4 ms·

Yeah this ^ I guess Google did an MVP and everybody is expecting it to be a fully-fledged offering already. That might have been due to Google promoting it as

Yeah this ^ I guess Google did an MVP and everybody is expecting it to be a fully-fledged offering already. That might have been due to Google promoting it as such of course (and asking the price for it). What I also see happening is that as soon as they have a free tier, people are gonna try to play a game for 5 minutes because they saw something on Youtube or somewhere else and then 1 in X will just buy the game on Stadia.

birdyrooster 7y ago
It’s not well known but AT&T and Nvidia partnered to use hardware encoding/decoding (Shield) and fiber internet with compute at the last mile and they still couldn’t make a product that wasn’t laggy and have distracting artifacts. I am sorry to say Google‘s demonstration was more of the same and customers will not overlook this. Imagine how bad VR titles would get you motion sick with all of that latency and compression artifacts. With computers cheaper than ever and games hitting a ceiling on how much power it takes to render them, Stadia makes less and less sense. What does make sense is Google is so hungry for revenue they don’t care about user experience. What also makes sense is that those downvoting me have become blinded by optimism.
- CoolGuySteve 7y ago
  It depends on where you're located. With FiOS in NYC I can get to AWS Virginia in 18ms. I don't have any Google Cloud servers to test with. When I use Steam/NVidia in home streaming with my GTX 1080 card, I can render a 1080p frame in about 10-12ms and decode it in 10ms on my 4K FireTV. (I beat Witcher 3, TombRaider, and Hitman with it over a 50Mbit powerline ethernet setup and they all looked fine BTW.) Even if the Google data center is twice as far as AWS, that's 58ms lag, or 4 frames at 60fps. You can emulate the same lag by turning off Game Mode on your HDTV, it's fine for most games. However, it is bullshit that the Stadia website doesn't have something like fast.com that tells you if your internet connection has enough bandwidth/latency to actually work with the service. It's also not a good sign that they're not talking about avoiding wifi for your connection the way Steam does.
  - birdyrooster 7y ago
    I don’t know what games you play, but in home streaming is too much lag for me on basically any game. For myself, 144hz is a requirement because 60fps is a slide show. The resolution would need to be increased as 1080p looks terrible, so that is unacceptable too.
    - CoolGuySteve 7y ago
      Have you considered that you might not be the target audience for a $10/month game streaming service?
      - birdyrooster 7y ago
        I don’t know what their target audience could possibly be. If the game is so visually unappealing that the customer doesn’t care about frame rate or resolution, then it’s likely they already have the capability to render that with the console they already have. Stadia needs to convince people they have a better product than what consumers have today. Instead it looks like a step down and you still have to pay full price for the games. People can finance a console purchase over a couple years for a little more money and enjoy their experience more while having a structured monthly payment.
        mantap 7y ago
        Most people game at 60fps or even 30fps. If 60fps is an unacceptable slide show you are most definitely not in the target market.
        birdyrooster 7y ago
        Yes but what you are positing as a target market already has something that does that today. Stadia has to be a value add.
        birdyrooster 7y ago
        The problem is that modern consoles have native support for higher refresh rates and Stadia will need to continue to scale with this.
- Marsymars 7y ago
  Somehow even Steam in-home streaming between two wired PCs is a mess of distracting artifacts for me when playing a turn-based game from 2005 at 1080p. Is it really that hard?
- SmirkingRevenge 7y ago
  I'm playing Stadia on my non-fiber cable internet, and there's no perceptible lag. I previously tried Geforce Now, under the same conditions, same pc - and it was unplayable.
  - birdyrooster 7y ago
    Impressive! Which games have you played on Stadia? What input devices did you use?
    - SmirkingRevenge 7y ago
      I've only tried destiny and samurai showdown so far (but bought gylt). Used kb/m for the former and an xbox elite controller for the latter. I had my activation code, but my stadia founders kit hasn't arrived yet, so I haven't been able to try the Stadia controller, or play on a tv.
gambiting 7y ago
Except if any of this was true, then OnLive would still be alive and well. And Stadia is far more difficult to support for developers as it requires custom builds for the platform, so I have no idea what their plan is to keep developers publishing for it unless they start seeing serious sales numbers very soon.
macspoofing 7y ago
>I guess Google did an MVP and everybody is expecting it to be a fully-fledged offering already. If you charge $60 for the games, and $130 for the hardware (and associated $10/mo subscription for the premium option) - people will have certain expectations. For $300 you can get yourself a Switch and have latency-free mobile gaming experience. Obviously cloud-gaming is a slightly different use-case, but is it different enough for most?
honestoHeminway 7y ago
Why do you need to buy, the streaming can seemless blend into a stadia instance as a demo. Just have the streamer duplicated and the player exchanged. Including handover
hef19898 7y ago
MVPs are a great concept, but at least for me Google is way beyond the point to afford a MVP launch. they are Google, with that budget launched products should be a little bit better than that. DISCLAIMER: Did not check out Stadia, i prefer to play on my own hardware.

