Google Stadia ***Update: Google shutting down the service***

[jojoRed]

Yep, and you can still buy a car that you have to drive yourself that runs on gas... things don't change overnight.

But this will be the end... my guess is that we'll get another Xbox console, but Sony and Nintendo may bow out and instead offer streaming services with their own custom input devices.

PSnow is a streaming service offered by Playstation.

PS5 is more or less going to be released in 2020. Nintendo jst released a console, 2 years ago.

You dont know shit.

 

[KaNesDeath]

That's what they said about online gaming during the PS2 era...

You understand that Pc gaming changed in the late 90's with availability of high speed internet, right?

PS2 didnt release with a network adapter at its launch of late 2000. Wasnt until mid-2002 that the PS2 was given the expansion slot access of a network adapter. Network adapter didnt become standard on the PS2 till 2004(?). PS3 (2006) was Sonys first console release with a internet adapter installed at launch. Five years after the XBox and a decade after Pc.

 

[RJ43]

I’m not sure why so many of you are trying to argue that this won’t happen at some point. Maybe Google fails, but I think it’s pretty clear that the writing is on the wall here.

Making consoles is basically a loss leader position and it’s becoming harder and harder to differentiate on software (though Sony has done very well this gen). Having a set device to play games will be as archaic as a set device to watch media.

I agree the infrastructure may not be there for it yet, but do you really want to bet that it never will be?

 

[jefferz]

So it's an Intel CPU with an AMD graphics card.

16gb of total ram?! So 8Gb's goes to the GPU and 8Gb goes to the rest of the system.

 

[louiscyphere]

Wrong, the infrastructure for broadband is goddamn old and terrible. Its way to early for this to be viable for hardcore gaming, let alone MP.

Yea well obviously a decade was a pretty wide guess but I don’t think it’s an unreasonable one. Also in my earlier post I more or less said what you just told me.

 

[Madmick]

Google is making a new gaming service.

https://techcrunch.com/2019/03/19/googles-stadia-game-streaming-platform-kills-huge-downloads/

Will you get one?

Well, here comes the future. This is just Google's version of this technology:
Shadow Tech = PC Gaming on anything, GAME CHANGER

Great for single player gaming. Casual phone gamers is definitely the prime market. I've been predicting since 2015 that Google and Apple would splash into the console gaming market with their HTPC products (ex. Apple TV). They've been ready for a while. They just needed first party support thrown behind a dual-analog controller. Was waiting on Google to release their own version of the NVIDIA Shield. Looks like they're bypassing that strategy to make it so people don't have to buy any separate device at all, and can run it on their phones, or low-end Android devices. Yeah, smart. Didn't see that leapfrog.

Won't be adequate for competitive multiplayer due to light speed limitations (too much microlag).

Don't fall for cloud computing power boasts. Who cares? You're limited by your stream bandwidth. I'm going to operate on the assumption that 484 GB/s is a typo, and that is meant to say Gb/s. Either way it doesn't matter because they're just pimping connections that don't exist outside of places like Google labs, universities, or the most highly-funded science orgs. In 2018 the average USA internet speed was 96 Mb/s. Keep in mind that doesn't tell you your lows, and that's if you have your connection all to yourself. If shared in a home with a lot of family members on multiple devices there will be leeching.

I mean, 484 GB/s is just a laughable figure. It's only about 200x as fast as the current fastest NVMe drives in existence can transfer data. I'm not wasting time checking figures and crunching numbers, but I doubt even the Intel Xeon W-3175X CPU can compute data that quickly. It can't just be on their end. To speak figuratively, that's not how telephones work.

But...apart from intolerable latency to competitive multiplayer the biggest drawback is still nerfed graphics. Those internet users fortunate enough to have the best internet connections see a ceiling compression package delivery via Shadow of 50 Mbps-70 Mbps (Megabits), he says. This takes your PC-caliber graphics to Twitch-caliber streaming. After all, for 1080p@144Hz, your PC requires a transfer of 2389 Mbps to express every single pixel. Not even Gigabit internet is sufficient.

Furthermore, despite that this streamed data is a coded compression, designed to be decoded and unpacked in real-time via hardware acceleration by the "Shadow Ghost" box on your end, there isn't a chance in hell that you're closing that gap, and besides, decoding itself operates on an imprecise dynamic strategy in order to look as close to the uncompressed source as possible (like mp4 and ac3 rips online for video/music). This is also merely 1080p at 144fps.

Of course, the above means that 4K@144Hz, today's most demanding standard, requires 9555 Mb/s in order to push through 100% of the pixels with perfect fidelity.


In other words, looking at the big picture, we're about to enter an internet-limited age for video games. This just makes too much sense for the major corporations as businesses. They can control all their software (ravaging piracy), deliver a viable product for cheaper, and increase their market by an enormous amount.

