Google Stadia General Discussion - Like any other gaming platform, but worse.

  • 🏰 The Fediverse is up. If you know, you know.
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
Medafag said:
It is the OUYA all over again
Click to expand...

That's unfair to the Ouya. Ouya at least tried to have a library of original games you couldn't get elsewhere, which is the whole point of releasing a console. They were all terrible, but hey.

Google thinks people are going to pay a monthly subscription fee for the privilege of being able to stream full-priced games they could already play on a PC or real console without 500ms of additional input lag.
 
Can't wait to be told how much of a victim this pancake dongle of shit is, and how we're being "too hard" on a "progressive organization" like Google. Oh wait but even the media can't stick up for Google this time.

Haha.
 
The original Xbox One runs RDR2 with better graphics than Stadia.

The almighty google server can't compete with a piece of junk from 5 years ago that uses an underclocked toaster CPU.

If you bought an i3 from 4 generations ago you already have a better computer than google's servers. Literally that.
 
Streaming games to people too poor to even get a console is a neat idea. It’s just terrible in execution
 
So this aged super poorly.
Bakar says that Stadia will make games feel more responsive in the cloud, and make them run faster than they do locally "regardless of how powerful the local machine is." He says this can be done through something called "negative latency."
Bakar is talking about creating a buffer of predicated latency in which Stadia can mitigate the lag the player is seeing on their end over the cloud network. This can be done in a few ways, like rapidly increasing fps to reduce latency between player input and what's displayed on screen, but Bakar says mitigating latency will mostly come from Stadia's ability to predict your button presses.
Click to expand...
https://www.pcgamer.com/google-says-stadia-will-be-faster-than-local-gaming-hardware-in-two-years/
Honestly a failed launch of this scale smells fishy. How did this product pass testing? How many managers had to claim their teams finished their parts to spec? No one in this process thought it might be important to show haw bad this is knowing they will get fired if it were to release and flop this way. The failures are even on none technical things like the basic logistics of getting product to pre-order customers.
This feels like some kind of scheme you would see in a movie like The Producers or Get Shorty. At some point someone realized Stadia was a pipe dream but too much money had already been spent. Knowing they will be to blame they planned some way to protect themselves at the cost of the entire project. This disaster would have been apparent before final designs were submitted to manufactures.
It could also be that some high up executive was dead set on trying to be first to market at any cost. Ignoring all of the squints saying this couldn't be done. Whoever gets fired over this will be a pretty good indication of what events played out that lead to this failing harder than the Ouya.
 
Floop said:
Streaming games to people too poor to even get a console is a neat idea. It’s just terrible in execution
Click to expand...

Poor people tend to live in areas with poor internet infrastrcture and can't really justify paying $50+ dollars for a 3 year old game on top of a $10/month charge and whatever else stadia charges.

Ironically, poor people can get much more bang for thier buck in a second-hand store by a substantial degree. Additionally, most libraries have a collection of borrowable video games for consoles.



The whole Stadia launch is just so hilariously bad, but it did get me thinking it this was supposed to be a project that happend after and only after the google fiber project was finished (Google was rolling out fiber internet several years ago to various cities, with the idea they'd roll it out everywhere as an ISP). Having Google as an ISP would mean you would be basically directly connected to thier servers (which would be located in every major city) and would probably cut down substantially on the latency.

However, they stopped doing that project due to the huge cost associated with it (and a lack of tech knowledge) and in Google fashion they gave up on it. I wonder if Google Fiber was supposed to be Step 1 in a rollout of Google low-latency services (Google TV, Stadia, whatever else) and they just went ahead and did Step 2 without ever having finished Step 1.
 
Tanner Glass said:
Poor people tend to live in areas with poor internet infrastrcture and can't really justify paying $50+ dollars for a 3 year old game on top of a $10/month charge and whatever else stadia charges.
Click to expand...
Okay well I guess it’s only for people that want to play their games anywhere while using up all the bandwidth in the workplace
 
Floop said:
Okay well I guess it’s only for people that want to play their games anywhere while using up all the bandwidth in the workplace
Click to expand...

