Forums

Topic: Google Stadia

Posts 41 to 60 of 366

kkslider5552000

Dezzy wrote:

Don't forget Nintendos contributions. Motion controls

don't use examples that actually succeeded

they're not the definitive future of gaming but they've actually stuck around beyond the wii trend and in regular (often positive) discussion for Switch and Playstation VR (aka the only gaming VR that seems to have even the tiniest chance of succeeding beyond a small niche eventually), they clearly don't qualify

Non-binary, demiguy, making LPs, still alive

Bioshock Infinite Let's Play!:
LeT's PlAy BIOSHOCK < Link to LP

Heavyarms55

@gcunit If you are on fiber and having that level of problems with Netflix, something is seriously wrong.

Nintendo Switch FC: 4867-2891-2493
Switch username: Em
Discord: Heavyarms55#1475
Pokemon Go FC: 3838 2595 7596
PSN: Heavyarms55zx

Octane

Alright, I just caught up the press conference. What a snoozefest. A whole bunch of maybes and ifs. The ''potential'' of the cloud; up to a thousand people in a battle royale; if someone is willing to develop it. Up to 8K and 120fps; maybe, but we can't show it now. Comparing their 10 TFLOPs to two outdated consoles who are going to be replaced soon. Great. But how does it stack up against a high-end PC? No word on input lag, which is going to be there regardless if you want it or not. No word on what to do when your internet is down. Can you download the games? Does it work everywhere? Do you need to live in a big city? Specific countries only? No launch date, no price, we don't even know how it's going to work. Is it a Netflix-like sub? Do you pay on a game-per-game basis? If so, it is monthly, yearly, or forever? How about ''ownership''? Refunds? Will Google rotate the games out rendering some unavailable like Netflix? Google is working on exclusive games. What are they? Nothing. Is it a platformer? An action game? Another battle royale? Or a bunch of PlayStore shovelware? They kept talking about streaming as if Twitch didn't exist. Or the ''horror'' of loading times, when most games these days don't have any loading screens at all. They usually have cut scenes to hide them, and you're going to watch those regardless of whether your own device is playing that game, or one of Google's computers. They kept painting the gaming landscape as some post-80s crash that needs Google to save us, yet at the same time this weird idyllic utopia where Google exists with no competitors, and none of the questions above.

Security concerns aside, nothing convinced me this is a drastic change, or ''the future''. It's basically Google does GamePass/PS Now, some time in the future, maybe.

By the way, that RPG/NPC joke, not funny.

Octane

OorWullie

The more I read about this the more I think this is going to really shake up the industry and will in time,be hugely succesful.The tech behind it is seriously impressive and no matter what Sony or Microsoft do hardware wise,Stadia will always be ahead of it as its specs and performance will always be improving.Only Sony and Microsoft's own streaming services could possibly keep up with what Stadia will offer.With how big a role Youtube plays in modern gaming,especially with the young generation,being able to jump into a game their favourite Youtuber is playing within just a few seconds means this will gain millions of subscribers from the off.

With the controller connecting directly to the server,lag should be at an absolute minimum.All your device is doing is hosting the game.It's going to come down to image quality and for most people,4k 60fps streaming wont be possible.....for now. Many of us will have to put up with 720 to 1080p but for the casual gamer and younger generation that wont be a huge issue. Then there is the countries that do have the infrastructure to offer 4k streaming like Japan and Korea. Stadia could be a huge hit there.

It's the multiplayer possibilities it offers that's going to be the real game changer though. This is from Digital Foundry

" In a standard multiplayer game using a dedicated server, the client software operates on your local machine, which has only has a very narrow window of bandwidth to the server. This limits the level of communication, and by extension, the level of sophistication in multiplayer games. With Stadia, the 'client' running the game experience is effectively a peer of the server, running on the same network with a high bandwidth interconnect. This could lead to massive improvements in player count, world simulation quality and physics. Cheating within a multiplayer game is also far more difficult if the user has zero access to the client-side code.

In a world where console power is often tied to the capabilities of the CPU and GPU, I think it's important to stress how important these advantages are. Fundamentally, while next-gen consoles will no doubt produce some very special experiences, removing storage limits and bringing clients and servers closer together could dramatically change the kinds of games we play. It's a true generational leap that any new local-based next-gen console can't deliver - but making the most of this opportunity will rely on developers exploiting those capabilities, which is by no means certain in a world dominated by multi-platform development. The pitch certainly sounds full of potential though, with Google describing that multiplayer titles in particular are currently limited by the very nature of running code natively in a local box, far away from the dedicated server - if there is one at all.

