zlacker

>> Most AAA games already have 200+ ms delays between pressing a button and anything happening on-screen. So there's plenty of room to redesign things to work around that latency in a lot of games

Source please?

I have produced / designed / managed a few AAA games in my life and none of them had a 200ms latency between when you pressed a button and something happened on screen. That delay would be horrible for a fighting game or a driving game. How are you even defining "something happening on screen"?

Let's suppose you are right, that there is a longish latency between when your input is polled and when the game systems fully react. That happens to some extent in RTSs, because changes in the game state are synchronized. But in that case the delay isn't going to hide the network latency, it is going to be added on top of the network latency.

>>george+(OP)
They might be talking about engine delay (ie. frame times/framerate) but i've moreso seen delays of 100-150 milliseconds deemed acceptable by people playing console games on an old flat screen TV that doesn't have a low-latency mode available, and I haven't really experienced this on anything other than consoles since even cheap PC monitors tend to have <10ms display lag[0].

0: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B015WCV70W

>>judge2+S9
You probably know this 100ms = 10 FPS. What kind of display shows video at less than 10fps? Game engines aren't always synced to frame rates, particularly simulations. But a simulation that updates every 0.1s isn't great for fidelity.

A 30 fps game could go through a complete loop, updating everything: object positions, inputs in 33ms. At 60 fps assuming everything is synced to frame rate that would 16 ms.

I was asking for the commenter's source of information so I didn't have to guess what he or she meant. It's possible to make a game that doesn't respond a user's input in less than 200ms, but why would you? You don't need to be making a technical tour de force to respond in 16-33ms.

>>george+(OP)
Here's one site that attempts to catalog this: https://displaylag.com/video-game-input-lag-database/

Found an article from a few years ago: https://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/3725/measuring_respon...

Not all games are that bad, especially these days. And your overall point is correct: adding even a little bit on top of that already horrendous latency is going to be noticeable by players.

>>george+Pf
I was commenting on how the TV can add latency/'display lag', not that it only shows a frame every 100ms. TVs have gotten much better[0] but input lag can be high with cheap TVs sold 5-10 years ago.

0: https://displaylag.com/best-low-input-lag-tvs-gaming-by-game...

>>rdw+mi
Worst out of the 23 games listed in the first link has 8 frames of latency at 120 fps, which is about 66ms. Monitor input lag included.

200ms, while possible, is far from "most AAA+ games", as OP stated.

Sure, there's people that play on lowest-end consoles, on a crappy LCD TV with game mode disabled, but let's not consider that the norm for all players/all AAA+ games, and I'm going to need hard sources showing whether those worst case environments get even close to triple digit latencies.

>>judge2+jj
That makes more sense. I am sorry I misunderstood and thank you for explaining.