They offer to just PS4 games i think,But yeah they need to offer the download option to all BC games.
That would be great, it would be a killer catalog IMO
They offer to just PS4 games i think,But yeah they need to offer the download option to all BC games.
I doubt the average consumer would notice input lag. I know plenty of people who put motion smoothing on their TVs for videogames because they think it looks better even though it feels like a half a second of input lag.Stadia will be, for the people with the internet speed and data allowance to allow it, more than serviceable. I'm confident in that.
However, there will be a TON of people who will swear up and down, no matter how good the experience is, that it's not good enough. Google will need to do blind Pepsi Taste Tests with this thing, to prove to people that they don't care about the minuscule concessions the way they think they do.
People who want to play games without wasting hundreds of dollars on dedicated gaming hardware. People who want to play co-op games like Monster Hunter without having to buy 4 consoles between the 4 of you. Students who gave up buying a next-gen console to afford a note-taking laptop.
People who want to play games without wasting hundreds of dollars on dedicated gaming hardware.
Bullshit. Input lag is incredibly noticable. I've tried both PSNow and Project Stream and it stands out like a sore thumb.
Serviceable is the operative word.
How do you know that they wouldn't want to try AAA games?
Sightly better?
I've been able to try 3 difference streaming services all works exactly the same and all are far from the local experience.
meltdowns going to be epic
I was talking about audiophiles there.Sightly better?
I've been able to try 3 difference streaming services all works exactly the same and all are far from the local experience.
meltdowns going to be epic
The two issues were both pretty major and to me don't make it a "near flawless" experience.
Ultimately, the primary audience is going to be (for want of a better word) the more casual audience, for which streaming is "good enough". If Google, Microsoft or Sony can get to the stage where streaming is "good enough" for a wide variety of people, there's a definite chance that's going to start eating into console purchases and low end PC gaming.
I'm going to say 9/10 of you grandstanding over lag have not actually tried streaming. You can only detect so much latency even with your fineley tuned gamer fingers.
Edit: CloseTalker beat me to it
When I got my new tv at 57.5ms of input lag it looked fine and I could not see any input lag, but when I switched to game mode on my tv (18.4ms) it was night and day difference how it felt and how well I played.
If streaming cannot stay under 60ms then I will notice and it will make me not want to play.
It does still depend on the content, and that's one thing Xcloud on paper has over Stadia. Stadia requires Linux ports, while apparently Xcloud requires Xbox One ports. Far more developers are publishers are going to make Xbox One ports regardless of streaming.this audience is probably far more huge than a lot of people think though
I can't imagine streaming completely surplanting local PC gaming. There is always going to be an audience for the highest quality graphics delivered at the smoothest of frame rates with the lowest of latency, and PC gaming is really the only destination if you want all three (and are willing to pay the up-front cost for the privilege). It's consoles that I'd be worried about.Pros and cons, I'm sure streaming will have its place. If streaming is "the future" and completely supplants games running on a local machine, then that's probably the end of gaming as a hobby for me.
No the difference is you have to own a pc or console to do that type of streaming from your own hardware
This requires no gaming hardware
Obviously, but I always see people say that the latency will be negligible or that were overblowing the latency.
Obviously, but I always see people say that the latency will be negligible or that were overblowing the latency.
Playing Rocket League directly on PC versus Steam link over LAN to my TV made a sizeable difference. But to be fair it was 144 fps versus 60 fps.I'm going to say 9/10 of you grandstanding over lag have not actually tried streaming. You can only detect so much latency even with your fineley tuned gamer fingers.
Edit: CloseTalker beat me to it
Now, there were a couple issues I encountered. At one point, my Stadia stream stopped receiving inputs from the Stadia controller, leaving my unfortunate Doom Eternal character squashed up against a wall while I got pounded on by angry demons.
You clearly have never used nvidia now, Stadia atm still requires basically a console in the beginning. The controller is the console. Later on, sure it will be more.