Phil Harrison: "In our platform, the client and the server are inside the same architecture and so whereas historically you'd be talking about milliseconds of ping times between client and server, in our architecture you're talking about microseconds in some cases and so that allows us to scale up in a very dramatic way the numbers of players that can be combined in a single instance and obviously the go-to example would be battle royale going from hundreds to players to thousands of players or even tens of thousands of players. Whether that's actually fun or not is a different debate but technologically that is just a headline-grabbing number that you can imagine."

This is going to bring about changes to the indusry that it can't really go back from.When the next PS and Xbox arrive neither will be able to say they offer the most power anymore so they've lost that..Out of Nintendo ,Sony and Microsoft,MS are best equipped to adapt to a streaming future,Sony have their enormous brand power and Nintendo have their IP. Nintendo could actually be in the best position to deal with the changes Stadia will bring about.No way Sony and Microsoft are going to allow Stadia on their systems but Nintendo could. A device that offers 1st party Nintendo games and Stadia would be a guaranteed success. It makes far more sense than Xbox Gamerpass coming to Switch.

Edited on by OorWullie

🇬🇧 Mr Mustard 🇹🇭
SW-6101-8403-1640

🕹️ The Nintendolife Arcade Leaderboards 🕹️

Agriculture

The gaming industry isn't like other tech industries. You can't win just by having good technology, you also need to understand how to make games and what makes games good.

Agriculture

Grumblevolcano

I think it'll be a massive failure (same with xCloud) while internet infrastructure is still poor. Stuff like data caps won't disappear, if anything they'll become more prominent because internet companies are greedy like that.

Grumblevolcano

Switch Friend Code: SW-2595-6790-2897 | 3DS Friend Code: 3926-6300-7087 | Nintendo Network ID: GrumbleVolcano

skywake

Matthew010 wrote:

I'm probably going to explain this in the most awkward way, but apparently due to the amount of node points Google has across the globe built specifically for Stadia, even the weakest laptop or computer can run games such as Assassin's Creed Odyssey.

Yeah, nah. Not quite how it works. Google is probably only one of two companies globally that has the level of infrastructure required for this for sure. However there are four main variables at play here of which this only answers the question for one of them.

1. How far away from the server is the end user (less distance, lower latency)
2. How good is the video encoding/decoding (impacts video quality and latency)
3. How much bandwidth between the user and server (more bandwidth, higher video quality)
4. How much power is there on the server (more power, higher graphical quality)

For every non-streaming console ever the only question that meant anything ever has been #4. The game is being rendered meters away from the screen, the video encoding/decoding is non-existent because it's a raw video stream and HDMI is what, 10-20Gbps? Google has to also deal with the other three questions.

Ok so they have "more than twice the power of the XBOne X". That's nice but your XBOne X is sitting under your TV with a direct, wired, multi-Gbps pipe between it and your display. Yes they have a better infrastructure than anyone but they're still only giving you a 10s of Mbps link. Yes they probably have a server close to where you live but at most that'll be in the same city not in the same suburb.

Note that their minimum spec is 15Mbps which is pretty achievable for most people. However at that speed all you get is 720p @ 30fps. So assuming that scales you can do the maths.
1080p @ 30fps -> ~30Mbps
1080p @ 60fps -> ~60Mbps
4K @ 30fps -> ~120Mbps
4K @ 60fps -> ~240Mbps

As an Australian? All of this is entirely theoretical because it's never coming here. Even so I'd rather render the game locally. GPUs are getting cheaper and more power efficient by the day. So why would I even bother with a system that adds video compression noise and latency?

Some good Aussie musics: King Gizzard, Pond, TFS
"Don't stir the pot" is a nice way of saying "they're too dumb to reason with"

Ooccoo_Jr

Google will really have to be careful how they market this or it risks being seen by the wider public as just a way of playing games in browser. Considering you need a stable, really fast internet access to use it then the home PC becomes the most obvious place, but the PC gamer is the one person who is least likely to be interested as downloading to a high spec PC you already own will always be highly preferable to streaming. Also the comparison to Netflix and the like doesn't quite hold true as you can download episodes to watch later when you are out without the need for internet. If Google let's you similarly download games then that defeats the point somewhat and besides would not be possible for anything other than smaller indie games, which people can already do on their mobiles. Also having to buy the controller to make it work (not necessary for PCs I know but then Steam and Epic already have you catered) is essentially like buying a console anyway.

Streaming may well catch on in a decade or so but it won't take over any time soon and in any case I do not suspect Google will be the ones atop the iron throne when the digital dust eventually settles.

Ooccoo_Jr

Lemmy_the_Koopa

Well,

for me this seems either a) dead on arrival or b) will lead to future headaches for the consumer, if the consumer chooses to streaming video games.

