Home / Opinions / Could the Nvidia Shield console revolutionise gaming?

Could the Nvidia Shield console revolutionise gaming?


Could the Nvidia Shield console revolutionise gaming?

DEBATE: The case for and against Nvidia's new Android console

Nvidia has just revealed the latest chapter in its Shield story and it’s caused quite a stir. Its vision, the Shield Console, is of outstanding 3D graphics, seamless cloud game streaming at 1080p and 60fps and 4K video playback all in one, svelte $199 (approx. £130) box.

Powered by its insanely powerful Tegra X1 processor and the new Android TV platform, it takes aim at Sony, Microsoft, Apple, Amazon and numerous other established names. It’s a bold and tantalizing prospect.

Here we look at the arguments for and against the Nvidia Shield being a landmark product in the future of gaming.

Let us know which side you’re on in the comments.

Nvidia Shield 19

Previous Android micro consoles have been a bit spotty when it comes to visual quality, but the Shield Console is different. Nvidia has demonstrated that it is capable of handling titles like Doom 3: BFG Edition, Resident Evil 5, Borderlands: The Pre-Sequel and – perhaps most impressive of all – the PC-punishing Crysis 3.

There's clearly a lot of power under the bonnet here – more so than has ever been on offer to Android developers in the past. This is an opportunity for mobile developers to expand into a new market: the living room. We’ve been waiting for Apple to make such a move for years, but it’s taken a gaming company like Nvidia to make it happen. It’s an opportunity we hope they’ll take seriously.

Nvidia Shield

It's not as if the Shield Console is an entirely new concept – we've seen several other similar efforts fall by the wayside in recent years. Ouya was a crowd-funding phenomenon that looked set to disrupt the domestic gaming market, yet it sold poorly and its Tegra 3 chip is now woefully inadequate for playing modern Android titles.

That was followed by the equally dismal GameStick and Mad Catz M.O.J.O., neither of which gained any traction. Even Nvidia's previous Shield products have enjoyed a somewhat muted response from gamers – while promising, they've hardly sold in the kind of quantities that will trouble the established gaming companies. No one really seems sure that there's even an audience for this kind of product, even if Nvidia’s name and technology makes this a more serious prospect than those that came before it.

Related: Nvidia Shield Tablet review

Nvidia Shield 3

Cloud gaming is a wonderful idea in principle and could well represent the future of gaming. Why spend money to upgrade your system every few years when all of the processing can be done ‘in the cloud’?

Looking at it from that perspective, the Shield console has the potential to be the only system you ever need – with 1080p, 60fps game streaming on offer, all the unit has to do is beam the action to your TV, with Nvidia's banks of servers doing all the hard graphical work. Add to this a potentially massive pool of games to choose from – all supported by the Netflix-style monthly subscription service – and the Shield Console may well usurp your Xbox One or PS4 overnight.

This service is already in testing on the Nvidia Shield Portable and Nvidia Shield Tablet – previous members of the Shield family – but will launch officially alongside the Shield Console this May. To cap it all off, users will be able to purchase new titles like The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt and Batman: Arkham Knight via Grid and receive a Steam code, which they can then redeem on their PC, offering the best of both worlds.

Related: Xbox One vs PS4

Nvidia Shield 5

One of the key issues is that the vast majority of Android games aren't built with Shield tech in mind. Fifty optimised titles are expected to launch alongside the Shield in May, but we're willing to bet that many of these will merely by existing Android games that have been hastily retrofitted with support for the Shield's.

While the company has done well to persuade the likes of id Software and Capcom to support the Shield Console at launch, it remains to be seen if these same companies will continue to pour valuable investment into a system that has a tiny user base when compared to the Xbox One and PS4 – or even the standard Android smartphone and tablet market.

Related: Best PS4 Games

Nvidia Shield 7

The controller that ships with the Shield Console isn't new – it launched alongside the Shield Tablet last year and also works with the Shield Portable when it's in TV mode. Still, an entirely new pad wasn't needed, as the Shield Controller offers the kind of build quality and ergonomics you'd normally expect from Microsoft, Sony or Nintendo.

It feels a lot like the Xbox 360 pad – one of the best in the history of gaming – but comes equipped with a superior D-pad and an internal rechargeable battery as standard. It's possible to pair up to four pads with the Shield Console, and the process is as simple as holding down the green Shield button when standing near the system. Games consoles live or die by the quality of their interface, and in this respect Nvidia is well and truly sorted.

Related: Best Xbox One Games

Nvidia Shield 9

The Shield Console is based on Nvidia's mobile tech, and that means it will be surpassed within a year. That's just the way the company does things – it's following the pace of the smartphone and tablet industry, where new tech is pushed out on a yearly basis. The Shield Portable used Tegra 4, while the Shield Tablet gas Tegra K1. The Shield console is the first powered byTegra X1, and in 12 month's time we'll no doubt be talking about the next Shield product, which will almost certainly showcase Nvidia's latest processor.

Progress is fine and dandy, but with a yearly update cycle the Shield Console won't have time to build an audience. Think about it like this: the Xbox One and PS4 have only just completed their first year on the market and have many, many more ahead of them, but after 12 months the Shield Console will already have been overtaken by its successor. That's a turn-off for both consumers and developers alike – why support a system that is out of date so quickly?

Related: Nvidia Tegra X1: What you need to know

Nvidia Shield 11

The $199 price tag is pretty impressive when you consider what you're getting here – not only is the Shield Console a formidable gaming platform, it also offers the benefits of Android TV and is capable of 4K video playback.

Granted, it's not as powerful as the next-gen Xbox One and PS4, but it's smaller and more compact, making it the ideal system for those who aren't quite ready to stump up the cash for Sony and Microsoft's systems. Moreover, in future, Nvidia Grid could match next-gen consoles for fidelity, and the low entry price makes regular upgrades more palatable.

Nvidia Shield 15

The Grid platform is also something we've seen before, albeit in a slightly less impressive form. OnLive launched back in 2010 and while it's still clinging on for dear life, the service's subscriber base is small and performance is blighted by problems with lag and image quality.

Sony has its own cloud streaming service too – powered by one-time OnLive rival Gaikai – so Nvidia certainly doesn't have this section of the market all to itself. But at the moment the average home broadband connection is simply too slow to make it a viable reality.

We've been testing Grid on our Shield Tablet on a typical 20Mb home connection and while it's easily as good – if not better – than OnLive, there are still enough irksome issues to make it feel like a second-class experience when compared to running the game on a proper console or PC.

Related: What is PlayStation Now? A guide to Sony's streaming service

Nvidia Shield 13

Set top boxes like Amazon Fire TV and Apple TV prove there's a growing demand for "smart" devices on our televisions – many TV sets even come with such functionality built in. The fact it will stream 4K video is hugely significant as there are few rivals that can just now.

With Amazon, Apple and Google fighting it out to be the streaming platform of choice, and Netflix along for the ride, the Shield Console could be the device that puts Android TV at the forefront. Better still, Nvidia’s offering has something no rival Anrdoid TV box can match – a serious gaming platform supported by a serious name in gaming.

Related: Amazon Fire TV vs Apple TV

Nvidia Shield 17

Being able to stream amazing new games to your TV will be brilliant, and we like the idea of giving people a free Steam code with Grid purchases so they can enjoy it on their PC. But therein lies a problem – why would you play a game on your TV if you have a gaming PC in the house? And if you're the kind of person who is genuinely excited about games like The Witcher 3 and Batman: Arkham Knight, there's a pretty good chance you've already bought a dedicated games console in order to play them – why would you bother with the Shield Console?

The Shield console needs to offer an experience that’s as good, or superior, to playing on PC or console, and then it needs software that attracts people to using it. Perhaps Nvidia will land on the right formula in time, but so could any one of Sony, Microsoft, Valve and plenty of others. However it fares, Nvidia should be applauded for thinking differently.


March 6, 2015, 6:47 pm

It's basically just a games console. The fact it's built on a mobile SOC isn't really relevant; it isn't mobile.

If it uses Android and you can play Android games on it then, well, that's not very impressive. Streaming, well I'd rather run games locally thanks very much. Underpowered ports of PC games? Why would I bother?

So really the choice is between this, an XBox One or a PS4. I don't think it's in the same league. Ok it's cheaper and smaller, but how significant is that to its target audience?

It's a shame because I really liked the idea at first, but the more I think of it the less I see where it fits for most people. I had the same reaction to the PS Vita.

