Jobs Store Support Register

The future of gaming? (Stadia - Google GDC 2019 Gaming Announcement)

+
Choombas'! Google coming in hot! 4k gaming in 60 fps on ANY device? Performance subjected to JUST bandwidth? Is this possible? Skeptical? good, you should be, but this is daring and ambitious and... game changing :D if true.

Take a look, share impressions!:
 
Cool idea, but temper your expectations. Despite their promises, Google has not delivered on 4K/60FPS yet (I know because I tried their Project Stream thing).

I'm open to this as an alternative for people who can't afford PCs/consoles, but I'm vehemently against it as a complete replacement for those platforms. Are people really so eager to give up control of the stuff they buy?
 
Cool idea, but temper your expectations. Despite their promises, Google has not delivered on 4K/60FPS yet (I know because I tried their Project Stream thing).

I'm open to this as an alternative for people who can't afford PCs/consoles, but I'm vehemently against it as a complete replacement for those platforms. Are people really so eager to give up control of the stuff they buy?
They touch on that at about the 40 min mark.
Project stream worked with 1080p - 60fps
Stadia (the new platform) will, at launch, support 4k 60 fps. Allegedly, ofc.

No, i'm not expecting anyone (Stadia included) to take away what i own or buy. If they want to establish a foothold, they need to make Stadia work ON TOP of what is already available to players and developers. It's not like Sony or Microsoft are going to roll over and die.
 
Project stream with 1080/60fps will be already at least 3 step forward from any console in this generation...
 
Sounds like a nice little curiosity.

Doesn’t offer anything (at all) to me, though.
It could offer a lot to developers though, so indirectly to people that are not interested in that kind of accessibility. I mean, the computing power behind it is... One of a kind.
 
They touch on that at about the 40 min mark.
Project stream worked with 1080p - 60fps
Stadia (the new platform) will, at launch, support 4k 60 fps. Allegedly, ofc.

No, i'm not expecting anyone (Stadia included) to take away what i own or buy. If they want to establish a foothold, they need to make Stadia work ON TOP of what is already available to players and developers. It's not like Sony or Microsoft are going to roll over and die.
Ah, 1080p - my apologies. Either way, it was blurry and certainly not 60 FPS (lower than 30, from what I could tell).

As for the other stuff, my concern isn't that Sony and Microsoft will roll over and die, it's that they will adopt the same approach.

If worst comes to worst, eventually, the only hardware-based gaming that will still be left is PCs, and who knows - perhaps developers will decide that our audience just isn't worth catering to anymore. I don't know if things will go that far, but it will certainly mean big changes for the PC industry one way or another.

Even the most hardcore of PC players will have to give themselves a pretty damn good reason not to spend, say, $15 a month to play all the games they could ever want at any FPS and resolution they want instead of shelling out hundreds of dollars upgrading their PCs.

I could be wrong, but as it stands, I'm assuming corporate greed will win out. Sorry to be negative, but these are my beliefs.
 
It could offer a lot to developers though, so indirectly to people that are not interested in that kind of accessibility. I mean, the computing power behind it is... One of a kind.
Yeah, I believe in might well do that. Up to a point, at least.

My opinion is just that "computing power" hasn't really been a real issue for a long while anymore, but it's rather made to be that by excessively focusing on everything superficial in games that makes them more resource intensive, which in turn - I would guess as a layman - creates a snowball effect with everything else the game has to offer and roll on the screen. So in that sense I don't see much point with this kind of thing.
 
Yeah, I believe in might well do that. Up to a point, at least.

My opinion is just that "computing power" hasn't really been a real issue for a long while anymore, but it's rather made to be that by excessively focusing on everything superficial in games that makes them more resource intensive, which in turn - I would guess as a layman - creates a snowball effect with everything else the game has to offer and roll on the screen. So in that sense I don't see much point with this kind of thing.
Yeah, computing power often seems to translate to "prettier graphics" rather than "better gameplay systems."
 
If worst comes to worst, eventually, the only hardware-based gaming that will still be left is PCs, and who knows - perhaps developers will decide that our audience just isn't worth catering to anymore. I don't know if things will go that far, but it will certainly mean big changes for the PC industry one way or another.
Believe me, i'm a PC gamer, i don't own a console, i spent a good portion of my savings to buy a high end PC, i get it.