Obviously, but I always see people say that the latency will be negligible or that were overblowing the latency.
I don't get the negativity from some people about this.
I am always excited to try new technology and the promise of being able to truly play almost anywhere is pretty exciting to me.
If it sucks it sucks, but it sounds extremely promised and I am definitely going to give it a try on my average ass internet.
Because that's the promise on offer. If Stadia and XCloud consistency have 100ms+ latency, next-gen is going to look a lot like this gen.
If latency is consistently under 50ms, and issues of macroblocking are generally solved, then we might be in a new exciting world.
The idea that cloud streaming is "imperceptibly worse" than local rendering is subjective. It would be a lie to say there's no quality tradeoff. But the point is to get the quality tradeoff down to the level where most people can't tell the difference. I have a nice record player in my house, snazzy preamp, vinyl in good condition, etc. But 99% of my music listening is Spotify. There's a quality difference but it's not noticeable enough to turn down having most of the world's music available on any device, shareable playlists, etc. If Stadia is in that kind of window, then I could see jumping into streaming immediately and never looking back. It solves a lot of problems I have with gaming right now. If not, then it's PS5 for me. Nothing wrong with that.
Google is doing something very interesting with connecting your controller directly to the instance of your game running in the cloud. Rather than having latency between the controller and the console/TV, and then passing the input up to the server, then passing it back down, then waiting for a new response from your controller, they're skipping the middle man and connecting both independently.
I think that's a really novel feature that could make a big impact with how streaming feels. If it feels laggy, then enthusiasts like us who can tell the difference between 58ms and 18ms will just not be into it in most instances; but if they can normalize that down to a lower level, then I think it could work for even enthusiasts for most games.
Yeah tech like this really can't be properly evaluated until they have a proper scale load and are working in real world conditionsThat's really nice but we'll see how it does once it has a true launch.
I don't get the negativity from some people about this.
I am always excited to try new technology and the promise of being able to truly play almost anywhere is pretty exciting to me.
If it sucks it sucks, but it sounds extremely promised and I am definitely going to give it a try on my average ass internet.
This site as a whole is just negative toward mostly everything, I'm excited by new technologies. I have an better computer than 90% of people here, yet I'm still looking forward to itExactly. I think a lot of the negativity is people feel very threatened by:
THis manifests itself into a desire to just shit on anything.
- A company that they're not comfortable with in their gaming space (e.g., that they don't have a tribalistic affinity for, ala Sony, Nintendo, and Microsoft)
- A method of playing games that is very different from the method they've had in the past. No plastic box in their living room, what?
- Legitimate questions/concerns/anxiety about license ownership on a platform that's fully hosted, as opposed to "having the box" or "owning the bytes" or more importantly the perception of "owning the bytes." I think this is a bigger perception problem than actual problem, but anxiety is anxiety.
This site as a whole is just negative toward mostly everything, I'm excited by new technologies. I have an better computer than 90% of people here, yet I'm still looking forward to it
Everyone likes to shoot holes in shit and it's annoying
A 40$ chromecast is not the same as a 1,000$ pc or 400$ console is what I meant by you don't need gaming hardware to stream stadiaYou clearly have never used nvidia now, Stadia atm still requires basically a console in the beginning. The controller is the console. Later on, sure it will be more.
But the nvidia shield is literally just acting as a set top box like an apple tv to play games. I played The Division 2 the other day, no PC running, no hardware other than the nvidia shield logged right into uplay and away I went. No downloads.
I'm saying that the tech has been there and working fantastic for awhile.
Yea streaming is not for me as a hardcore enthusiast, but I really like the concept of streaming. If XCloud let me stream a game I purchase when it needs and update or I have not downloaded yet so it can download the game while I sleep and play when im home that would be fantastic.
In the end I hope its a success for those who aren't looking for the highest quality gameplay or just cant really tell or be bothered by it, beacuse I'd like to see the technology evolve.
My criticism is that people are negative more than positive and it doesn't help anyoneWhy not actually address people's criticisms of the tech instead of just generally shitting on their opinions? It's pretty damn lazy.
1) it literally might not be possible and make it look worseCould be the case, but why not have the best setup for demo purposes?
Google is doing something very interesting with connecting your controller directly to the instance of your game running in the cloud. Rather than having latency between the controller and the console/TV, and then passing the input up to the server, then passing it back down, then waiting for a new response from your controller, they're skipping the middle man and connecting both independently.
I think that's a really novel feature that could make a big impact with how streaming feels. If it feels laggy, then enthusiasts like us who can tell the difference between 58ms and 18ms will just not be into it in most instances; but if they can normalize that down to a lower level, then I think it could work for even enthusiasts for most games.
My criticism is that people are negative more than positive and it doesn't help anyone
I'd like to hear a serious technical deep dive on this. At first blush it doesn't make sense to me that the Stadia controller connecting to my router over wifi is going to have less latency than a dualshock4 connected to my laptop over usb. Google says "connecting directly to your game instance", but there's still an over-air hop to the router at least. 802.11AC is a great breakthrough, but I don't see how it's faster than a wired connection. Maybe they're assuming a lot of latency in the OS/driver stack? That's what I'd like to hear more details about.
Sure it does. Healthy skepticism and asking questions is how people learn. Why not engage people on the specifics of the tech?
My criticism is that people are negative more than positive and it doesn't help anyone
It's removing the client you're connecting through from the loop. Each and every device that has to connect to it has some degree of latency depending on certain factors, mainly the controller polling rate. Since the Stadia controller isn't connecting via USB or BT it goes right to wifi and sends the inputs directly, rather than through its connection means, then the device (PC, whatever) then through the browser to interpret them, then to the server to use them while sending back the video feed. It's basically segmenting the whole process as 2 otherwise asynchronous events that meet in the middle with the server sending the data. I'm actually fascinated by them taking this route and have to wonder if using a controller other than the Stadia controller has caveats or if this will be a "best played by using the Stadia controller" situation where they can use other controllers but cannot guarantee performance beyond a certain metric.I'd like to hear a serious technical deep dive on this. At first blush it doesn't make sense to me that the Stadia controller connecting to my router over wifi is going to have less latency than a dualshock4 connected to my laptop over usb. Google says "connecting directly to your game instance", but there's still an over-air hop to the router at least. 802.11AC is a great breakthrough, but I don't see how it's faster than a wired connection. Maybe they're assuming a lot of latency in the OS/driver stack? That's what I'd like to hear more details about.
Yeah, that's true, I think we'll have to see developer documentation before really understanding it.
My impression was that they'd be comparing connecting to a streaming device via some wireless connection (RF, Bluetooth, ad hoc wifi, etc), and not with a wire. It'll be interesting to see the real specs.
I don't agree with this metaphor at all. But anyway, Stadia will support other controllers at launch via Chrome on a laptop. It's via the chromecast where you need the google controller.
A 40$ chromecast is not the same as a 1,000$ pc or 400$ console is what I meant by you don't need gaming hardware to stream stadia
Of course you need a controller
And yea I have GeForce now
It's removing the client you're connecting through from the loop. Each and every device that has to connect to it has some degree of latency depending on certain factors, mainly the controller polling rate. Since the Stadia controller isn't connecting via USB or BT it goes right to wifi and sends the inputs directly, rather than through its connection means, then the device (PC, whatever) then through the browser to interpret them, then to the server to use them while sending back the video feed. It's basically segmenting the whole process as 2 otherwise asynchronous events that meet in the middle with the server sending the data. I'm actually fascinated by them taking this route and have to wonder if using a controller other than the Stadia controller has caveats or if this will be a "best played by using the Stadia controller" situation where they can use other controllers but cannot guarantee performance beyond a certain metric.