skip to main content
10.1145/3505270.3558364acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication Pageschi-playConference Proceedingsconference-collections
extended-abstract

To Lag or Not to Lag: Understanding and Compensating Latency in Video Games

Published:07 November 2022Publication History

ABSTRACT

Latency, the temporal delay between in- and output, is inherently part of the communication between humans and computers. In video games, high latency reduces player performance and experience. These adverse effects are particularly pronounced in fast-paced video games, such as first-person shooters. Previous work shines light on how latency affects video games and how to counteract latency in video games. However, there are still unknown aspects to latency and its compensation. Thus, in the first step, we investigate novel approaches to understand latency in video games, for example, the effects of long-term switching latency. In the second step, we propose new approaches to compensate for latency in video games. We present a novel avenue to latency compensation utilizing deep learning models predicting either internal game states or external user actions.

References

  1. Vero Vanden Abeele, Katta Spiel, Lennart Nacke, Daniel Johnson, and Kathrin Gerling. 2020. Development and validation of the player experience inventory: A scale to measure player experiences at the level of functional and psychosocial consequences. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 135 (2020), 102370. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2019.102370Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Michelle Annett, Fraser Anderson, Walter F. Bischof, and Anoop Gupta. 2014. The Pen is Mightier: Understanding Stylus Behaviour While Inking on Tablets. In Proceedings of Graphics Interface 2014 (Montreal, Quebec, Canada) (GI ’14). Canadian Information Processing Society, CAN, 193–200. https://doi.org/10.5555/2619648.2619680Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Grenville Armitage. 2003. An experimental estimation of latency sensitivity in multiplayer Quake 3. In The 11th IEEE International Conference on Networks, 2003. ICON2003. IEEE, 137–141.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Tom Beigbeder, Rory Coughlan, Corey Lusher, John Plunkett, Emmanuel Agu, and Mark Claypool. 2004. The Effects of Loss and Latency on User Performance in Unreal Tournament 2003®. In Proceedings of 3rd ACM SIGCOMM Workshop on Network and System Support for Games (Portland, Oregon, USA) (NetGames ’04). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 144–151. https://doi.org/10.1145/1016540.1016556Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Stuart Card, Thomas Moran, and Allen Newell. 1986. The model human processor- An engineering model of human performance. Handbook of perception and human performance. 2, 45–1(1986). https://doi.org/10.1177/107118138102500180Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Mark Claypool, Ragnhild Eg, and Kjetil Raaen. 2016. The Effects of Delay on Game Actions: Moving Target Selection with a Mouse. In Proceedings of the 2016 Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play Companion Extended Abstracts (Austin, Texas, USA) (CHI PLAY Companion ’16). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 117–123. https://doi.org/10.1145/2968120.2987743Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Mark Claypool and David Finkel. 2014. The effects of latency on player performance in cloud-based games. In 2014 13th Annual Workshop on Network and Systems Support for Games. IEEE, 1–6.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Mark Claypool, David Finkel, Alexander Grant, and Michael Solano. 2014. On the performance of OnLive thin client games. Multimedia systems 20, 5 (2014), 471–484. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00530-014-0362-4Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Ragnhild Eg, Kjetil Raaen, and Mark Claypool. 2018. Playing with delay: With poor timing comes poor performance, and experience follows suit. In 2018 Tenth International Conference on Quality of Multimedia Experience (QoMEX). IEEE, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1109/QoMEX.2018.8463382Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Carl Gutwin, Steve Benford, Jeff Dyck, Mike Fraser, Ivan Vaghi, and Chris Greenhalgh. 2004. Revealing delay in collaborative environments. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 503–510.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. David Halbhuber, Niels Henze, and Valentin Schwind. 2021. Increasing Player Performance and Game Experience in High Latency Systems. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 5, CHI PLAY, Article 283 (oct 2021), 20 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3474710Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. David Halbhuber, Höpfinger Julian, Schwind Valentin, and Niels Henze. Forthcoming. A Dataset to Investigate First-Person Shooter Players. (Forthcoming).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. David Halbhuber, Huber Maximilian, Schwind Valentin, and Niels Henze. Forthcoming. Understanding Player Performance and Gaming Experience while Playing a First-Person Shooter with Auditory Latency. (Forthcoming).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. David Halbhuber, Valentin Schwind, and Niels Henze. Forthcoming. Don’t Break my Flow: Effects of Switching Latency in Shooting Video Games. (Forthcoming).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. David Halbhuber, Maximilian Seewald, Fabian Schiller, Mattias Götz, Jakob Fehle, and Niels Henze. Forthcoming. Using Artificial Neural Networks to Compensate Negative Effects of Latency in Commercial Real-Time Strategy Games. (Forthcoming).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Niels Henze, Markus Funk, and Alireza Sahami Shirazi. 2016. Software-reduced touchscreen latency. In Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services. 434–441. https://doi.org/10.1145/2935334.2935381Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Wijnand A IJsselsteijn, Yvonne AW de Kort, and Karolien Poels. 