Google stadia games performance...

[GreenJesus]

Gylt - 2019
Just Dance - 2019
Kine - 2019
Mortal Kombat 11 - 2019
Samurai Shodown - 2019
Football MAanager 2020 - 2019
Grid - 2019
Metro Exodus - 2019
NBA 2k20 - 2019
Rage 2 - 2019
Trials Rising - 2019
Wolfenstein: Youngblood - 2019

That seems like 3. Though I guess to a dishonest poster like yourself, that probably does.




You can't post honestly, can you? Did I say it didn't have exclusives? No. That's just you again, trying to either misrepresent what I say, or just blatantly lie about what I said. I said I don't want Stadia to have exclusives. Exclusives make business sense but are bad for the consumer.

Feel free to respond all you want, but I'm done with you. Every response of yours has been either an outright lie, or a blatant misrepresentation of what I said. Get some integrity.

I cant really imagine a producer of a game would willingly choose Stadia as an exclusive platform unless Stadia use it as a loss leader and spend a ridiculous amount of money.

[Tech614]

Every response of yours has been either an outright lie

This is classic. From the guy that claimed Stadia had no exclusives, from the guy that claimed stadia had "great marketing".

Also someone who thinks exclusives are bad for the industry sounds like someone who plays shit games amigo. Most of the best games every year are exclusives in one way or another and that's not a coincidence.

- - - Updated - - -

I cant really imagine a producer of a game would willingly choose Stadia as an exclusive platform unless Stadia use it as a loss leader and spend a ridiculous amount of money.

I mean, there is a reason only 2 tiny games are exclusives for it. Likely only timed exclusives at that. No serious developer would ever throw their game exclusively on stadia, just a few looking for a quick pay check. Google is likely paying far less then even Epic does for them judging by their 2 exclusives lmao.

And unlike MS/Sony/Nintendo google doesn't actually own a bunch of game studios so...

[Rustedsaint]

Everyone does have phones, and that fact likely won't change anytime soon

I don’t have a phone, so not everyone have a phone.
The majority of people who play on their phone ain’t gonna keep a controller around to play a game for maybe 5-10 min intervals while they out and about. They pick simple games like that fishing game or candy crush saga.

[Krastyn]

Would be useless hardware if Stadia went the Google glasses direction.

Depends on what you mean by that. If you mean stop offering the service, then yes. But then that's the case with any other product or service that gets cancelled.

You're talking about Plato's Cave, where people only know the cave and nothing beyond that. In this case, if we keep players around 150 ms then they won't desire less latency if they don't know it exists. Pretty sure everyone who's every played a game has done it on local hardware first.

It's not a question of desire, or knowing if something better exists. I travel a lot for work, and as such often play a lot of games on sub-optimal hardware (my laptop) on sub-optimal wifi (hotel or worse) then compared to my home PC and hardwired internet. I may notice it the first time I play a game. If I haven't played the game in a while, or after a while playing the game, I don't notice it. You adjust and it becomes the new normal.

Thumper was 80ms but that game also runs on smart phones. The more graphically intense the game is the more latency Stadia has. Tomb Raider had 120ms, which is still above 100ms but also not as graphically impressive as Metro Exodus which is 150ms

All of which, are still easily playable.

[Vash The Stampede]

Depends on what you mean by that. If you mean stop offering the service, then yes. But then that's the case with any other product or service that gets cancelled.

If the PS4 and Xbox One were to just stop working, their gamepads would work fine on PC. Can't say the same for Stadia's gamepad.

It's not a question of desire, or knowing if something better exists. I travel a lot for work, and as such often play a lot of games on sub-optimal hardware (my laptop) on sub-optimal wifi (hotel or worse) then compared to my home PC and hardwired internet. I may notice it the first time I play a game. If I haven't played the game in a while, or after a while playing the game, I don't notice it. You adjust and it becomes the new normal.

So you're going to play Stadia on your sub-optimal hotel wifi? Keep in mind that Gamers Nexus latency test was done in ideal conditions, not realistic ones. They have a Google Fiber connection using Ethernet to a low latency TV with gamemode enabled. Assuming you're still using your laptops sub-optimal wifi at a hotel, then your experience is going to be worse than 150ms. If you bring along that ChromeCast Ultra, then expect nearly a half second delay or worse.

All of which, are still easily playable.

