Could people alter the graphical settings during the beta test? Did we have anyone changing settings on the show floor? It's not like they are PC version Right?
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Google formally unveils the "Stadia" launching in 2019
- Thread starter BAD
- Start date
So because they didn't show any of that in the beta or demo, your conclusion is that in general Google don't want that kind of stuff.
What? All the games that I bought for the last 10 years or so have been digital. I have never had a disc inserted into my PS4 and Xbox One. But what does this have to do with game streaming though?
Well, it's a streaming service, how much control do you thing they will give clients? If they don't show it off, presume Google won't give you options since they are pushing this a a console rival, not a PC.
Have you read some of the replies on just the first page alone?
PC it is then. Though I find that strange they wouldn't allow it. I understand having Stadia closed to protect against cheating/hacking, but something like adjusting FoV, graphics settings, shadow quality, etc., is only there to let us customize games to our preferences.
It's because the platform is a fixed spec and games will be tailored towards that exact configuration. PC games only have settings because of the huge range of GPUs out there. FOV is something desirable but certainly not things l8ke shadow quality, SSAO, texture quality, etc.
It seems like Google is taking up their all singing and dancing spec for the Stadia, so it would seem there is no reason to change settings if they can push the 4k60 all the time.
Because publishers would love it if they could make people buy games digitally. No reason for them to invest in physical media. Stadia is all digital, it would be worth it.
What? 10 years ago we had five different consoles (Wii, Xbox 360, PS3, Nintendo DS, PSP) all sell 80+ million units. The console market has shrunken dramatically since then.
As of March 2009, I don't think either the PS3 or 360 had even broken 30 million sales.
edit: edited to 30 million, I think that's accurate, PS3 was more like 23 million at that point but MS broke 30 in May of 2009 so was getting close
That's fair, I was conflating "10 years" with "the previous generation".
Considering the successors to the PS4 and XB1 will be arriving soon, I don't think my general point is inaccurate. The Xbox One isn't going to double its lifetime sales in the next year, and pure-portable consoles are extinct.
Yeah hardware sales have defnitely shrunk; but interestingly enough both are doing better financially lol
This announcement has made me put my plans on getting a new gaming computer on hold. IF I can play new AAA games and resource hungry strategy games on my old computers via Stadia I see no reason to get a new computer or upgrade my current one since it manages just fine as a regular computer.
And if the above becomes true then Stadia will become a much much bigger threat to Steam than Epic ever can be.
And if the above becomes true then Stadia will become a much much bigger threat to Steam than Epic ever can be.
I kinda feel like Stadia is a threat to everyone except Nintendo. Nintendo 1st party is just so unique. But for core gamers who really want fidelity especially on a box thats always connected to a hot internet connection, Stadia is just so good, at least the promises made.
Early indicators are that latency is on par with consoles. But for VR, that might not be good enough. PC/console box makers might have to go all in on VR to combat Stadia.
I don't get these comparisons to the always online Xbone reveal. Do people not realize that there is a huge difference between your physical/local hardware requiring always online and something from the consumers point of view only existing on the internet requiring always online?
"How id Software went from skeptical to excited about Google Stadia streaming"
https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2019...-to-overcome-ids-stadia-streaming-skepticism/
https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2019...-to-overcome-ids-stadia-streaming-skepticism/
Basically The only game I play the last 5 years, Destiny, already requires always online and I dont care.
In fact if it didn't it couldn't be as fun.
Being able to play any game instantly in high quality from any internet-capable interface sounds pretty revolutionary if widely adopted.
Aside from that, I'm hyped to see what kinds of unique new games come out of this setup. Like, with no client hardware restraints could we potentially see online game environments on a scale never imagined before?
Aside from that, I'm hyped to see what kinds of unique new games come out of this setup. Like, with no client hardware restraints could we potentially see online game environments on a scale never imagined before?
I wonder when we will see exclusive games for it.
It would be cool seeing a game made using 2 gpus.
This is a really good read, it makes me more excited about the prospects of the platform knowing that people like id are helping shape it and looking to create unique experiences that aren't possible on local hardware, I'm intrigued.
I wonder if Stadia could potentially get rid of loading altogether.
