Google Stadia Review: Gaming's Streaming Future Isn't Here Yet (cnet.com) 70
Scott Stein, reviews Google Stadia cloud gaming service for CNET: Stadia's launch day was earlier this week... sort of. Really, consider this the start of Stadia's early-access beta period. Because Google's big promises haven't arrived, and at the price of the Stadia's Founder's Edition, I can't recommend anyone jump onboard at the moment. Google's experimental game streaming service, Stadia, launches without many of its promised features, and just a handful of games. It works, but there's not much incentive to buy in. We've heard about the promises of streaming games over the internet for a decade. Stadia really does work as a way to stream games. I've only played a couple of the 12 games Google promised by Tuesday's launch, though. That short list pales compared to what Microsoft already has on tap for its in-beta game-streaming service, xCloud. It's no match for what Nvidia's game streaming GeForce Now already has or what PlayStation Now offers. Prices of Stadia games at launch in the US are below. They're basically full retail game prices. This could get crazy expensive fast.
[...] Stadia has so few games right now, and I'm trying them with no one else online. It isn't clear how things will work now that the service is going live, and what other features will kick in before year's end. I'm curious, but I might lose interest. Others might, too. I have plenty of other great games to play right now: on Apple Arcade, VR and consoles such as the Switch. Stadia isn't delivering new games yet, it's just trying to deliver a new way to play through streaming. One that you can already get from other providers. Until Google finds a way to loop in YouTube and develop truly unique competitive large-scale games, Stadia isn't worth your time yet. Yes, the future is possibly wild, and you can see hints of the streaming-only cloud-based playground Stadia wants to become. But we'll see what it shapes into over the next handful of months and check back in. Raymond Wong, writing for Input Mag looks at the amount of data playing a game on Stadia consumes and how the current state of things require a very fast internet connection to work: Like streaming video, streaming games is entirely dependent on your internet speed. Faster internet delivers smooth, lag-free visuals, and slower internet means seeing some glitches and dropped framerates. Google recommends a minimum of connection of 10Mbps for 1080p Full HD streaming at 30 fps with stereo sound and 35Mbps for 4K resolution streaming (in HDR if display is supported) at 60 fps with 5.1 surround sound. Reality didn't reflect Google's advertising, though. Despite having a Wi-Fi connection with 16-20Mbps downloads in a hotel room in LA, streaming Shadow of the Tomb Raider and Destiny 2 to my 13-inch MacBook Pro wasn't 100% stable. The visuals would glitch out for a second or two about every 10 minutes of playtime. [...] A fast internet connection isn't the only thing you need for Stadia to work right. You need a lot of bandwidth, too. One hour of playing Red Dead Redemption 2 at 1080p resolution on my 46-inch HDTV via a Chromecast Ultra ate up 5.3GB of data. This seemed insane until I saw an hour of Destiny 2 on a Pixel 3a XL with 6-inch, 1080p-resolution display gobbled up 9.3GB of data!
[...] Stadia has so few games right now, and I'm trying them with no one else online. It isn't clear how things will work now that the service is going live, and what other features will kick in before year's end. I'm curious, but I might lose interest. Others might, too. I have plenty of other great games to play right now: on Apple Arcade, VR and consoles such as the Switch. Stadia isn't delivering new games yet, it's just trying to deliver a new way to play through streaming. One that you can already get from other providers. Until Google finds a way to loop in YouTube and develop truly unique competitive large-scale games, Stadia isn't worth your time yet. Yes, the future is possibly wild, and you can see hints of the streaming-only cloud-based playground Stadia wants to become. But we'll see what it shapes into over the next handful of months and check back in. Raymond Wong, writing for Input Mag looks at the amount of data playing a game on Stadia consumes and how the current state of things require a very fast internet connection to work: Like streaming video, streaming games is entirely dependent on your internet speed. Faster internet delivers smooth, lag-free visuals, and slower internet means seeing some glitches and dropped framerates. Google recommends a minimum of connection of 10Mbps for 1080p Full HD streaming at 30 fps with stereo sound and 35Mbps for 4K resolution streaming (in HDR if display is supported) at 60 fps with 5.1 surround sound. Reality didn't reflect Google's advertising, though. Despite having a Wi-Fi connection with 16-20Mbps downloads in a hotel room in LA, streaming Shadow of the Tomb Raider and Destiny 2 to my 13-inch MacBook Pro wasn't 100% stable. The visuals would glitch out for a second or two about every 10 minutes of playtime. [...] A fast internet connection isn't the only thing you need for Stadia to work right. You need a lot of bandwidth, too. One hour of playing Red Dead Redemption 2 at 1080p resolution on my 46-inch HDTV via a Chromecast Ultra ate up 5.3GB of data. This seemed insane until I saw an hour of Destiny 2 on a Pixel 3a XL with 6-inch, 1080p-resolution display gobbled up 9.3GB of data!
