7 ms·

Weird, why were they even locked in the first place? I have a PS4 controller I connect to my computer; I never had to unlock it. Was Google afraid people woul

Weird, why were they even locked in the first place? I have a PS4 controller I connect to my computer; I never had to unlock it. Was Google afraid people would use their controller to... play games run on their own computers?

highwaylights 4y ago
The kit was being subsidised. At several points, they were essentially giving away starter kits of controllers and chromecast ultras. I guess they figured it was concerning enough that people were going to pick them up just for a free Chromecast Ultra without also giving them a free controller for Steam too.
- Hamuko 4y ago
  I got mine for free alongside a Chromecast Ultra after buying Cyberpunk 2077 (which also got a 10€ discount).
- sneak 4y ago
  Fun fact: I ordered a Stadia "founder's edition" at launch for actual money, an order which Google later cancelled unilaterally. A couple weeks/months later, they emailed me a promo offering a similar kit for free (just pay shipping). I've no idea why they didn't make money and had to shut down.
lokar 4y ago
It may not be locked as much as just not supported as a generic bt controller. When using it for stadia it uses Wi-Fi, the bt was just for setup.
DistractionRect 4y ago
More than likely it they used some kind of proprietary communication stack for latency reasons or some such. Other reasons may include: - not having to deal with supporting other controllers on stadia - not having to support their controller on other platforms Not that it's defunct, they don't really have to deal with support aspect of things, and this is just a good will gesture so the controllers aren't paperweights.
- Hamuko 4y ago
  >some kind of proprietary communication stack for latency reasons It was in fact directly using Wi-Fi because of latency.
  - LarryMullins 4y ago
    Knowing that latency was such a problem that they had to take extreme measures like this to save even the tiniest bit of latency really should have been the end of this project.
    - izacus 4y ago
      Or you know, they could just avoid a whole class of compatibility issues due to not having to connect to a local device (which could be any of the mobile phones, Chromecasts, Android tvs or PCs with any of the four major OSes). But sure, tell us more with your expertise.
    - pythonaut_16 4y ago
      "Having engineering problems to solve is proof that you shouldn't try to do anything." Why can't we just appreciate a creative solution to a problem?
      - 8note 4y ago
        It's the most straightforward solution to the problem, too. Your local machine doesn't need to know the input for stadia to work, so why redirect it there?
        VectorLock 4y ago
        Also seems like a benefit for being able to use "any" screen to game on. The screen doesn't need to know how Stadia works or interface with the game controller, it just needs to receive video and display it.
      - LarryMullins 4y ago
waboremo 4y ago
Two things: They were never locked the same way your PS4 wasn't you could connect it wired and use it just fine as a regular controller. The second thing is that the stadia controllers used wifi as their source of connection over bluetooth, for various reasons Google said it allowed better latency with how they set up stadia. So they're adding the ability to connect from bluetooth with this. In the same way before Sony added driver support to Dualshock controllers on PC, you couldn't use them wirelessly. They're not really "locked" more than the bluetooth support just wasn't there.
- LarryMullins 4y ago
  > So they're adding the ability to connect from bluetooth with this. In the same way before Sony added driver support to Dualshock controllers on PC, you couldn't use them wirelessly. I only use it on Linux, and I suspect Sony didn't contribute the driver I use. Actually, I don't think PS4 controllers work wired at all, I believe they always use bluetooth and the wire is only for charging. AFAIK anyway. Very odd that they decided to use wifi instead of bluetooth initially. Between this and the time they spent writing yet another file transfer tool, I'm getting the impression that Stadia was a very unfocused project, trying to do things differently (resume driven development?) when they should have been using off-the-shelf solutions and standard approaches for everything possible.
  - mjg59 4y ago
    The controller communicated directly with Stadia, avoiding the latency of having to push it through your machine's input stack and only then sending it to the servers.
  - jeroenhd 4y ago
    The PlayStation controller driver was contributed to the Linux kernel by Sony: https://www.phoronix.com/news/Sony-HID-PlayStation-PS5 https://www.phoronix.com/news/Sony-HID-PlayStation-PS5 There are alternative drivers out there (for use with knockoff controllers that try to replicate the offical device IDs, for example), but if you haven't done anything special you're probably using the Sony driver.
ChildOfChaos 4y ago
As others mentioned, but to add a bit more clearer detail, the controllers did not connect to the device you were playing on i.e your computer/tv etc, they used wifi to directly connect to the stadia servers thus avoiding an extra step and hence making them useless once the stadia servers closed down wirelessly, because they never worked like a normal controller (still would work wired though) The controllers did however have a bluetooth chip that was used for initial setup, so you could connect it to the stadia app and put in the wifi settings. This firmware update google is releasing so that it will work as a normal bluetooth controller using this bluetooth chip.
- benatkin 4y ago
  So they did the same thing as Chromebooks - made it dependent on Google software.
  - Waterluvian 4y ago
    What might another solution be that isn’t inferior in terms of latency?
    - benatkin 4y ago
      To support both. To not build the tech equivalent of fast fashion.
      - Waterluvian 4y ago
        That isn’t sensible from a product perspective. Engineering stuff for a peripheral “in case our company fails.”
        benatkin 4y ago
        That's like creating clothes to only be worn a few times because you're targeting people who buy lots of clothes. A controller is an input device similar to a mouse and keyboard and ought to support standards so it can work with different devices. This "product perspective" seems to be that of IKEA and McDonald's.
modeless 4y ago
They weren't "locked". You could play any game with them. They just didn't support Bluetooth at all. So you had to use them wired, or wireless over WiFi (for better latency when connecting to Stadia), but there is no standard for controllers over WiFi, so that part only worked with Stadia. I can't blame them for not wanting to implement Bluetooth when it wasn't a requirement for Stadia. Bluetooth seems like a nightmare to support. But now they can release this as an unsupported best-effort update, and that's way easier. It probably won't work with some devices since they aren't going to test it extensively, but hey, it's free!
- ThatPlayer 4y ago
  Another reason is that the Chromecast Ultra that shipped with Stadia didn't support Bluetooth. This was before the Chromecast with Google TV. So they had to make it WiFi to work on the Chromecasts at the time.
yunohn 4y ago
PS4 controllers also need drivers, they don’t just “work” magically. Since they’re just way more ubiquitous, the PS drivers are more mature.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
dragonwriter 4y ago
> Weird, why were they even locked in the first place? “Locked” is a misnomer [0] ; they didn’t work as bluetooth controllers at all; because it waa a cloud gaming system, bluetooth to a local device that then had a connection (usually WiFi) to the clous backend would add latency, they used WiFi to connect directly to the cloud server, and bluetooth to coordinate with the device that would get the AV stream of the game. > Was Google afraid people would use their controller to… play games run on their own computers? They supported that via USB, so they couldn’t be too afraid of it. [0] EDIT: or, at least, can give the misleading impression that BT controller functionality was active but locked to a specific use case.

