-
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.
The Verge - Google Stadia hands-on: near-flawless Doom Eternal running on a Chromebook
- Thread starter SwampBastard
- Start date
For me, PsNow and Project Stream worked great both...but is a NO-NO for fighting games or fast-paced shooters
Some people maybe get a better experience, some maybe get worst....the same will happen with Stadia/Xcloud.
there is no magic formula here.
Some people maybe get a better experience, some maybe get worst....the same will happen with Stadia/Xcloud.
there is no magic formula here.
It's good to hear that the tech's working... just still kind of puzzled why you need to buy a $130 founder's edition (at least until the Base service is out next year) to play games you're still paying full price for. Like... you can't just play Doom Eternal on a Chromebook at launch unless you've bought in on this other hardware designed to play it on your TV.
EDIT - Okay it does support wired gameplay using the USB-C port, so that must be what they were doing.
How does one "unplug" the Stadia controller? I thought this thing worked over wi-fi connecting to the Stadia server, so it didn't need a bluetooth or other connection to the playback device (Chromecast, Chromebook, PC, phone, etc.)? Or is a wired connection optional for some small latency reduction.
EDIT - Okay it does support wired gameplay using the USB-C port, so that must be what they were doing.
Last edited:
I think the point was that what you think and what the population of people that play games think are two wholly different things. Kinda the same as people who care about video and audio quality and people who care about convience. If you think the market for streaming cares about a hiccup here and there that would render the company "out of business in a week" you are sorely out of touch with the rest of the worlD.
Having tried both PSNow and Google stream, yes stream was "good" mostly in a sense - for streaming. The main differences between the two is PSNow is usually streaming old games at 720p and takes almost a minute just to boot the stupid game (the worst thing about it tbh), google stream was really fast to be in and playing with the SSDs and better hardware. The better impressions have more to do with the hardware behind google stream I think - which will change next gen when they have PS5s in the racks. Latency is 'ok' for something like assassins creed, but for me the real killer is network variance, spikes of latency at random times (I want to be in full control, not lose it at random times), spikes of compression at random times - Seeing the fuzzy instead of detail on certain things in the distance. It's not worth a negative draw back to save a few bucks. And really with 4k60, I'm very skeptical on how that will turn out - but it will need to be stellar to replace PS5/scarlet, and I don't see that happening.
140 million, with only 700k subscribers. Must be an expensive subscription service.
Just as many people don't care much that a medium that is primarily visual based has sacrifices to the image quality, a large number of people won't care that an interactivity-based medium has sacrifices to input response. Ignoring how quickly people jumped to LCD displays when their response times were absolutely atrocious in comparison to CRTs, many people today are using their displays with post-process settings that are adding potentially more of a delay than the actual streaming will. If people can play Killzone 2, they can play basically anything via streaming :P
This gets said a lot... but would honestly apply to Netflix and Youtube compared to TV and DVD. People with lower caps would likely just have to settle for lower quality image.
It's actually feasible for streaming players to not be at a disadvantage, because whilst the would have the delay inherent to streaming the image, they wouldn't necessarily have to suffer the client/server delay usually entailed with local hardware, because the datacenter streaming the game to you could also be where the server you're playing on is located.
Xcloud is basically the same latency as a local Xbox, I'm sure the most recent stadia is similar too
Flawless in a demo setting. But regardless, I'll simply have a far superior home experience by not buying the game on Stadia and not paying the monthly fees to access the game at a reasonable framerate. I'll save money, keep the game forever (probably), and at higher quality, better graphics settings, etc etc.
You're completely missing the point which is that comparing a game streaming service to Netflix is stupid. Saying people accept lag from Netflix therefore will accept it from a game is mental gymnastics of the highest order.
You literally press one button to start a programme or film on Netflix and that is the limit of your input until you finish watching it. People don't notice latency because it's only at the very start as the stream comes in.
I don't know.
But could a pro subscriber benefit from down sampling? With the Pro and X, many players started with 1080 sets.
This is one of those "I need to demo it myself from my own device to let you know if it's flawless or not" situations.
There is simply no reliable way to know if it's legit or not with so many different variables involved. It may be a case-by-case basis, too, on whether it's flawless or not.
There is simply no reliable way to know if it's legit or not with so many different variables involved. It may be a case-by-case basis, too, on whether it's flawless or not.
Like I said, I will sleep until I actually see it working. So much of theoretical tech is feasible. What matters is how it performs in reality.
Also what youre saying is that streaming players would be on their own server to gain these advantages. How would the console player even connect to a streaming player? Or would Stadia have to lose the potential of cross platform play? Please educate me on this if you can, I'm genuinely curious.
playing on a chromebook while out in the world sounds awesome until i think about public wifi spots (starbucks etc) and how I doubt they will give out the bandwidth you need on a per connection level. i'm not sure any public wifi spots out there will work :(
still i'm pretty excited to try out a stadia, i hope they get it to work with switch that would be kinda perfect especially if I can use the stadia controller with the switch.
still i'm pretty excited to try out a stadia, i hope they get it to work with switch that would be kinda perfect especially if I can use the stadia controller with the switch.
