All the big AAA graphically heavy titles are not on 4K60.
Mortal Kombat 11
GRID
Furthermore, that tweet says some games can be 4k30 for various reasons:
Assassin's Creed: Odyssey
Metro Exodus
All 3 Tomb Raider games
The tweet says "for artistic reasons" which... lol. It's because they cant hit 60.
And GRID and MK11? GRID isn't what I'd call a GPU killer (60 FPS at UHD on a 2080), but about industry average for a racing game. And again, were not going to see it on 4k Ultra. MK11 is not a demanding game at all, with a recommended GTX 1060.
Hey, can you stop moving goal posts?
Seriously, the service is "launched" so it's a known quantity. Just like any platform launch, the launch games (entirely made up of ports that devs are not going to go back and spend a ton of time on to optimize) aren't going to look as good as future games. I'm not gonna defend anyone and say it's going to be a PC killer, it never was and never should have been positioned that way. Even if they did manage to match ultra on PC, compression means visually quality will always be somewhat "off". But your posts completely downplay what it IS giving you which is actually really impressive. As far as something you can just pick up and game at 4k at pretty low latency it is absolutely delivering. No, 100% of titles aren't gonna be 4k/60, that was obviously a dumb thing to say.
If you have a high end PC already Stadia likely isn't for you! If you game primarily on console, hey, it gets a bit more attractive. If your bar is "must run games better than a $2,000 PC does" then no, it's never going to meet your expectations.
Not sure if they’d improved it but MK11 PC performance was terrible. If they’re running the PC version I’m not surprised they’re not offering above 30fps.
Now wait a second, on the subject of moving goalposts here it can go both ways. You said "eh the marketing fueled some of the fire" and it was pointed out that all the marketing was plastered with 4k60 and people at the company kept saying ALL games 4k. There's plenty of downplaying to go around.
Now wait a second, on the subject of moving goalposts here it can go both ways. You said "eh the marketing fueled some of the fire" and it was pointed out that all the marketing was plastered with 4k60 and people at the company kept saying ALL games 4k. There's plenty of downplaying to go around.
And I'll say it again, their marketing has been awful! I absolutely believe that Google earned some of the criticism, though I appreciate that you added "eh" in there to make it sound like I was totally writing that off.
I haven't really moved my stance. I would think that everybody here has seen marketing ads before, they almost never actually line up with the final product and you know it. The fact that they can deliver a consistently good experience at 4k with only a small amount of latency is pretty dang close to the mark if you look at the actual published marketing materials (website, etc, which have always clearly stated up to 4k/60fps), all things considered. Most of the issue is with people attached to the product making a big deal about lofty things outside of that. Yes, that's an issue! But it's not exactly the same. The average consumer isn't gonna go look up Phil's tweets. Did they set up an expectation that more things would be 4k/60? Absolutely. Should the entire service be written off because not every launch game hits that mark? Ehhhh, I don't think so.
But saying "there are no AAA graphically intensive games at 4k/60" and then being provided with a couple games that fit that description but replying "those aren't graphically intensive ENOUGH" is pretty much classic moving goalposts so.
They might not be graphically intensive enough to meet exactly what he meant to be discussing. It's a vague descriptor. It's not "show me one Stadia game under $40, oh, well...ok then show me two games."
And in all honesty GRID is actually not the first thing in my mind when I think of AAA anymore.
MK is 60 on all platforms, and dynamic 4K on the pro consoles. They comboed efficiency with limited graphical resources to get it running smooth everywhere, even the Switch version. Its a similar story with Doom Eternal, they've always prioritized 60 on home consoles.
Unless every single dev is super lazy with optimization, this means that Stadia seems to be shaping up to be a little ahead of the X. That's fine for the current gen, but I thought their real pitch was going to be the service as an alternative to upgrading to next gen in a year. They do seem to have the CPUs and compute on that level, but not the raw polygons.
Now wait a second, on the subject of moving goalposts here it can go both ways. You said "eh the marketing fueled some of the fire" and it was pointed out that all the marketing was plastered with 4k60 and people at the company kept saying ALL games 4k. There's plenty of downplaying to go around.
And I'll say it again, their marketing has been awful! I absolutely believe that Google earned some of the criticism, though I appreciate that you added "eh" in there to make it sound like I was totally writing that off.
I haven't really moved my stance. I would think that everybody here has seen marketing ads before, they almost never actually line up with the final product and you know it.
When you lie about a product you are selling it is called fraud, not "awful marketing"
Most ads do represent the product accurately because most companies do not want to commit fraud.
This isn't exactly an "enlarged for texture" kinda situation. The guy at the company plainly said "all games 4k60fps" to a perspective customer. That is different from "bad marketing"
+14
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
But saying "there are no AAA graphically intensive games at 4k/60" and then being provided with a couple games that fit that description but replying "those aren't graphically intensive ENOUGH" is pretty much classic moving goalposts so.
No.
You gave me 2 big titles, one (GRID) which can get 90+ FPS at 4k with a below-average consumer GPU by going to 4K Med/Low and one (MK11) with a recommended GTX 1060 GPU, and one that can run 60FPS at 4K Ultra with a mid tier consumer GPU (2060 Super).
Metro Exodus, on the other hand, can barely hit 60 FPS at 4K Ultra with a big dog 2080 TI. With a 2060, it has trouble doing 4K Low. The Tomb Raider games are heavy as hell when it comes to graphics loads.
Racing and fighting games do not require as much horsepower as FPS and "sightseeing" games. So yes, those are not graphically intensive enough.
At least we've progressed from 'stadia is impossible according to the laws of physics and the speed of light' to 'not EVERY game is running in 4k' as to the level of complaint against the system.
I've said it before and I'll say it again -- Stadia would have made a lot more sense if they had gone after a more casual crowd with the game list. Family-style games, upscaled smartphone-style games, etc. Not only is that a niche that's arguably underserved outside of portable devices, that crowd wouldn't have given the tiniest shit that not all games run in 4K.
Now wait a second, on the subject of moving goalposts here it can go both ways. You said "eh the marketing fueled some of the fire" and it was pointed out that all the marketing was plastered with 4k60 and people at the company kept saying ALL games 4k. There's plenty of downplaying to go around.
And I'll say it again, their marketing has been awful! I absolutely believe that Google earned some of the criticism, though I appreciate that you added "eh" in there to make it sound like I was totally writing that off.
I haven't really moved my stance. I would think that everybody here has seen marketing ads before, they almost never actually line up with the final product and you know it.
When you lie about a product you are selling it is called fraud, not "awful marketing"
Most ads do represent the product accurately because most companies do not want to commit fraud.
This isn't exactly an "enlarged for texture" kinda situation. The guy at the company plainly said "all games 4k60fps" to a perspective customer. That is different from "bad marketing"
Sort of. But also I guess I've just learned to expect lies when game companies talk about upcoming graphics. This is, unfortunately, not a new phenomenon. They fib a lot
At least we've progressed from 'stadia is impossible according to the laws of physics and the speed of light' to 'not EVERY game is running in 4k' as to the level of complaint against the system.