DX helios

March 7, 2015, 12:10 am

There are many problems with this approach. It is not powerful for AAA. 3GBs RAM and Intel Atom comparable processor? Essentially compare it to average laptop connected to TV. Good for indie games - not suitable for AAA. Have you guys looked at GDC DirectX12 performance? CPU 7x better performance than DX11. It will not happen on Tegra... And moreover on Android. Why there was even a slide during GDC presentation mentioning DX12 if ít is Android device... ? All the TV features are available on TVs.
One thing that is interesting in this device is game streaming from the cloud. Others are just shiny things that really do not shine. But while cloud game streaming is an experiment, the only thing that matter for consoles are performance, performance, performance. I see Shield can take big stake from Wii - that would fuel them for new version.
You see guys - now everybody needs to produce console. Crazy. Instead, somebody should be focusing on only one feature - settopboxes. Nvidia could set a standard, but they don't - they try to create stationary multipurpose device. The only one who actually succeeded in that is Microsoft with Windows PCs. I do not see the vision of Nvidia - 3 announcements, 2 of them bullshit, cloud game streaming - great achievement.


March 7, 2015, 6:33 am

So at roughly £130 at launch it falls in to the same price bracket as the Wii U,360 and Ps3.
I,m pretty sure if I was to spend money on a new console the Shield wouldn't be at the top of my list.I own the Onlive Micro console which is actually a cracking bit of kit & can be bought on the bay for as little as £20 and has a great Steam content linking too.
The new Tegra X1 processer sounds quite impressive and needs to be to play the latest games directly from the console but is it really needed if they are going to be pushing the Grid Streaming service? I really wish Nvidia luck with this console, I like the idea and the look of it but my money would safely be going on a Nintendo, Sony Or Microsoft console.


March 7, 2015, 10:14 am

It might be cheap, but it's native graphics don't compare to Xbox One / PS4, and streaming games doesn't really work due to broadband's lack of bandwidth / high latency. So what's the point?

Pretty much all consoles / STBs / TVs do Netflix, iPlayer etc. already. Also, there's precious little 4K video content around, so that's a meaningless ability as well (unless you want to watch House of Cards again).

Dáibhí wotshissurname

March 8, 2015, 10:09 pm

the price will go up. ouya, fire tv, ps tv and new 3ds all did.

Kulti Vator

March 8, 2015, 10:52 pm

The article neglects to cover one of the biggest selling points - in-home streaming. This box allows PC gamers to stream games from their in-house decent-spec PC to their big-screen TV. Big market for this kind of device, as more and more people want to play top-tier PC games from their sofa, but without having a monster PC in the living room / conservatory / etc.

Latency for in-house streaming is barely noticeable if you have reasonable connectivity (e.g. 200 / 500 mbps PowerLine or direct gigabit ethernet) rigged up.

PC Gamers with a Shield can also enjoy rocket speed loading of games if their PC is kitted out with one or more SSD drives - a benefit you just can't properly harness on today's three big next-gen consoles.


March 9, 2015, 9:02 am

Even in-home streaming is a far inferior experience compared to locally-rendered graphics. You can get away with it for some games but I'd never want to play anything fast-paced using a streaming technique.


March 9, 2015, 9:08 am

Nail. On. Head.

Well, apart from the bit about the Vita. In fact I maintain Nvidia should abandon tablets and settop boxes and go back to the portable console format, changing from a flip-up screen device to a Vita format.

Kulti Vator

March 9, 2015, 10:07 am

Hi Ed.

I was lucky enough to play TitanFall using in-home streaming on one of the original Shield handhelds and can honestly say the experience was superb.

Admittedly, the small screen of the handheld Shield is likely to have concealed some of the compression artefacts, but the action was silky smooth and lag-free (important in an online-only competitive FPS).

I'm looking forward to some decent in-depth reviews of this latest Shield hybrid console, to see how it performs with in-home streaming - as the extra horse-power, RAM and dedicated Ethernet port should all help refine its performance further.

Assuming the worst case, a few miliseconds of latency is not too big a deal for many categories of games - and this past year has seen the rise in popularity of many (primarily) single player games... e.g. the latest Wolfenstein, AC: Black Flag, Alan Wake, Alien Isolation, etc which I'd hope would all offer pretty good streaming experiences ideally suited to sofa gameplay.


March 9, 2015, 7:22 pm

Actually, I think the nail head was missed all together.