IEven the most hardcore of PC players will have to give themselves a pretty damn good reason not to spend, say, $15 a month to play all the games they could ever want at any FPS and resolution they want instead of shelling out hundreds of dollars upgrading their PCs.
My opinion is just that "computing power" hasn't really been a real issue for a long while anymore, but it's rather made to be that by excessively focusing on everything superficial in games that makes them more resource intensive, which in turn - I would guess as a layman - creates a snowball effect with everything else the game has to offer and roll on the screen. So in that sense I don't see much point with this kind of thing.
But, let me ask you this.. IF you could choose between a game that benefits from the computing power of multiple high-end pc's and one that dosen't, one that is confined to what you can shove in a box, console or otherwise, what would you pick? And when i say computing power, thinking "graphics" is undestandable, but.. narrow. Physics, AI, graphics, everything in a game makes use of it, the more complex and intertwining with the rest of it's systems, the more it uses. It's the next logical step, it's our Oasis. Not Stadia, not yet.. but it's one way of getting there.

That's my take on it. Oasis or not, it can help game development with how much it could do for the developers, for their capabilities of translating their vision as close as possible to the game, whithout having to trade-off one thing or another by the platform limitations, what it could do for the time it takes for a game to go from concept to playable with the tools Google can place at their disposal (Deep Mind). It could be SO much more than just another PS or XboX. Or not and i'm making a fool out of myself but hey, a man can dream right?
 
Believe me, i'm a PC gamer, i don't own a console, i spent a good portion of my savings to buy a high end PC, i get it.




But, let me ask you this.. IF you could choose between a game that benefits from the computing power of multiple high-end pc's and one that dosen't, one that is confined to what you can shove in a box, console or otherwise, what would you pick? And when i say computing power, thinking "graphics" is undestandable, but.. narrow. Physics, AI, graphics, everything in a game makes use of it, the more complex and intertwining with the rest of it's systems, the more it uses. It's the next logical step, it's our Oasis. Not Stadia, not yet.. but it's one way of getting there.

That's my take on it. Oasis or not, it can help game development with how much it could do for the developers, for their capabilities of translating their vision as close as possible to the game, whithout having to trade-off one thing or another by the platform limitations, what it could do for the time it takes for a game to go from concept to playable with the tools Google can place at their disposal (Deep Mind). It could be SO much more than just another PS or XboX. Or not and i'm making a fool out of myself but hey, a man can dream right?
Okay, fair enough. From a developer's perspective, I can see the potential.

I still think developers will focus way more on graphics than they need to, but you make some good points.

From a player perspective, my concerns still stand, but thanks for broadening my view a bit.
 
it all depends on the internet infrastructure way too much, you get a dodgy bit of intermediate hardware you input lag suddeny hits 500ms and the game becomes unplayable. and you will hit dodgy intermediate hardware, you can't not, is why the performance of MMOs which are asking a lot less can go totally to shit for no apparent reason.

Streaming anything interactive isn't the future, unless they are about to rebuild the internet.
 
only limited by bandwidth ...
... what that tells me is it's ONLINE gaming. Online gaming, for me, personally, is a non-starter. What ruins a game for me is OTHER PEOPLE. I'm firmly in the offline, single-player, local machine installed and run gaming camp.

One reason I'm in this camp is that I'm rather fond of modding. I'm never really completely satisfied with any studio's "finished" work, and the customization, as well as additional features and changes that modding allows opens up a whole new level feature rich content that I'm always happy to see whether take advantage of and use what's on offer, or not.

Online games, on the other hand, require an online connection, and are slaves to the control of whoever's hosting them, plus, there's usually 100 dozen ritalin soaked 12 year olds running around, screaming into their headsets and I'm like all sorts of NOPE on that.

Maybe I'm a dinosaur suck on the old paradigm of single player, local machine, offline play, but, I suspect i'm not the only one.
 
Personally, since I'm not fond at all to DRM and exclusively-online services could be considered by default DRM (a passive layer of DRM one could say), not to mention the unreliability of streaming services a la Netflix (games licenses could expire for any reason and, thus, be suddenly removed from the platform for good), Stadia has no appeal to me.
 