While the concept IS interesting, that you can play (all the) games, without having the specs to muscle, it seems a lot hinges on your internet connection. Meaning, that in some areas it won't be playable.

On the other side of the coin, I am sooooo warry of streaming services, because all things point to one thing, if this is remotely succesful, every company under the sun wants to establish their own STADIA, as evident, especially in the US, with video streaming services. We also see this now with more different videogame storefronts, some with exclusive content, from the Ubisoft storefront, to EA origin, to the new Epic storefront. Yes competition is wanted, but this also can mean subscribing to different services.

Sure, for this to happen some time must pass and companies will have to wait for how Stadia unfolds, but if it makes the splash it wants to and companies see an opportunity, expect to have a Capcom subscription to play the next Resident Evil exclusive to their service, the next Far Cry with a Ubisoft subscription... and so on.

Lemmy_the_Koopa

OorWullie

@Agriculture That's true of course but if it manages to get all the big multiplatform releases all it needs are a few exclusives of its own. Something Google can easily get by buying up a few small talented studios and give them unlimited funding. I imagine games that take advantage of the massive multiplayer potential Stadia offers over consoles will be priority. Something like Fortnite but with thousands of players at a time. Pay off a few popular YouTubers and Twitch streamers to promote the game and it's a guaranteed hit.

🇬🇧 Mr Mustard 🇹🇭
SW-6101-8403-1640

🕹️ The Nintendolife Arcade Leaderboards 🕹️

Octane

@Ooccoo_Jr The controller isn't mandatory fortunately (you can ask @NEStalgia about the pros and cons of having a device in your house with a built in microphone that's technically always on broadcasting directly to Google HQ ).

And you don't need a PC either. It's not about specs. It's streaming, so it's all Wi-Fi. I'm not even sure if they allow a tethered connection, because they said something about bypassing your ''home internet'' (I presume ISP). So maybe it's similar to a Google data plan you buy. But they didn't say anything, so there's no point in speculating what it's going to be.

Octane

Octane

@Lemmy_the_Koopa Yeah, that's another issue. But I also wonder how this will impact the quality of games. Take Netflix for example, most of what they produce isn't high budget. It's essentially the shovelware equivalent of series. Most of it just isn't very good, at all. I've heard people talk about recent Microsoft releases like Sea of Thieves and Crackdown 3; ''It's not an amazing game, but for a Game Pass game it's pretty decent''. The idea that you're already paying for a subscription makes it easier to swallow the lower quality stuff, because it seems like you're not paying for it anyway. And with a subscription, there's a limited revenue income for Google. It's the reason why I dislike Season Passes. People pay a company in advance, and in turn that company looks at how much money they made and scale the budget of the DLC accordingly. Great for the publisher, not so great for the consumer.

Octane

Ooccoo_Jr

@Octane I believe they said the controller was required (at launch at least) for TVs etc along with a Chromecast but PCs would support other controllers? Maybe I'm wrong, I get the impression that this reveal came a little bit early before all the details have been ironed out as it is pretty confusing.

Essentially I was thinking that if you are going to play AAA games you want to do it on a TV or PC monitor ie a big screen with great sound. If it's a TV then you still need added bells and whistles like a Google controller (I think) and if it's a PC then what's the point?

Ooccoo_Jr

Octane

@Ooccoo_Jr Well, a lot of it wasn't very clear from the presentation alone, so you could be right. I must've dozed off some time during the presser

Octane

Ooccoo_Jr

@Octane Couldn't blame you. 'Teraflop' has to be the least sexy word in the English language.

Ooccoo_Jr

OorWullie

Yeah I think you need the controller. Other controllers can only be used when connected to a PC with USB. The Google controller is needed as it connects directly to the server hosting the game,reducing lag significantly.

Edited on by OorWullie

🇬🇧 Mr Mustard 🇹🇭
SW-6101-8403-1640

🕹️ The Nintendolife Arcade Leaderboards 🕹️

skywake

Ooccoo_Jr wrote:

Considering you need a stable, really fast internet access to use it then the home PC becomes the most obvious place, but the PC gamer is the one person who is least likely to be interested as downloading to a high spec PC you already own will always be highly preferable to streaming.

To be fair when I think of what devices this would make sense for me personally? I don't see my PC as being the most obvious place for this. Of course it's not an option for me at all with my ~20Mbps internet connection and it not coming to Australia at all. Even so in theory I could see this as being not a bad option for my TV which is the best screen in the house, has a chromecast built in and a wired connection. On my PC, as you said, it's not a particularly attractive option because if I can render at >720p it'll always look better rendered locally. My TV doesn't necessarily have that power by default.

Of course if I really cared about impressive gaming performance on my TV I could always build a PC to sit under my TV or buy a console other than the Switch. And that's something that's already an option for me.

Some good Aussie musics: King Gizzard, Pond, TFS
"Don't stir the pot" is a nice way of saying "they're too dumb to reason with"

Agriculture

OorWullie wrote:

@Agriculture That's true of course but if it manages to get all the big multiplatform releases all it needs are a few exclusives of its own. Something Google can easily get by buying up a few small talented studios and give them unlimited funding. I imagine games that take advantage of the massive multiplayer potential Stadia offers over consoles will be priority. Something like Fortnite but with thousands of players at a time. Pay off a few popular YouTubers and Twitch streamers to promote the game and it's a guaranteed hit.

That's the thing though, Microsoft already proved that you can't be good at video games simply by throwing money at it. Google as a company need to learn about games to be in that business. They do well with Android games, but it's not the same thing as the type of gaming Nintendo, Microsoft and Sony are big in. Stadia also don't offer any multiplayer advantages, if anything it will be harder to do multiplayer well since game streaming uses so much bandwidth even before you start playing against someone else.

Agriculture

NEStalgia

I don't have confidence Google can actually mount competition in this, or really any arena. Their track record for every service they get into beyond search and data/surveilance/advertising is abysmal. Their real business is selling people's data and always will be. Android and Chrome are means to that end. Their other service range from a mixture of abandoned/failed project that don't really exist, and rebranded, renamed, infinitely confusing niches. (How's Google Music, Google Play Music, You Tube Red, You Tube Premium, YouTube Music working out?) Then there's the fiber rollout that even Google's billions couldn't make happen to combat the Comcast/TWC local government chokeholds, and they abandoned it after promsing gigabit fiber everywhere. Now they're going into high speed game streaming.....without having actually rolled out said fiber to make it happen. It'll be a local phenomenon at best. Everyone's banking on 5G being gigabit EVERYWHERE! Not a chance. It's UHF and has a range of about 2 blocks. There's no way every single home in America will be within 2 blocks of a transmitter, and will thus fall back on 4G anyway, which certainly will never be fit for game streaming. This is one of those products about 30 years ahead of its time. If ever. Google will abandon in short order. They won't kill it, it will just kind of be "there".

If nothing else it gives a boost to Microsoft's XCloud in terms of marketing which is the same thing, but properly done, and only serves as an alternative to their traditional consoles. The people interested in "AAA gaming" as stated on the Stadia front page aren't going to care about Google's platform, and the people that might pay attention to a Google platform don't know what "AAA gaming" is. XCloud will be the more disruptive one, but isn't trying to replace consoles, and won't work in the majority of the US.

One thing to keep in mind is Google is the back-end for PS Now. The success of PS Now and how well it works (or doesn't) in many locations gives you an idea of how Stadia will work. Perhaps a wonderful situation for major elite coastal metros during off-peak hours.

@Heavyarms55 I can't agree with "if you want privacy, you can't participate in the world." That's not an option, it's being force-fed that privacy has been eradicated, and is no longer an existing concept. It takes a basic human essential and determines "we've decided we're taking that away, #dealwithit." No one has the right to do that. That's the thinking of a 20th century dictatorship.....I thought millions were shot/blown apart to prevent precisely such results. I suppose it was all for nothing after all.

@Octane Who wouldn't want an omnipresent international hegemony listening to every word they say, monitoring everything they do, and cataloguing and storing it, indexed and catalogued, in a central database that is open to any government upon request? Isn't this the future we always dreamed of? I know it's the future Goebbels and Stalin dreamed of, that's for sure, and if there's one thing we can all agree on it's definitely that the right side lost the 20th century conflicts..... thank goodness we're finally getting back on track. It's been too long since the KGB had their rightful place in our hearts and society.

We need a sticky thread for expressing how much we love Big Brother! No forum is complete without a place to express together how much we love the last defense we have against East Asia/Eurasia (mod note, update the previous for current conditions. Delete edit notation.)

Untitled

Edited on by NEStalgia

NEStalgia

Heavyarms55

@NEStalgia Hey, I never said it was right. But we elect to use these products and services, if we don't vote with our wallets, companies will. Companies aren't evil, they are just amoral machines designed to make profit and will never pass by doing something they deem profitable unless they are prohibited from doing so. Companies will glad "donate" millions of dollars to politicians in order to make tens of millions on our data. That's just the society we live in.

Nintendo Switch FC: 4867-2891-2493
Switch username: Em
Discord: Heavyarms55#1475
Pokemon Go FC: 3838 2595 7596
PSN: Heavyarms55zx

Top

Please login or sign up to reply to this topic