Depends how much you hate yourself. If we were to play online against each other with me on my PC then I'll get that Stadia gamepad Rage broken in 30 minutes. Even if you had the best internet in your area, the connection isn't always consistent which means you'll get lag spikes. Unlike Netflix which buffers the data, cloud gaming services can't buffer anything, which means you will experience lag spikes. I'd like to see how long it'll take Google to allow Stadia players to play against PC or console users. I'm guessing never, unless it's under Google's terms.

[Elim Garak]

There comes a time when one must realize that the only thing that prevents people from understanding the exact nature of a role perception plays in the things they complain about - is perception itself. It's a lost cause.

[GreenJesus]

There comes a time when one must realize that the only thing that prevents people from understanding the exact nature of a role perception plays in the things they complain about - is perception itself. It's a lost cause.

If anyone is a lost cause it's you. You don't understand reality. You are stuck in the theoretical and the future 10 years from now. Sure, it might be good in the future, but it's a terrible investment NOW.

[Temp name]

The controller has only a wifi interface which would make it hard to get it running on PC. The DualShock4 works as soon as you plug it in, though there are 3rd party tools to help you get the most out of the controller. Same goes for the DualShock3. The sad truth is that Google's Stadia uses Linux and instead of focusing on Cloud Gaming they could have ported their games to Linux, which is the true future of gaming. Linux is also the future of the PC. Nearly everything Google uses is running a derivative of Ubuntu/Debian, so they could have made a sort of SteamOS/SteamMachine type of setup without all of Valve's mistakes. They could have kept their Cloud Gaming service as an alternative choice, not as a daily driver for gaming.

Doesn't it have a USB port or something? Thought you could plug it directly into your phone.

I agree with you that we're probably heading towards a Linux-run world, but it'll take a while. The general user idea of linux is still that it's, you know.. "hardcore" and stuff. That'll have to change, as will company support for Linux.

[Video Games]

There comes a time when one must realize that the only thing that prevents people from understanding the exact nature of a role perception plays in the things they complain about - is perception itself. It's a lost cause.

Or everytime some random company tries to come into the industry with some dumb gimmick it fails every single time. Ngage, onlive, phantom, zodiac, gizmondo, ouya and now stadia

[Stormspark]

If you didn't use the RTX Ray-Tracing feature then it maybe possible on most games, but then again Ray-Tracing isn't a feature that Stadia could do. Newer games can't get 60 fps on a RTX 2080 Ti like Outer Worlds. Borderlands 3 is so bad that 40 fps on a RTX 2080 Ti is considered a challenge. If a $2k PC can't do it, then how is Stadia achieving it? The answer is they're faking it.

The controller has only a wifi interface which would make it hard to get it running on PC. The DualShock4 works as soon as you plug it in, though there are 3rd party tools to help you get the most out of the controller. Same goes for the DualShock3. The sad truth is that Google's Stadia uses Linux and instead of focusing on Cloud Gaming they could have ported their games to Linux, which is the true future of gaming. Linux is also the future of the PC. Nearly everything Google uses is running a derivative of Ubuntu/Debian, so they could have made a sort of SteamOS/SteamMachine type of setup without all of Valve's mistakes. They could have kept their Cloud Gaming service as an alternative choice, not as a daily driver for gaming.

Yeah, no kidding. Stadia uses a 2.7 (yes 2.7) GHz Intel CPU, with a Vega GPU. The GPU is a little bit better than the 2060, but not much. Yeah. Their marketing was outright lies, there needs to be a class action over it. I mean, I don't care because I wasn't going to buy into that trash. And I also don't watch ads of any kind and haven't owned a TV for over 20 years, so I didn't see the ads. Until I saw them on Youtube from people covering them. Google needs to be slapped down hard, if they are able to get away with false advertising of the magnitude that they did for Stadia, then it will open the floodgates.

MY PC is more powerful than what Stadia can deliver. Significantly. And I can run games, instead of having to have a video of the game with compression artifacting.

[Krastyn]

This is classic. From the guy that claimed Stadia had no exclusives, from the guy that claimed stadia had "great marketing".

Please cite where I stated that. Please. Oh wait, I didn't because you're a liar. Saying "I don't want Stadia to have exclusives" is not the same as "Stadia doesn't have exclusives". But shitposters gonna shitpost.

Also someone who thinks exclusives are bad for the industry sounds like someone who plays shit games amigo. Most of the best games every year are exclusives in one way or another and that's not a coincidence.

Good for the business, bad for the consumer. They are good games because they are good games, not because they are exclusive. I wouldn't expect you to understand that, though.

- - - Updated - - -

I don’t have a phone, so not everyone have a phone.
The majority of people who play on their phone ain’t gonna keep a controller around to play a game for maybe 5-10 min intervals while they out and about. They pick simple games like that fishing game or candy crush saga.

You would be in the minority, and not the target market.

[Tech614]

Please cite where I stated that.

I would but then it would basically be an entire page of quotes. Anyone reading this thread already sees your asinine quotes about how their marketing was so great and the product isn't DoA when it is in fact, DoA.

BTW I thought you where done replying to me? It seems you can't help yourself Phil, but you really shouldn't be trying to convince me to buy stadia. You should be trying to convince all the candy crush moms that don't even know it exists. Why? Because the marketing is trash, on top of the product and library both being trash as well.

[Doctor Funkenstein]

While it was clear this was a failure of an idea from the very beginning, and I have no idea how it got past even the most rudimentary "wait a minute..." phase of literally everyone involved on a technical level, it is a very good thing when companies do try to push the boundaries of technology. Without doing so, very little changes or improves.

This isn't like Blizzard pushing out garbage content after garbage content and expecting you to pay premium dollar for it. This is a company trying something new, with the desire, resources, and reason to push the technology as far as they can. Even if it doesn't work, the attempt is admirable.

[Krastyn]

If the PS4 and Xbox One were to just stop working, their gamepads would work fine on PC. Can't say the same for Stadia's gamepad.

And if you don't have a PC?

If you buy a gym membership, and they go bankrupt part way through, you're out your money. Or an MMO folding. As I said, this applies to many purchases. At worst you're out what, $70 for the controller?

I get your concern that Google might go bankrupt, but how many paid-subscription services has Google cancelled? Gamers Nexus likes to link all the projects Google has cancelled, but the vast majority of them were free.

So you're going to play Stadia on your sub-optimal hotel wifi? Keep in mind that Gamers Nexus latency test was done in ideal conditions, not realistic ones. They have a Google Fiber connection using Ethernet to a low latency TV with gamemode enabled. Assuming you're still using your laptops sub-optimal wifi at a hotel, then your experience is going to be worse than 150ms. If you bring along that ChromeCast Ultra, then expect nearly a half second delay or worse.

And other testers have sown that in non-idea conditions, even on hotel wifi, that games are still entirely playable.

Depends how much you hate yourself. If we were to play online against each other with me on my PC then I'll get that Stadia gamepad Rage broken in 30 minutes. Even if you had the best internet in your area, the connection isn't always consistent which means you'll get lag spikes. Unlike Netflix which buffers the data, cloud gaming services can't buffer anything, which means you will experience lag spikes. I'd like to see how long it'll take Google to allow Stadia players to play against PC or console users. I'm guessing never, unless it's under Google's terms.

you're shifting the goalposts now. Thumper, Tomb raider and Metro are not online head to head games. That's not what I'd play on the Stadia.

it's a problem of perception. You, and most others here, are looking at the Stadia through the lens of a gamer who wants to play high-graphic, high-twitch games, and you are making the assumption that is who Stadia is designed for.

I don't think that's the primary target market for the Stadia. I think it is both too niche of a market to target and the technology isn't there yet. It makes more sense to target the single player market / low intensity multiplayer market, and then build further from that. Stadia likely isn't selling their hardware at a loss like PS/XBox.

I find it honestly surprising that anyone expected Stadia to be be as good or better in graphics and latency than either PC or console, at a fraction of the size, and a fraction of the price.

[Zenfoldor]

Game streaming isn't something that I personally see a need for. Latency is a major problem for me. On the phone side, I would never carry a controller around in my pocket...if phones didn't fit in your pocket, I don't think they would be so popular. I don't want to carry around a backpack with me in order to game on my phone. I'll just play games that can play on it already.

It seems like game streaming is aiming mostly at mobile gamers who want to game on their phone, but don't want to play the games that are already on their phone. I live in a rural area, so cell phone service out here is mostly to the level where you can barely search google.

That said....even under perfect circumstances, I would still prefer local hardware. I'm really concerned about input latency. That comes from years of playing WoW over said above cell phone connection between 100ms and 300ms latency. Once I finally got decent latency on WoW, I still find myself looking for latency or delays years later, and I can't imagine how distracted small latency hiccups would make me.

Local hardware is getting pretty great too. Easier than ever to buy a gaming PC. PS4 Switch Xbox are all cheap and have great deals. PS5 coming out soon with an improved storage solution....it's a good time to be a fan of local hardware. Even phone hardware is gonna get a lot better in the future, so maybe they can make those games run on the local phone hardware and skip all the technical hassle. I mean, honestly, how big of a gamechanger is a resolution jump on that 6 inch screen?