To me what will make or break it is how much this all ends up costing. First there's the bandwith. A lot of people have a data cap that if you go over you get hit with fines. So that's bad right off the bat. The second thing.. will we be paying for a service that allows you to stream any game or will we still need to purchase the games? What rights will we have to those games if any? (can we mod them, can we cheat in single player games?) And how will game publishers be making their money and what's there to motivate them to put their games on the platform?

Like any of these types of things I'm a wait and see guy. I am at least looking forward to see how it all works.
 
I see it as as having positive side effects for Linux gaming, since Stadia will prompt more developers port their games to Linux and use Vulkan (if you followed the presentation and read the technical details, Stadia uses Debian Linux for their backend and Vulkan as their primary graphics API, however they require their own specialized SDK for handling input and such).

I'm not planning to use Stadia personally, so for me, the most interesting question is, how hard would it be for developers to make proper desktop Linux releases after releasing for Stadia. Something like adding support for SDL would be required.

Also, would be cool if CDPR could release CP2077 on Stadia, following proper desktop Linux release once they run it on Linux already.
 
I see it as as having positive side effects for Linux gaming, since Stadia will prompt more developers port their games to Linux and use Vulkan (if you followed the presentation and read the technical details, Stadia uses Debian Linux for their backend and Vulkan as their primary graphics API).

I'm not planning to use Satdia personally, so for me, the most interesting question is, how hard would it be for developers to make proper Linux releases after releasing for Stadia. Something like adding support for SDL would be required.

Also, would be cool if CDPR would relese CP2077 on Stadia, following proper desktop Linux release once they run it on Linux already.
Gilrond, I love you. You never stop preaching the good word of Linux, no matter what.

I need to go back and find your argument with Sard from years ago... I should bookmark that...

EDIT: Ahhh, this is where it all began... https://forums.cdprojektred.com/index.php?threads/platform-discussion-thread.110083/page-2 It was, of course, a different thread at the time and I remember begging Sard not to merge it purely to preserve this discussion. But oh well.

EDIT 2: I'm tagging @Sardukhar for nostalgia's sake. Sorry, buddy, please don't hate me.
 
Last edited:
Gilrond, I love you. You never stop preaching the good word of Linux, no matter what.

I need to go back and find your argument with Sard from years ago... I should bookmark that...
Heh. I think Stadia can be quite a big deal for Linux gaming. That is, if Google are going to sustain it, and it won't end up like many other Google projects, abandoned after some time, even though they had some success. I wouldn't count that out, knowing Google's history. They launch stuff with fanfare, and after some time just silently shut things down. If this succeeds however, this will have a real incentive for developers to make Linux games (with the catch that it won't be exactly desktop Linux versions, but the major parts like Vulkan renderer will be there).

I.e. the amazing thing about that is, that it jumps over the desktop market share issue, and simply says: release for Linux, and anyone with the browser will be able to use it. If that works, amount of studios using Vulkan and Linux will baloon. So it's likely some of that will spill out to regular desktop Linux gaming, so on one hand I don't want this to become the expected norm and the only venue of release, but on the other hand I wish their project would be significant enough to push developers to release for Linux.
 
Heh. I think Stadia can be quite a big deal for Linux gaming. That is, if Google are going to sustain it, and it won't end up like many other Google projects, abandoned after some time, even though they had some success. I wouldn't count that out, knowing Google's history.
Yep! Google does this all the time. Hangouts, Google+, etc.

Google is a bit like an easily-distracted puppy - always chasing a new noise, or the next shiny thing.

However, this is apparently going to be a much more open development environment, which could mean it doesn't even need Google's avid support at all to thrive on its own - and, at the very least, if this proves successful, we will see competition; possibly competition that cares more about its services than Google does.

I'll admit I'm not well educated on the subject of Vulkan, Wine, or Linux development in general - all I know is what you've wrote here over the years, which is a lot, but obviously not quite a college-level run-down of this stuff. So, I'll take your word for it that its good for Linux gaming.

Forgive me if this is an obvious question, but lets say CDPR is developing their game without Vulkan, and they later want to release it on Stradia.

Is the port over just automatic? Do they have to do some funky behind-the-scenes work to make it function with Vulcan? Does Google do the heavy lifting?

Also, what about Vulkan makes it ideal for Linux development, and what is the alternative that ISN'T good for linux development (you've explained this particular point before, but my memory is poor)?