No, we're still there because stadia cannot provide the same kind of input responsiveness as a local machine because of the speed of the light /laws of physics. It was never about "game streaming can't be done" and always "game streaming will unavoidable introduce input delay. " Some people just don't care is all and are OK paying for the inferior experience.
At least we've progressed from 'stadia is impossible according to the laws of physics and the speed of light' to 'not EVERY game is running in 4k' as to the level of complaint against the system.
No, we're still there because stadia cannot provide the same kind of input responsiveness as a local machine because of the speed of the light /laws of physics. It was never about "game streaming can't be done" and always "game streaming will unavoidable introduce input delay. " Some people just don't care is all and are OK paying for the inferior experience.
Honestly, I got to "Introducing sub-100 ping times to games is probably going to be ok for most people".
Putting that on top of multiplayer games, where there's another blade->server hop might be too much to be not noticeable (if it gets to 100-200 ping).
And if you really want responsiveness, then you want sub 50 to not notice, or sub 10 to really get drunk on immediacy.
At least we've progressed from 'stadia is impossible according to the laws of physics and the speed of light' to 'not EVERY game is running in 4k' as to the level of complaint against the system.
It was impossible to be faster than a local experience was the criticism, which was a direct response to Google talking about predictive negative latency bullshit.
At least we've progressed from 'stadia is impossible according to the laws of physics and the speed of light' to 'not EVERY game is running in 4k' as to the level of complaint against the system.
It was impossible to be faster than a local experience was the criticism, which was a direct response to Google talking about predictive negative latency bullshit.
People were talking about physics and the speed of light limitations all the way back in June, that was just the latest iteration of it
At least we've progressed from 'stadia is impossible according to the laws of physics and the speed of light' to 'not EVERY game is running in 4k' as to the level of complaint against the system.
It was impossible to be faster than a local experience was the criticism, which was a direct response to Google talking about predictive negative latency bullshit.
People were talking about physics and the speed of light limitations all the way back in June, that was just the latest iteration of it
In response to how it would give you the same experience as a local machine. No one in this thread EVER claimed that game streaming is impossible. It is demonstrably possible and has been done before on multiple occasions. It's always been left by the wayside because the experience is inferior to using a local machine. Google and their fraudulent marketing came in and said that they'd provide the same experience as local hardware without the cost of owning your own machine. We called BS on that claim. As the facts came out, the naysayers have been proven correct again and again and again. The very best that stadia can claim is that they provide an experience that is "good enough" for some users. A far cry from providing an experience that's better or at least equal to hardware in your living room.
But saying "there are no AAA graphically intensive games at 4k/60" and then being provided with a couple games that fit that description but replying "those aren't graphically intensive ENOUGH" is pretty much classic moving goalposts so.
No.
You gave me 2 big titles, one (GRID) which can get 90+ FPS at 4k with a below-average consumer GPU by going to 4K Med/Low and one (MK11) with a recommended GTX 1060 GPU, and one that can run 60FPS at 4K Ultra with a mid tier consumer GPU (2060 Super).
Metro Exodus, on the other hand, can barely hit 60 FPS at 4K Ultra with a big dog 2080 TI. With a 2060, it has trouble doing 4K Low. The Tomb Raider games are heavy as hell when it comes to graphics loads.
Racing and fighting games do not require as much horsepower as FPS and "sightseeing" games. So yes, those are not graphically intensive enough.
So let me get this straight. The only way you would accept this product is if it outperformed the absolutely TOP end of PC equipment.
Yes, I understand the marketing spin. Yes, clearly there were some liberties taken with expectations from people associated with the project. But you know the specs. You know it's not going to outperform a $1200 card. By your own admission, Metro Exodus and the Tomb Raider games running at 4k/30 is actually still really good! And comparable to a mid-high range PC or the other top end consoles.
Furthermore, expecting that a bunch of launch ports for a new platform to represent the absolutely best the platform can offer is...I don't even know. Just take a look at how games have evolved from Xbox One's launch till now. There's no way the Metro Exodus devs went back and spent all the time they could have optimizing a port to take advantage of Stadia 100% and you know it. It's a new platform and devs have straight up said that many of the same challenges are there that happen with any new platform.
No, as it is now it's not going to compete with a 2080 TI, that's uhh, obvious? The market for Stadia isn't the high end PC crowd, and that's on Google for even suggesting that it was. But you all know this already! It's also mindblowing that you guys can even pretend that the entire market for games is people who are already deeply invested in 4k equipment. Getting an experience that is very close to a decent gaming machine, and in most cases better than the console equivalent, is absolutely something that can carve out its own market.
Anyway, the only reason this argument started was because someone came in here asking "Is all Stadia can offer is 1080p at medium to low settings?" and your response was to reinforce that which is literally false.
+1
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
But saying "there are no AAA graphically intensive games at 4k/60" and then being provided with a couple games that fit that description but replying "those aren't graphically intensive ENOUGH" is pretty much classic moving goalposts so.
No.
You gave me 2 big titles, one (GRID) which can get 90+ FPS at 4k with a below-average consumer GPU by going to 4K Med/Low and one (MK11) with a recommended GTX 1060 GPU, and one that can run 60FPS at 4K Ultra with a mid tier consumer GPU (2060 Super).
Metro Exodus, on the other hand, can barely hit 60 FPS at 4K Ultra with a big dog 2080 TI. With a 2060, it has trouble doing 4K Low. The Tomb Raider games are heavy as hell when it comes to graphics loads.
Racing and fighting games do not require as much horsepower as FPS and "sightseeing" games. So yes, those are not graphically intensive enough.
So let me get this straight. The only way you would accept this product is if it outperformed the absolutely TOP end of PC equipment.
Yes, I understand the marketing spin. Yes, clearly there were some liberties taken with expectations from people associated with the project. But you know the specs. You know it's not going to outperform a $1200 card. By your own admission, Metro Exodus and the Tomb Raider games running at 4k/30 is actually still really good! And comparable to a mid-high range PC or the other top end consoles.
Furthermore, expecting that a bunch of launch ports for a new platform to represent the absolutely best the platform can offer is...I don't even know. Just take a look at how games have evolved from Xbox One's launch till now. There's no way the Metro Exodus devs went back and spent all the time they could have optimizing a port to take advantage of Stadia 100% and you know it. It's a new platform and devs have straight up said that many of the same challenges are there that happen with any new platform.
No, as it is now it's not going to compete with a 2080 TI, that's uhh, obvious? The market for Stadia isn't the high end PC crowd, and that's on Google for even suggesting that it was. But you all know this already! It's also mindblowing that you guys can even pretend that the entire market for games is people who are already deeply invested in 4k equipment. Getting an experience that is very close to a decent gaming machine, and in most cases better than the console equivalent, is absolutely something that can carve out its own market.
Anyway, the only reason this argument started was because someone came in here asking "Is all Stadia can offer is 1080p at medium to low settings?" and your response was to reinforce that which is literally false.
I dont even know what you're arguing anymore, tbh. You listed 2 non strenuous games as intensive and I took issue with it. They dont compare to the other on the list that aren't running 4k60.
At least we've progressed from 'stadia is impossible according to the laws of physics and the speed of light' to 'not EVERY game is running in 4k' as to the level of complaint against the system.
It was impossible to be faster than a local experience was the criticism, which was a direct response to Google talking about predictive negative latency bullshit.
People were talking about physics and the speed of light limitations all the way back in June, that was just the latest iteration of it
In response to how it would give you the same experience as a local machine. No one in this thread EVER claimed that game streaming is impossible. It is demonstrably possible and has been done before on multiple occasions. It's always been left by the wayside because the experience is inferior to using a local machine. Google and their fraudulent marketing came in and said that they'd provide the same experience as local hardware without the cost of owning your own machine. We called BS on that claim. As the facts came out, the naysayers have been proven correct again and again and again. The very best that stadia can claim is that they provide an experience that is "good enough" for some users. A far cry from providing an experience that's better or at least equal to hardware in your living room.
Hi, Destiny 2 on Stadia is a better experience than it is on my PS4 Pro. There, I'll say it. The additional input latency when using a controller feels pretty much nonexistent. That's the hardware in my living room. Stadia gives a better experience while looking comparable AND running at a faster framerate AND the load times are a fraction of what the standard HDD provides.
Of course, compared to my gaming PC where I play Destiny 2 more there's no question, playing Destiny 2 on Stadia with a kb/m is not really a comparable experience and the input latency is way more noticeable. I can easily say the experience goes: PC >> Stadia > PS4 Pro.
0
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
edited December 2019
And maybe if Google wanted Stadia to be competitive past another 6-7 months (whatever the time span will be for devs to start really firing up the next gen dev kits), they should have released something with the horsepower of a 2080 TI.
Because the next gen is coming, and the performance delta between Stadia and the home experience will continue to grow until Google upgrades all of its servers.
And maybe if Google wanted Stadia to be competitive past another 6-7 months (whatever the time span will be for devs to start really firing up the next gen dev kits), they should have released something with the horsepower of a 2080 TI.
Because the next gen is coming, and the performance delta between Stadia and the home experience will continue to grow until Google upgrades all of its servers.
The target for next gen consoles is going to be 4k/60fps. Yes, Sony has already started throwing around "8k" but we both know that even in a best case scenario, there'll be some serious upscaling IF they even meant to apply the statement to gaming. Considering current gen PC hardware that costs upwards of a couple thousand can still only sometimes manage 4k/60, we're almost certainly not going to suddenly get significantly better performance than that next year especially when home consoles don't sell for anywhere near the price of a 2080 Ti alone.
As you said before, the other big enhancement will be ray tracing generally.
I completely agree, Stadia, as it is now, is not comparable to the (unreleased) next gen experience. For Google's sake, I hope they're coming up with a solution here, most likely it won't need to be "upgrade everything" immediately but yes, they'll need to have "next gen" blades to even hope to compete. The beauty of the system is that this is something they can do, I'm not saying they'll pull it off, but it's not something that's just technically impossible. You seem eager to write Stadia off because they're not giving you a $2000+ PC experience a year before consoles even catch up to that.
And maybe if Google wanted Stadia to be competitive past another 6-7 months (whatever the time span will be for devs to start really firing up the next gen dev kits), they should have released something with the horsepower of a 2080 TI.
Because the next gen is coming, and the performance delta between Stadia and the home experience will continue to grow until Google upgrades all of its servers.
The horsepower is going to vary per game most likely. They'll use their cheaper servers for less strenuous games. And they can add more powerful servers in whatever quantity is necessary to support the newer games in the volume that people are actively playing them.
+1
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
And maybe if Google wanted Stadia to be competitive past another 6-7 months (whatever the time span will be for devs to start really firing up the next gen dev kits), they should have released something with the horsepower of a 2080 TI.
Because the next gen is coming, and the performance delta between Stadia and the home experience will continue to grow until Google upgrades all of its servers.
The horsepower is going to vary per game most likely. They'll use their cheaper servers for less strenuous games. And they can add more powerful servers in whatever quantity is necessary to support the newer games in the volume that people are actively playing them.
If they were willing to do that we wouldn't be having RDR2 upscaled from low/med 1440p.
And maybe if Google wanted Stadia to be competitive past another 6-7 months (whatever the time span will be for devs to start really firing up the next gen dev kits), they should have released something with the horsepower of a 2080 TI.
Because the next gen is coming, and the performance delta between Stadia and the home experience will continue to grow until Google upgrades all of its servers.
The target for next gen consoles is going to be 4k/60fps. Yes, Sony has already started throwing around "8k" but we both know that even in a best case scenario, there'll be some serious upscaling IF they even meant to apply the statement to gaming. Considering current gen PC hardware that costs upwards of a couple thousand can still only sometimes manage 4k/60, we're almost certainly not going to suddenly get significantly better performance than that next year especially when home consoles don't sell for anywhere near the price of a 2080 Ti alone.
As you said before, the other big enhancement will be ray tracing generally.
I completely agree, Stadia, as it is now, is not comparable to the (unreleased) next gen experience. For Google's sake, I hope they're coming up with a solution here, most likely it won't need to be "upgrade everything" immediately but yes, they'll need to have "next gen" blades to even hope to compete. The beauty of the system is that this is something they can do, I'm not saying they'll pull it off, but it's not something that's just technically impossible. You seem eager to write Stadia off because they're not giving you a $2000+ PC experience a year before consoles even catch up to that.
This is more like what I would call their "awful marketing"
To me, it doesn't seem like they know who their target customers are.
Do they want PC "gamers" that don't want to buy their next $2000 PC? Do they want the "casuals" that don't know what 4k means? Do they want to steal PlayStation/Xbox players before the next gen drops but not having any of the exclusives that normally drive those next gen console sales? The commercial says PC gamers. The product seems more like console/casual.
And maybe if Google wanted Stadia to be competitive past another 6-7 months (whatever the time span will be for devs to start really firing up the next gen dev kits), they should have released something with the horsepower of a 2080 TI.
Because the next gen is coming, and the performance delta between Stadia and the home experience will continue to grow until Google upgrades all of its servers.
The horsepower is going to vary per game most likely. They'll use their cheaper servers for less strenuous games. And they can add more powerful servers in whatever quantity is necessary to support the newer games in the volume that people are actively playing them.
If they were willing to do that we wouldn't be having RDR2 upscaled from low/med 1440p.
Isn't their whole pitch "not having to upgrade" because they'll upgrade hardware behind the scenes? There's obviously only one "tier" of hardware right now, which makes sense from a "Hey, we need a standard for devs to release the initial stuff on" point of view. Do you think they're just going to trash their old hardware? It doesn't suddenly become useless since they can run current gen titles on it.
As an aside, we know from the DF video that RDR2 is closer to medium/high settings. Most quality settings are the same as the Xbox One X but with a couple options turned up, along with some PC only things enabled. I think Rockstar could have done better on the port but I doubt Stadia was a high priority when they were pushing out the PC version just before. Yes, I also think it was ridiculous that Google ever even suggested that RDR2 was going to be 4k/60 being as how, again, even a high end PC struggles getting close to that.
And maybe if Google wanted Stadia to be competitive past another 6-7 months (whatever the time span will be for devs to start really firing up the next gen dev kits), they should have released something with the horsepower of a 2080 TI.
Because the next gen is coming, and the performance delta between Stadia and the home experience will continue to grow until Google upgrades all of its servers.
The horsepower is going to vary per game most likely. They'll use their cheaper servers for less strenuous games. And they can add more powerful servers in whatever quantity is necessary to support the newer games in the volume that people are actively playing them.
If they were willing to do that we wouldn't be having RDR2 upscaled from low/med 1440p.
Isn't their whole pitch "not having to upgrade" because they'll upgrade hardware behind the scenes? There's obviously only one "tier" of hardware right now, which makes sense from a "Hey, we need a standard for devs to release the initial stuff on" point of view. Do you think they're just going to trash their old hardware? It doesn't suddenly become useless since they can run current gen titles on it.
As an aside, we know from the DF video that RDR2 is closer to medium/high settings. Most quality settings are the same as the Xbox One X but with a couple options turned up, along with some PC only things enabled. I think Rockstar could have done better on the port but I doubt Stadia was a high priority when they were pushing out the PC version just before. Yes, I also think it was ridiculous that Google ever even suggested that RDR2 was going to be 4k/60 being as how, again, even a high end PC struggles getting close to that.
There are a lot of things that they could potentially do. But right now they're not and we haven't seen evidence yet that they ever will.
tldr: For most games it's perfectly acceptable and it helps that it's consistent. Of course it's never going to compete with playing competitive multiplayer games on a PC, so it's not going to replace that.
Their experiences line up pretty much the same as mine. When playing with a controller there might as well not be any input lag. It absolutely feels like I'm playing the game on a local system except when I notice the odd compression artifact, which is fortunately somewhat rare. And I say this as someone that has tried things like Steam in home streaming and the input latency there, even wired to wired, was too noticeable for me to bother. Same with PS Now and PS Remote Play. None of those services provide the quality Stadia does and all of them have higher input latency.
So yeah, I don't buy into the marketing "negative latency" bs, as long as something is being streamed there is always going to be added latency, but as a streaming service Stadia is definitely setting a higher bar re: input latency, even if you don't want to believe it.
No, as it is now it's not going to compete with a 2080 TI, that's uhh, obvious? The market for Stadia isn't the high end PC crowd
This isn't just on Google's marketing, this is essentially the consumer understanding of what game streaming should be: you're renting a remote supercomputer that runs the games flawlessly. Like the whole reason you'd be doing it is that you don't have a computer good enough to do the top end graphics, so you pay someone else to do that for you.
I think the market for Stadia is in part the high end PC crowd, who want to get out of the business of building high end PCs. I don't think it's at all obvious that Stadia isn't going to compete with a 2080 TI. It really ought to be.
I mean look at it in the sense of renting a server for you and your friends, like a Minecraft server: it's because you don't want to bother with doing the setup yourself, messing with the ports, updating the software etc. So you pay someone else to do that and expect a good piece of hardware that works better than anything you could've done on your own. There's a longstanding assumption built into renting remote hardware that it's going to be done better than you could on your own.
And maybe if Google wanted Stadia to be competitive past another 6-7 months (whatever the time span will be for devs to start really firing up the next gen dev kits), they should have released something with the horsepower of a 2080 TI.
Because the next gen is coming, and the performance delta between Stadia and the home experience will continue to grow until Google upgrades all of its servers.
The target for next gen consoles is going to be 4k/60fps. Yes, Sony has already started throwing around "8k" but we both know that even in a best case scenario, there'll be some serious upscaling IF they even meant to apply the statement to gaming. Considering current gen PC hardware that costs upwards of a couple thousand can still only sometimes manage 4k/60, we're almost certainly not going to suddenly get significantly better performance than that next year especially when home consoles don't sell for anywhere near the price of a 2080 Ti alone.
As you said before, the other big enhancement will be ray tracing generally.
I completely agree, Stadia, as it is now, is not comparable to the (unreleased) next gen experience. For Google's sake, I hope they're coming up with a solution here, most likely it won't need to be "upgrade everything" immediately but yes, they'll need to have "next gen" blades to even hope to compete. The beauty of the system is that this is something they can do, I'm not saying they'll pull it off, but it's not something that's just technically impossible. You seem eager to write Stadia off because they're not giving you a $2000+ PC experience a year before consoles even catch up to that.
hooooolllllllllld on a sec, consoles this gen couldn't even hit the 1080p / 60 consistently, there's no way we are going to be seeing 4k/60fps consoles, especially now that they have jumped aboard the raytracing train. Of course there will be a great one here or there that manages, but there's no way consoles are launching with more powerful hardware than the top end of PC at the moment (which can't even hit 4k/60 consistently!).
And maybe if Google wanted Stadia to be competitive past another 6-7 months (whatever the time span will be for devs to start really firing up the next gen dev kits), they should have released something with the horsepower of a 2080 TI.
Because the next gen is coming, and the performance delta between Stadia and the home experience will continue to grow until Google upgrades all of its servers.
The target for next gen consoles is going to be 4k/60fps. Yes, Sony has already started throwing around "8k" but we both know that even in a best case scenario, there'll be some serious upscaling IF they even meant to apply the statement to gaming. Considering current gen PC hardware that costs upwards of a couple thousand can still only sometimes manage 4k/60, we're almost certainly not going to suddenly get significantly better performance than that next year especially when home consoles don't sell for anywhere near the price of a 2080 Ti alone.
As you said before, the other big enhancement will be ray tracing generally.
I completely agree, Stadia, as it is now, is not comparable to the (unreleased) next gen experience. For Google's sake, I hope they're coming up with a solution here, most likely it won't need to be "upgrade everything" immediately but yes, they'll need to have "next gen" blades to even hope to compete. The beauty of the system is that this is something they can do, I'm not saying they'll pull it off, but it's not something that's just technically impossible. You seem eager to write Stadia off because they're not giving you a $2000+ PC experience a year before consoles even catch up to that.
hooooolllllllllld on a sec, consoles this gen couldn't even hit the 1080p / 60 consistently, there's no way we are going to be seeing 4k/60fps consoles, especially now that they have jumped aboard the raytracing train. Of course there will be a great one here or there that manages, but there's no way consoles are launching with more powerful hardware than the top end of PC at the moment (which can't even hit 4k/60 consistently!).
I absolutely think 4k/60 is going to be a thing mentioned around the new consoles. After all, the current X/Pro versions do "4k/30fps" (yes, we all know the Pro doesn't really) right?? And if there's anything consumers know it's that higher numbers = better. Your average consumer isn't going to understand what ray tracing is and if they leave the statement at 4k/30fps (which you can already get) then how are you going to sell these? But yes, I agree, I don't think these consoles are going to hit 4k/60fps AND do ray tracing considering that's not even currently possible. What I do think is that pretty much every game will have performance options (like the current Pro/X games do) and ray tracing will be another "best visuals" option that will lock the fps at 30. Also, I'm going with the current idea of console target framerates which can often be...generous.
And maybe if Google wanted Stadia to be competitive past another 6-7 months (whatever the time span will be for devs to start really firing up the next gen dev kits), they should have released something with the horsepower of a 2080 TI.
Because the next gen is coming, and the performance delta between Stadia and the home experience will continue to grow until Google upgrades all of its servers.
The target for next gen consoles is going to be 4k/60fps. Yes, Sony has already started throwing around "8k" but we both know that even in a best case scenario, there'll be some serious upscaling IF they even meant to apply the statement to gaming. Considering current gen PC hardware that costs upwards of a couple thousand can still only sometimes manage 4k/60, we're almost certainly not going to suddenly get significantly better performance than that next year especially when home consoles don't sell for anywhere near the price of a 2080 Ti alone.
As you said before, the other big enhancement will be ray tracing generally.
I completely agree, Stadia, as it is now, is not comparable to the (unreleased) next gen experience. For Google's sake, I hope they're coming up with a solution here, most likely it won't need to be "upgrade everything" immediately but yes, they'll need to have "next gen" blades to even hope to compete. The beauty of the system is that this is something they can do, I'm not saying they'll pull it off, but it's not something that's just technically impossible. You seem eager to write Stadia off because they're not giving you a $2000+ PC experience a year before consoles even catch up to that.
hooooolllllllllld on a sec, consoles this gen couldn't even hit the 1080p / 60 consistently, there's no way we are going to be seeing 4k/60fps consoles, especially now that they have jumped aboard the raytracing train. Of course there will be a great one here or there that manages, but there's no way consoles are launching with more powerful hardware than the top end of PC at the moment (which can't even hit 4k/60 consistently!).
I mean, the Xbox One X has 60 FPS/2160p games. Gears 5 and Halo 5 both say hello. As do a list of backwards compatibility games. But they are well in the minority.
Playstation 4 Pro...not so much, but that's kind of 60 FPS/1440 p console by comparison, and Sony was quite open about their preference towards checkerboard scaling accordingly.
But there are two things to consider: first, by "jumping aboard with ray-tracing" we mean "buzzword bragging about their own proposed and largely untested hardware/software solutions to ray-tracing." Ray-tracing flat-out doesn't make sense in certain games because it's entirely dependent on the lighting solution. Sony and Microsoft aren't obligated to chase RTX 2080 Ti-ball crushing visuals.
Second, technically speaking, 60 FPS is also, like ray-tracing, potentially an artistic choice. Look at Bloodborne. Putting out a game that runs at 2160p (or 1440p) and 30 hz isn't some sort of failing, depending on the design of the game itself. The difference being virtually every game can, potentially, utilize a 60 FPS game pace. The same isn't true about ray tracing. Cuphead is a 2D game that runs at 60 FPS (with 24 hz styilzied animation frames typically)--ray-tracing doesn't do shit on it. Same for every 2D fighting game. That doesn't mean there isn't a place for ray-tracing--obviously there is, or Nvidia's board of directors would've all killed themselves, But it's not a practical standard the way 60 FPS has been for literal years.
wasn't the whole point that you can get a stadia instead of an expensive high end pc because the stadia can do what a high end pc does
Sure, and I think it falls a little short of even that, but it's not like grossly off the mark of the lower end of "high end". But the problem is the bar that has been set in this thread is it must perform on par with a 2080 Ti to be considered "a success." A 2080 Ti isn't a high end card, it's an enthusiast card.
If you're in the market for a 2080 Ti it's because you want the best. A streaming image is never going to meet that standard regardless.
People in the market for machines running 2060s/2070s though? They can run most games decently, 2070s in particular are "high end" but with the expectation that something like 4k/60 isn't always an option. These are people willing to budge on graphical fidelity because they get "great" instead of a "perfect" experience and get to pay significantly less for it.
Yeah, Stadia is another hit in graphics, for sure, probably falling somewhere between a 2060/2070 overall. I'll even say it's closer to a 2060. We've already established having the "best" graphics is something you'll budge on. So why not budge a little more to get a mostly comparable experience for a fraction of the cost? That's what Google is betting on. Heck, if you only ever game at 1080p right now (a significant chunk of people), when the Base version comes out next year and it's free, that's an even more attractive deal.
No, it's not competing with enthusiast PCs, but they're betting on some of the "lower" high end crowd wanting convenience/lower price for entry. I can't tell you if it'll pay off, but I bet the market running things like 2060s and 2070s is a lot larger than any of you are giving it credit for.
Yes, 4k/60fps will be what's mentioned for local consoles just like 1080p/60 was for this gen, but few and far between will games even hit those marks, so it's a bit disingenuous to call it a target for next gen consoles. The majority of current xbox one and ps4 games don't even do 1080p, and graphic cards haven't improved enough in combination with art assets to reasonable expect 4k/60 for the next crop. Even looking at the in-betweens, we get a bunch of upscaling or dynamic res or sacrifices on the bells and whistles to sometimes hit the 4k/30. And maybe ray tracing is a buzzword, but both sony and microsoft have dedicated hardware for that feature in their systems, so I think it's reasonable to expect the first batch of games to try to push that feature now that it's a next-gen console standard, but there's no way it's hitting 4k/60fps if they do.
With stadia and the new Xbone Onlive, it also seems games are going to start favoring higher fps if they two things are successful, since it seems that gives the streaming techs a leg up. So maybe this is where you can get the true 4k/60fps experience (except that now I'm hearing Stadia doesn't even do 4k/60 so wtf???), but I would bet money local consoles won't be hitting that with any normal occurrence to be called a standard or target. I would venture we'll see native ranges between 1080p and 1440p, with various successes to 4k using upscaling or other tech sacrifices as the new normal.
0
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
edited December 2019
Stadia is always going to be worse than a local equivalent due to video signal compression. Just like the response time will always be slower.
Until we get internet bandwidth that matches video cable bandwidth, that is.
Which is fine. It is what it is. But people need to actually start telling Google that lying about this shit is no good.
Yes, 4k/60fps will be what's mentioned for local consoles just like 1080p/60 was for this gen, but few and far between will games even hit those marks, so it's a bit disingenuous to call it a target for next gen consoles. The majority of current xbox one and ps4 games don't even do 1080p, and graphic cards haven't improved enough in combination with art assets to reasonable expect 4k/60 for the next crop. Even looking at the in-betweens, we get a bunch of upscaling or dynamic res or sacrifices on the bells and whistles to sometimes hit the 4k/30. And maybe ray tracing is a buzzword, but both sony and microsoft have dedicated hardware for that feature in their systems, so I think it's reasonable to expect the first batch of games to try to push that feature now that it's a next-gen console standard, but there's no way it's hitting 4k/60fps if they do.
With stadia and the new Xbone Onlive, it also seems games are going to start favoring higher fps if they two things are successful, since it seems that gives the streaming techs a leg up. So maybe this is where you can get the true 4k/60fps experience (except that now I'm hearing Stadia doesn't even do 4k/60 so wtf???), but I would bet money local consoles won't be hitting that with any normal occurrence to be called a standard or target. I would venture we'll see native ranges between 1080p and 1440p, with various successes to 4k using upscaling or other tech sacrifices as the new normal.
Yeah, Stadia is in the same boat currently with 4k/60. There's a few games that do it but it's not the "norm" by any means. It'll be the same for the next gen consoles, I agree, but we know they'll be at least more powerful than Stadia. Since they're already throwing around things like "8k" I doubt marketing is going to slow down to actually care about the final results either.
Last I checked xCloud was still aiming for 720p/1080p and the preview is still only for mobile devices so I'm not even sure if that'll push streaming towards 4k.
Honestly, one of the things Stadia does that I hope forces devs to do across the board: Every game I've tried it with switches controller icons automatically if you swap controllers. Going Stadia -> Dualshock 4 -> Switch Pro controller, they've all worked without issue and any in-game prompts have updated seamlessly. I can't wait for the days where all PC games just use Xbox prompts to be over. Games have steadily gotten better about this but it's not a universal thing by any means, on Stadia it seems to be.
It's also weird to see something like the Switch Pro controller showing up "natively" in something like Destiny 2.
After playing more of Stadia Destiny...I just don't like the control difference. It's hard to explain. It's fine, yet not. It's heavy / swimming like compared to PS4 Pro / XBL.
XBL: Bizazedo
PSN: Bizazedo
CFN: Bizazedo (I don't think I suck, add me).
After playing more of Stadia Destiny...I just don't like the control difference. It's hard to explain. It's fine, yet not. It's heavy / swimming like compared to PS4 Pro / XBL.
Have you tried upping your controller sensitivity?
I played through Vanilla Destiny 2 on the PS4 and find the experience on the Stadia to be flawless so far.
Yeah, after reading the responses to my post on Friday it's incredibly obvious that google screwed up the messaging on Stadia. We had dozens of pages of discussion about "can this / can this not replace an enthusiast grade PC and eliminate the need to upgrade" and not a single person taking part in the discussion backed off to say "Hey actually, per Google's advertising you're probably not even going to get max settings at 1080p". There were tons of skeptics saying it wasn't going to happen, but it was in he said / she said territory of "here's what they're probably using hardware wise and is definitely not as good as a top tier PC" vs. "no I'm sure they'll find a way to make it work".
I'm not saying this to rake anyone over the coals or re-legislate old arguments -- I'm saying it to say google is just straight fraudulently advertising with Stadia. They're going with vague pie in the sky platitudes and not meeting their targets -- we have full 4K streaming!
Ok yes, at dramatically compromised graphical fidelity. They're not doing anything cool or impressive at all on the rendering side -- they appear to have completely cheaped out on their initial launch.
"Pretty good for a console" is just not the barrier that was set. Google repeated, fraudulently and multiple times, that it would be as good as a high end PC, as good as an enthusiast PC, eventually more responsive and better looking than the most powerful consumer machines available.
If you're enjoying Stadia, that's totally cool! It sounds like there exists some space for what Stadia is doing, despite google completely lying about what they were going to deliver. But please, spare me all of the talk about what google is going to do going forward and with the new generation. We need to stop inventing ways that they're going to solve problems of their own making -- really simple problems in this case. They cheaped out on their hardware when we're 1 year away from a new console generation -- they can't run existing titles at settings resembling a high end PC (no not a 2080 Ti -- my 2070 Super costs $600 less than that and blows Stadia out of the water rendering Red Dead 2) and they're not going to suddenly spend twice as much on their hardware refresh for the next gen next year. They didn't blow the bank on hardware this time around -- where are they going to get the money to upgrade to hardware that's relatively better in a year when their entire spiel is that you don't have to shell out $400 for a new console?
Posts
Hey, can you stop moving goal posts?
Seriously, the service is "launched" so it's a known quantity. Just like any platform launch, the launch games (entirely made up of ports that devs are not going to go back and spend a ton of time on to optimize) aren't going to look as good as future games. I'm not gonna defend anyone and say it's going to be a PC killer, it never was and never should have been positioned that way. Even if they did manage to match ultra on PC, compression means visually quality will always be somewhat "off". But your posts completely downplay what it IS giving you which is actually really impressive. As far as something you can just pick up and game at 4k at pretty low latency it is absolutely delivering. No, 100% of titles aren't gonna be 4k/60, that was obviously a dumb thing to say.
If you have a high end PC already Stadia likely isn't for you! If you game primarily on console, hey, it gets a bit more attractive. If your bar is "must run games better than a $2,000 PC does" then no, it's never going to meet your expectations.
MK11 is 4k/60fps, and afaik, smooth.
And I'll say it again, their marketing has been awful! I absolutely believe that Google earned some of the criticism, though I appreciate that you added "eh" in there to make it sound like I was totally writing that off.
I haven't really moved my stance. I would think that everybody here has seen marketing ads before, they almost never actually line up with the final product and you know it. The fact that they can deliver a consistently good experience at 4k with only a small amount of latency is pretty dang close to the mark if you look at the actual published marketing materials (website, etc, which have always clearly stated up to 4k/60fps), all things considered. Most of the issue is with people attached to the product making a big deal about lofty things outside of that. Yes, that's an issue! But it's not exactly the same. The average consumer isn't gonna go look up Phil's tweets. Did they set up an expectation that more things would be 4k/60? Absolutely. Should the entire service be written off because not every launch game hits that mark? Ehhhh, I don't think so.
But saying "there are no AAA graphically intensive games at 4k/60" and then being provided with a couple games that fit that description but replying "those aren't graphically intensive ENOUGH" is pretty much classic moving goalposts so.
And in all honesty GRID is actually not the first thing in my mind when I think of AAA anymore.
Unless every single dev is super lazy with optimization, this means that Stadia seems to be shaping up to be a little ahead of the X. That's fine for the current gen, but I thought their real pitch was going to be the service as an alternative to upgrading to next gen in a year. They do seem to have the CPUs and compute on that level, but not the raw polygons.
When you lie about a product you are selling it is called fraud, not "awful marketing"
Most ads do represent the product accurately because most companies do not want to commit fraud.
This isn't exactly an "enlarged for texture" kinda situation. The guy at the company plainly said "all games 4k60fps" to a perspective customer. That is different from "bad marketing"
No.
