Yeah this is just people blowing shit out of proportion, and promptly when it starts ERA will somehow all now own a Stadia, and refuse to shit talk it.
-
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.
Google Stadia Pro (4K/60, 5.1 surround) $9.99 a month. Stadia Base (1080/60) requires no subscription.
- Thread starter Cpt-GargameL
- Start date
- Status
This was the first confirmation I've seen on several of those, and it's also enough closer to launch that it's peeling away hope for launch-window solutions on many of them. Obviously a lot of people didn't know, since they came up in today's AMA.
He added the "they said you're going to have to buy another $60 game for your kids" They even said that not all games will be priced like that and they'll be competitive with other markets. My guess is the only full price games will be RDR and Gylt.
Their messaging is terrible, but yeah, that's all been known.
Also, even if you buy the Founders/Premier edition which have been marketed as coming with Destiny 2: The Collection, you will NOT retain access to that content on Stadia Base without a paid monthly Pro subscription.
A clarification that they conveniently didn't surface until they were almost sold out of the Founders edition. Sort of scummy, since that seriously diminished the perceived value of that purchase.
Last edited:
That's not true at all, they put that in their FAQ in July.
And anyone can cancel their pre-order any time; nobody has even been charged money yet.
Not sure why anyone would have assumed you'd keep your Pro games upon unsubscribing; that's not how any service like that works, at all.
Not sure but that's going to spell disaster if that's accurate diagnosis for launch.What's going on with their speed testing tool? I tried both twice right after each other and neither result changed.
Speedtest.net:
What's going on with their speed testing tool? I tried both twice right after each other and neither result changed.
Speedtest.net:
Speedtest Usually picks a server like down the street from people.
Googles tool is testing your speed to what you'd imagine is their closest data center.
I wouldn't think that distance to a server would matter much for download speed, just ping, but maybe? Speedtest.net gives me 20-30mbps with servers on the west coast and east coast (I'm in the American midwest). I wonder where these Stadia servers are, then.
Distance increases the chance of something in the packet routing causing an issue.
Your ISP or some backbone company could update a routine table tomorrow and suddenly your speed / latency changes.
The internet is still a fickle bastard.
Honestly... someone is surely living in a bubble AND wasting its time.
My first test to Project Stream was 2 Mbps and right after 43 Mbps. Who knows?What's going on with their speed testing tool? I tried both twice right after each other and neither result changed.
Speedtest.net:
To anyone who wants to know the guy that will interview John Justice tomorrow, he is doing an Open Mic live today about the AMA:
Wow. #OLDSHIT
jim sterling video is slaying this big time. With that launch lineup = who cares?
jim sterling video is slaying this big time. With that launch lineup = who cares?
Presumably, xbox controller is the default mapping and won't need to be mapped internally, hence not in that list.
Yup. They dodged a lot. That's why I'm more interested in tomorrow's interview.
Only TVs will get 4K, HDR, 5.1 surround audio at launch. The rest will be gradually rolling out.
Edit: Full quote and source
Yeah it's probably all part of just staggering usage of the service; will make it so less people are using 4k all the time. And particularly when they initially ship and hand out codes, before anyone has the Chroemcasts in their hands they know the initial users will all be 1080p.
I'm hoping that's all it is at least; if it's an actual technical issue with how well 4k is performing on PC that would suck.
I'm hoping that's all it is at least; if it's an actual technical issue with how well 4k is performing on PC that would suck.
I'm so surprised JIm Sterling agrees with the crowd.
If in two years the crowd loves Stadia, I'll eagerly await his vid about how great Stadia is now.
Thanks I definitely missed that. Very few of us even have the delivery date as the 19th. Sigh oh well.
Yeah we don't know why these things are the way they are. No 4k on Chrome, limited device support... it could be because 4k is only working well in limited conditions which could take a while to get working to their satisfaction. Or they might just be staggering things as part of a purposefully stunted rollout. We don't know. Could be a bit of both.