Even for games that I already have on my Playstation's hard drive, the games take a minute or two to load from the launcher to the title screen and then more time to load into a the part that you actually play. In the Stadia demo they said that you could be ready to play in as little as 4 seconds, so I'm imagining that they already have ready-to-play instances of the game already pre-loaded that you can just jump into.
If that's the case, then the organization of a Stadia game could potentially be that there are ready-to-go instances of each mission or world or whatever, and you just jump between them with your save data as necessary. No more waiting for loading at all! I would like to see that.
Even for games that I already have on my Playstation's hard drive, the games take a minute or two to load from the launcher to the title screen and then more time to load into a the part that you actually play. In the Stadia demo they said that you could be ready to play in as little as 4 seconds, so I'm imagining that they already have ready-to-play instances of the game already pre-loaded that you can just jump into.
If that's the case, then the organization of a Stadia game could potentially be that there are ready-to-go instances of each mission or world or whatever, and you just jump between them with your save data as necessary. No more waiting for loading at all! I would like to see that.
"Gamers" told us that vita would outsell 3ds and psp would outsell ds. They told us vr would be a home run. They told us wii and kinect were insane ideas that would fail to gain traction.
Streaming is the future, whether people want to admit it or not. The question is whether Microsoft or Google will resonate with the public more
Streaming is the future, whether people want to admit it or not. The question is whether Microsoft or Google will resonate with the public more
Steam is the number one PC Store in the world. And Valve has been looking into Streaming tech as well.
Playstation Store is the biggest console store in the world and already is the market leader in Game Streaming.
Google owns the biggest Mobile store in the world (Play Store). Set to release Stadia in the Fall.
In the future, if either Sony or Valve feels like Stadia is amassing staying presence and growing substantially in the minds of many...both can easily prevent or reduce that by ramping up their own existing Streaming solutions or composing one and introduce it to their gigantic respective userbases and literally watch it get consumed by the numbers and catch up to Stadia. At least, in Valve's case, this could happen if Valve feels like they are losing mindshare of the high-end distribution to Google Stadia.
And Stadia is already at a grand disadvantage with PS Now not only having vast chunk of the Streaming market, but by also having a vast library of video game content. To add to that, the service itself is very profitable. Showing signs of staying power and growing thanks to it being attached to the Playstation brand and being the first Streaming service out.
People underestimate the impact of game libraries.
Both Sony and Valve have multi-millions of users locked up to their ecosystem majorly because of their video game libraries.
I doubt Google Stadia is going to have the dominance or power to sway people to their platform's ecosystem if they don't have the competitive software content, be it exclusive or multiplatform, to have Stadia stand out compared to its competition.
Last edited:
Games library will be important. I'm also really curious if Microsoft or Sony will allow their cloud offering to out-perform their console. So far, they haven't. Because Google has already stated 8K 120 FPS (though not at launch) and CPU/GPU stacking and huge online multiplayer counts. Next gen consoles won't keep up with that. So they have to choose to either make the console only crowd feel like second class citizens by streaming superior experiences, or watch Google tout the most premium experience. I think they need to go all in on premium cloud only games or they're going to be left in the dust by Google.
it sounds like their hardware has pretty beefy storage solutions so loading should be kept to a minimum from just a hardware perspective. with separate instances yeah I could see further reductions. but having multiple instances like that for one user doesn't seem economically feasible yet. It definitely seems doable to have games up and running already and you just log in, so loading on game boot will probably be hidden from the user.
Lol gamers hate VR and have been sceptical outside of enthusiasts like myself. Where have you been?
No one told you vr would be a honerun. No one who knew anything about VR would say that.
Discredited.
That's an interesting read. It makes sense in a way that Google wanted Doom on board. If they manage to convince with Doom everything is possible.
Guy from game spot played doom and said it didn't feel great.
And this was ideal conditions.
Not only that, but a digital only console is a choice. There is still an option for a console with a physical drive, with games you can buy and sell/trade. I don't think anyone was ever against a choice of digital but being forced to go digital. I'm pretty sure their next gen machines will also have physical drives.
I won't argue that streaming/digital will be the norm in the future for the gen after next, but you can't compare a digital only Xbox One S at the tail end of a gen with still plenty of Xboxes with a drive sitting in shops, with a launch console that by definition would've set the standard going forward.
If nextgen Xboxes all launch without a drive, which looks like it won't happen, then we could compare both situations.
