 GFlops, 16GB VRAM and 8 cores. This way if they virtualized them, they could run PS5 games via streaming and actually share the same servers as Google much like video streaming services share the same servers. I actually anticipate the servers will get an upgrade once Zen 2 Eypc releases which I expect will coincide with the PS5 as well. I anticipate Google upgrading to 3.2Ghz cpus by Q1 2020.

Man this thing is beautiful.

OMG yes! They were also a huge supporter of GameTap and looks like they are set to go all in on the new Google console. Sega was truly ahead of its time in embracing internet services and many argue that their efforts help the US in particular enjoy the current broadband services it has now.

Before Google's console debut I would like to take a moment to remember one of the lesser known but possibly more influential online gaming services. MegaNet and Sega Channel.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sega_Meganet

Sega Meganet, also known as the Net Work System, was an online service for the Mega Drive in Japan and later Brazil. Utilizing dial-up Internet access, Meganet was Sega's first onlinemultiplayer gaming service, and functioned on a pay to play basis. The system functioned through the use of a peripheral called the Mega Modem and offered several unique titles that could be downloaded, and a few could be played competitively with friends. In addition, it shared technology and equipment with more serious services such as the Mega Anser, used for banking purposes. Though the system was announced for North America under the rebranded name "Tele-Genesis", it was never released for that region. Ultimately, the Meganet service would be short-lived, lasting approximately a year before it was discontinued, but would serve as a precursor to the Sega Channel and XBAND services, as well as a predecessor to online gaming services for video game consoles. Retrospective feedback praises the attempt by Sega to introduce online gaming, but criticizes the service for its logistical issues and lack of titles.

Reception and legacy

Retrospective feedback on the Sega Meganet service is mixed, praising the early initiative to develop online gaming for video consoles, but criticizing its implementation via use of telephone lines and issues with Sega's lack of developers for the service. Adam Redsell of IGN commented on the basic features of the service, and despite noting that Meganet received only a few games, stated "[T]hat's pretty damn impressive for 1990". He also notes the influence of Sega in the development of online gaming, with the Meganet service as their first attempt, and credits the Meganet's successor, Sega Channel, with helping to spread broadband Internet.^[1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sega_Channel

Sega Channel was an online game service developed by Sega for the Genesisvideo game console, serving as a content delivery system. Launching in December 1994, Sega Channel was provided to the public by TCI and Time Warner Cable through cable television services by way of coaxial cable. It was a pay to play service, through which customers could access Genesis games online, play game demos, and get cheat codes. Lasting until July 31, 1998, Sega Channel operated three years after the release of Sega's next generation console, the Sega Saturn. Though criticized for its poorly timed launch and high subscription fee, Sega Channel has been praised for its innovations in downloadable content and impact on online services for video games.

Reception and legacy[edit]

During its lifetime, Sega Channel won one of Popular Science's "Best of What's New" award for the year 1994. Likewise, in August 1995, a survey conducted by Sports Illustrated found that children between 9 and 13 years old were five times more likely to subscribe to Sega Channel than to purchase a Sega Saturn or the upcoming Nintendo 64 or PlayStation.^[6] The service would go on to garner as many as 250,000 subscribers;^[11] however, Sega had anticipated having over one million subscribers by the end of its first year, and had made the service available to over 20 million households.^[6]

Retrospective reception of Sega Channel praises its innovation and role in the development of online gaming, but criticizes its high subscription fees and timing into the market.IGN writer Adam Redsell notes how Sega Channel caused many cable companies to clean their broadcast signal and its role in the development of high-speed internet, stating "...the very fact that you’re enjoying broadband internet right now could well be thanks to SEGA."^[11] Levi Buchanan, also writing for IGN, credits Sega Channel with its role in the development of modern gaming and content delivery services, such as Xbox Live Arcade and PlayStation Network, stating "SEGA and the entire industry learned important lessons from the SEGA Channel. SEGA was still committed to the idea of downloads and online, as evidenced by the Dreamcast's SegaNet... You can also see the DNA of early services like the SEGA Channel in modern portals like XBLA and PSN, where demos are now a staple."^[7] The staff of UGO Networks also credits Sega Channel with being an important step in the development of both services.^[17]

Ken Horowitz of Sega-16 criticizes Sega's poor timing of the launch of Sega Channel and the subscription's high price. According to Horowitz, "Who would spend $13 a month to play games for a dying system? This horrendous blunder (one of many by Sega Enterprises) caused retailers to dump their inventory of systems, thereby sealing the fate of the Sega Channel once and for all."^[6] Buchanan echoes the same sentiments, stating, "Perhaps if the SEGA Channel had been released earlier in the console's lifecycle—the Genesis launched in 1989 in America—things might have turned out differently. After all, the service did gain notice for its advancement of gaming and technology."^[7] UGO also notes the potential Sega Channel could have had with some more development time in the field of competitive multiplayer, stating, "If the Sega Channel had come a little earlier in the life of the Genesis it would have seen much more exposure, and maybe online play would have been feasible for games that could have been developed directly for the service."^[17]

Favorite Quote:

Ken Horowitz of Sega-16 criticizes Sega's poor timing of the launch of Sega Channel and the subscription's high price. According to Horowitz, "Who would spend $13 a month to play games for a dying system? This horrendous blunder (one of many by Sega Enterprises) caused retailers to dump their inventory of systems, thereby sealing the fate of the Sega Channel once and for all."

