By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Google Stadia will succeed... and here is why

 

Will Stadia succeed?

It will crash and burn. 35 37.23%
 
It will slowly but steadily grow. 32 34.04%
 
It will explode. 4 4.26%
 
I don't know yet, need to know more. 23 24.47%
 
Total:94

I'm not convinced yet. I don't like always online DRM, and I have no idea how much GB it will eat up per gaming so that and the price needs to be addressed. (They didn't even bother to talk about it in their unveiling)

Despite all its pros, these two cons outweighs it.



Around the Network

It is impressive. I have always wonders if the people who watch these youtube streams cause a dent in the sales of a game but that hardly seems to be the case. It seems these people who just watch youtube don't really have the interest / access to play games and would prefer watching them. This Stadia could be enticing for that crowd.



shikamaru317 said:
HBninjaX said:
What about input delay?

I play fighting games mostly, and other games where reflexes and reaction time can mean victory or a frustrating loss

Will the nature of the technology mean input delay or input lag will be an issue? I genuinely would like to know.

Digital Foundry got to test the latest Stadia build, and there was only 22 extra ms of input lag compared to playing AC Odyssey on XB1 X. However, it is worth noting that the X gameplay had display lag deducted and was done on ethernet, whereas their Stadia test was on wifi without display lag deducted, so the actual additional latency is likely below 10ms. MS also just revealed that they are getting less than 10ms of added latency with their xCloud streaming services. 

I think Ubisoft just screwed up here on xbox or just didn't care about latency, I would not read much into to it. Halo 5 according to eurogamer has 63ms while Spadia has 166ms tested on there chromebook.

There is simply no magic to reducing latency, you will have 2 * server ping + 10ms for audio/video compression. So I have 13ms ping when testing Geforce now which should give me about 36ms added delay (13+13+10). I have 25 ping to my nearest google server and 40 ping to nearest azure server. This is why we can expect no game streaming will be superior to another.

People just have a negative view of Playstation now because most test it on their TV. Where they using Wifi + wireless controller and the TV itself add 30-50ms, while on PC we usually play everything wired and PC monitors have between 2-7ms delay according to several reviews I checked recently at pcmonitors.info



6x master league achiever in starcraft2

Beaten Sigrun on God of war mode

Beaten DOOM ultra-nightmare with NO endless ammo-rune, 2x super shotgun and no decoys on ps4 pro.

1-0 against Grubby in Wc3 frozen throne ladder!!

To recap overall feedback, the following challenges exist:

1) infrastructure - existing networks, fiber optics
2) ISP - cost, bandwidth, stability
3) Stadia pricing model?
4) Competition from big 3, all with deep histories, libraries, and pockets

The winner is the consumer, because we're free to choose, and reject losers and liars.

[edit: fixed my spelling typo up there]

Last edited by Mospeada21CA - on 20 March 2019

Mospeada21CA said:

To recap overall feedback, the following challenges exist:

1) infrastructure - existing networks, fiber optics
2) ISP - cost, bandwidth, stability
3) Stadia pricing model?
4) Competition from big 3, all with deep histories, libraries, and pockets

The winner is the consumer, because we're free to choose, and reject losers and liars.

 

[edit: fixed my spelling typo up there]

Agree. Stadia is high end product. If we look at the DF tests you need at least 20 mbs for 1080p 30 fps gaming. And its gonna use all the bandwitch. So when you are playing no spotify, netflix or web browsing.  If you want to get 4k  60 FPS  you need at least 200- 300 mbs.  Right now they didn't show any games running 4k. 

I want to see the faces of people with 10 mbs running a laggy 720p stream at 30 fps, and  a Wife behind you screaming that she want to watch some netflix with Kids. Good luck.

Let's be honest. People who have 100-300 mbs conection ( like me :) ) are the one playing on  PS PRO, X One X or a PC, and this stuff its for cassual ?



Around the Network
Trumpstyle said:
shikamaru317 said:

Digital Foundry got to test the latest Stadia build, and there was only 22 extra ms of input lag compared to playing AC Odyssey on XB1 X. However, it is worth noting that the X gameplay had display lag deducted and was done on ethernet, whereas their Stadia test was on wifi without display lag deducted, so the actual additional latency is likely below 10ms. MS also just revealed that they are getting less than 10ms of added latency with their xCloud streaming services. 

I think Ubisoft just screwed up here on xbox or just didn't care about latency, I would not read much into to it. Halo 5 according to eurogamer has 63ms while Spadia has 166ms tested on there chromebook.

There is simply no magic to reducing latency, you will have 2 * server ping + 10ms for audio/video compression. So I have 13ms ping when testing Geforce now which should give me about 36ms added delay (13+13+10). I have 25 ping to my nearest google server and 40 ping to nearest azure server. This is why we can expect no game streaming will be superior to another.

People just have a negative view of Playstation now because most test it on their TV. Where they using Wifi + wireless controller and the TV itself add 30-50ms, while on PC we usually play everything wired and PC monitors have between 2-7ms delay according to several reviews I checked recently at pcmonitors.info

Halo 5 is 60 fps, AC Odyssey is 30 fps. Also, I believe that the Halo 5 63ms number has lag from the wireless controller deducted, whereas the AC Odyssey test has wireless controller lag left in for AC Odyssey, though I might be mistaken there. 



There is hundred millions of people that are 'youtube players'. These seems to be the main market of stadia.
For us, dedicated console gamers that care about buying consoles and look forward new exclusives and that care about input lag for competitive play, if will flop.
But the market is not only formed only by us.
Seems a blue ocean thing.



 

This is why game streaming makes no sense, a TV adds extra latency and you're likely using wifi and wireless controller which will cause more hiccups. Game streaming only make some sense for maybe on PC as you probably using wired internet connection and PC monitors has much less latency than a TV has. But testing Geforce now for about 5-6 months I still recommend just getting a PC for a consistent experience. Depending on what game you play on Geforce now there will be frame-rate drops, artefacs/smudges and game freezes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZrj-0TsyaM

Look at all those game freezes on google stadia.



6x master league achiever in starcraft2

Beaten Sigrun on God of war mode

Beaten DOOM ultra-nightmare with NO endless ammo-rune, 2x super shotgun and no decoys on ps4 pro.

1-0 against Grubby in Wc3 frozen throne ladder!!

TranceformerFX said:
Even IF it gets developer traction and they get a bunch of companies to release their games on Stadia, what does that really do? What advantage does Stadia REALLY have other than the platform being "pro stream"?

We all know that Microsoft and Sony will NEVER jump on board with Stadia and their exclusive games as they will most definitely want their games for their next gen consoles. (PS5/X2)

So don't expect to play Halo 6 or The Last of Us 2 on Stadia - it's not gonna happen. And the worst thing for Stadia is that the PS5 and X2 will ALSO be able to play multi plat games.

So what will you "really" gain by opting to not have a digital/physical copy of a game and pay for a streaming subscription fee?

"You can stream in 4K resolution". So f***ing what? That doesn't mean shit if said person's bandwidth can't handle that content. Not everyone has fiber optic cable internet like you Google exec's do. Get your head out of your asses.

Google Stadia, regardless of cheaper subscription fee price vs owning the game - WILL CRASH AND BURN.

_WE_ most likely won't gain anything.  We, on this site, are avid gamers.  The target for now are not us, but the more casual gamer.  The ones still gaming on previous gen consoles or old PCs or are only playing mobile games.

Also UP to 4k.  Who's to say that it won't also do 1080p or 720p thus lowering the required bandwidth.  I for one will be sticking with 1080p for quite some time.  I have no intention of replacing any of my 1080p tv's for at least 5 years.



A warrior keeps death on the mind from the moment of their first breath to the moment of their last.



jonathanalis said:
There is hundred millions of people that are 'youtube players'. These seems to be the main market of stadia.
For us, dedicated console gamers that care about buying consoles and look forward new exclusives and that care about input lag for competitive play, if will flop.
But the market is not only formed only by us.
Seems a blue ocean thing.

Blue Ocean that have Sony, MS and Amazon competing against them?



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."