New ITU-T Standards for Gaming QoE Evaluation and Management
Abstract
Measuring the quality experienced during online gaming activities is an important prerequisite for managing gaming services, but up to now no standardized methods were available for this purpose. This paper presents the results from two study items promoted by Study Group 12 of the International Telecommunication Union. Work on these items resulted in one draft Recommendation on subjective methods for evaluating gaming Quality of Experience (QoE), as well as one approved Recommendation on influence factors on gaming QoE which might be considered in service planning and management. Future work which is necessary to predict gaming QoE is addressed in the end of the paper.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Two ITU-T recommendations are published: one covers identification of factors affecting QoE in gaming applications (G.1032) and the other describes definition of subjective methods for evaluating quality experienced during gaming activities (P.809).
“Towards this end, two ITU-T recommendations are published [328]. One covers the identification of factors affecting QoE in gaming applications (G.1032) [329] while the other describes the definition of subjective methods for evaluating the quality experienced during gaming activities (P.809) [330].”
From QoE Management of Multimedia Streaming Services in Future Networks: A Tutorial and Survey (2020) · cites this paper as [328]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
QoE Management of Multimedia Streaming Services in Future Networks: A Tutorial and Survey
Barakabitze, A. A., Barman, N., Ahmad, A., Zadtootaghaj, S., Sun, L., Martini, M. G., & Atzori, L. (2020) · IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials · doi:10.1109/comst.2019.2958784 · Cited by 239 · see citing works
Self-citationPérez, P., Ruiz, J., Benito, I., & López, R. (2022) · Multimedia Tools and Applications · doi:10.1007/s11042-021-11251-x · Cited by 20 · see citing works
- Authors
- Moller, S., Schmidt, S., & Zadtootaghaj, S.
- Affiliations
- German Research Centre for Artificial Intelligence (DE)
- Technische Universität Berlin (DE)
- Deutsche Telekom (Germany) (DE)
- Venue
- 2018 Tenth International Conference on Quality of Multimedia Experience (QoMEX)
- Publisher
- IEEE
- Published
- 2018-05
- Pages
- 1-6
- OpenAlex
- W2890252874
- Cited by
- 32
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 4
- FWCI
- 1.13
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- International Conference on Quality of Multimedia Experience (QoMEX) (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- European Commission
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Image and Video Quality Assessment
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Networks and Communications › Network Traffic and Congestion Control
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Multimedia Communication and Technology
- Keywords
- online games, ITU-T standards, service planning, QoE prediction
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
