And they are crap because of the lag and shitty video quality for 95% of the people

Not quite. Roughly 60% of people live in a city, and let's say 50% of them live in a city with an IPX (Internet exchange) nearby. That gives us a back of the envelope of 2 billion people. Roughly 20% of the people could have it good and the other 80%, not 95% of the people, at worst. Adjusting the numbers up a bit and assuming actual investment in it, what percentage of people would it take for you to find it acceptable?

	▲	phsau 14 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Even with very low latency, the input delay is unacceptable for anything other than casual gaming. FPS games are by far the worst type for this.
	▲	utternerd 14 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		The amount of actual gaming done via streaming versus local rendering says otherwise though, because we already have the options available. Multiple have shuttered because they were economically infeasible as no one used them. There's a reason most of us still game locally, and that seems very unlikely to change for mostly technical reasons. Even in your optimal scenario adding another 20-40ms (or more) on top of already existent engine input lag, for most of us this means only a fairly basic game with minimal input is acceptable. On top of that, you're asking us to endure compression effects that are readily apparent.