• Google Stadia will require approx. 25 Mbps (3.2MBps) for 1080p, 60 FPS gameplay
    98 replies, posted
I was also in the AC:O project stream beta. Locked at 60FPS, no noticeable input lag, nor I expected to be able to change settings in a beta.
I knew I saw familiar STV prices
there's around ~122ms of input lag. this is super fucking noticeable. did you play with a controller or keyboard and mouse?
Imagine using a controller for FPS games.
I can just imagine how bad it's gonna be. I haven't tried streamed games, but I did once try to play Last of Us on PS3 at my friends place as a substitute for a movie-night and we didn't realize that gaming mode needed to be enabled. And the input lag made it nearly unplayable, the input lag was so bad that my friends who were spectating could see how painful the input lag was. I'd wager that it'd be even worse with streaming since the input lag can also fluctuate.
I get 83/35 and I still wouldn't want to use this over a PC, PS4 or xbox
Living in backwoods new England, I get a pretty consistent 13.5 Mbps dl speed through TDS so I'll definitely give this a try, a lot more accessible than the old days of OnLive that's for sure
So what you mean to say is its for a very select niche of people.
*knock knock* Who's there? ...Stradia
While I really really appreciate the push for portable gaming, I do not see actually enjoying myself playing games such as Assassins Creed on a portable streaming device. The idea of being able to overcome hardware limits is fantastic on paper, but to blatantly ignore that the 50% of people who do not live in tech hub areas in which you have gigabit WiFi on every corner practically seems so hilariously contrived and doomed to fail that I can't even surmise how I feel about it properly. Plus there is the whole push for playing games on phones, tablets, et cetra with the PS4 streaming to phones now, I'm assuming google will follow suit and push the idea further. I just don't see it. It would literally kill the experience of any game for me personally and I might be in the minority here, but I don't feel the drive to take every single game on the go with me. The idea of needing that screams some form of addiction rather than entertainment which is a problem, not something to encourage further.
So around the same amount of input delay as most controllers on market? It may have been super noticeable for you, but there was no noticeable delay on either Controller or M/KB . Impossible to get 60 FPS in the project stream beta you say? Tell that to anyone testing with a gigabit connection, not everyone was capped at 30. That varied on your connection speed.
i don't know if your memories are shoddy, but no, project stream was locked to 30. you're also forgetting the delay from controller stacked on top of the delay from streaming. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IrIodKaGpEM
the google stadia controller hooks directly to the cloud servers through wifi, there shouldn't be added delay from bluetooth or likewise if you're using it
The WiFi latency jitter will be a worse hell than most controller latency I imagine.
I just can't see this ever being practical because of ISP data limits. I pay for 300mbps but I still have a monthly soft cap at 1TB where they will start severely throttling your speeds to where streaming Netflix would be difficult. At 25mbps, I calculate that it gets you a little over 90 hours of playtime a month before you hit 1TB. This is about 3 hours a day which reasonable until you throw in, you know, everything else that you use the internet for other than games.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WktA9MQyAi0&feature=youtu.be https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lP1M_-r6DmQ&feature=youtu.be
Reading about other countries' internet speeds is bizarre. I'm getting 1 Gbps for S$40/mo, which is about US$30.
Not noticeable my ass
"""Playable"""
I just don't get why companies keep trying this. Google is like, what, the fourth or fifth one now? No one wants it, and it doesn't work. The people this is aimed at already have consoles, or PC's. Everybody has a console, or a PC.
Besides the American case. I don't know why we're so focused on consumers and their internet speeds, it's Google I don't trust. I want to own my tech not rent it, and I don't want to rely on a companies server to be able use it.
The difference is it was downloads. It might take ten hours to download a game, but once you did it ran smooth as butter.
I love when companies assume everyone around the world people have glassfibre connection many people in Poland outside of apartment complexes struggle with sub 2 mb/s download speed
When Half-Life 2 came out in '04 it was some three gigs. On a 56k modem, that was over 128 hours, best-case. That's over five days. Even just downloading the equivalent of a single 700MB CD was some thirty hours, and people didn't even do that. Remember that most households had a single phone line, so a 56k modem dialing in meant you couldn't make or receive phone calls for the duration, and if your phone plan charged by usage then you were incurring usage costs the entire time you were connected. If you had dial-up you didn't use Steam. You bought the five-CD set in your local store. Steam didn't cater to the entirety of the US market, it catered to the minority with broadband, and there's nothing wrong with that. Not every new technology has to cater to the lowest common denominator.
Thing is, as graphics hardware improves and the more diminishing returns there are with graphic quality, the less reason stuff like this has to exist.
What a fucking shitshow of a demo, holy shit.
People are talking about it because even with the obvious part of having the tech aside, it just is an inherentl, fatally flawed system because vast swaths of the US, which i assume to be the primary market, are just not capable of using the damn thing.
It's a shame too. Google actually tried to improve US internet with their Fiber division, but then they halted all expansion 2 years ago.
That's a 25 Mbps minimum, and that's for 1080p. If you wan't 4K at decent quality, expect that to jump a fair bit. And this certainly doesn't mean that if you have near that amount that you're gonna have a good time with it. If you have a 25 Mbps connection, and Stadia is using up the majority of your bandwidth, expect lots of lag and slowdown with other internet applications. If you have someone else using Netflix on that connection as well, expect Stadia to stutter and lag like crazy. A good amount of headroom is essentially required here. This also stacks with the apparent 20 GB/hour average usage statistic that they've been throwing around as well. Not everyone has an unlimited data cap (ESPECIALLY in the US), and even if you have a high amount like 1 TB, that shit is going to be gone faster than you think. I have a 250 GB data cap, and that only affords me like 12.5 hours of playtime. Not to mention this basically kills one of the major appeals of Stadia, that being mobile play. I can't even think of a mobile plan that doesn't have some cutoff point below or near 20 GB of usage in one month (yes, even "unlimited" plans), not to mention the massive fluctuations in speed and latency inherent with mobile connections depending on your location. It's like Google pushed this whole thing out without considering the state of most consumer internet connections.
Uh if you consider anyone without a console or gaming PC niche then I guess so? Seems like a bold way to put it lol
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.