That's not the point even if it's 1 year from now none of this will matter in 1 year then
i don't see the point in complaining about temporary things
One thing I want to see is this:
The keyword is "aiming", but I want to know how they will communicate it and what is their rollout plan.
Source
The keyword is "aiming", but I want to know how they will communicate it and what is their rollout plan.
We Nihilist philosophers now.
(it matters to me now because I'm buying a buddy pass and not a Chromecast lol)
If they said none of this stuff was ever coming then I would be complaining
It is fair to complain about something that was never hinted to be specific for devices/screens. Sure, it will come out one day, but today that sucks.
If ever start a company I'm signing you up as my first customer.
Doesn't really suck to me, as long as I can play cyberpunk and red dead in 4k on my tv I'm good
Good for you them. I won't play it at all since they don't support my country, so it won't affect me, but it still sucks that they aren't delivering the same experience for all screens.
I just saw something gold on Twitter. They are testing Destiny and this happened:
I'm thinking the lack of 4K/hdr/5.1 on PC at launch is exactly as they said, they were putting their efforts into optimizing 4K for the Chromecast Ultra as a priority over PC. Chromecast Ultra has two advantages over Chrome on PC: first, it's a huge variety of computers that they need to support, so will take extra time to optimize and test the service to work great on as many configurations as possible, and second, Chromecast Ultra has something that PC doesn't: hardware support for Google's VP9 Video Codec (which does support realtime encoding and decoding of 4K/hdr). The Chrome browser can decode VP9, but since it's in software, there will be extra decoding time required depending on the power of the computer (which goes back to point 1), especially for higher bitrates (such as those needed for 4k).
Last edited:
It's a videostream. Different hardware configs may have some effect but nothing to the extent that running a game on it would. And this is Google we're talking about. Why would they suddenly have issues sending a videostream to PC's that they wouldn't be able to deal with? They're arguably one of the companies with the most experience with that.
Video streams can be extremely CPU or GPU intensive, depending on the codec, bit rate, even the content being streamed. A gaming PC isn't going to feel it, but read reviews of older netbook pcs, they talk about its video decoding capabilities. As to why they would "suddenly" have issues, they've never needed to do the encoding on their end and decoding on your end in a matter of milliseconds. Sure, video decoding is easy these days. If you don't care if your video stream is delayed by a few seconds, like happens with Twitch, YouTube, Netflix, etc.
Just today I was watching a live auction on Twitch (DesertBus!), and you could clearly see the video lag, reading chat was like reading the future. You would see "Going Twice!" in chat and then 5 seconds later in the video "We're going twice!"
Last edited:
When I remember the launch event and how they switched between multiple devices, it's not wrong to say they just went for the wow effect. It was more like a false advertisement in retrospect. Now, barebone launches and terrible UI are common for new console launches as well. But when portability and seamless transition wherever you are should be your main selling points, then launching in this state means Stadia will have a lot of negative press next week.
Because the Twitch guy probably didn't had the low latency mode actived, with that it's basically a live chat, pretty impressive.
Glad to know they're are people out there testing this. I only care about Destiny for Stadia atm
Apparently they embedded employees at Bungie for 6 months, so I'm optimistic.
Last edited:
Good read. Hope they keep getting more insights from other stabilished companies.
Chrome has hardware accelerated VP9...
.. and I don't see what they are going to optimize in Chrome vs. Chromecast. People either have GPUs or they don't; it's all the same codecs whether in Chrome or a Chromecast.'
If anything it's a messaging thing; "4k may not work well on your PC" they don't want to be explaining at launch. Because some dinky laptop that currently can't play 4k60 YouTube videos isn't suddenly going to be able to in a month with some optimizations.
no option for any other resolutions? maybe like 1440p?
1080p is a joke. 4k is nice but i'd love a $5 option there for 1440p.
1080p is a joke. 4k is nice but i'd love a $5 option there for 1440p.
- Status