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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - XCloud or Stadia?

 

As a serious gamer, do you expect XCloud or Stadia to be more to your liking??

XCloud 18 46.15%
 
Stadia 2 5.13%
 
I still play text games over dial up 19 48.72%
 
Total:39
gergroy said:
I feel like xcloud is going to be a way for Microsoft to get around the storage issues that come with switching to an ssd. SSD’s are crazy expensive and I very much doubt game sizes are going to go down, most likely they will almost double. So if Microsoft sticks a 1tb ssd in their console, it will hold what, 5-8 games? Juggling games on that thing is going to be super annoying and buying bigger storage options is going to be cost prohibitive for most people. I think most people will opt to just stream it instead of downloading it and having to constantly manage their storage space (Assuming streaming owned games is a feature of Xbox live/game pass and not some additional fee).

Microsoft isn't switching to an SSD. Their new console will have an HDD as usual. What the SSD is about is support for the RAM, because an SSD is cheaper than RAM. The SSD will be used to temporarily hold data for the game you are playing in order to reduce loading times, so the SSD capacity should be in the range of 32-64 GB at most. Perhaps more if Microsoft expects games to need more toward the end of the generation.



Legend11 correctly predicted that GTA IV (360+PS3) would outsell SSBB. I was wrong.

A Biased Review Reloaded / Open Your Eyes / Switch Gamers Club

Around the Network

Both can burn for all I care.



Nintendo Switch Friend Code: SW-5643-2927-1984

Animal Crossing NH Dream Address: DA-1078-9916-3261

<a href="https://www.exophase.com/psn/user/Shikenator/"><img src="https://card.exophase.com/1/1292255.png"></a>

RolStoppable said:
gergroy said:
I feel like xcloud is going to be a way for Microsoft to get around the storage issues that come with switching to an ssd. SSD’s are crazy expensive and I very much doubt game sizes are going to go down, most likely they will almost double. So if Microsoft sticks a 1tb ssd in their console, it will hold what, 5-8 games? Juggling games on that thing is going to be super annoying and buying bigger storage options is going to be cost prohibitive for most people. I think most people will opt to just stream it instead of downloading it and having to constantly manage their storage space (Assuming streaming owned games is a feature of Xbox live/game pass and not some additional fee).

Microsoft isn't switching to an SSD. Their new console will have an HDD as usual. What the SSD is about is support for the RAM, because an SSD is cheaper than RAM. The SSD will be used to temporarily hold data for the game you are playing in order to reduce loading times, so the SSD capacity should be in the range of 32-64 GB at most. Perhaps more if Microsoft expects games to need more toward the end of the generation.

No, I’m pretty sure they are going to use an ssd as their main storage.  They just also talked about using it as virtual ram as well.  With their focus being on reducing load times and the fact that Sony has already come out and said they are going to be using an ssd, it wouldn’t make sense for them to use a normal hard drive.  I admit that their phrasing was vague enough that I could be wrong, I’m guessing that is a very small chance.  



gergroy said:
RolStoppable said:

Microsoft isn't switching to an SSD. Their new console will have an HDD as usual. What the SSD is about is support for the RAM, because an SSD is cheaper than RAM. The SSD will be used to temporarily hold data for the game you are playing in order to reduce loading times, so the SSD capacity should be in the range of 32-64 GB at most. Perhaps more if Microsoft expects games to need more toward the end of the generation.

No, I’m pretty sure they are going to use an ssd as their main storage.  They just also talked about using it as virtual ram as well.  With their focus being on reducing load times and the fact that Sony has already come out and said they are going to be using an ssd, it wouldn’t make sense for them to use a normal hard drive.  I admit that their phrasing was vague enough that I could be wrong, I’m guessing that is a very small chance.  

They won't. Just like the PS5 they will only use the SSD to cache things. The main storage of minimum 1TB will still be an HDD. It's not feasible yet for consoles to include 1TB+ SSDs for everything.



If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.

vivster said:
gergroy said:

No, I’m pretty sure they are going to use an ssd as their main storage.  They just also talked about using it as virtual ram as well.  With their focus being on reducing load times and the fact that Sony has already come out and said they are going to be using an ssd, it wouldn’t make sense for them to use a normal hard drive.  I admit that their phrasing was vague enough that I could be wrong, I’m guessing that is a very small chance.  