It will be similar to Netflix/YouTube streaming in its youth, and still to this day. Get ready for graphics to regress, and quite steeply, using these services, for a temporary period. Blu-Ray is still far superior to those streaming video services in terms of raw image, but the compression algorithms (i.e. mp4 video, mp3/aac/opus audio) and people's internet speeds have caught up to the point that in 2019 few care unless they have a gigantic 4K OLED TV that they really want to make pop for guests.

But it was pretty rough there in the late 2000's. Just look at the old fight vids that pop up in the Street Coliseum. There will be a hazing period for this technology, I think, but it won't be so bad, because on the user end, we've already reached these minimums that the human eye finds more tolerable.

 

[Fossor]

This has been tried before.

Even with flawless internet speeds there were multiple problems, including horrible latency issues.

Unless some trusted reviews of the final product say all the issues are miraculously fixed, I'm going to have to pass.

Though, I do really like the controller. It looks like a PS4 and XBoxOne controllers had a baby. If I could use it to play on a PC, wirelessly, I may pick it up.

I am also very sceptical about this thing, plus I like to play with keyboard and mouse. Hope they make a "pc" version one day.

 

[Gandzooka]

-data caps
-latency
-bandwidth

How many people there are who have internet connection that can handle it currently?

I'm also curious as to how much this would increase overall internet traffic and how the infrastructure can handle it without raising prices for customers

 

[KidBaize]

I assume this might be tolerable once 5G becomes widely available but I'm skeptical it will ever replace gaming PC's. It would kill the GPU market, for instance, and there's no sign of hardware manufacturers preparing for their impending doom. I guess it could theoretically compete with consoles but again, I'm skeptical.

 

[DangDaGawd]

casuals can play RPGs on their tablets, i guess.

 

[MUSTKILL]

yeaaaaaaah, nooooooooooooooo.

for RPGs/turn-based, 'visual novel' games or whatever, sure.

for anything that's time sensitive - including single player, it's going to be inherently poor at best unless one is in close proximity to a server. and even then it still would be passable/meh at best. ok for casuals (ie: people who play angry birds or whatever on their phones/tablets), but probably cancer for anyone else.

edit: lolz @ sports games with latency.

It's not as bad as you'd think. There's a big reason why a lot of people are excited about the technology. It's gotten better and better every year to the point where major companies are jumping on board.
Again, if you've seen the end of the gaming spectrum with high resolution monitors that have low response times and refresh rates, this isn't going to do anything for you.
If all you're used to is playing consoles and have fast internet, this will be a way to play legit PC games on the go for cheap.
With multiple platform support, this can be an easy gateway for people to get into PC gaming.
Sports games are inherently laggy as is. Playing ANY NBA/Soccer/NFL game always has insane lag due to the excessive animations.
I've run a lot of hours of testing on the new streaming platforms, and have come to the conclusion that only certain games are playable to a certain extent.
Games that have animation lag like GTA, Diablo, and MMOs are VERY playable.

 

[rob mafia]

Again, if you've seen the end of the gaming spectrum with high resolution monitors that have low response times and refresh rates, this isn't going to do anything for you.
If all you're used to is playing consoles and have fast internet, this will be a way to play legit PC games on the go for cheap.

you don't get it.

i have phenomenal internet speeds. but unless the game's server is nearby, it doesn't matter. internet speed is almost moot at this point - a sustainable bandwidth is +/- more important for everyone with a decent (50+ Mbps) internet plan.

and with 120 Mbps and very low latency on my end, i can play a game like path of exile from a ~50 mile away server (pretty close) with the client obviously on my machine... and get ~20-30 ms. which is great. but when there are lag spikes/latency issues, even 80ms is very noticeable. 100 gets bad.

and this is with the game running on my machine, which minimizes some of the issues (input lag vs serverside). and it's just an arpg, which is less sensitive than most game types.

most games, esp console games aren't this serious and generally don't make checks to maintain consistency between the client and the server (syncing). especially for single player.

it would need to receive your inputs and send the response to visualize everything, effectively doubling the response time for many games (inputs on client side and displayed quickly, without having to send/receive confirmation from server with occasional syncs is a major QoL)

google's service would have everything on the server's end. as good as one's internet is/can be, it won't really matter at all if the server isn't close enough/isn't stable enough. they'd need servers in basically every city - and even then, those not in cities would just be outright screwed.

and playing multiplayer - ugh, how many servers are going to have to ping/coordinate it?

Games that have animation lag like GTA, Diablo, and MMOs are VERY playable.

lolz @ diablo. d3 should be playable this way - it's why the combat was gutted (less data to send/receive) and made so stupidly simplistic (ie: one of the major reasons why it's a shit game). and d3 has rubberbanding issues still. but i guess it's now a phone game, so... you have a phone, right?

MMO doesn't mean much, anymore (term is now too generic and often misused) - but i bet most of them would have major issues with this. MMOs tend to be pretty serious about keeping data on their own servers' sides, which means on top of the latency one would have from their end to google, they're would likely be additional latency from google to the game's server. unless they'd want an additional fragment to their playerbase (ie: stadia players isolated to a stadia server and other stadia players - a different realm)

 

[PEB]

 

[djacobox372]

PSnow is a streaming service offered by Playstation.

PS5 is more or less going to be released in 2020. Nintendo jst released a console, 2 years ago.

You dont know shit.

PS5 will likely not be a real console, just be the next iteration of PSNow to compete with Stadia. Nintendo releases consoles every 5 years, so it's not likely that their next console (3+ years from now) won't be a streaming console.

Xbox will likely release a console in the next year, from what I hear it will be half streaming half-on-board renderer.

As for not knowing shit: I could point out that I've worked for all three of these companies gaming divisions at different times over the last 25 years, but that's an argument from authority which shouldn't be weighed too heavily.

 

[MUSTKILL]

you don't get it.

i have phenomenal internet speeds. but unless the game's server is nearby, it doesn't matter. internet speed is almost moot at this point - a sustainable bandwidth is +/- more important for everyone with a decent (50+ Mbps) internet plan.

and with 120 Mbps and very low latency on my end, i can play a game like path of exile from a ~50 mile away server (pretty close) with the client obviously on my machine... and get ~20-30 ms. which is great. but when there are lag spikes/latency issues, even 80ms is very noticeable. 100 gets bad. (this is with lock

and this is with the game running on my machine, which minimizes some of the issues (input lag vs serverside). and it's just an arpg, which is less sensitive than most game types.

most games, esp console games aren't this serious and generally don't make checks to maintain consistency between the client and the server (syncing). especially for single player.

it would need to receive your inputs and send the response to visualize everything, effectively doubling the response time for many games (inputs on client side and displayed quickly, without having to send/receive confirmation from server with occasional syncs is a major QoL)

google's service would have everything on the server's end. as good as one's internet is/can be, it won't really matter at all if the server isn't close enough/isn't stable enough. they'd need servers in basically every city - and even then, those not in cities would just be outright screwed.




lolz @ diablo. d3 should be playable this way - it's why the combat was gutted (less data to send/receive) and made so stupidly simplistic (ie: one of the major reasons why it's a shit game). and d3 has rubberbanding issues still. but i guess it's now a phone game, so... you have a phone, right?

MMO doesn't mean much, anymore (term is now too generic and often misused) - but i bet most of them would have major issues with this. MMOs tend to be pretty serious about keeping data on their own servers' sides, which means on top of the latency one would have from their end to google, they're would likely be additional latency from google to the game's server. unless they'd want an additional fragment to their playerbase (ie: stadia players isolated to a stadia server and other stadia players - a different realm)

Trust me, I understand how input lag works.
In the right scenario and for the right person, this is a viable solution.
This isn't for me, but clearly there's a market for it if all the major companies are jumping on.

 

[jojoRed]

PS5 will likely not be a real console, just be the next iteration of PSNow to compete with Stadia. Nintendo releases consoles every 5 years, so it's not likely that their next console (3+ years from now) won't be a streaming console.

Xbox will likely release a console in the next year, from what I hear it will be half streaming half-on-board renderer.

As for not knowing shit: I could point out that I've worked for all three of these companies gaming divisions at different times over the last 25 years, but that's an argument from authority which shouldn't be weighed too heavily.

Damn lies and misinformation just come easy to you.

Ill quote when they release new info on the new console come summer

 

[treelo]

Next up: Once you have clicked a button 300 times, you need to top your account up to get an extra 300 button presses.

If you think hardware is dead and streaming is the future, then you are badly badly misinformed, its like 3d films and VR....at some point someone is going to realise it isnt working or making a profit(although i love my VR)

 

[Madmick]

I assume this might be tolerable once 5G becomes widely available but I'm skeptical it will ever replace gaming PC's. It would kill the GPU market, for instance, and there's no sign of hardware manufacturers preparing for their impending doom. I guess it could theoretically compete with consoles but again, I'm skeptical.

It wouldn't kill the GPU market. It would just shift it (to corporate purchases and large data centers rather than to individuals).

Certainly the parceled retail market is better for the seller, so NVIDIA and AMD won't be happy, among others, but there is nothing they can do to stop it. That's why they are adapting. Their retail market, now, is to compete against the ARM manufacturers and those selling cheap, low-power handheld devices. That's why they (and Intel) have been furiously working to shrink die sizes and increase power efficiency the past decade instead of focusing on raw computational gains.

 

[Mau]

Holy shit, they are really shoving this streaming shit down our throats. First it's VR, now this.

 

[TheRuthlessOne]

I think it's cool

You're telling me I can play games in 4k 60fps without having the spend money on the hardware to do it?

I can game on PC 4k without having to spend 1,000 on a PC to do it?

I don't have to upgrade my pc every 3-4 years just to keep playing the newest games at the highest settings?