-Gamers haven't changed at all in 25 years LOL

Honorable mentions go to:

GameTap

Phantom Console (Vaporware)

Xbox Live

@raining51:

Cloud gaming has a place but cannot be the primary means until maybe 20 years in the future. Knowing what and how to use it business wise is what will set this apart. It’s like video streaming, music streaming, etc. Once the ball got rolling, the technology was by and large relatively consistent between competition. The only difference was the business models which is what really set companies like Netflix and Hulu and Pandora apart.

Full Article

By Jordan Ramée on March 16, 2019

A Future In The Cloud

How we access video games is changing all the time. Arcades gave way to home consoles with cartridges, before technology evolved to host games on discs. In recent years, the popularity of digital purchases has grown, as Xbox One X and PS4 Pro offer 1TB hard drives and Switch presents an easy way to play through both indie and triple-A titles on the go. Now, it looks like the next step is cloud gaming.

Several game publishers and hardware makers have already adjusted their long-term strategies to explore the possibilities that such a service could present--with Sony notably being one of the first which has allowed the company to get ahead of the curve. Cloud gaming puts more titles in front of more players after all, as it removes platform restrictions. If a game is running in the cloud, it can be streamed to consoles, PCs, handhelds, or mobile devices. The only true restriction to cloud gaming is internet speed, as you need a strong and constant connection to run your games without lag or stuttering.

In the following gallery, we point out the most prominent companies that are making strides in cloud gaming. Some are further along in developing their respective services in comparison to others, but each seems convinced to explore the technology or, at the very least, adapt their current subscription platforms to incorporate cloud-based support.

https://www.gamespot.com/gallery/cloud-streaming-the-top-companies-investing-in-gam/2900-2647/

I just wanted to highlight this article that GameSpot put out yesterday and I think it's a great piece and starting part for discussion on different game streaming options. I did submit a correction to them about the actual launch date of PS3-PSP streaming being 2006 but they did a great job of research and explaining things like SharePlay. I was also surprised about Nintendo's testing but very interested to find out some specific of this. I'm a huge proponent of cloud gaming being part of gaming's future, so it's great to see a mainstream outlet break it down like this.

Look, I'm not even going to debate you because you're wrong and won't listen to reason. You are misrepresenting and lying and seriously psycho. PSNow in NA has moved to using VM rather than hardware PS3 servers. It's why the queue information has been removed from NA and why VMs are being spin up or down as demand dictates it. This is 100% true. You keep quoting the information for Europe to prove your point which are still using the older PS3 blade servers. Like I said, I won't continue to debate you because you seriously have no idea what you are talking about. Bandwidth isn't free, VMs aren't free. You are comparing services that in beta with a service designed to run sub HD games and give you unlimited play for a monthly fee of streamed games. I'll break down the facts and then it can continue in the thread I'm making for comparing the services.

Facts:

All Geforce Now services are currently in free beta.

Geforce Now access does NOT include games, you would need to either own the games or play Free to play games.

Only Geforce Shield includes some games however they are in limited quantity on only for the beta.

Geforce Now was Launched with an online store which required users to purchase the games. This service has closed and gamers who purchased games via that service which are no longer supported will get game keys, however if they were using Geforce Now as their gaming PC then game keys likely won't help much...

Geforce Now at commercial launch is proposed to cost $25 per month for 20 hours of server use. This does NOT include games, just access to use Geforce compatible game you own.

Sony possesses the ability to stream 1080P and high frame rate games as evident by PSNow using the same technology as Remote Play. You are not making the distinction between technological ability and business decisions. When PSNow launched, it's cost per hour to consumers was approximately $1.25 per hour of gaming which included the game and streaming. It's last rental prices ran between $0.50-$0.75 per gaming hour and they have since decreased that price to allow unlimited gaming at $20 per month or $100 per year (just over $8 per month.) The proposed Geforce Now pricing would be exactly $1.25..... just like when PSNow first launched and doesn't even include games. Again you cannot ignore the reality of the cost per gaming hour of streaming because it is a service.

It's like comparing a Mustang to a Ferrari. Yes, in virtually all metrics a Ferrari is going to outpace it but you aren't working with the same price point. Your failure to recognize this is incredibly disappointing. It's like saying a $300 consoles sucks because they are doing 90fps and 4K like your $1800 gaming rig is. No one with two brain cells to rub together does that, but that's exactly what you are doing.

This shows you have no idea what you’re talking about. Cloud gaming is more than running a data center. The biggest challenge isn’t spinning up cloud resources. It’s reducing latency and real-time encoding and decoding of the stream. The point remains Sony has been working on the single biggest challenge of remote gaming for 13 years and they are the only provider right now with a fully all inclusive and LAUNCHED game streaming service. They are the only service that includes both the streaming and the games. As to the P2P streaming, the vast majority of PSNow subscribers already own a PS4. Allowing users connect to their own console and play games for FREE to other devices is what sets this apart. Even something like Shadow charges you $35 a month to do this you still have to buy your own games.

As for remote play you could absolutely play your own games. The distance really adds little latency. So it could be 5 miles or 50 and it wouldnt generate much difference. You largest differenc would be the routes in between but you are much much much more likely to have more latency on the hardware at the endpoints like your home or work routers as that’s usually the cheapest and most bottlenecked segment of the network route.