Once this releases we are going to be getting mixed results on latency depending on how far each of us are from a server
Some will say no lag
Others will say some lag but no big deal
Others will say too much lag
Some will say no lag
Others will say some lag but no big deal
Others will say too much lag
Last edited:
Also worth mentioning is the link within the linked article that goes to the GDC talk where the id representative says it took only two people and just three weeks to port Doom (2016?) over from PC to Stadia and that their own staff could barely/rarely tell the difference between local and cloud play.
It would depend on the particular game to a extent as well. FPSes usually cheat with calculations as to whether a bullet actually hits the target that are separate from what the players actually observe at their end. On the other hand, fighting games roll back or delay inputs so that the base reality at all points coincides.
It would depend on the particular game to a extent as well. FPSes usually cheat with calculations as to whether a bullet actually hits the target that are separate from what the players actually observe at their end. On the other hand, fighting games roll back or delay inputs so that the base reality at all points coincides.
I'm totally sold on Stadia, but I'm also totally sold on PS5. I'm confident Stadia is going to be amazing for playing online games with friends (particularly friends who don't own a console or don't religiously keep their PS4 up to date). The question to me is whether Stadia will be good enough to be my main platform for 3rd party single player games.
Getting almost a year head start for Stadia could be as important as Xbox360 having a year on PS3. Once I have a (small) library of games running at next-gen quality on Stadia, rushing out to buy a PS5 at launch might not seem so urgent.
To the tech heads out there: i'm hearing there's a fair amount of disappointment in the Navi announcement. It sounds like the big gains vs GCN/Vega are in power consumption. That makes a lot of sense for a mainstream console chip, but means nothing to the end-user of a cloud service. I'm wondering if the widely speculated Vega56 is going to be equivalent or better than the likely Navi chip going in PS5/Scarlet. Not to overstate it, but I'm reading HBM2 might have some advantages over GDDR6.
Getting almost a year head start for Stadia could be as important as Xbox360 having a year on PS3. Once I have a (small) library of games running at next-gen quality on Stadia, rushing out to buy a PS5 at launch might not seem so urgent.
To the tech heads out there: i'm hearing there's a fair amount of disappointment in the Navi announcement. It sounds like the big gains vs GCN/Vega are in power consumption. That makes a lot of sense for a mainstream console chip, but means nothing to the end-user of a cloud service. I'm wondering if the widely speculated Vega56 is going to be equivalent or better than the likely Navi chip going in PS5/Scarlet. Not to overstate it, but I'm reading HBM2 might have some advantages over GDDR6.
Last edited:
That's how I feel. The closer we get to streaming everything and not having to own an actual console, the better. Ideally we get to a future where you just pick a controller up and stream a game on your TV. Make it subscription based, I can play any game I want at any time and we're good to go. I know a lot of people here resist that idea but I think it's inevitable. Imagine a games future where we don't have to wait for console refreshes, games can just be developed and played on the most powerful hardware available and can be streamed to your TV, phone, tablet, etc. It's quite exciting once the internet speeds get stable enough to provide this for everyone. I have fast enough internet where PSNow worked pretty much flawlessly for me, didn't notice much beyond the occasional lag. Just wasn't worth $20 a month for the games offered.
I mean, it's a sub 4K monitor. If this tech works I don't see why it shouldn't scale?
YouTube works pretty well, so I don't really think the scope of the userbase is an issue.
I tried various setups with a good connection and while the latency was surprisingly good, the artifacting in Odyssey was horrendous when you entered the more colorful areas of the game.
It's being improved every month, that's why it's releasing in november instead of right now
Project stream was just a test of something early in development
I'm not sure such demos are a great way to prove the streaming works. I doubt there is the time to discover how the lag is.
Give some expert players the chance to play through the game on Nightmare at home for a couple of weeks and then check back in with how the input lag holds up.
Give some expert players the chance to play through the game on Nightmare at home for a couple of weeks and then check back in with how the input lag holds up.
As emag stated above, this would be dependent on individual game implementation. It however would be trivial to combine users playing via streaming with those playing using local hardware. Streaming players would have perhaps a 50ms delay on seeing their input reflected on their screen, but would have effectively a 0 ping to the server itself. Players using local hardware would have no delay in what they see on their screen, but may have the standard 50ms delay in game logic. Which of these players is at an advantage would depend on how the game would usually account for the delay in game logic, and whether or not always seeing a true representation of the game state is more valuable than seeing the approximation earlier.