You gave me 2 big titles, one (GRID) which can get 90+ FPS at 4k with a below-average consumer GPU by going to 4K Med/Low and one (MK11) with a recommended GTX 1060 GPU, and one that can run 60FPS at 4K Ultra with a mid tier consumer GPU (2060 Super).
Metro Exodus, on the other hand, can barely hit 60 FPS at 4K Ultra with a big dog 2080 TI. With a 2060, it has trouble doing 4K Low. The Tomb Raider games are heavy as hell when it comes to graphics loads.
Racing and fighting games do not require as much horsepower as FPS and "sightseeing" games. So yes, those are not graphically intensive enough.
Sort of. But also I guess I've just learned to expect lies when game companies talk about upcoming graphics. This is, unfortunately, not a new phenomenon. They fib a lot
3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
Steam profile
No, we're still there because stadia cannot provide the same kind of input responsiveness as a local machine because of the speed of the light /laws of physics. It was never about "game streaming can't be done" and always "game streaming will unavoidable introduce input delay. " Some people just don't care is all and are OK paying for the inferior experience.
Armchair: 4098-3704-2012
Honestly, I got to "Introducing sub-100 ping times to games is probably going to be ok for most people".
Putting that on top of multiplayer games, where there's another blade->server hop might be too much to be not noticeable (if it gets to 100-200 ping).
And if you really want responsiveness, then you want sub 50 to not notice, or sub 10 to really get drunk on immediacy.
It was impossible to be faster than a local experience was the criticism, which was a direct response to Google talking about predictive negative latency bullshit.
People were talking about physics and the speed of light limitations all the way back in June, that was just the latest iteration of it
In response to how it would give you the same experience as a local machine. No one in this thread EVER claimed that game streaming is impossible. It is demonstrably possible and has been done before on multiple occasions. It's always been left by the wayside because the experience is inferior to using a local machine. Google and their fraudulent marketing came in and said that they'd provide the same experience as local hardware without the cost of owning your own machine. We called BS on that claim. As the facts came out, the naysayers have been proven correct again and again and again. The very best that stadia can claim is that they provide an experience that is "good enough" for some users. A far cry from providing an experience that's better or at least equal to hardware in your living room.
Armchair: 4098-3704-2012
So let me get this straight. The only way you would accept this product is if it outperformed the absolutely TOP end of PC equipment.
Yes, I understand the marketing spin. Yes, clearly there were some liberties taken with expectations from people associated with the project. But you know the specs. You know it's not going to outperform a $1200 card. By your own admission, Metro Exodus and the Tomb Raider games running at 4k/30 is actually still really good! And comparable to a mid-high range PC or the other top end consoles.
Furthermore, expecting that a bunch of launch ports for a new platform to represent the absolutely best the platform can offer is...I don't even know. Just take a look at how games have evolved from Xbox One's launch till now. There's no way the Metro Exodus devs went back and spent all the time they could have optimizing a port to take advantage of Stadia 100% and you know it. It's a new platform and devs have straight up said that many of the same challenges are there that happen with any new platform.
No, as it is now it's not going to compete with a 2080 TI, that's uhh, obvious? The market for Stadia isn't the high end PC crowd, and that's on Google for even suggesting that it was. But you all know this already! It's also mindblowing that you guys can even pretend that the entire market for games is people who are already deeply invested in 4k equipment. Getting an experience that is very close to a decent gaming machine, and in most cases better than the console equivalent, is absolutely something that can carve out its own market.
Anyway, the only reason this argument started was because someone came in here asking "Is all Stadia can offer is 1080p at medium to low settings?" and your response was to reinforce that which is literally false.
I dont even know what you're arguing anymore, tbh. You listed 2 non strenuous games as intensive and I took issue with it. They dont compare to the other on the list that aren't running 4k60.
Hi, Destiny 2 on Stadia is a better experience than it is on my PS4 Pro. There, I'll say it. The additional input latency when using a controller feels pretty much nonexistent. That's the hardware in my living room. Stadia gives a better experience while looking comparable AND running at a faster framerate AND the load times are a fraction of what the standard HDD provides.
Of course, compared to my gaming PC where I play Destiny 2 more there's no question, playing Destiny 2 on Stadia with a kb/m is not really a comparable experience and the input latency is way more noticeable. I can easily say the experience goes: PC >> Stadia > PS4 Pro.
Because the next gen is coming, and the performance delta between Stadia and the home experience will continue to grow until Google upgrades all of its servers.
The target for next gen consoles is going to be 4k/60fps. Yes, Sony has already started throwing around "8k" but we both know that even in a best case scenario, there'll be some serious upscaling IF they even meant to apply the statement to gaming. Considering current gen PC hardware that costs upwards of a couple thousand can still only sometimes manage 4k/60, we're almost certainly not going to suddenly get significantly better performance than that next year especially when home consoles don't sell for anywhere near the price of a 2080 Ti alone.
As you said before, the other big enhancement will be ray tracing generally.
I completely agree, Stadia, as it is now, is not comparable to the (unreleased) next gen experience. For Google's sake, I hope they're coming up with a solution here, most likely it won't need to be "upgrade everything" immediately but yes, they'll need to have "next gen" blades to even hope to compete. The beauty of the system is that this is something they can do, I'm not saying they'll pull it off, but it's not something that's just technically impossible. You seem eager to write Stadia off because they're not giving you a $2000+ PC experience a year before consoles even catch up to that.
The horsepower is going to vary per game most likely. They'll use their cheaper servers for less strenuous games. And they can add more powerful servers in whatever quantity is necessary to support the newer games in the volume that people are actively playing them.
If they were willing to do that we wouldn't be having RDR2 upscaled from low/med 1440p.
This is more like what I would call their "awful marketing"
To me, it doesn't seem like they know who their target customers are.
Do they want PC "gamers" that don't want to buy their next $2000 PC? Do they want the "casuals" that don't know what 4k means? Do they want to steal PlayStation/Xbox players before the next gen drops but not having any of the exclusives that normally drive those next gen console sales? The commercial says PC gamers. The product seems more like console/casual.
Isn't their whole pitch "not having to upgrade" because they'll upgrade hardware behind the scenes? There's obviously only one "tier" of hardware right now, which makes sense from a "Hey, we need a standard for devs to release the initial stuff on" point of view. Do you think they're just going to trash their old hardware? It doesn't suddenly become useless since they can run current gen titles on it.
As an aside, we know from the DF video that RDR2 is closer to medium/high settings. Most quality settings are the same as the Xbox One X but with a couple options turned up, along with some PC only things enabled. I think Rockstar could have done better on the port but I doubt Stadia was a high priority when they were pushing out the PC version just before. Yes, I also think it was ridiculous that Google ever even suggested that RDR2 was going to be 4k/60 being as how, again, even a high end PC struggles getting close to that.
There are a lot of things that they could potentially do. But right now they're not and we haven't seen evidence yet that they ever will.
