• Google Stadia will require approx. 25 Mbps (3.2MBps) for 1080p, 60 FPS gameplay
    98 replies, posted
Maybe google should think about rolling out fiber nationwide before they pull this bullshit.
I was paying CAD$77/month for 150mbps Shaw, but they recently doubled everyone for free so now I have up to 300mbps. I think I usually get around 200mbps in actuality.
That's in Megabytes per second. Mbps is megabits.
Yeah like the thread title says I have less then half the bandwidth needed.
Just because some people in the UK or Sweden can get it, isn't going to make this worth it. They're not going to be profitable if only a handful of consumers can even access this. And then you split out the ones that will actually buy it. Their marketshare is going to be shit.
the FCC had to basically lie about the statistics to get 'most' of the country above 25mbps
the average TVs has at least 50ms of input lag already and the average person doesn't notice nor are they even using their tv's game mode the newest smash bros has 87ms of input lag at the lowest this service isn't designed for picky pc gamers with 1ms 144hz monitors
But why would I want to stream a game to my phone or to something other than my PC? Why would anyone put up with a less confortable experience than a simple PC? I honestly don't get. Why stream when you can do the same with less hassle?
... I can't read jesus
the same people who buy a console instead of a pc? the same people who buy a nintendo switch instead of an xbox because they value convenience and freedom over the best home experience ? the same people who haven't upgraded to a 4k tv ? people who buy an xbox one or ps4 instead of xbone x or ps4 pro ? dvds still outsell blu rays in the US, the average consumer of media is easy to please and not very concerned with maximum graphical fidelity average download speed from ookla is taken from people who self-take internet speed tests and is heavily flawed - the kind of people who take these tests are likely concerned about internet connection speed and are more inclined to invest in a better connection "The 2018 Speedtest U.S. Fixed Broadband Performance Report by Ookla® is based entirely on Speedtest Intelligence®" "Speedtest Intelligence offers up-to-date insights into global fixed broadband and mobile performance data based on millions of consumer-initiated tests taken every day with Speedtest®." mean worldwide download speed according to "M-Lab, a partnership between New America's Open Technology Institute, Google Open Source Research, Princeton University's PlanetLab and other supporting partners," is 9.10mbps
My current contract is a cap-less 200/25Mbps connection for R$95, not every ISP is a pile of garbage like Net Virtua and friends are. Also QOS on this connection is marvelous and I get very little jitter even when the connection is under reasonable loads Also tried gaming with a Google Cloud Instance using a 50Mbit/s connection in São Paulo and it wasn't a bad experience at all, aside from the fact that I'd be pretty pissed with the bill if it wasn't for the free trial. If anything, people should be more worried about what it means to have a "virtual cloud console" and what that entails for the customer, like not owning hardware, having no freedom to tinker with the game, less ownership over your games, etc.
Yeah but honestly it's far from
...then why not do that instead of using something like a tablet or a smartphone and have terrible controls?
Google literally made multi-device controller just for that
still sounds kind of dumb, you could just get a console and call it a day, and not have any headaches with streaming
That can't be true, as the average is between 16-18 according to the wikipedia table of average internet speeds.
I have a gigabit connection and assassin's creed odyssey looked decent but still wasn't all that great because of latency.
And its not designed for console gamers who are willing to buy the hardware. And its not meant for poorer people who don't have good internet to begin with. SO who is this for?
Who says it isn't designed for console gamers? I'm sure plenty of people will sacrifice hardware in return for unmatched convenience the killer feature is the convenience - there's a few caveats but for the average person with a decent internet connection and who doesn't need the best picture it seems like a solid choice
Once again the libs NBN fucks us over
Ah yes, convience, the reason we're stuck in monopolies and duopolies.
Imagine if game studios made exclusives for google Stadia. No more pirated games.
Silicon Valley is so out of touch it's crazy.
i was in the project stream beta. 30 fps lock, very noticeable input lag, and a grainy filter over the entire screen, also no video settings at all so you have no choice on whether you want to play in fullscreen or not. another user on the project stream forums said that their 67 hour playthrough of assassin's creed odyssey ended up using 1.11tb, which means it was using up to 16gb per hour. these guys are absolutely mental.
Stop bullying my 2 mb internet box, you freak
When I had a potato PC I used Onlive and yeah, it wasn't as good as running games natively and some games had segments that were near impossible due to the input lag but overall the experience wasn't terrible and I got to play a lot of games I wouldn't normally be able to play. Put hundreds of hours into Homefront multiplayer. This was on a 15mbps connection too.
I can imagine a lot of people going for this because of the convenience of not having to wait while a game downloads/installs/updates. I've got to admit it would be pretty cool to be able to buy a game and play it practically immediately but I don't think it's enough to sell me on the idea. Although, all that convenience goes out the window as soon as a massive game releases and suddenly the servers can't cope with everyone wanting to play it simultaneously.
I wonder how gaming would be different if Valve had decided not to launch Steam in 2003, just because two-thirds of American households with Internet were on dial-up and couldn't effectively use it. What's so weird about a new product requiring infrastructure that not everybody has?
Keep in mind that encoding and decoding tech have come a long way since then, and a lot more development time have been spent perfecting these network protocols, plus many more people now have ftth connections. Not a reality for so many people, but it's much closer than ever nowadays.
I was gonna chime in and say this. It really isn't a bad thing for Google to be the first ones to make a product that will cost very little for them (relatively). The fear is motivated by the idea that this is the first step in the industry's evil plan to push game streaming. I don't think non-streaming games will go anywhere for the same reasons vinyl records are still made in spite of Spotify.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.