4 ms·

I don't know if I agree with the conclusion. Are people choosing Vulkan because of Stadia, or because they want to deploy to the other platforms and Stadia is a

I don't know if I agree with the conclusion. Are people choosing Vulkan because of Stadia, or because they want to deploy to the other platforms and Stadia is a nice bonus?

dagmx 4y ago
Should be easy to verify against growth of Vulkan in the same timeframe as stadia vs the growth of Linux in the same time frame.
karaterobot 4y ago
Yeah, he argues for causation using a correlation as evidence. I'm not an industry expert, but I sure never got the sense that developers relied on a Stadia release, or made it a main priority. He may be right, I just don't buy the argument in this article on its face.
- rowanG077 4y ago
  You don't have to assume companies rely on stadia primarily to argue stadia is responsible for adoption. You just have to argue stadia brings more to table then it costs to target Vulkan. Which is orders of magnitude easier.
  - karaterobot 4y ago
    Granted, but the linked article doesn’t do that either.
Someone 4y ago
Possibly neither. We’re missing data on games not using Vulkan. As an simple example, let’s say it turns out that - out of 407 games running Vulkan natively, 270 run on Stadia (from the article) - out of 407 games not running Vulkan natively, also 270 run on Stadia (numbers the article doesn’t mention that I made up to make a point) Then, the two “runs Vulkan natively” and “runs on Stadia” are 100% independent.
- jchw 4y ago
  As far as I know, they're definitely not independent, because Stadia only runs Vulkan natively. That's kind of the point.
- p_l 4y ago
  Some games use Vulkan only on Stadia, for example Cyberpunk 2077 — the Linux+Vulkan build was reportedly one of the most stable at release day, but was available only on Stadia and only because of Stadia, as main development target was Windows with DirectX then ported over to consoles.
pie_flavor 4y ago
Stadia's primary barrier to entry is that it's Vulkan-only. People are not choosing Vulkan because of Stadia, because Stadia has no actual incentive to develop for it due to having no playerbase and no market; but if you are already developing for Vulkan, supporting Stadia shrinks from an ask the size of supporting the Switch in addition to PC, to just the size of supporting Epic or GOG in addition to Steam.

I don't know if I agree with the conclusion. Are people choosing Vulkan because of Stadia, or because they want to deploy to the other platforms and Stadia is a nice bonus?

dagmx 4y ago

Should be easy to verify against growth of Vulkan in the same timeframe as stadia vs the growth of Linux in the same time frame.

karaterobot 4y ago

Yeah, he argues for causation using a correlation as evidence. I'm not an industry expert, but I sure never got the sense that developers relied on a Stadia release, or made it a main priority. He may be right, I just don't buy the argument in this article on its face.

rowanG077 4y ago
You don't have to assume companies rely on stadia primarily to argue stadia is responsible for adoption. You just have to argue stadia brings more to table then it costs to target Vulkan. Which is orders of magnitude easier.
- karaterobot 4y ago
  Granted, but the linked article doesn’t do that either.

Someone 4y ago

Possibly neither. We’re missing data on games not using Vulkan. As an simple example, let’s say it turns out that - out of 407 games running Vulkan natively, 270 run on Stadia (from the article) - out of 407 games not running Vulkan natively, also 270 run on Stadia (numbers the article doesn’t mention that I made up to make a point) Then, the two “runs Vulkan natively” and “runs on Stadia” are 100% independent.

jchw 4y ago
As far as I know, they're definitely not independent, because Stadia only runs Vulkan natively. That's kind of the point.
p_l 4y ago
Some games use Vulkan only on Stadia, for example Cyberpunk 2077 — the Linux+Vulkan build was reportedly one of the most stable at release day, but was available only on Stadia and only because of Stadia, as main development target was Windows with DirectX then ported over to consoles.

pie_flavor 4y ago

Stadia's primary barrier to entry is that it's Vulkan-only. People are not choosing Vulkan because of Stadia, because Stadia has no actual incentive to develop for it due to having no playerbase and no market; but if you are already developing for Vulkan, supporting Stadia shrinks from an ask the size of supporting the Switch in addition to PC, to just the size of supporting Epic or GOG in addition to Steam.