Am I correct in that all the demos have been using controllers? If that's the case, then I am not surprised that the input latency is not discernible for a large majority of people. However, what happens when they pick up a mouse and keyboard to play Doom Eternal with? ANY latency, no matter how minor, will feel much more present and worst case scenario could cause people to have motion sickness playing an FPS when otherwise they wouldn't have that issue.
Why are people so down on this? I can see massive potential in the tech, sure theres gonna be kinks to iron out, just like Netflix had when it started
I fully expect MS and Google to have this sorted by next e3, I preordered the Stadia Founders edition cause I really wanna see what this is about
I fully expect MS and Google to have this sorted by next e3, I preordered the Stadia Founders edition cause I really wanna see what this is about
Thanks for the explanation. Tbh, just waiting for MK11 to come out on Stadia. That demonstration will make or break streaming for me.
Well many people are playing fighting games and fast-paced shooters over varifying wifi connections. So for example if the PS4 has to read your controller inputs over bluetooth, then upload those actions to a server over wifi, would that be dramatically better than having the Stadia controller communicate directly with the server?
I'm moving to a place soon with an isp that has gig speeds and no data caps, so I'm definitely excited to at least try this out.
Not being in the US, i am very much expecting a crappy launch.
Other than that, this will eventually cover pretty much 90% of the gaming consumers needs.
What i am expecting when it comes to long term business model is for Google to eventually release a "console" of sorts with hardware equivalency to the server rack units, that a customer can rent to have a local machine for the lag critical games.
You would either pay a fee to rent the machine, or have the machine for free if you alow Google to use it for other customers while it's not being used by you.
Or just ignore that part of the market and just focus on the non twitchy, non esports segment of the market.
Having some giants compete on this could be great for advancing technology in a number of fields.
Other than that, this will eventually cover pretty much 90% of the gaming consumers needs.
What i am expecting when it comes to long term business model is for Google to eventually release a "console" of sorts with hardware equivalency to the server rack units, that a customer can rent to have a local machine for the lag critical games.
You would either pay a fee to rent the machine, or have the machine for free if you alow Google to use it for other customers while it's not being used by you.
Or just ignore that part of the market and just focus on the non twitchy, non esports segment of the market.
Having some giants compete on this could be great for advancing technology in a number of fields.
I'm looking forward to trying cloud streaming but with MS saying I can use my console I'm not sure if it will be much use to me.
Some people don't like change
Sony is not part of the conversion on this yet (will take a while for them to setup their own xcloud configuration)
Etc..
I'm hoping Stadia mostly lives up to the claims, I'm willing to make some sacrifices in order to remove myself from the console ecosystems
Biggest thing keeping me from Stadia is buying games that are locked to their streaming service, that I have little confidence in long term. (I just found and tossed my OnLive console)
Now, if it was a purely Gamepass like situation? I just fork over $20/month to play new top tier stuff? Maybe. But their $12/month Gold/Plus like solution ain't gonna win me over. There's already too many subs to buy.
Which is why MS is gonna take this with xCloud and crush shit.
Now, if it was a purely Gamepass like situation? I just fork over $20/month to play new top tier stuff? Maybe. But their $12/month Gold/Plus like solution ain't gonna win me over. There's already too many subs to buy.
Which is why MS is gonna take this with xCloud and crush shit.
Wow, another thread of glowing hands on impressions of Stadia or xCloud and another thread of a bunch of people on Era who've never tried it telling everyone that the impressions are wrong.
I can't wait for Stadia personally, and particularly the free level.
I only own a Switch and don't have the time/money to justify a PS4/Xbox/PC so if I suddenly have the ability to buy a few of the big multiplats without dedicated hardware then huzzah.
Obviously it will be interesting to see performance, but I feel like it could work well for me.
I only own a Switch and don't have the time/money to justify a PS4/Xbox/PC so if I suddenly have the ability to buy a few of the big multiplats without dedicated hardware then huzzah.
Obviously it will be interesting to see performance, but I feel like it could work well for me.
No one is saying this? Fact is it will vary from person to person and this is a controlled test in a controlled environment. People here have used Stadia in this thread....
I play DOOM on GeForce Now 120Hz/120+ uncapped FPS.
Mouse and keyboard.
It's sweet.
Hopefully Stadia will be similar, minus the support for 120 FPS.
THANK YOU. The tech works better than most people think it does.
I think I'm just going to start jumping into other threads to post why I won't buy or play whatever the topic is.
Everyone mentions PSNow, Stadia and what not.
Streaming has been around for free with most of your steam, uplay and battle net library if you own a shield.
NVidia Now already proved it will be feasible for most connections, I used the shield wirelessly and it worked well enough to where I was like "alright, you have my attention"
Streaming has been around for free with most of your steam, uplay and battle net library if you own a shield.
NVidia Now already proved it will be feasible for most connections, I used the shield wirelessly and it worked well enough to where I was like "alright, you have my attention"
