News [AT] Google Announces Stadia: A Game Streaming Service

Hitman928

Golden Member
Apr 15, 2012
1,718
162
136
#1

n0x1ous

Platinum Member
Sep 9, 2010
2,455
37
106
#2
Anything on pricing? This is not my cup of tea, but I'm curious if its subscription based or buying games through them or what?
 

Hitman928

Golden Member
Apr 15, 2012
1,718
162
136
#3
No word on pricing that I've seen / heard.

I still have my doubts on this but I think with the way Google is able to deploy these much closer to the end user than probably any other company, they have the best shot of success. I also don't think this will be for most here in this forum but rather an alternative for console gamers and young gamers who can't the cost of high quality PC gaming.
 

Krteq

Senior member
May 22, 2015
711
33
106
#4
Some more GPU info from ArsTechnica
ArsTechnica said:
Stadia's stacks at Google's data centers are powered by AMD hardware, the company said, with "10.7 teraflops of power in each instance."...

After the event, Google provided a fact sheet to Ars Technica confirming more stats about the hardware included in the Google Stadia stacks. These include: custom-built AMD GPUs with 56 compute units and integrated HBM2 memory; "custom, hyperthreaded x86" CPUs (no manufacturer listed) that run at 2.7GHz "with AVX2 SIMD"; and "a total of 16GB combined VRAM and system RAM clocked at "up to 484 GB/s."
ArsTechnica - Google jumps into gaming with Google Stadia streaming service, coming “in 2019”

Seems like kind of EPYC CPUs are also used - 2.7GHz, AVX2 SIMD
 
Last edited:

ozzy702

Senior member
Nov 1, 2011
879
151
136
#5
Latency, bandwidth and data caps... for casual gamers without data caps, this should be fine, but it's not remotely interesting to me.
 
Mar 11, 2004
18,081
525
126
#6
This is impressive. That they're able to offer good performance, using low clocked server CPUs and middling graphics card is surprising and possibly very impressive, as it would seem to indicate to me that Google has found some way to balance game processing, not just across server CPU (where it values multiple cores), but also I assume multiple GPUs. Even if they're doing 1080p60 on a single GPU, that they're getting that performance on the server CPU (where consumers are 1/4-1/3 higher clock speed all core on the 8 cores, and possibly higher; which even if its Zen 2 EPYC, the clock speed difference likely removes most of it not all of the IPC improvements over Zen 1, and Zen 2 consumer could have 80% higher clock speeds) and a GPU that at best is 3/4 Vega 64 (its Vega 10 based on the bandwidth; and since its in server its likely running lower clock speeds than the consumer Vega cards, and having only 3/4 the CU count of Vega 64) on Linux (I assume, and Linux generally has lower gaming performance than Windows, and if I remember, AMD had especially poor performance on Linux), is...well, impressive. And since they're touting 4K60, that pretty much guarantees multiple GPUs (as even Vega 20 would struggle to offer that in plenty of modern games). Which they do specifically mention multi-GPU, and that's interesting. Wonder if we might see Crossfire become viable again? If developers are putting in the extra work to enable it for Google, seemingly they could pass that onto consumers.
 
Last edited:

tviceman

Diamond Member
Mar 25, 2008
6,586
35
126
www.facebook.com
#7
I can feel the latency difference between my TV and computer monitor with local play. The added latency and loss of visual /audio fidelity will make this service a tough sell for AAA titles.
 
Last edited:

Stuka87

Diamond Member
Dec 10, 2010
4,079
81
106
#8
I cannot stand the name. It just doesn't feel nice to say. But, also zero interest. Streaming services have horrible latency. Fine for games that aren't effected by it, but thats it.
 
Mar 11, 2004
18,081
525
126
#9
I can feel the latency difference between my TV and computer monitor with local play. The added latency and loss of visual /audio fidelity will make this service a tough sell for AAA titles.
Have you actually used this service? Not saying latency isn't an issue, but the latency could actually be not as bad as the difference in latency with some TVs. You'll definitely need a good internet connection (oh and hopefully no bandwidth limits!). But stuff like this is going to drive demand for better internet (and/or reveal how awful ISPs are and get people to start caring about stopping their awful behavior).