First, it'll play games like Crisis 3 and Doom 3 locally, which are AAA games, so it's not just "Android games". Yes, these are older titles, but still being that's it's twice as powerful as a PS3 or Xbox 360 it opens it up for exclusive AAA titles. Not to mention (if you have the setup) you can also stream games from your PC rig to the Shield.

Second, it's not just a "games console" since it runs Android TV (the OS) so it opens it up to to all the Google Play ecosystem, movies, music and yes Android games.

Third, it can be a powerful Media Center. Either with Plex or better yet sideloading Kodi (formerly XBMC) and have access to all your local movies, music, photos and more.

Most everyone's problem is that they are focusing on the one or 2 things that it does instead of seeing it for what it has the potential in being.


March 12, 2015, 3:21 am

Looking at statistics the PS4 has a bit more than 3x the transistors as the shield console. I see this as a gimmick to try to sway companies to use Nvidia instead of AMD by using hype and promises (Pretty much selling their own name) The only real thing this has is that it can stream games from a PC to its console (Even though you can do that with your gaming PC to your TV with Steam Streaming). The Nvidia grid is going to be a monthly subscription soon so there goes your AAA games. Overall I think this is more of a showcase/Hypetrain of a processor instead of a real contender in the console market.


March 12, 2015, 2:32 pm

Stop looking at this from just a gamers perspective. A LOT of people are using their Ps4's and XBones to stream Netflix and such. When 4k gains traction and it will the Shield will be ready for it.

A lot of ps4 owners and XBones will be pissed to find out a new model of those consoles coming out supporting 4k. What are they going to buy? Another ps4 or a media player like this?


March 12, 2015, 7:12 pm

Well the reason really isn't that the PS4 cannot handle it its that the current gen consoles are written on differing APIs than the AndroidOs. Since very few applications support 4k streaming there has not been a need to do so since there has not been a real push for 4k applications. All it takes is an update to the API as well Netflix to allow 4k streaming on consoles.


March 12, 2015, 9:58 pm

Good point but it will only play video 4k@30 and NOT game at 4k and that's because it has HDMI 1.4. There are rumors that the ps4 will make new console hardware revisions to include HDMI 2.0 ports for True UHD 4k@60 video playback - but still not games.

To me the PS4 was a huge disappointment. It was outperformed before it was even released by PC's. If you look at the history of PS, every advancement was huge from PS1 to PS2 to PS3. What happened to PS4? Not worth the $500 price tag at all. Of course this machine cannot compete with the PS4 and Xb1 because it's not meant to. So it's priced accordingly. This is an all-around media entertainment unit. Not ¤just¤ a game console.

Who helped make the PS3 possible? Nvidia. When the supplier stops giving you you're slice of the pie that you deserve, what do you do? Bow out, take out your competitors or cut the head off the snake? Fortune favors the bold, my friend.


March 13, 2015, 2:12 am

For all what is known Nvidia could have outrageously priced its own hardware for the performance it delivers and AMDs alternative could have outperformed Nvidia at the set price point. AMD is producing mediocre hardware at a cheap price. Now remember Sony was losing money over the consoles like the PS3 for a very long time. Skip to today I'm guessing they are breaking even with the costs and demand (As well selling well). My guess would be if the PSTV2 was to be launched (Cause the PSTV isn't really that good) It would enable 4k 60fps streaming from the console to the PSTV2. I love the advancements Nvidia makes however AMD is on the cutting edge of integrated graphics removing the need for a CPU cutting costs.
Now the Shield cannot game on its own in 4k 60fps on its own needing connections to servers at the internet speed beyond most people can get (50+Mbs to be bearable) I doubt the Crysis 3 demo was not optimized due to the fact that it had trouble with the Boarderlands: The Pre-Sequel being "Unoptimized".

Fun Fact: The Playstations origins was from Nintendo's deal with Sony making a NES with a CD drive however it was disbanded due to Nintendo giving most of its power over the console to Sony. Later it was rebranded to the Playstation.
Xbox's origins........Not sure why that is still around and not SEGA with its super powerful hardware like the Dreamcast (Something along the lines of a 980 in a console) and its ability to do multiplayer out of box (Consoles back in the day were not able to do that out of box).


March 13, 2015, 2:18 pm

I don't think you can say the Nvidia "outrageously priced its own hardware" when you're talking about a $140 device. That's about what the price would be if you where to subtract the $59 controller that comes with it. So that's only $40 more than any current box available, with much, much better hardware and that's not only referring to the SoC. Look at it this way, the Nexus Player is only $99, but it does not come with a ethernet port, no USB port (except a micro), no SDcard slot, no IR receiver and only 8GB of storage. Compare that to the hardware specs of the Shield and I would say that it's worth every bit of the extra $40. And that's only the hardware, not to speak of the things that no other Android device will do, like outputting audio at 24-bit/192kHz.

You also have to look at beyond it's gaming capabilities and even beyond it's 4K capabilities, which is more of a future feature that most people will not be able to use right now. The Shield is more of an all purpose device.

But even if you wanted to look at the gaming aspect of it, you can't look at it as competition to current consoles or even PC gaming. How I see it, Android gaming (or mobile gaming in general) it the largest gaming segment. Anyone with a Android device, even console gamers and PC gamers, play Android games and Nvidia is making a bet that the Shield can merge the worlds of Android gaming and, at the least, PC gaming.

It will also bring AAA games to those that don't have consoles or don't have a gaming PC rig. And not only bringing AAA games to them via the Grid or Gamestream, but as something that can be downloaded and played locally. Yes, currently those that will be available are last gen games, but there are still many people who have not played them, as well, there could be current gen games that could be ported over to Android since not all current games get even close to maxing out the PS4 or XB1 and the Shield could be powerful enough to play them.

Also, as for "(Pretty much selling their own name)", that's true for all companies. Any company that doesn't self promote their name isn't going to be around very long.


March 13, 2015, 9:43 pm

The device is currently $199.with the controller (Cuz what else are you going to do? Mouse and keyboard?)
What is included?
Well if your lucky to be one of the few to have a decent internet speed you can play some AAA games at 1080p and 30fps.

For all that is known about the deals with Nvidia they could have been arrogant/prideful asking more than what is allowable (You know there is more to a console than hardware [Marketing, room for legal action, setting up an API, and making a network for MP]). After they were turned down they were pretty butt hurt about it (Probably got served a slice of humble pie).

If you look closer Nvidia never compaired its console to the modern console except for 1 compairison showing the Xbox one vs Its Online GRID (So they compare a server farm to a modern console....) but all of the comparisons besides that is against a 10 year old console.

Don't get me wrong its probably inevitable however at the current state the shield playing Half Life 2 locally is really laggy and the main selling point is: Play on our GRID service or stream from your Nvidia GTX 450+.

Now to set some things straight:
"It will also bring AAA games to those that don't have consoles or don't have a gaming PC rig."

You know any console can do that right?

Bottom line:

Looks more like a gimmick/advertisement to me. I personally thing AMD is going to keep in the console graphics business since it runs most if not all consoles.

The Nvidia shield console is alot of promises showing a few games but a bunch of them ran locally or unoptimized for the platform lagged like hell.


March 14, 2015, 3:00 am

AMD is a budget chip and will always be seen as such. Nvidia a premium product. One may outperform the other but that's how they will be known. That's one reason why Sony and Msoft went with them in the first place for the PS4 and XBone because AMD was willing to cheap out with its chips.

What are you talking about here - "I doubt the Crysis 3 demo was not optimized due to the fact that it had trouble with the Boarderlands: The Pre-Sequel being "Unoptimized"" Where did you get this information that Crysis was optimized and Borderlands not?

Dreamcast was really underrated wasn't it? "The Playstations origins was from Nintendo's deal with Sony making a NES with a CD drive however it was disbanded due to Nintendo giving most of its power over the console to Sony." Good to know. Looks like what goes around comes around for Sony now with the Shield.


March 14, 2015, 3:43 pm

AMD is willing to be competitive in the chips department.

At the Demo they ran Crysis 3 however Cryengine is optimized for Nvidia's hardware and developers API already. Where as Boarderlands: The Pre-Sequel along with Valves games lagged. Shield is a poor excuse for a release only upside is that it can stream at 4k 60fps. That's the only upside.
If you wish take a stroll over to PC mags first impressions as well Toms hardware review to see for yourself

The shields console specs are inferior than the competing consoles

Runs on Android

Only can run games though its monthly subscription "GRID" until everyone ports and optimizes to android

Can stream at 4k 60fps (30fps more than the competing consoles.)