I have had such a bad experience trying to get good Internet over the years, that I really just don't trust any service completely with my gaming. I need an offline option on my primary platform, and that won't change....

My biggest problem with game streaming is simple. I see ALL the symptoms of playing over a stream. Every one. I can sense them. I've been an online gamer and in IT for decades, and I can't unsee all that. I will know and cringe at every delay. I just will. I can't not focus on it, so I don't know how I can fix that. Knowing networking well, imho these problems are inherent in the technology and I don't know how to fix without re-imagining everything and then building it.

Also, there is a perception that there is a big market of untapped gamers just waiting to come on board for a universal or more friendly solution(to play console games I guess, these same games we are already playing). However, I say that game streaming also limits the market to those with acceptable internet connections. I live in a rural area, so I don't know many gamers who have the level of network need to run this. I do know tons of gamers. Ironically, in my case game streaming doesn't open up gaming, it closes it off. It prevents me from being part of it. Also, gaming is already huge compared to other forms of entertainment.

I would like as many people to start gaming as possible, but I also have a hard time believing that there is a huge market for people who want to play console/pc games, but haven't even considered them until streaming came along? However, that may be the case, who knows. Was there a huge untapped market of tv watchers when netflix came along, or did they get most of their customers from other platforms? Gaming isn't small, and even now the game streaming market is become oversaturated even before it has began. Can there be a netflix of game streaming? I don't know, because netflix was a pioneer with TV streaming and had a big head start on the competition for licensing amongst other things(they also had great management). I wonder if these streaming companies will have the same advantages?

[GreenJesus]

Breaking News - Google co founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin stepping down.

https://blog.google/inside-google/al...ry-and-sergey/

(not suggesting Stadia is reason why)

[Edge-]

Breaking News - Google co founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin stepping down.

https://blog.google/inside-google/al...ry-and-sergey/

But...what does this have to do with Stadia? They're stepping down from Alphabet, the parent company of Google, and this likely has precisely zero to do with Stadia, which in the scope of things is a minor product launch for a company of their size.

[Vash The Stampede]

Good for the business, bad for the consumer. They are good games because they are good games, not because they are exclusive. I wouldn't expect you to understand that, though.

The quote wasn't me who said that. That was Tech614.

- - - Updated - - -

And if you don't have a PC?

Android phone/tablet? I know DualShock4 will Bluetooth pair with Android devices.

If you buy a gym membership, and they go bankrupt part way through, you're out your money. Or an MMO folding. As I said, this applies to many purchases. At worst you're out what, $70 for the controller?

If a Gym fails then I take my water bottle with me. If an MMO fails then I join a private server.

I get your concern that Google might go bankrupt, but how many paid-subscription services has Google cancelled? Gamers Nexus likes to link all the projects Google has cancelled, but the vast majority of them were free.

I'm not worried about Google going bankrupt, just that Google may pull out of the market. Doesn't matter either way, why does a $70 gamepad only work with Stadia? Does Google assume whoever buys this will only ever use Stadia and nothing more?

And other testers have sown that in non-idea conditions, even on hotel wifi, that games are still entirely playable.

Who? Playable doesn't mean enjoyable. Playing Borderlands 3 at 800X600 is playable but not fun.

you're shifting the goalposts now. Thumper, Tomb raider and Metro are not online head to head games. That's not what I'd play on the Stadia.

it's a problem of perception. You, and most others here, are looking at the Stadia through the lens of a gamer who wants to play high-graphic, high-twitch games, and you are making the assumption that is who Stadia is designed for.

This makes sense to you, except that Google did claim their graphics were better and do offer the same games that us high-graphic, high-twich gamers play. You can't offer a product I use and claim it isn't for me because I complain about it. I play Borderlands 3 and it is a game that Stadia offers. If I feel that game sucks on Stadia then Stadia is doing something wrong.

I find it honestly surprising that anyone expected Stadia to be be as good or better in graphics and latency than either PC or console, at a fraction of the size, and a fraction of the price.

Stadia performed exactly as I predicted, down to the PC doing a better job at Stadia than their Chromecast devices. The issue here is that the latency is not better than PSNow/GeforceNow services and Google made a lot of claims that turns out to be a bunch of lies. Fraction of the price is misleading as you need to pay $130 to get into the service and then pay $10 per month just to keep the $60 games you also need to buy from Stadia. After 7 years Stadia would have cost you $800, which I could spend that kind of money for a better gaming experience elsewhere. Stadia doesn't have a large upfront cost, but after a while it will cost more than a PS4, assuming you only play offline games on PS4.