How can anyone's data caps survive this? (Score:2)
Lots of modern games take 20-40 hours to complete, or if you are playing some kind of shooter like COD people can easily put 10-20 hours in per week of play...
If you are talking 6-10 GB of data per hour, who has data caps that can survive that kind of a activity?
Never mind the issues many people will have with latency that would render lots of games not very playable, how is anyone supposed to work around the data cap issue alone without paying huge additional bandwidth fees? That seems to trump other issu
Re: (Score:3)
Unlimited data cap here, $35/m.
That said, I hope Stadia and xCloud die a quick painful death.
Re: How can anyone's data caps survive this? (Score:2)
Because if they take off, in 10 years AAA games will only be offered by streaming. That means you pay monthly for it, don't own it and can't mod it.
So yes, these services if successful could eventually destroy the current gaming hobby for many people.
Re: (Score:1)
Never mind gutting the currently vibrant add-in GPU market. With you on the hate.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They're just optimizing away that pesky "choice" thing users had, and spreading it out across as many pork barrel services as possible.
Re: (Score:1)
Not to mention the unnecessary lag in single player games.
Re: (Score:1)
You're basically streaming a movie (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
At the end of your 2 year amoritzation period you still have the video card, but your cloud rental was entirely pissed into the wind. Back to you.
Re: (Score:2)
if someone is upgrading a $600 video card every 2 years, they have other issues. a current $600 video card should last you at least 5 years running games at the highest resolution.
in a post below i said by video card is 7 years old, and its just been the last year i couldn't run new games at or near max graphics. and the one i want to upgrade to is $450 Canadian and will last me at max settings for quite a few more years.
Re: (Score:1)
Why is the video card worth $0 and not helping to fund the upgrade?
Re: How can anyone's data caps survive this? (Score:2)
Doesn't Matter Anyway (Score:4, Insightful)
This is Google Project. We all know it will be gone in a couple of years.
And if they don't address the issues in TFS, maybe sooner than that.
My advice: Don't buy the annual subscription option, if one exists.
Re: (Score:2)
This is Google Project. We all know it will be gone in a couple of years.
And if they don't address the issues in TFS, maybe sooner than that.
Google has a tendency to drop free products that don't become successful and profitable (almost like it's a for-profit business!), but their track record with supporting paid products is pretty good.
My advice: Don't buy the annual subscription option, if one exists.
AFAICT Google has never cut off a subscription service without giving users at least the full value of their subscription. I'm no lawyer but I expect that would be a breach of contract.
I understand that cynicism is popular, and a great way to get upmodded on slashdot, but I don't think you really thought abou
Re: (Score:2)
It's sillier than that. You have to buy the game you want to play, and they've given no indication that you won't lose access to them when the service inevitably closes.
Why would anybody want this? (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's ignore the technical aspects and just pretend it works perfectly. I actually kind of like the idea of having a Netflix-like subscription service where you get a huge library and just stream whatever game you want immediately without having to download and install it.
But that's not what Stadia is. That's what everyone kind of assumed it had to be, but no. Stadia wants to be its own "console." You have to pay full price for games on it, and then can optionally subscribe to get better quality video.
What?! Why would I want to pay full price for games that can go away at any time, and that require a constant Internet connection? If there were a benefit to it - like a massive library of games that you can instantly play at no extra charge - that would be one thing. But there isn't. If a game on Stadia costs the same as the game on Steam, why would I buy the game on Stadia?! What value does it add?
No one likes DRM that requires a constant Internet connection. Players constantly complain about these schemes. Why would I want games that have the ultimate DRM and that are hosted by a company that frequently and randomly cancels projects it got bored with?
Re: (Score:3)
The ONLY advantage in theory, is that you do not need a gaming PC to play high end new release games.
All the processing happens on Googles side.
They are hoping people will see this as an alternative to buying a $4k gaming PC or a $600 home console.
Re: (Score:2)
Is that dollar sign before the "4k" an error, or are you really unaware of the fact that typical modern gaming PC costs three digits USD to buy?
Re: (Score:2)
Is that dollar sign before the "4k" an error, or are you really unaware of the fact that typical modern gaming PC costs three digits USD to buy?