I'm a dinosaur by choice and because my internet sucks and I intend to stay like that as long as possible.
Apart from chrome cast, this should be something MS/Sony/valve can do too
This feels like a race from different start points. Google have a likely advantage in infrastructure but are starting almost from scratch with publishing (although ports don't look too complicated); ms and valve have access to games already but need to build out the infrastructure. And Sony has arguably already started in the race but may need to update some stuff if they're running a little slower than the others
A lot of what google showed - state share, instant access from links - can be done by any one of those. It's only the youtube part that they control. And twitch is still out there potentially ready to do the same kind of thing with a partner.
Which is fine, the game streaming won't replace the consoles, at least not on short term.
I don't expect sony or valve to even be part of the conversation
I think google will be first to market, ubiquitous and to leverage youtube/chrome while having the best graphical fidelity
Microsoft will be hampered by the power of their next console. However, they will have a back-catalogue of content, a presence on the switch, excellent online service and the ability to own your games.
They are the ones to watch in my opinion.
Valve I agree with you
Sony are already *in* the conversation for several years now
MS definitely agree about power - especially if their first streaming is supposed to be based on XB1S server blades. I wonder if MS will adjust that plan now? But they could hit the market by the end of the year by using existing hardware
Sony are already *in* the conversation for several years now
MS definitely agree about power - especially if their first streaming is supposed to be based on XB1S server blades. I wonder if MS will adjust that plan now? But they could hit the market by the end of the year by using existing hardware
Doom is a good choice, but I think a fighting game would be a better test.
I think you might be years into the next cycle before it becomes economical to either refresh the instance hardware, or to dedicate more than one instance to one user. In the case of 'stacking' instances for each user, it might never be feasible if the service is actually popular. 2 or 3 years into the next gen we'll probably have a refresh of console hardware too.
One thing that can be interesting in the shorter term is linking single per-user instances with bigger bandwidth, for multiplayer experiences that would be more difficult to do across local connections. So that potential is there, but I'm skeptical about per-user stacking any time soon.
I also wonder quite a bit about the feasibility of 4K/30 or 4K/60 streaming at console-platform scale - let alone 8K/120. If high res streaming ends up becoming popular, with millions of concurrent users, the backend bandwidth will have to grow enormously if we're to avoid serious throttling of res/framerate to accommodate the numbers of users. Google is very careful to say 'up to' x resolution at y fps. But quietly mentioned in interviews is that it can scale down to 720/30. At busy times this might happen to you, regardless of how good your local connection is. There's only so much bandwidth at the exchanges - maybe I'm wrong on that, if I am I'd welcome correction. But we might be well out of the next gen of consoles by the time it's feasible to offer that quality of service to millions of concurrent users.
Last edited:
Isn't the next XBox rumoured to be more powerful than the stats Google provided? That's my main concern with stadia, it'll be Uber for a year and then PS5 and Nextbox will come in and one up everything. And then games targeting 30FPS on those platforms aren't suddenly going to be 4k60FPs if google's server hardware is weaker.
Google could just upgrade the servers. Also remember the part we're Google said developers could use multiple CPUs/GPUs for more processing power.
Last edited:
This is true, but also the cost associated with upgrading servers, and even having to have potentially multiple servers per consumer will be massive. So I expect those claims to similar to MS' early cloud claims. Possible but unlikely in practice to make a huge difference.
While the cost is certainly high, I would think that shipping and installing new CPUs/GPUs to their data centers is almost certainly less expensive than shipping new consoles to tens of millions of physical locations. I'm leaning towards the assumption that A server-side model ensures Google can do an upgrade much faster than a new console could.
We don't know how flexible will the multiple CPU/GPU configurations will be for developers. For all we know, developers will have more access to performance than the PS5/Xbox Two can provide. A cool part about servers is that all of the configurations are virtualized, so if someone is only paying an indie game you can allocate a lot less power to that, compared to someone that is playing the latest AAA high budget/graphics game. So it it's not necessarily to upgrade the complete server 1 to 1 for every customer.
Yep absolutely and I see that as an advantage. I was talking about what happens if the next PS and Xbox are more powerful than Stadia (which looks to be the case). We're not going to see 4k60FPS on games that target 30FPS on other more powerful consoles, and Google won't upgrade their GPUs only a year or two after release.