If Stadia wants any future it needs to offer the games you bought from them as a local copy. This is what Nvidia did with Geforce Now since nobody liked the idea of buying games that only work on their service, so eventually Nvidia now gives you a code for Steam as well. If Google wants to be innovative here then maybe they should do the same but for Linux since their games are technically running on Linux.

- - - Updated - - -

While it was clear this was a failure of an idea from the very beginning, and I have no idea how it got past even the most rudimentary "wait a minute..." phase of literally everyone involved on a technical level, it is a very good thing when companies do try to push the boundaries of technology. Without doing so, very little changes or improves.

This isn't like Blizzard pushing out garbage content after garbage content and expecting you to pay premium dollar for it. This is a company trying something new, with the desire, resources, and reason to push the technology as far as they can. Even if it doesn't work, the attempt is admirable.

Stadia isn't the first to do Cloud Gaming and so far is doing it far worse than Sony and Nvidia. This isn't a technology that pushes boundaries in any desirable direction. The success of Stadia depends on having really stupid customers who have poor perception.

- - - Updated - - -

MY PC is more powerful than what Stadia can deliver. Significantly. And I can run games, instead of having to have a video of the game with compression artifacting.

You could do what Stadia does with your PC, without having to pay a monthly fee and having access to all the games you already bought. Moonlight comes to mind. The cloud is really just someone else's computer that you're renting.



- - - Updated - - -

Doesn't it have a USB port or something? Thought you could plug it directly into your phone.

I agree with you that we're probably heading towards a Linux-run world, but it'll take a while. The general user idea of linux is still that it's, you know.. "hardcore" and stuff. That'll have to change, as will company support for Linux.

I think the gamepad does use USB but I'm not sure how Google set that up so it doesn't work on PC? Also, Valve still supports Linux and is still throwing money at it. Half-Life Alyx will support Linux. What Linux needs is for Microsoft to screw up so big that everyone leaves Windows. I give it two years until Microsoft does something stupid. BTW, VR games would never work on cloud gaming services for obvious reasons.

[Doctor Funkenstein]

Stadia isn't the first to do Cloud Gaming and so far is doing it far worse than Sony and Nvidia. This isn't a technology that pushes boundaries in any desirable direction. The success of Stadia depends on having really stupid customers who have poor perception.

If you can't tell the difference between Stadia and the other two, I have no problem understanding your irrational hatred. Ignorance tends to have that affect on people.

[Krastyn]

Android phone/tablet? I know DualShock4 will Bluetooth pair with Android devices.

Again, you need to have the tablet. But you're still missing the point.

If a Gym fails then I take my water bottle with me.

But you're still out the money from the membership.

If an MMO fails then I join a private server.

If one exists, and that just means someone else is paying for your service. It would be like arguing if Stadia goes down, someone could start up a cloned service using the controller.

I'm not worried about Google going bankrupt, just that Google may pull out of the market. Doesn't matter either way, why does a $70 gamepad only work with Stadia? Does Google assume whoever buys this will only ever use Stadia and nothing more?

Why does Apple make a lot of their stuff proprietary? Why does any other business?

Who? Playable doesn't mean enjoyable. Playing Borderlands 3 at 800X600 is playable but not fun.

Again, enjoyable, and fun. Look at more than one review, and you will see that.

This makes sense to you, except that Google did claim their graphics were better and do offer the same games that us high-graphic, high-twich gamers play. You can't offer a product I use and claim it isn't for me because I complain about it. I play Borderlands 3 and it is a game that Stadia offers. If I feel that game sucks on Stadia then Stadia is doing something wrong.

Can you link where Google claimed their graphics were better than PC?

You also can most definitely offer something to people who aren't your target market. Most Steakhouses offer vegetarian options, but they are definitely not their target market.

Fraction of the price is misleading as you need to pay $130 to get into the service and then pay $10 per month just to keep the $60 games you also need to buy from Stadia. After 7 years Stadia would have cost you $800, which I could spend that kind of money for a better gaming experience elsewhere. Stadia doesn't have a large upfront cost, but after a while it will cost more than a PS4, assuming you only play offline games on PS4.

Buying games is a thing on every platform.

Last I checked, both PS and XBOX have subscription services in order to play online. So a sub for Stadia washes out. So unless your only buying a console to only ever play offline, then yes, a console will be better in 3-4 years. Until they release their base tier, which is what I would actually be interested in.