This isn't even for those people, though, because if you want to game in multiple locations the tech already exists.

Steam has Steamlink which uses your existing library/hardware and costs $0. Xbox has gamepass which lets you install games anywhere and has an actually decent library. The games are free and the service is $1/$5 a month. Playstation has a similar service that I don't have expierence with, but it's still a full fuck load cheaper than Stadia.

That's really the problem, Google is selling a product to a consumer base that legitimately doesn't exist. They're targeting people in metro areas (with amazing internet) who have some cash to burn ($130 initial cost for Stadia, +monthly costs and +game costs) who really want to play video games but for some reason haven't picked up a PS4/XBOX or PC. I can't literally think of this person nor have I ever met them.
 
Tanner Glass said:
This isn't even for those people, though, because if you want to game in multiple locations the tech already exists.

Steam has Steamlink which uses your existing library/hardware and costs $0. Xbox has gamepass which lets you install games anywhere and has an actually decent library. The games are free and the service is $1/$5 a month. Playstation has a similar service that I don't have expierence with, but it's still a full fuck load cheaper than Stadia.

That's really the problem, Google is selling a product to a consumer base that legitimately doesn't exist. They're targeting people in metro areas (with amazing internet) who have some cash to burn ($130 initial cost for Stadia, +monthly costs and +game costs) who really want to play video games but for some reason haven't picked up a PS4/XBOX or PC. I can't literally think of this person nor have I ever met them.
Click to expand...
The steam link app is really fucking cool. You can stream games to your phone when you’re in another fucking state. And it works. When it first came out (on iOS fuck you apple) I had a lot of fun just lying in my bed streaming SBCG4AP to my iPad.
I’m glad we can agree that streaming games is pretty cool, it’s just that google fucking sucks dick.
 
Last edited:
This doesn't surprise me, but at the same time... Holy. Shit.

venturebeat.com

Google Stadia’s data use is over 100MB per minute at 1080p

Google Stadia's streaming can use a lot of data even at 1080p, and that's going to add up quickly for anyone worried about a data cap.
venturebeat.com venturebeat.com

Google Stadia’s data use is over 100MB per minute at 1080p
Jeff Grubb@jeffgrubb November 19, 2019 1:49 PM

Google Stadia is every bit the data hog that everyone was expecting. The service warns that it can use between 4.5GB and 20GB of data per hour. Where you’ll fall within that range depends on the quality of the video feed you get from Stadia. But I didn’t want to just take Google’s word for this, so I set up a quick test. At 4K and 60 frames per second, 20GB per hour seems right in line with my experience.

Tracking data use by device is more difficult than it should be. But I settled on connecting a Chromecast Ultra and Stadia controller to my phone as a hotspot. I could then use Android’s built-in data-usage tracker. The problem here is that I could only get 1080p quality from Stadia instead of 4K I get over my broadband connection. But the results still illustrate how much data Stadia eats.

Tracking Google Stadia data usage


Red Dead Redemption 2 at 1080p60 on Stadia:

Duration: 13 minutes
Data used total: 1.55GB
Data per minute: 119MB
Estimated data per hour: 7.14GB

I couldn’t track the use at 4K, but at four times the pixels of 1080p, Stadia should easily hit that 20GB/minute throughput.

Sticking with just my actual measurements, though. Stadia’s data use could end up extremely high. Red Dead Redemption 2 takes an average of 47 hours to beat, according to howlongtobeat.com.

That means just to play through the story of Red Dead Redemption 2, you will use more than 335GB of data on Stadia. Again, that’s at 1080p60. At 4K, you’re likely using at least twice that.

On PC, Red Dead Redemption 2 is an approximately 150GB download. So that’s significantly less than 47 hours on Stadia. And that doesn’t include any extra time put into Red Dead Online. Now, to be fair, you don’t need to download any updates for Stadia games. But streaming is still far more data intensive.

