-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Destiny 2 Stadia Population Numbers (Updated)
- Thread starter Strakt
- Start date
It may be counter productive but I'm not sure I want cross play with Stadia to be honest. At the moment Destiny PvP feels like playing on a LAN on Stadia whereas PS4 and Xbox Crucible is one of the most stress inducing gaming experiences I can think of! :)
ya sometimes its just wonky, on pc i fail to find all the time lmao, so who knows.
Stadia population is rounding error-like in grand scheme, but it does seem most players there are new to the game as they're all patrolling more and, much more so than other platforms, playing story (see that big pink bar in the centre, more than 4x the percentage of other platforms).
They definitely are in my experience. 95% of the people I meet are in blues and doing the stock dances. It's a pretty weird (but fun) experience coming off the back of other platforms.Stadia population is rounding error-like in grand scheme, but it does seem most players there are new to the game as they're all patrolling more and, much more so than other platforms, playing story (see that big pink bar in the centre, more than 4x the percentage of other platforms).
More than welcome! Not being able to do a couple of activities aside which, when the population is as widely new as in my experience, should iron out over time when people get used to it. If there's one thing we know for sure it's the onboarding for D2 isn't the best for new players, to put it lightly.
Other than that, coming from console, 60fps is nice and playing it on my work laptop + phone has been neat. Like most others within the (dozens of us!) community here latency hasn't been a problem and I can play everything as well as on the Pro/X. Graphics recently appear to have been given a lift to boot. The real win is in the menu times though, which anyone who's played console Destiny will know what's up.
Oh and that PC recoil tho *pads brow*
It's a fun mood too. Spent a lot of time giving out hugs on tower and patrol lol.
Yeah, a service like this is a living thing. I feel like Bungie low balled for the sake of stability and as the service and the port evolve it will definitely be better in the future.
Once cross play goes live it'll be even better. If nothing else, it really does show how badly the jaguar CPUs handicap current consoles.
No problem, graphically it is close to my Ps4 pro which I thought I would be disappointed about.
But at 60fps, load times that are 10x faster and crazy smooth lan like PvP as long as there is a population it will be my main system for Destiny (also playing in a browser while "on break" is pretty cool)
Still kind of bothers me that a system with a GPU close to twice as powerful as mine is playing it at lower setting and frame rate than I get from my RX 480. I was hoping the 60fps lock would have let them crank the settings up at 1080p without sacrificing performance.
I was going to cancel because of that but the option was gone. Very glad I didn't in the end.
Hoping Google marketing will shut the fuck up and we get a real explanation like a time crunch or still optimizing tools.
The DF review highlights it multiple times vs an Xbox1X. I can only compare to my Ps4 and it is night and day. Clicking on a destination like the tower from your ship and you will be there in seconds
I can only assume the specific settings were locked into the port; ie, don't bother porting assets you aren't going to use, with the intent of running at 4K, but they couldn't get performance nailed down in time so the best option was to reduce resolution to hit launch.
According to Giantbomb it's about as fast as playing on a PC with an SSD.
Just to bring some receipts when I say that I've been getting into Crucible matches instantly all afternoon... Just shot this on my phone. Took 25 seconds. It's not INSTANT but... this seems fine? Maybe a good influx of new players today seeing as Premier kits are arriving starting today (as opposed to the Founders Kits that all arrived last week).
Sorry for the messing about at the start, I wanted to show that it was indeed Stadia running it and then had to one-hand the controller to start it.
Sorry for the messing about at the start, I wanted to show that it was indeed Stadia running it and then had to one-hand the controller to start it.
Their point is that given that they're targeting smaller numbers for the rollout, having the public able to see that with relative accuracy leads to bad press, even if it's undeserved.
Seems normal to me. I mean, it's matchmaking. Doesn't seem any different on my PS4.
They makes no sense because they have to support 1080p rendering for non-Pro users.
They also had 2 Google devs working at Bungie for over 6 months helping with the port.
The only thing that makes any sense to me: Google asked Bungie to run Destiny 2 on half of a Stadia instance. We are seeing what Destiny 2 is capable of w/ 5TF not 10.
It makes perfect sense, they aimed for 4k for pro and 1080 for standard both using medium settings. If they didn't get the 4K to run at an acceptably stable frame rate in time for Stadia's launch, they'd have dropped pro to 1080 and standard to 720 until they get the links worked out. Why else would pro render at 1080p but waste bandwidth by streaming at 4K? That doesn't make sense unless rendering at 1080p for Pro users wasn't their target.
It loads 'really' fast. Watch the digital foundry review for footage.
I'm talking about your statement:
" don't bother porting assets you aren't going to use, "
Huh? That makes absolutely no sense as they always had to support 720p/1080p so would have ported those assets over.
That's the only thing I was commenting on.
That's ridiculous, there's a WIDE gulf between 4K and 1080p. There is no way that a dev like Bungie can aim to hit 4K and end up with only 1080p. Especially when RDR2 runs at 1080p60/1440p30 on Stadia.
Also, whats the reason to handicap the 1080p-stream option to 720p render resolution, other than just so the "4K" version could look better in comparison.
So, you know how games have graphical settings on PC? Each setting and variations of multiple settings need to be optimized and play tested when ported to a closed system, like a console or even Stadia. These have set hardware and software/API differences to optimize for.
When you port the PC version to something else, you focus on the graphical settings you plan to use and you don't dump resources into optimizing and play-testing at settings you have no intention in using. Graphical settings and resolution (typically referred to as display settings) are separate things. So, when making the Stadia version, why waste effort on high or highest level shadows mapping if you're only going to use medium mapping? Why waste time optimizing highest level DOF? Highest level ambient occlusion? Or really, high or highest level of any graphics settings if you are only going to use medium?
Medium only makes sense if they were aiming for 4k, as even half of a Vega 56 should play at 1080p high settings.
I don't know why Bungie did that other than they couldn't hit their performance targets at 4K do they dropped both down. I'm just making educated guesses as to why they did it.
But they always would have had to have play tested and optimized for 1080p / 720p whether they thought they'd be rendering in 4k or not because they.. always had to support 1080p/720p rendering.
I don't need a basic primer on how game engines work either; what you said makes no sense. Settings aren't "assets." And this isn't some massively exotic hardware/software.. it's Linux w/ Vulkan w/ an Intel CPU and an AMD GPU.
No they wouldn't. All they'd have had to do was tested for 1080p, as they'd do anyway since non-Pro is a 1080p feed. The reality is that Bungie is streaming a 1080p rendered game on a 4K feed and a 720 rendered game on a 1080 stream.
I never said it was...
Please give an explanation as to why they are streaming a 1080p rendered game on a 4K feed and a 720p rendered game on a 1080p feed? Why use medium settings as even half a Vega 56 can run it on high at 1080p? Also, resolution doesn't need the same optimizing and play-testing that graphical settings do. That doesn't make any sense.
Why is this a "problem"? This is an early access launch that people paid $130 to get into, did we really expect a million players?
Also, "Classic Mix", "Rumble", who the hell plays those match types?
Nostremitus : You believe a port they worked on for well over 6 months w/ 2 Google devs on staff was so awful that it runs at less than half of what the hardware would be capable of on Windows.
I believe they are... rendering the game on half of the hardware.
Anything else said is superfluous. It's a difference of opinion and your confusing mis-use of the term "porting assets" is a derail.
I believe they are... rendering the game on half of the hardware.
Anything else said is superfluous. It's a difference of opinion and your confusing mis-use of the term "porting assets" is a derail.
Even half the hardware would run it on high at 1080p. A 290X or an RX 480 run it at higher settings at 1080p. The only thing that makes sense is that their target settings were medium. The only way that makes sense is if they were targeting a higher resolution. It's easier to drop resolution than start over with you lighting and shadow maps, your DOF, etc. Sometimes you gotta sacrifice to hit your deadline and continue working on your fixes to push out after launch. Looks like they sacrificed resolution to hit their deadline. If 1080p rendering were their target for Pro, it makes no sense to waste server bandwidth pushing out a 4K stream for no reason. It could be something as simple as intermittent drops into the 40s or 50s while rendering at 4K, but locked 60fps is their hard target. No where have I said that medium 1080 was the max it could do, that's just some fud you're throwing out there so you have something to argue against.
Last edited:
With an SSD. Not everyone has that. Stadia is significantly faster.
It loads like a modern PC. Modern PCs have SSDs. They've been affordable for over half a decade at this point. So if a person can afford a gaming PC, sata SSD should be considered minimum spec while NVMe SSDs sit where SATA SSDs used to on the affordability scale.
Brad Sams just posted his Stadia review. It's pretty insightful and worth a watch. Also, through the whole review he tries to get into a match on Destiny 2, and it takes the over ten minutes just to give him an error and state there isn't enough people to matchmake with.