birdyrooster 7y ago

It’s not well known but AT&T and Nvidia partnered to use hardware encoding/decoding (Shield) and fiber internet with compute at the last mile and they still couldn’t make a product that wasn’t laggy and have distracting artifacts. I am sorry to say Google‘s demonstration was more of the same and customers will not overlook this. Imagine how bad VR titles would get you motion sick with all of that latency and compression artifacts. With computers cheaper than ever and games hitting a ceiling on how much power it takes to render them, Stadia makes less and less sense. What does make sense is Google is so hungry for revenue they don’t care about user experience. What also makes sense is that those downvoting me have become blinded by optimism.

CoolGuySteve 7y ago
It depends on where you're located. With FiOS in NYC I can get to AWS Virginia in 18ms. I don't have any Google Cloud servers to test with. When I use Steam/NVidia in home streaming with my GTX 1080 card, I can render a 1080p frame in about 10-12ms and decode it in 10ms on my 4K FireTV. (I beat Witcher 3, TombRaider, and Hitman with it over a 50Mbit powerline ethernet setup and they all looked fine BTW.) Even if the Google data center is twice as far as AWS, that's 58ms lag, or 4 frames at 60fps. You can emulate the same lag by turning off Game Mode on your HDTV, it's fine for most games. However, it is bullshit that the Stadia website doesn't have something like fast.com that tells you if your internet connection has enough bandwidth/latency to actually work with the service. It's also not a good sign that they're not talking about avoiding wifi for your connection the way Steam does.
- birdyrooster 7y ago
  I don’t know what games you play, but in home streaming is too much lag for me on basically any game. For myself, 144hz is a requirement because 60fps is a slide show. The resolution would need to be increased as 1080p looks terrible, so that is unacceptable too.
  - CoolGuySteve 7y ago
    Have you considered that you might not be the target audience for a $10/month game streaming service?
    - birdyrooster 7y ago
      I don’t know what their target audience could possibly be. If the game is so visually unappealing that the customer doesn’t care about frame rate or resolution, then it’s likely they already have the capability to render that with the console they already have. Stadia needs to convince people they have a better product than what consumers have today. Instead it looks like a step down and you still have to pay full price for the games. People can finance a console purchase over a couple years for a little more money and enjoy their experience more while having a structured monthly payment.
      - mantap 7y ago
        Most people game at 60fps or even 30fps. If 60fps is an unacceptable slide show you are most definitely not in the target market.
        birdyrooster 7y ago
        Yes but what you are positing as a target market already has something that does that today. Stadia has to be a value add.
        birdyrooster 7y ago
        The problem is that modern consoles have native support for higher refresh rates and Stadia will need to continue to scale with this.
Marsymars 7y ago
Somehow even Steam in-home streaming between two wired PCs is a mess of distracting artifacts for me when playing a turn-based game from 2005 at 1080p. Is it really that hard?
SmirkingRevenge 7y ago
I'm playing Stadia on my non-fiber cable internet, and there's no perceptible lag. I previously tried Geforce Now, under the same conditions, same pc - and it was unplayable.
- birdyrooster 7y ago
  Impressive! Which games have you played on Stadia? What input devices did you use?
  - SmirkingRevenge 7y ago
    I've only tried destiny and samurai showdown so far (but bought gylt). Used kb/m for the former and an xbox elite controller for the latter. I had my activation code, but my stadia founders kit hasn't arrived yet, so I haven't been able to try the Stadia controller, or play on a tv.

gambiting 7y ago

Except if any of this was true, then OnLive would still be alive and well. And Stadia is far more difficult to support for developers as it requires custom builds for the platform, so I have no idea what their plan is to keep developers publishing for it unless they start seeing serious sales numbers very soon.

macspoofing 7y ago

>I guess Google did an MVP and everybody is expecting it to be a fully-fledged offering already. If you charge $60 for the games, and $130 for the hardware (and associated $10/mo subscription for the premium option) - people will have certain expectations. For $300 you can get yourself a Switch and have latency-free mobile gaming experience. Obviously cloud-gaming is a slightly different use-case, but is it different enough for most?

honestoHeminway 7y ago

Why do you need to buy, the streaming can seemless blend into a stadia instance as a demo. Just have the streamer duplicated and the player exchanged. Including handover

hef19898 7y ago

MVPs are a great concept, but at least for me Google is way beyond the point to afford a MVP launch. they are Google, with that budget launched products should be a little bit better than that. DISCLAIMER: Did not check out Stadia, i prefer to play on my own hardware.