I cannot stand the name. It just doesn't feel nice to say. But, also zero interest. Streaming services have horrible latency. Fine for games that aren't effected by it, but thats it.
Looks at username. :oops:o_O:p

I don't think any of those streaming services had Google's backend (again, not saying latency isn't likely to be an issue, it definitely is, but that Google likely will be able to do a better job, and I'm sure it'll improve; game streaming is a tough sell right now, but give it 5 years and I bet things seem a lot different, ok maybe 10-20 years since it'll probably take 10 just to try and breakup the mess that is ISPs anticompetitive behavior in the US).

I'm mixed. On the one hand, neat. On the other hand, my issue is less about the technical aspects as those will improve, and more that this is going to be another shift in how things are done, and I'm likely not gonna be a big fan. No more owning many games, and I have a hunch that these gaming platforms are going to be ad infested social media platforms.
 

Shamrock

Golden Member
Oct 11, 1999
1,032
11
91
#10
Just another Google device to "collect anonymous" data from, while you quietly game.
 
Nov 16, 2006
1,391
117
106
#11
Thing is, outside of Android and Chrome (and, of course,Google) Google has a bad rep for abandoning almost every project they've undertaken.

At this point, I'm personally feeling like the Google name is more of an albatross around the neck of any project rather than a sign of deep pockets.

This thing is going to have problems overcoming the streaming stigma to begin with, and at the first sign of rough going Google is going to bail...
 

beginner99

Diamond Member
Jun 2, 2009
4,003
123
126
#12
This simply won't fly or make them much money due to the simple fact of the telecom / internet monopolies especially in US.Who can afford to stream GBs of data each months? Only the people lucky to have a communal fiber connection.

And that assumes latency / the actual experience is acceptable but I still would not want to give Google any more private info. And the pricing will simply not be worth it. Say you spend big on a gaming PC for $1500. With current lack of progress that will last you 5 years easily. That is $300/year or $25/month. Ok, that seems actually doable (who would pay more?) but you also pay indirectly by giving them even more usage /habit data about yourself.
 
Last edited:
Sep 4, 2016
39
32
61
#13
I think here on the US internet connection will be the big bottleneck... Trying to push even more data onto a saturated network (cable is really bad) won't result in any good service.
I tried the Beta playing Assassins Creed and it was ok... Level of detail and input lag weren't bad. But I couldn't see me playing fast paced games (e.g. FPS or Racing). But again, my cable connection isn't good.
 

Krteq

Senior member
May 22, 2015
711
33
106
#14
... a GPU that at best is 3/4 Vega 64 (its Vega 10 based on the bandwidth; and since its in server its likely running lower clock speeds than the consumer Vega cards, and having only 3/4 the CU count of Vega 64) on Linux (I assume, and Linux generally has lower gaming performance than Windows, and if I remember, AMD had especially poor performance on Linux)...
Well, in some cases performance in games under Linux is even better and the same applies to performance of AMD cards. MESA RadeonSI drivers are quite good these days and working out of the box without need of any user interaction (no additional installation needed) :)
 
Mar 11, 2004
18,081
525
126
#15
What the, when I looked at the Ars article earlier it said 48CU GPU. So this is just Vega 56 (or rather the pro version I'm assuming, unless...maybe we know someone that bought a bunch of cards for mining...).

Well, in some cases performance in games under Linux is even better and the same applies to performance of AMD cards. MESA RadeonSI drivers are quite good these days and working out of the box without need of any user interaction (no additional installation needed) :)
When did that happen?

Looking I see that there's been big improvements in AMD performance over the past couple of years on Linux. Looks like their open source movement is paying off (although it seems like they're still lagging behind Nvidia in performance, the Vega 64 is usually trading blows with the 1070; although possibly that was before the big performance gains although I doubt it, the Phoronix articles on both are separated by about a month and half and were at the end of last year; just noticed the one is for Valve's Steamplay translation thing that's basically WINE).
 
Aug 14, 2000
21,415
215
126
#16
What a load of garbage. This is nothing more than the next step in DRM, masquerading under the guise of "streaming convenience". Remember how we were told Steam was "convenient"?

Now we have Steam/Uplay/Origin/Rockstar/Denuvo/Windows Store/Bethesda Launcher/Epic Store/Battlenet. How's all that "convenience" working out for all of you?

Entire groups of games are now silo'd to these DRM launchers, with no end in sight. Now they want to push things even further into the cloud and completely lock games behind a subscription pay wall .

Not to mention they'll never fix the lag because of that pesky thing called the speed of light. I wouldn't even stream games off a LAN from a PC right next to me, much less off the internet.

Wake up people.
 