highwaylights 4y ago

The kit was being subsidised. At several points, they were essentially giving away starter kits of controllers and chromecast ultras. I guess they figured it was concerning enough that people were going to pick them up just for a free Chromecast Ultra without also giving them a free controller for Steam too.

Hamuko 4y ago
I got mine for free alongside a Chromecast Ultra after buying Cyberpunk 2077 (which also got a 10€ discount).
sneak 4y ago
Fun fact: I ordered a Stadia "founder's edition" at launch for actual money, an order which Google later cancelled unilaterally. A couple weeks/months later, they emailed me a promo offering a similar kit for free (just pay shipping). I've no idea why they didn't make money and had to shut down.

lokar 4y ago

It may not be locked as much as just not supported as a generic bt controller. When using it for stadia it uses Wi-Fi, the bt was just for setup.

DistractionRect 4y ago

More than likely it they used some kind of proprietary communication stack for latency reasons or some such. Other reasons may include: - not having to deal with supporting other controllers on stadia - not having to support their controller on other platforms Not that it's defunct, they don't really have to deal with support aspect of things, and this is just a good will gesture so the controllers aren't paperweights.

Hamuko 4y ago
>some kind of proprietary communication stack for latency reasons It was in fact directly using Wi-Fi because of latency.
- LarryMullins 4y ago
  Knowing that latency was such a problem that they had to take extreme measures like this to save even the tiniest bit of latency really should have been the end of this project.
  - izacus 4y ago
    Or you know, they could just avoid a whole class of compatibility issues due to not having to connect to a local device (which could be any of the mobile phones, Chromecasts, Android tvs or PCs with any of the four major OSes). But sure, tell us more with your expertise.
  - pythonaut_16 4y ago
    "Having engineering problems to solve is proof that you shouldn't try to do anything." Why can't we just appreciate a creative solution to a problem?
    - 8note 4y ago
      It's the most straightforward solution to the problem, too. Your local machine doesn't need to know the input for stadia to work, so why redirect it there?
      - VectorLock 4y ago
        Also seems like a benefit for being able to use "any" screen to game on. The screen doesn't need to know how Stadia works or interface with the game controller, it just needs to receive video and display it.
    - LarryMullins 4y ago

waboremo 4y ago

Two things: They were never locked the same way your PS4 wasn't you could connect it wired and use it just fine as a regular controller. The second thing is that the stadia controllers used wifi as their source of connection over bluetooth, for various reasons Google said it allowed better latency with how they set up stadia. So they're adding the ability to connect from bluetooth with this. In the same way before Sony added driver support to Dualshock controllers on PC, you couldn't use them wirelessly. They're not really "locked" more than the bluetooth support just wasn't there.