They won't. Just like the PS5 they will only use the SSD to cache things. The main storage of minimum 1TB will still be an HDD. It's not feasible yet for consoles to include 1TB+ SSDs for everything.

I'm not sure how that's going to work though? Wouldn't game load times only improve after you've been playing the game for a while? The content still has to be copied from the HDD to the SSD after all. If they had a 256gb ssd I guess that would be enough room to hold the most often accessed data from ~2tb of installed games, otherwise if it was small only the most recently installed/played games could be partially cached on the ssd.



Around the Network

Stadia.



Barkley said:
vivster said:

They won't. Just like the PS5 they will only use the SSD to cache things. The main storage of minimum 1TB will still be an HDD. It's not feasible yet for consoles to include 1TB+ SSDs for everything.

I'm not sure how that's going to work though? Wouldn't game load times only improve after you've been playing the game for a while? The content still has to be copied from the HDD to the SSD after all. If they had a 256gb ssd I guess that would be enough room to hold the most often accessed data from ~2tb of installed games, otherwise if it was small only the most recently installed/played games could be partially cached on the ssd.

Depends on the size of the cache. I don't expect anything bigger than 128GB. It'll be non-volatile, so it will retain enough frequently used data for at least one game. After that it's just a question of algorithm which data to keep in there. I could think they will already copy data into the cache when you're installing the game. So you will instantly have the benefits of the faster load times. The SSD they're gonna use will also be faster than a regular mainstream SSD, so they'll get the best of both worlds.

It's a good solution that will work fine unless you're constantly switching between 5 huge games every 5 minutes, but nobody does that. It's a great solution for consoles because all of its processes are easily predictable and repetitive. It wouldn't work as well on PC where you have much more complex data streams.



If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.

vivster said:
Barkley said:

I'm not sure how that's going to work though? Wouldn't game load times only improve after you've been playing the game for a while? The content still has to be copied from the HDD to the SSD after all. If they had a 256gb ssd I guess that would be enough room to hold the most often accessed data from ~2tb of installed games, otherwise if it was small only the most recently installed/played games could be partially cached on the ssd.

Depends on the size of the cache. I don't expect anything bigger than 128GB. It'll be non-volatile, so it will retain enough frequently used data for at least one game. After that it's just a question of algorithm which data to keep in there. I could think they will already copy data into the cache when you're installing the game. So you will instantly have the benefits of the faster load times. The SSD they're gonna use will also be faster than a regular mainstream SSD, so they'll get the best of both worlds.

It's a good solution that will work fine unless you're constantly switching between 5 huge games every 5 minutes, but nobody does that. It's a great solution for consoles because all of its processes are easily predictable and repetitive. It wouldn't work as well on PC where you have much more complex data streams.

I'm excited to see how well it works. Ever since we moved to CD ROMs from cartridges, load times have been terrible. I guess we've gotten used to them, but I remember that I thought they were a huge step backwards when I first experienced them.  If the problem has been solved, or substantially improved, I think I've see that as a major step forward.



VAMatt said:

I'm excited to see how well it works. Ever since we moved to CD ROMs from cartridges, load times have been terrible. I guess we've gotten used to them, but I remember that I thought they were a huge step backwards when I first experienced them.  If the problem has been solved, or substantially improved, I think I've see that as a major step forward.

This will probably be as much of a solution as mandatory installs to an HDD were on the PS4 and XB1, so it's first and foremost a measure to prevent loading times from getting much longer.



Legend11 correctly predicted that GTA IV (360+PS3) would outsell SSBB. I was wrong.

A Biased Review Reloaded / Open Your Eyes / Switch Gamers Club

RolStoppable said:
VAMatt said:

I'm excited to see how well it works. Ever since we moved to CD ROMs from cartridges, load times have been terrible. I guess we've gotten used to them, but I remember that I thought they were a huge step backwards when I first experienced them.  If the problem has been solved, or substantially improved, I think I've see that as a major step forward.

This will probably be as much of a solution as mandatory installs to an HDD were on the PS4 and XB1, so it's first and foremost a measure to prevent loading times from getting much longer.

Way to crush my hopes and dreams, buddy.  

Seriously though, it is very important to keep them from getting worse.