Last edited:

Dribble

Golden Member
Aug 9, 2005
1,654
101
106
#17
I suspect that google have realised that one day streaming games will be big. Sure not to us but the moment but when they can get it cheap enough and the latency is good enough why buy a console. If you disagree they you just sound like all the people defending their cd's, dvd's, blueray's and even paid for mp3/4's. Now we just stream all our tv and music - only old people buy it (my teen-aged kids never would).

Anyway google also know they can win but only if they are one of the first. If they are not (e.g. facebook vs google+) even with all their backing they won't be the solution the public chooses. Hence they are getting into this *next big thing* before it is big.
 
Sep 9, 2017
66
15
41
#18
I suspect that google have realised that one day streaming games will be big. Sure not to us but the moment but when they can get it cheap enough and the latency is good enough why buy a console. If you disagree they you just sound like all the people defending their cd's, dvd's, blueray's and even paid for mp3/4's. Now we just stream all our tv and music - only old people buy it (my teen-aged kids never would).

Anyway google also know they can win but only if they are one of the first. If they are not (e.g. facebook vs google+) even with all their backing they won't be the solution the public chooses. Hence they are getting into this *next big thing* before it is big.

With the existence of DRM, you no longer own the game. It has become a service that you're merely able to use with the permission of the provider of that service, and with game streaming, you'll have absolutely zero control over the service.

If you don't mind all that, then it's your opinion.
 

Dribble

Golden Member
Aug 9, 2005
1,654
101
106
#19
With the existence of DRM, you no longer own the game. It has become a service that you're merely able to use with the permission of the provider of that service, and with game streaming, you'll have absolutely zero control over the service.

If you don't mind all that, then it's your opinion.
Which is just as true with movies and music, but spotify and netflix now dominate. It just doesn't matter that I don't physically own the music/movie. The same will be true of games.
 

Stuka87

Diamond Member
Dec 10, 2010
4,079
81
106
#20
Stew-kuh is a bit easier to say than stay-dee-uh or stah-dee-uh (or however you pronounce it). Their decision to go with a three syllable name is what messes it up. With things like this, marketing people will almost always say go with a single or double syllable word. Ex-Box, Play-Station, switch. Its just easier for people to recall and say.
 

Hitman928

Golden Member
Apr 15, 2012
1,718
162
136
#21
Stew-kuh is a bit easier to say than stay-dee-uh or stah-dee-uh (or however you pronounce it). Their decision to go with a three syllable name is what messes it up. With things like this, marketing people will almost always say go with a single or double syllable word. Ex-Box, Play-Station, switch. Its just easier for people to recall and say.
Playstation is 3 sylables, Stadia is pronounced liked stadium but with an 'uh' at the end instead of 'um'. I agree it's not the best, most memorable name, but I don't think it's bad either. Atari, Nintendo, Genesis, all had worse names and did just fine in their time.
 

jpiniero

Diamond Member
Oct 1, 2010
6,188
173
126
#22
What a load of garbage. This is nothing more than the next step in DRM, masquerading under the guise of "streaming convenience". Remember how we were told Steam was "convenient"?
DRM/Anti-Piracy is what has developers interested in streaming though.
 

Stuka87

Diamond Member
Dec 10, 2010
4,079
81
106
#23
Playstation is 3 sylables, Stadia is pronounced liked stadium but with an 'uh' at the end instead of 'um'. I agree it's not the best, most memorable name, but I don't think it's bad either. Atari, Nintendo, Genesis, all had worse names and did just fine in their time.
Wow, shows how brain asleep I can be at o'dark thirty in the morning :p

The name won't make or break it, I just question a lot of the names that silicon valley companies come up with.
 

Yotsugi

Senior member
Oct 16, 2017
690
193
96
#24
Dead in 2 years, just like every other Google/Alphabet project that didn't instantly take off.
DRM/Anti-Piracy is what has developers interested in streaming though.
No, that's a pathtetic excuse gamedevs make when their bad (or bad-bad) games flop.
Streaming won't save bad games from flopping.
 

coercitiv

Diamond Member
Jan 24, 2014
3,109
384
136
#25
I doubt developers are genuinely interested in this from a DRM standpoint. If anything this type of service will be ruthless with badly executed games, as you no longer buy the game to play it, and more importantly you no longer pre-order. :eek:

Oh snap, no more DLCs either, no more cosmetics, no paid boosters. Are we really heading towards a future of good quality content releases that's going to actually improve gaming experience and total play time?!

WARNING! Final keynote slide missing. Further monetization schemes required.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads



ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS