Well you've a good job make this topic about yourself.

But here's the rub. Stadia was marketed for having vastly superior specs than consoles, X1X included. In theory those specs create the expectation of maybe 4K and 60 fps.

This is actually good news for MS and Sony. Their streaming services werent making big visual promises like Stadia. Therefore the disparity isnt going to be as big as expected.

Personally the resolution doesent bug me, but the 30 fps cap is bullshit. It was marketed for its power, its not demonstrating what was advertised.

lol so you're paying for a 4k subscription and get a 1080p pictured that's upscaled to 4k in return?
Bit rate also looks way worse on these RDR2 screenshots. But these are jpg files, so I give them the benefit of the doubt.

There shouldn't really be any porting required. These are just (supposedly) powerful PCs running the game server side. Unless Stadia is using some crazy OS, it should run like the PC equivalent. Instead, it's running worse than the higher end consoles. My guess is their infrastructure isn't ready to do real-time 4K streaming. 

But, more importantly, it's freaking Google. They should have had this shit ready to go if they wanted to prove themselves in the serious gaming market. 

I wouldn't say that the resolution is worse... but rather that the codec compresses the image so much that the end result looks more like a much lower resolution than it should have.

And that was obvious from the get-go, since the low internet speeds posted as necessary for 1080p60 and 4k made it very clear it would be hyper-compressed compared to industry standards.

That's because Scorpio is a monster.

Well, imported hardware prices will scale accordingly to nominal exchange rates, while services are priced locally. So it makes some sense.

Of course, the latency would be insane and there's still an expensive controller to buy so nah.

Early days, early games and you conveniently ignore this

Destiny 2 is perfectly playable on Stadia and delivers the 60fps experience that Xbox One X cannot

60 fps for a streaming service is pretty good, that with lower latency than a lot of 30 fps games on console. (Yeah latency is still 44ms higher for this game compared to the console version, not bad but still noticeable)

Those countries often also lack fast internet in turn - and when you can afford fast enough internet for stadia in those countries, you can very well afford a console there, too.

Ok guys, I figured out the exact spec each user is getting from Google stadia

CPU: Intel Xeon 4core/8thread 2,7ghz

GPU: 5,35 Teraflop Vega

Ram: 8GB HBM2 Vram + 8GB DDR4

The cpu is based on this slide, where several people on twitter and reddit said it's a Intel Xeon 4core/8thread Cpu based on the L2 + L3 cache number

The amount of RAM is based on the slide above and this quote from Arstechnica "a total of 16GB combined VRAM and system RAM clocked at up to 484 GB/s".

8GB hbm2 + 8GB DDR4 makes the most sense based on that quote.

https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2019/03/google-jumps-into-gaming-with-google-stadia-streaming-service/

We now know that Destiny 2 is running at 1080p/60fps at medium settings. Now looking at a benchmark on guru3d, vega 57 which has 10,5TF gets 142FPS at 1080p medium settings, split that into 2 users you get 71fps. The professional VEGA GPU have 16GB of HBM2 and 11,3TF (air cooled version). So I simply think google is using a professional vega gpu at 10,7TF with 16GB of HBM2 and splitting the gpu for 2 users.

Let's hope Eurogamer will do it's job and ask google exactly what hardware spec each user is getting as it's kinda funny how people are paying money into google stadia and can't be sure what kind of hardware they're getting :) and note I'm just guessing but sharing what I'm guessing this on.

YouTube always makes my video uploads very blurry so I guess this is on brand.