LarryMullins 4y ago
> So they're adding the ability to connect from bluetooth with this. In the same way before Sony added driver support to Dualshock controllers on PC, you couldn't use them wirelessly. I only use it on Linux, and I suspect Sony didn't contribute the driver I use. Actually, I don't think PS4 controllers work wired at all, I believe they always use bluetooth and the wire is only for charging. AFAIK anyway. Very odd that they decided to use wifi instead of bluetooth initially. Between this and the time they spent writing yet another file transfer tool, I'm getting the impression that Stadia was a very unfocused project, trying to do things differently (resume driven development?) when they should have been using off-the-shelf solutions and standard approaches for everything possible.
- mjg59 4y ago
  The controller communicated directly with Stadia, avoiding the latency of having to push it through your machine's input stack and only then sending it to the servers.
- jeroenhd 4y ago
  The PlayStation controller driver was contributed to the Linux kernel by Sony: https://www.phoronix.com/news/Sony-HID-PlayStation-PS5 https://www.phoronix.com/news/Sony-HID-PlayStation-PS5 There are alternative drivers out there (for use with knockoff controllers that try to replicate the offical device IDs, for example), but if you haven't done anything special you're probably using the Sony driver.

ChildOfChaos 4y ago

As others mentioned, but to add a bit more clearer detail, the controllers did not connect to the device you were playing on i.e your computer/tv etc, they used wifi to directly connect to the stadia servers thus avoiding an extra step and hence making them useless once the stadia servers closed down wirelessly, because they never worked like a normal controller (still would work wired though) The controllers did however have a bluetooth chip that was used for initial setup, so you could connect it to the stadia app and put in the wifi settings. This firmware update google is releasing so that it will work as a normal bluetooth controller using this bluetooth chip.

benatkin 4y ago
So they did the same thing as Chromebooks - made it dependent on Google software.
- Waterluvian 4y ago
  What might another solution be that isn’t inferior in terms of latency?
  - benatkin 4y ago
    To support both. To not build the tech equivalent of fast fashion.
    - Waterluvian 4y ago
      That isn’t sensible from a product perspective. Engineering stuff for a peripheral “in case our company fails.”
      - benatkin 4y ago
        That's like creating clothes to only be worn a few times because you're targeting people who buy lots of clothes. A controller is an input device similar to a mouse and keyboard and ought to support standards so it can work with different devices. This "product perspective" seems to be that of IKEA and McDonald's.

modeless 4y ago

They weren't "locked". You could play any game with them. They just didn't support Bluetooth at all. So you had to use them wired, or wireless over WiFi (for better latency when connecting to Stadia), but there is no standard for controllers over WiFi, so that part only worked with Stadia. I can't blame them for not wanting to implement Bluetooth when it wasn't a requirement for Stadia. Bluetooth seems like a nightmare to support. But now they can release this as an unsupported best-effort update, and that's way easier. It probably won't work with some devices since they aren't going to test it extensively, but hey, it's free!

ThatPlayer 4y ago
Another reason is that the Chromecast Ultra that shipped with Stadia didn't support Bluetooth. This was before the Chromecast with Google TV. So they had to make it WiFi to work on the Chromecasts at the time.

yunohn 4y ago

PS4 controllers also need drivers, they don’t just “work” magically. Since they’re just way more ubiquitous, the PS drivers are more mature.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

dragonwriter 4y ago

> Weird, why were they even locked in the first place? “Locked” is a misnomer [0] ; they didn’t work as bluetooth controllers at all; because it waa a cloud gaming system, bluetooth to a local device that then had a connection (usually WiFi) to the clous backend would add latency, they used WiFi to connect directly to the cloud server, and bluetooth to coordinate with the device that would get the AV stream of the game. > Was Google afraid people would use their controller to… play games run on their own computers? They supported that via USB, so they couldn’t be too afraid of it. [0] EDIT: or, at least, can give the misleading impression that BT controller functionality was active but locked to a specific use case.