Shipped and with a nice case. PCs were never cheaper.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but typical resolution that modern gaming PC runs is 1080p. Beteen that and 768p you have three quarters of all machines on steam that don't opt out of hte survey. 4k machines are less than two percent of total.
If you look at what typical gaming machine is today according to steam, it's well below four digits USD.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, you're an astroturfer. Nevermind.
Re: (Score:2)
According to steam hardware survey, you'd have to buy a top end case and order your shipping to be done by some kind of a concierge service to hit four digits. Most used PC would be around 700USD as a desktop. 300 is a lot for a case and delivery.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Is that dollar sign before the "4k" an error, or are you really unaware of the fact that typical modern gaming PC costs three digits USD to buy?
"three digits USD" won't even get me a proper video card.
Yes it might be possible to build a gaming PC that will almost get the job done for around $2k, But I'm not going to spend $2k building a system that I will have to replace next year.
For a high end rig $4k is conservative.
Re: (Score:2)
A RTX 2060 ti is $450 canadian right now.
My system then is 7 years old has a GTX 650 and still runs all games that are out. it is just getting to the point of needing a new video card.
a $4000 computer system is complete overkill and does nothing but try and show how big your junk is.
Re: (Score:2)
An RTX2060ti is a fantastic card, if anything more powerful than you need for beautiful high frame rate gaming at 1080p.
It's just fucking shit if you want 60fps at 4k with all the prettiness, because it won't actually deliver that.
A $4000 computer system is still going to struggle to give you a minimum 60fps at 4k in every game with maximised graphics settings. It's not overkill, it's just bloody expensive.
Which is why so few people have a 4k setup. They'd rather spend less and have the full prettiness at l
Re: (Score:2)
As a side note. it takes the Absolute top end on this specific computer to get to the $4000 mark.
https://www.digitalstorm.com/a... [digitalstorm.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Is that dollar sign before the "4k" an error, or are you really unaware of the fact that typical modern gaming PC costs three digits USD to buy?
"three digits USD" won't even get me a proper video card.
Yes it might be possible to build a gaming PC that will almost get the job done for around $2k, But I'm not going to spend $2k building a system that I will have to replace next year.
For a high end rig $4k is conservative.
Now imagine if game studios could spec out $20K of hardware, including custom-designed accelerator boards, and then write their game to target that platform. This would be impossible in a world where gamers have to buy and manage their own hardware, but the fact that cloud hardware is a shared resource that only has to be deployed in sufficient quantity to handle peak real-world demand, not peak theoretical demand (all players of the game in the whole world playing at the same time) means that in a streami
Re: (Score:2)
Now imagine if game studios could spec out $20K of hardware, including custom-designed accelerator boards, and then write their game to target that platform. This would be impossible in a world where gamers have to buy and manage their own hardware, but the fact that cloud hardware is a shared resource that only has to be deployed in sufficient quantity to handle peak real-world demand, not peak theoretical demand (all players of the game in the whole world playing at the same time) means that in a streaming world it might be feasible.
I think we just figured out why quantum computing is so important. (we'll run it on the conventional super computers until we work the kinks out)
Re: (Score:2)
Why would you need to pay $4000 for a brand new gaming computer. there should be no problem being able to build a complete system that can run at max settings all new released games for under $2000. or like me on a 7 year old computer just add a new video card for $400 canadian.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
But nVidia already offers this service (I think still in "beta" though?), and nVidia's service just gives you a limited Windows desktop with Steam, Battle.net, and other services ready to roll. Everything Stadia offers today, nVidia's service offered at least a year ago, and was already better.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The ONLY advantage in theory, is that you do not need a gaming PC to play high end new release games.
All the processing happens on Googles side.
They are hoping people will see this as an alternative to buying a $4k gaming PC or a $600 home console.
In theory, another potential advantage is that games could be designed to require hardware that would basically never be practical for consumers to buy. Game studios could even design custom accelerator hardware for a particular game, hardware that could be hundreds or thousands of dollars per unit if sold retail.
It's really a question of economics. If you build a cloud-based system, you have to scale it to handle peak demand. But with home-based systems, you effectively have to deploy orders of magnit
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone who has access to their own internet connection fast enough to accommodate the streaming requirements can probably afford the console and gaming PC rather easily.
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you assume Greed still gives a shit about what consumers want?
(Hint: They don't. Not even a little bit.)
Re: (Score:2)
One Word: Convenience.
If someone gets this cloud gaming option "just right" it could upset the entire way PC gaming is done. The DRM complaint is pretty moot nowadays though. That argument could be leveled at Steam/Digital Console Stores/Epic/etc as well but the market buyers at large don't care because the convenience (and sales) is nice. What cloud gaming stands to offer the consumer and developers is the ability to game on a system spec that stays up to date in hardware -- it eliminates the need to const
Re: (Score:2)
What cloud gaming stands to offer the consumer and developers is the ability to game on a system spec that stays up to date in hardware -- it eliminates the need to constantly upgrade your system or put another way, it allows you to rent a mid/top line system that you can return at any point.
It could go beyond that. What if the system you're renting is one that you could never remotely afford to buy? Imagine playing on a machine that costs $10K or $20K, including thousands spent on accelerator cards custom-designed by the game studio for the specific game you're playing.
At bottom, the point is that the economics of shared hardware that is rarely idle are better than the economics of user-purchased hardware that is usually idle. The savings can be applied either to decreasing the per-user c
Re: (Score:2)
Ya, as long as they can make the experience 'not shit' (ie: high compression, annoying latency, etc) then the economics work out very well. If we say a brand new mid-tier system is $1500 to build, which is what I can just about do without looking for the most dirt cheap stuff w/ a 2070, and lets say we upgrade the video card again in 3 years, then a mid-tier system over 6 years is going to cost you about $2000. If you amortize the cost of the system, you are looking at about $27.7/month over 6 years. That i
Re: (Score:2)
If a game on Stadia costs the same as the game on Steam, why would I buy the game on Stadia?! What value does it add? No one likes DRM that requires a constant Internet connection. Players constantly complain about these schemes.
I'd love to be able to play the latest games on just my crappy old macbook. I don't have a console at home, don't have a media room with a screen where I could plug one in, don't have a desktop computer spot in my house. I got kind of fed up with buying my xbox, then xbox 360, then xbox one, and wiring them all up and hooking them onto my 110" projector screen. The consoles always wanted to be online as well and, given how rarely I get a chance to play games, I'd say about 5% of my console time was spent st
Re: (Score:2)
Companies have been trying to kill giving game files to gamers for a while, this started with mmo's back in the late 90's in 1997 with ultima online, they've been stealing videogames since that time using propaganda and the illteracy of the average gamer. IF you bought any mmo, steam drm'd game over the last 20 years you missed "the agenda".
There is no rational reason for any piece of software to not be running 100% on your machine. Note that for the first 30 years of PC gaming there was no internet to st
Re: (Score:2)
What value does it add?
Not having to own and administer a $1500 computer? Cloud computing is a thing nowadays, and there's a reason.
But that's not what Stadia is. That's what everyone kind of assumed it had to be, but no. Stadia wants to be its own "console." You have to pay full price for games on it, and then can optionally subscribe to get better quality video.
No, that's not what it wants to be. Did you come to that conclusion from the 22 included launch titles, and the zero additional cost titles at launch?
Their model is to have a lot of games included in the service, and some AAA games at an additional cost. I get what you are saying but you are much exaggerating the reality of the situation.
Re: (Score:1)
having to own and administer a $1500 computer? Cloud computing is a thing nowadays, and there's a reason.
While cloud gaming is a "Thing" it doesn't exactly pose as a viable thing for mainstream gaming with the current restrictions of technology in place such as bandwidth limitations, data caps, and latency.
Current parity for streaming to this degree could probably only be met on a fiber level because of the amount of data needed to stream uninterrupted where media content streaming can be compressed before it's contents payload can be rendered.
Their model is to have a lot of games included in the service, and some AAA games at an additional cost. I get what you are saying but you are much exaggerating the reality of the situation.
I do believe ALL games unless they release a few free games will
Re: (Score:2)
While cloud gaming is a "Thing" it doesn't exactly pose as a viable thing for mainstream gaming
I didn't say it did. I was responding to the fact that OP couldn't think of any possible reason for cloud gaming.
Current parity for streaming to this degree could probably only be met on a fiber level because of the amount of data needed to stream uninterrupted
Well, that's FUD. Google claims 20mbs for 1080p60 and 35mps for 4k60. My cable service gives me 250mps. Lots of people have that, plenty enough to make a service viable economically.
I was a subscriber to Geoforce Now, and it worked. There were occasional hiccups (like TFA said) but in general it worked well. You probably wouldn't play competition CS GO from it. But it worked.
I do believe ALL games unless they release a few free games will be at an additional cost on top of the subscription fee.
You'd be wrong. ALL o
My favorite thing about Stadia (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
My favorite thing about Stadia is their response to people asking about slow internet, data caps, etc. Something along the lines of "If the internet isn't good enough, Internet Service Providers will just improve themselves to fix it."
Netflix drove ISP improvements.
Ownership is dead. Long live Greed. (Score:2)
Ownership is now dead and renting now costs even more money to stream the game. I feel bad for the addicts who can't afford to feed this addiction. Cord cutting turned out to be an exercise in futility from a cost perspective, predicted by many long ago. I'm guessing this will become more of the same shit.
Not Like Streaming Video (Score:2)
https://tech.slashdot.og/comme... [slashdot.og]
So much of the Stadia launch coverage is written assuming a "Streaming Future," as if they expect the speed of light to "improve."
Like streaming video, streaming games is entirely dependent on your internet speed.
Completely wrong. From the moment you select a (non-live) streaming video to play, most every bit from the beginning of the stream to the end is known, or can be (barring the invocation of features like automatic on-the-fly quality/bitrate adjustment). The entire movie/show/vlog can and will play without any further user input.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah the first thing I said when I heard about Stadia is "how are they dealing with the lag?"
Sounds like they aren't.
Also normal (Score:2)
"Future Isn't Here Yet "
The future will never be 'here', it's in the future!
Wong discovers video uses a lot of data (Score:3)
The only take away I got from the summary is that people are stupid and don't actually realize the amount of data being used by video. This is not that much different from watching an action movie on Netflix or a ton of video on YouTube though. Those numbers are perfectly in line with expectations. I mean, imagine him writing about YouTube: "I watched an hour of YouTube at 1080p and it used 5.3GB! You need a ton of bandwidth to watch YouTube."
Re: (Score:2)
Also, bandwidth of a 1080p stream can differ based on the screen presenting it.
I mean, honestly.
Wi-Fi? LOL. (Score:2)
Despite having a Wi-Fi connection with 16-20Mbps downloads
I am going to stop you right there, WiFi is not for real time gaming. You were also on a public/shared access point. Any further complaints can be blamed on WiFi. Get a damned wire, then re-examine your experience.
Next they will say 'yea but other videos play back smoothly on WiFi', that is because you can buffer movies - real time content can't be buffered. Get a damned wire.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
> WiFi is not for real time gaming
Gamers always say that but my WiFi at home add less than 1ms to my total "ping" and is rock solid. WiFi can be perfectly fine for gaming. It's the second part you mention about being on a hotel connection that's his downfall. Hotels are known for terrible WiFi+Internet.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I game online over wifi and it's exceedingly low latency, my wifi bandwidth is around four times my WAN bandwidth and I'm perfectly fine.
Except for the micro stutters as my PC drops wifi for a quarter of a second every few minutes. Which is irrelevant in anything other than a twitch based online game, but damn it's noticeable in something like Rocket League.
Re: (Score:2)
Except for my son and I, I know of no home network I have installed or troubleshot that was wired in a good many years. We both built good gaming PC's and were both knowledgeable enough to know that wireless was not the way to go.
Now explain that to a non-technical person who simply doesn't want a wired connection. They want it to work like Netflix, and they simply don't (or possibly can't) understand why their superfast, superexpensive WiFi connection is unable do what they believe it can.
This is mostly th
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I came here to say the same thing about his public WiFi connection. He's in a hotel; I can count on one hand the number of hotels that have had WiFi that didn't partially suck. He also said, "The visuals would glitch out for a second or two about every 10 minutes of playtime" which, I'd say, is about the best you could expect. Every 10 minutes you'd hiccup for 1 second? Damn, you hit the hotel WiFi jackpot!
Product no one asked for and no one wants. (Score:1)
Shadow, PSNow (Score:2)
I have been playing on the cloud for awhile through my gigabit FTTH connection. I used Parsec until they withdrew from renting gaming computers. Now I use Shadow and I will setup Stadia when I get the kit. I like being able to play graphically-intensive games without owning a bulky noisy gaming PC.
Shadow works. Lag is almost imperceptible. Frame rates are stable at 60 FPS on the remote machine, although the delivery of each frame over the network is not completely smooth. Frame times are irregular at times.
Re: (Score:3)
Shadow is a much better product than Stadia because it not only let you use games you already own, as let you do anything.
Stadia is an horrible walled garden where games go to literally die, because if google discontinue stadia, or the game dare to use a licensed music and the music expire, or if the company selling the game goes bankrupt (ask telltale games), or if some judge don't like the game, or if google considers the game "not worthy of the space on the server" or many, many, many, many other excuses