It is not a simple question. You may not have noticed, but it is a very important issue, for when you realize, there will be no going back.
We let NVIDIA win? well.
AMD should let NVIDIA waste their Resources.
Cloud Gaming in blunt terms is simply not viable., not because it's not possible to create Cloud Servers capable of running said Games but because it's actually exceptionally difficult to provide Low-Latency and Uninterrupted Video Feed via Networks.
Even Local Solutions, such-as Steam Link, Xbox Streaming and PlayStation Link are... well they're "Playable", but even on a 5G Network / 1Gb Ethernet., Video Compression is still noticeable, regardless if you're playing 1080p / 1440p / 2160p Games; plus the Input and Audio Latency are like playing at 20-30FPS regardless of the actual Video Playback., this is of course assuming there's no interruption of service; such-as your Mobile Phone goes off causing Signal Noise.
And I mention 5G as while personally I play Online Games via Ethernet., most Gamers don't, and for a Cloud Service where your PC Performance doesn't matter... well it's more likely to be used by people on Laptops (unable to upgrade and / or really play anything but Overwatch, LOL and Fortnight, even then it's arguable about performance lol) then this is going to be the key demographic who'll be exclusively on 2G / 3G / 5G Networks; which increases Latency and is less than ideal for Streamed Video. Sure it works for a Mobile Phone with it's 6" Screen., but for a 13-17" Laptop or 22 - 40" TV? That's a different ballgame.
I recall when I was at Microsoft, because Sony (PlayStation) were introducing such a service the idea was being toyed with and there were even several established Cloud / Streamed Gaming Services that were being wooed. Still after trying each out, and bare in mind this was on Corporate 1.5Gb Hardlines… it just wasn't good enough., and as the majority of the Gaming Market is on 20-30Mb Connections using 2G WiFi, their experiences are just going to be awful.
As a result, internally it was decided to instead that the Xbox XDK would re-implement the DirectX 9.0c Feature of "Streaming Resources"., where-in a Game could basically background stream assets (and installation data) as the gamers were playing; something that became popularised for MMORPGs like World of Warcraft, so you could download the minimum 2-4GB instead of the whole 50GB+ of the game before you could start playing. This I'd argue was (and still is) a far better option, while Game Streaming is gradually improved with the networking to better support it.
I'd argue that Steam Link and Xbox Game Streaming remain the *best* options., as locally you don't have any latency or NAT issues from IPv4 Networks., maybe once all ISP are IPv6 and the concept of NATs is a distant memory... maybe then, but as it stands the technology is still far too developmental (like VR in many ways) to really start pouring Billions in investment of Systems and Infrastructure. We're still at best a decade away from a viable solution, and this is assuming that ISPs begin to actually improve their Networks and Services., which I wouldn't count on given how hard they were pushing PIPA and SOPA in order to LIMIT and set Premiums on Gaming or other such Bandwidth intensive activities not from them.
you have and you are not right.
I remember a documentary where in 2010 they said that the most important thing was the cloud. Cloud would be another era like when the INTERNET came out. 8 years later today, they are still right. We talk about being able to run a GAMING computer on an average computer of 200-300 euros or even less.
You are right in: "Because it's actually exceptionally difficult to provide Low-Latency and Uninterrupted Video Feed via Networks."
Today, where everything is governed by cloud computing (mobile numbers, files, etc.), this will undoubtedly be a big step for computers.
Even I have tried it, and it is not bad at all and I continue to test it. Ryzen 2400G and I can play Fortnite full HD and record in HD (100-300fps in game), with the CPU at 50% and the gpu at 50%. I definitely opted for this option, as a gamer.
All this reminds me of how the rector acts saying that he owned the treasure of the film, "The Social Network", here he showed that he could not see beyond a masterly idea.
I think AMD could win market with this. Each company is free to decide what to do with its resources. Since 2006, thinking that AMD would be better than NVIDIA, and this 2018 got it with battlefield v https://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonevangelho/2018/07/04/amd-destroys-nvidia-in-battlefield-5-mainstream-gpu-benchmarks/#28a1497f4a66, but now I see the opposite with this from the cloud . Anyway, good job.
Sorry for my English.
AMD saw beyond. (Although surely, AMD was already working hard with this project)
both links are broken, got some more stable resources to share?
AMD is best value for low cost desktop machines for gaming. A low cost $79 motherboard with a $139 CPU and a couple of 4GB sticks of RAM and you are ready to go.
AMD integrated graphics are actually playable to some extent with older games
The links are not broken. Copy and paste them without clicking