"Good to know. Looks like what goes around comes around for Sony now with the Shield." Sony probably isnt scared by a little trinket less powerful than its console at $200 that can barely run games locally and a steep demand for internet speeds to play games off its monthly subscription "GRID" network.


March 14, 2015, 5:33 pm

You want poor excuse for a release? Check out PS4 and XB1 for $500 at release date and you will find it there. It's already obsolete in terms of power. Actually was the day it came out compared with high-powered PC's. When ps2/3 came out there was nothing like it - a true gaming console. $199 for this AIO Android Media Player which games like a boss is pretty worth it.

It's not just meant to compete with the existing game consoles because this is MORE than a game console. It's an Android Entertainment Device that can play console-esque games. How many Android Set top boxes do you know that can game at this level? The closest comparable STB is a Chinese piece of garbage with the power of a calculator that's full of bugs for $199. People only compare it to PS and XB because this Android STB games at game console levels and is made by Nvidia which is synonymous with gaming.

There is nothing like this out there right now. Stop comparing apples with oranges. Go to this comparison chart with its real competitors and see for yourself http://ca.ign.com/wikis/nvi.... That's comparing apples with apples.

I went to Tom's Hardware and it wasn't a review more like a preview. They talked about their experience at the GDC. At that time it had a few bugs and GRID only had one server up in Cali running with 12 Shields all on GRID at the same time at 1080p/60 using the same internet bandwidth in the same building. The only way to give a real review is when everything is up and running and in the market.

I went to PC mags hand-on article and stopped reading after the first sentence - "Nvidia has made some ambitious claims about its new Shield gaming device." Again, it's not a gaming device, it's a device which can game as well.

You will never see it's true value because you keep harping on its gaming aspect and comparing it with pure game consoles. This is not a game console. This is not a game console. One more time. This is not a game console. It's an Android Set Top Box, or an Android Media Player or an Android Entertainment Device or simply, a TV Box.

It's not about who is scared or not. It's about who has the last laugh. And Nvidia has just begun.


March 15, 2015, 2:56 pm

I went to those articles and the first one at Tom's was falsely labeled a review. You cannot review when it's not even released yet and the games still had bugs. And secondly there were 12 shields all streaming 1080p@60 using the same bandwidth in the same building. Hardly a good indicator of real world performance.

I stopped reading PC Mags article after the first sentence when it called the Shield a gaming device. It is a device which games as well. I can understand the confusion because it's made by Nvidia which is synonymous with gaming but this is an Android Set Top box. You wouldn't judge a smartphone made by Nvidia solely based on its ability to game would you? No but you can be sure that that smartphone would game like a beast.

You want a true comparison take a look at igns article comparing it with its real competitors: the ouya and razer forge. That's comparing apples with apples. But even so Sony should be worried. They have Capcom aboard already and bringing games to Android is a benefit. And it's not about who is scared. It's about who has the last laugh. And Nvidia has just begun.


March 15, 2015, 3:55 pm

Nvidia is labeling it as a gaming device set along with its gaming tablet and its gaming handheld.
Also the booths had their own network and Nvidia trying the achieve best performance as possible they set the consoles to a reasonable amount of bandwidth so they are not embarrassed by the possibility of poor performance.


March 16, 2015, 3:20 am

No wrong. Nvidia is not labelling it a gaming device. In a blog post by Nvidia, in the title they call it "The World's First Android TV Console". Here's the link for your reference. http://blogs.nvidia.com/blo...

Another. The main Nvidia page for the Shield Console. Also calls it the World's First Android TV Console. http://shield.nvidia.com/co....

I hope that's clear enough for you now.

And how do you know about any kinds of booths or having their own networks at the GDC? You wrote that as if you were there yourself. Anyhow, it's not important. What matters is how it performs once its released in the market.

Want to know what's really embarrassing? This Android TV Console plays 4K videos and can play 1080p@60 games that even gaming consoles that are 3x as more powerful like the ps4 and xb1, can't.


April 2, 2015, 10:10 pm

Is it possible you are underestimating the technology or you just always had shitty latency and speed?


April 2, 2015, 10:15 pm

Plenty of people will have good enough connectivity. With time they will populate their cloud so that most pple have local servers. Those in Alaska will have to wait for Elon Musk to launch his satellites.

This is not that hard:

Recommended network performance:

Bandwidth >= 6.8Mbps

Latency <= 60ms

Frame Loss <= 1.0%

comments powered by Disqus