2013. The game experience questionnaire. Eindhoven: Technische Universiteit Eindhoven (2013), 3–9.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Ricardo Jota, Albert Ng, Paul Dietz, and Daniel Wigdor. 2013. How Fast is Fast Enough? A Study of the Effects of Latency in Direct-Touch Pointing Tasks. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Paris, France) (CHI ’13). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2291–2300. https://doi.org/10.1145/2470654.2481317Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. S. W. K. Lee and R. K. C. Chang. 2017. On "shot around a corner" in first-person shooter games. In 2017 15th Annual Workshop on Network and Systems Support for Games (NetGames). 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1109/NetGames.2017.7991545Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Huy Viet Le, Valentin Schwind, Philipp Göttlich, and Niels Henze. 2017. PredicTouch: A System to Reduce Touchscreen Latency Using Neural Networks and Inertial Measurement Units. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM International Conference on Interactive Surfaces and Spaces. 230–239. https://doi.org/10.1145/3132272.3134138Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Injung Lee, Sunjun Kim, and Byungjoo Lee. 2019. Geometrically compensating effect of end-to-end latency in moving-target selection games. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300790Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Wai-Kiu Lee and Rocky KC Chang. 2015. Evaluation of lag-related configurations in first-person shooter games. In 2015 International Workshop on Network and Systems Support for Games (NetGames). IEEE, 1–3. https://doi.org/10.5555/2984075.2984086Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Shengmei Liu, Mark Claypool, Atsuo Kuwahara, James Scovell, and Jamie Sherman. 2021. The Effects of Network Latency on Competitive First-Person Shooter Game Players. In 2021 13th International Conference on Quality of Multimedia Experience (QoMEX). IEEE, 151–156.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Shengmei Liu, Mark Claypool, Atsuo Kuwahara, Jamie Sherman, and James J Scovell. 2021. Lower is Better? The Effects of Local Latencies on Competitive First-Person Shooter Game Players. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–12.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Shengmei Liu, Xiaokun Xu, and Mark Claypool. 2022. A Survey and Taxonomy of Latency Compensation Techniques for Network Computer Games. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR)(2022).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. I Scott MacKenzie. 2012. Human-computer interaction: An empirical research perspective. (2012).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. I Scott MacKenzie and Colin Ware. 1993. Lag as a determinant of human performance in interactive systems. In Proceedings of the INTERACT’93 and CHI’93 conference on Human factors in computing systems. 488–493. https://doi.org/10.1145/169059.169431Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Albert Ng, Michelle Annett, Paul Dietz, Anoop Gupta, and Walter F. Bischof. 2014. In the Blink of an Eye: Investigating Latency Perception during Stylus Interaction. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Toronto, Ontario, Canada) (CHI ’14). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1103–1112. https://doi.org/10.1145/2556288.2557037Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Valentin Schwind, David Halbhuber, Jakob Fehle, Jonathan Sasse, Andreas Pfaffelhuber, Christoph Tögel, Julian Dietz, and Niels Henze. 2020. The Effects of Full-Body Avatar Movement Predictions in Virtual Reality Using Neural Networks. In 26th ACM Symposium on Virtual Reality Software and Technology (Virtual Event, Canada) (VRST ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 28, 11 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3385956.3418941Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Roland Thomaschke, Annika Wagener, Andrea Kiesel, and Joachim Hoffmann. 2011. The scope and precision of specific temporal expectancy: Evidence from a variable foreperiod paradigm. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics 73, 3 (2011), 953–964. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-010-0079-1Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  31. Vero Vanden Abeele, Lennart E. Nacke, Elisa D. Mekler, and Daniel Johnson. 2016. Design and Preliminary Validation of The Player Experience Inventory(CHI PLAY Companion ’16). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 335–341. https://doi.org/10.1145/2968120.2987744Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Gregor Volberg and Roland Thomaschke. 2017. Time-based expectations entail preparatory motor activity. Cortex 92(2017), 261–270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2017.04.019Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  33. Annika Wagener and Joachim Hoffmann. 2010. Temporal cueing of target-identity and target-location. Experimental Psychology(2010). https://doi.org/10.1027/1618-3169/a000054Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Recommendations

Comments

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Sign in
  • Published in

    cover image ACM Conferences
    CHI PLAY '22: Extended Abstracts of the 2022 Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play
    November 2022
    419 pages
    ISBN:9781450392112
    DOI:10.1145/3505270

    Copyright © 2022 Owner/Author

    Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for third-party components of this work must be honored. For all other uses, contact the Owner/Author.

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    • Published: 7 November 2022

    Check for updates

    Qualifiers

    • extended-abstract
    • Research
    • Refereed limited

    Acceptance Rates

    Overall Acceptance Rate421of1,386submissions,30%

PDF Format

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

HTML Format

View this article in HTML Format .

View HTML Format