What this means is that if you have a data cap, Stadia is going to add up quickly. That’s especially true for 4K60. If you are consistently hitting that 20GB-per-hour mark. At that rate, you’ll go over a typical Xfinity 1TB cap after just 50 hours of Stadia alone.
Click to expand...
 
What's amusing to me is that every product Google has rolled out in the last few years has been a complete dumpster fire. Diversity is very much the core of their strength.
 
So you have to pay $60 for each game and you don't even own the data in any form, on top of the whole thing being a brick if your internet goes down.

like I can rig up a monitor or use my smartphone for a screen and be able to run a game console from the electric outlets in my car, but stadia needs to be fucking anchored at your house because once the wifi is dead the thing won't work. It's less convenient.
 
Floop said:
Okay well I guess it’s only for people that want to play their games anywhere while using up all the bandwidth in the workplace
Click to expand...
They responded to the washingtonpost 1Gbps jumping video i posted last page with the excuse that it's not meant to be used in networked environments like workplaces.
 
Masquerade said:
What the fuck did they even mean by this?
Click to expand...

Because the Stadia is so fucking data hungry and relies on signal power, standing between your router and your chromecast causes input lag.

Stadia is a device for dumb faggots and hipsters. Only a fucking retard would buy this. And google does not have the brand power of apple to push out shitty old tech and have people lining up around the corner to buy it.

The fact that Apple didn't even bother attempting the stadia is a testament to how bad of an idea it is. And we're talking about a company selling 6k out of date cheese grater desktops and they sell crazy well.
 
Okay, imagine this, but shittier, and using someone else’s PC located who knows where, and that’s stadia.
 
MrTroll said:
That's unfair to the Ouya. Ouya at least tried to have a library of original games you couldn't get elsewhere, which is the whole point of releasing a console. They were all terrible, but hey.

Google thinks people are going to pay a monthly subscription fee for the privilege of being able to stream full-priced games they could already play on a PC or real console without 500ms of additional input lag.
Click to expand...

Hell, Ouya could be decent if it were released today, considering Android's become a lot more controller-friendly. A serious Android console would have similar hurdles to what Steam ran into when trying to bring PC games into the living room. A modern Ouya would need Steam's incredible levels of controller customizability and the ability to share layouts, so games without controller support could work, and you could assign screen coordinates to taps or swipes. Steam single-handedly managed to get a lot of developers to start taking the PC seriously, and now it's the norm to see PC versions work just as well as their console counterparts. Android could be the same way, but the only serious, quality Android console I've ever seen is the Nvidia Shield, which is kind of its own thing anyway. It's more like an individual console that just happens to run Android.

Game streaming is just irreparably bad in so many ways. Holy shit, did nobody in charge ever consider ping times? Network interference? All the complications customers could have? You could live right next to a server farm, but if there's a bathroom full of lead pipes in the walls between your router and where you game, you're gonna have a shitload of network packets run headlong into your piping and die. There are countless situations with how people's homes are laid out, proximity to neighbors, you name it.

A while ago, I remember reading something about cloud-based ideas that could be implemented smoothly, combining both local and cloud computing. One game that was supposed to use it was Crackdown 3 on Xbox One: your character, the controls, and everything local to you would be generated on your own Xbone. So, no input lag, and no goofy stuff where you shoot a guy and he might just freeze and not die for a second like you were playing online. But, things in the background would be calculated on the cloud and the results would be delivered back to you in a video. Fire a rocket at a giant building, and it'll crumble realistically - that crumbling being a cloud-generated destruction effect wrapped up into a video and loaded onto your system. Your game doesn't slow down, you get a spectacular effect, and everyone's happy.

Crackdown 3 ended up launching and being a mediocre POS that didn't do that, for some reason.

That seems like the best use case for games being wrapped up in cloud computing. The local system could defeat input lag concerns by rendering the character and anything nearby locally, with environments and possible outcomes largely rendered by the cloud. Of course, a whole lot of special programming would be needed for each game to be feasible, and Google doesn't seem to be interested in investing in any original games anytime soon. Not to mention, the Chromecast Ultra doesn't even have the space to install games, so, that's already off the table.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom