They have already canceled their preorder. We shouldn't need to attack other users when tech comes up short.
-
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.
Digital Foundry: Stadia Red Dead 2 runs at 1440p and 30 fps at X1X settings on Chromecast. 1080p uncapped in browser.
- Thread starter exodus
- Start date
I mean I coulda told you that games for the most part on Stadia weren't going to outperform consoles regardless of the hardware difference.
Because it's easier to port games like Red Dead as is and call it a day, than it is to optimize it for Stadia's specialized hardware.
Because it's easier to port games like Red Dead as is and call it a day, than it is to optimize it for Stadia's specialized hardware.
No you are suppose to snicker and jump on the negativity bandwagon because you are scared of streaming ruining your life.
It's not that specialized; it's an Intel CPU and an AMD GPU with no reported weird architecture or anything.
It does require Vulkan... but then again the Vulkan renderer of RDR2 supposedly runs better than the DX12 version on PC.. soooo..
Not defending Google but I'd blame the developer on that one.
Maybe it was a case of not enough confidence on the tech or just not enough time to optimize, but better hardware doesn't always equals to better performance; we see that a lot on PC gaming overall.
So before blaming Google I'd wait for a real dev to clarify on how much difficult it is to port something to Stadia after its done on other platforms. I mean if your game doesn't have native support for Linux/Vulkan from the start it's a whole new platform to port to.
Aside from GameExplain, has anyone seen gameplay of RDR2 running full screen so we can look at further examples?
The 10TF thing is supposed to be the specs of the machine remotely running your software?
And is there the possibility they haven't set up everything properly between regular and pro accounts and the remote hardware isn't quite in place yet/could be upgraded?
Bear with me, haven't really been following
And is there the possibility they haven't set up everything properly between regular and pro accounts and the remote hardware isn't quite in place yet/could be upgraded?
Bear with me, haven't really been following
Ouch, I genuinely feel terrible for those who paid for the founder's edition and were looking forward to "4K 60fps".
I don't really think people expected this, since this more a glorified beta release. Still, it's the price for some old games, the line up, the cost of hardware etc that all adds up in Stadia not being what was advertised. That stings for those who already paid for this and definitely sets Google up for some hardcore criticism.
(link is timestamped)
edit: But don't think the video is actually encoded at 60FPS.. doh!
Then Google should have helped the devs with optimizing the game. Those are not some random games that are launching years into the cycle. They are "Flagship" titles for the launch of the Service. Microsoft does it, Sony does it, Nvidia does it, AMD does it.
I know I certainly didn't expect it. As someone who did a lot of research, kept up with the podcasts, articles, etc... the information up to this point very much set a certain expectation.
ahh, that *is* bullshit
mill admit I wasn't following all the bits of news since E3, but I legitimately thought the AC Odyssey thing last year was the beta. 🤷🏼♂️
Richard Leadbetter confirms uncapped framerate in browser. More to come.
This is like.....your opinion man. I'm not gonna argue it, just gonna say I disagree.
Some games transcend gaming into pop culture, and there is a market of people who would like to try those games, but don't because they don't want to buy and maintain dedicated hardware.
I think streaming is and always will be for those people.
Those of us who consider ourselves gamers or who would purchase dedicated gaming hardware will always prefer a local experience. That's why we buy the hardware.
Totally different situations. But even then you are equating "winning" with "success" Stadia could be a successful product while still "losing" to Xbox and/or PlayStation.
The issue here is that the 60FPS no-matter-what is basically the main selling point of Stadia... you really can't put a game at 30FPS in the first day... do you think there are issues server side or it's just like that?
[btw I'm really curios about Stadia, so I'm quite surprised about this situation]
A year of super fast internet for me is cheaper than I'm currently paying for broadband. Also labour wants to give everyone in the UK free fibre. We're getting to the point where internet speeds won't be a barrier for a service like Stadia. In fact for me they already aren't.
At the people believing all these games would run at 4K60:
AHAHAHAHAHAHA
Or tell me: Since when can a Vega 56 run new AAA games at 4K60?
P.S.: 4K60 is meant for the stream. Nobody said that Ingame it would render in 4K60
AHAHAHAHAHAHA
Or tell me: Since when can a Vega 56 run new AAA games at 4K60?
P.S.: 4K60 is meant for the stream. Nobody said that Ingame it would render in 4K60
OP
OP
Can you stop with the ridicule?
There's a big difference between 4K60 and 1440p/30. A lot of us expected at the very least parity with X1X.
So with regards to data cap and usage, is it streaming 1440/30 worth the data or is it being scale and bloated to a 4k/60 about of data, essentially wasting people's data caps?
4K60 is (almost) impossible on streaming at its current stage. Even streamers streaming cannot do 4K60 unless it's expensive as fuck hardware. No way is Stadia going to be that.
So
I mean, since it's an encoded video stream I would hope that two frames of data that are identical can be sent with the bandwidth of a single frame. Only the differences between frames need to be sent, correct?
I mean, since it's an encoded video stream I would hope that two frames of data that are identical can be sent with the bandwidth of a single frame. Only the differences between frames need to be sent, correct?
I would hope so. But it does sound like they're getting a 1440/30 source, and spitting out a 4k/60 bitrate video stream, aka using a higher bitrate than is required for the source material.
Why is this the case?
I could understand less than optimal settings with Red Dead 2 being so demanding, but The whole point of Stadia should be to at least stream everything at 60fps.
I could understand less than optimal settings with Red Dead 2 being so demanding, but The whole point of Stadia should be to at least stream everything at 60fps.
Still mad about watching my Bravia in my PlayStation home apt. Still waiting Phill.
Wait, how did they screw this up? Isn't Stadia supposed to be 10.7 TF? It should easily hit 4k.
Technically the stream is 60fps it's just that the game is running at 30fps.
I'm actually wondering if they are limiting resources to games in order to spread out their current hardware across more instances until they are able to get more hardware across their edge locations and data centers.
It would be pretty stupid to be limiting resources when pretty much the only people currently using the product are those reviewing it.
Sure but we have no idea how many blades they actually have deployed and where. What's their total footprint look like across all available markets? How many individual streams can they handle at once? I doubt we'll ever find out but the hardware they're using and the results were seeing don't add up
I've been somewhat skeptical of Stadia due to their messaging, but this might be the first genuinely mind-boggling thing to me. It was the one thing that excused, or at least softened, the many caveats of the platform. It would be something I would accept in a subscription model, but not like this.
Last edited:
An OC'd Vega 56 can handle RDR2 at 1440p/60 at high settings more often than not, and yet Stadia is struggling with 1080p/60 at XB1X settings? What the hell?
That is ridiculous, running at lower settings as the Xbox One X. The main selling point of Stadia is that it is more powerful than any current console and as good as highend PCs, but without the need to actually invest in expensive hardware like that. I was interested in Stadia for only that reason. To play games looking significantly better than what my consoles or old PC is able to do. Seems absolutely pointless like this.
When making Uncharted, it was an artistic decision to go for visuals rather than performance. They could lower it to have higher frames but they value visuals more. That is an artistic choice. On PC that choice is left to you, but for console developers it is an artistic choice. And please don't reduce this choice to limitations of hardware. Limitations are an inherent part of artistic endeavor. The fog in Silent Hill 1 was an artistic choice because of the limitations and so is weighing frames vs. visuals.
EDIT: I'm not defending Stadia, I pretty much hate it and what it stands for, just saying, the FPS count of a game is an artistic choice.
I really hope that the people that pre-ordered this get refunded... It was clearly false advertisement.
Or stop pre-ordering shit, specially when it's some unproven streaming technology.