Armchair: 4098-3704-2012
tldr: For most games it's perfectly acceptable and it helps that it's consistent. Of course it's never going to compete with playing competitive multiplayer games on a PC, so it's not going to replace that.
Their experiences line up pretty much the same as mine. When playing with a controller there might as well not be any input lag. It absolutely feels like I'm playing the game on a local system except when I notice the odd compression artifact, which is fortunately somewhat rare. And I say this as someone that has tried things like Steam in home streaming and the input latency there, even wired to wired, was too noticeable for me to bother. Same with PS Now and PS Remote Play. None of those services provide the quality Stadia does and all of them have higher input latency.
So yeah, I don't buy into the marketing "negative latency" bs, as long as something is being streamed there is always going to be added latency, but as a streaming service Stadia is definitely setting a higher bar re: input latency, even if you don't want to believe it.
This isn't just on Google's marketing, this is essentially the consumer understanding of what game streaming should be: you're renting a remote supercomputer that runs the games flawlessly. Like the whole reason you'd be doing it is that you don't have a computer good enough to do the top end graphics, so you pay someone else to do that for you.
I think the market for Stadia is in part the high end PC crowd, who want to get out of the business of building high end PCs. I don't think it's at all obvious that Stadia isn't going to compete with a 2080 TI. It really ought to be.
I mean look at it in the sense of renting a server for you and your friends, like a Minecraft server: it's because you don't want to bother with doing the setup yourself, messing with the ports, updating the software etc. So you pay someone else to do that and expect a good piece of hardware that works better than anything you could've done on your own. There's a longstanding assumption built into renting remote hardware that it's going to be done better than you could on your own.
hooooolllllllllld on a sec, consoles this gen couldn't even hit the 1080p / 60 consistently, there's no way we are going to be seeing 4k/60fps consoles, especially now that they have jumped aboard the raytracing train. Of course there will be a great one here or there that manages, but there's no way consoles are launching with more powerful hardware than the top end of PC at the moment (which can't even hit 4k/60 consistently!).
I absolutely think 4k/60 is going to be a thing mentioned around the new consoles. After all, the current X/Pro versions do "4k/30fps" (yes, we all know the Pro doesn't really) right?? And if there's anything consumers know it's that higher numbers = better. Your average consumer isn't going to understand what ray tracing is and if they leave the statement at 4k/30fps (which you can already get) then how are you going to sell these? But yes, I agree, I don't think these consoles are going to hit 4k/60fps AND do ray tracing considering that's not even currently possible. What I do think is that pretty much every game will have performance options (like the current Pro/X games do) and ray tracing will be another "best visuals" option that will lock the fps at 30. Also, I'm going with the current idea of console target framerates which can often be...generous.
I mean, the Xbox One X has 60 FPS/2160p games. Gears 5 and Halo 5 both say hello. As do a list of backwards compatibility games. But they are well in the minority.
Playstation 4 Pro...not so much, but that's kind of 60 FPS/1440 p console by comparison, and Sony was quite open about their preference towards checkerboard scaling accordingly.
But there are two things to consider: first, by "jumping aboard with ray-tracing" we mean "buzzword bragging about their own proposed and largely untested hardware/software solutions to ray-tracing." Ray-tracing flat-out doesn't make sense in certain games because it's entirely dependent on the lighting solution. Sony and Microsoft aren't obligated to chase RTX 2080 Ti-ball crushing visuals.
Second, technically speaking, 60 FPS is also, like ray-tracing, potentially an artistic choice. Look at Bloodborne. Putting out a game that runs at 2160p (or 1440p) and 30 hz isn't some sort of failing, depending on the design of the game itself. The difference being virtually every game can, potentially, utilize a 60 FPS game pace. The same isn't true about ray tracing. Cuphead is a 2D game that runs at 60 FPS (with 24 hz styilzied animation frames typically)--ray-tracing doesn't do shit on it. Same for every 2D fighting game. That doesn't mean there isn't a place for ray-tracing--obviously there is, or Nvidia's board of directors would've all killed themselves, But it's not a practical standard the way 60 FPS has been for literal years.
Sure, and I think it falls a little short of even that, but it's not like grossly off the mark of the lower end of "high end". But the problem is the bar that has been set in this thread is it must perform on par with a 2080 Ti to be considered "a success." A 2080 Ti isn't a high end card, it's an enthusiast card.
If you're in the market for a 2080 Ti it's because you want the best. A streaming image is never going to meet that standard regardless.
People in the market for machines running 2060s/2070s though? They can run most games decently, 2070s in particular are "high end" but with the expectation that something like 4k/60 isn't always an option. These are people willing to budge on graphical fidelity because they get "great" instead of a "perfect" experience and get to pay significantly less for it.
Yeah, Stadia is another hit in graphics, for sure, probably falling somewhere between a 2060/2070 overall. I'll even say it's closer to a 2060. We've already established having the "best" graphics is something you'll budge on. So why not budge a little more to get a mostly comparable experience for a fraction of the cost? That's what Google is betting on. Heck, if you only ever game at 1080p right now (a significant chunk of people), when the Base version comes out next year and it's free, that's an even more attractive deal.
No, it's not competing with enthusiast PCs, but they're betting on some of the "lower" high end crowd wanting convenience/lower price for entry. I can't tell you if it'll pay off, but I bet the market running things like 2060s and 2070s is a lot larger than any of you are giving it credit for.
With stadia and the new Xbone Onlive, it also seems games are going to start favoring higher fps if they two things are successful, since it seems that gives the streaming techs a leg up. So maybe this is where you can get the true 4k/60fps experience (except that now I'm hearing Stadia doesn't even do 4k/60 so wtf???), but I would bet money local consoles won't be hitting that with any normal occurrence to be called a standard or target. I would venture we'll see native ranges between 1080p and 1440p, with various successes to 4k using upscaling or other tech sacrifices as the new normal.
Until we get internet bandwidth that matches video cable bandwidth, that is.
Which is fine. It is what it is. But people need to actually start telling Google that lying about this shit is no good.
Yeah, Stadia is in the same boat currently with 4k/60. There's a few games that do it but it's not the "norm" by any means. It'll be the same for the next gen consoles, I agree, but we know they'll be at least more powerful than Stadia. Since they're already throwing around things like "8k" I doubt marketing is going to slow down to actually care about the final results either.
Last I checked xCloud was still aiming for 720p/1080p and the preview is still only for mobile devices so I'm not even sure if that'll push streaming towards 4k.
It's also weird to see something like the Switch Pro controller showing up "natively" in something like Destiny 2.
PSN: Bizazedo
CFN: Bizazedo (I don't think I suck, add me).
Have you tried upping your controller sensitivity?
I played through Vanilla Destiny 2 on the PS4 and find the experience on the Stadia to be flawless so far.
I'm not saying this to rake anyone over the coals or re-legislate old arguments -- I'm saying it to say google is just straight fraudulently advertising with Stadia. They're going with vague pie in the sky platitudes and not meeting their targets -- we have full 4K streaming!
Ok yes, at dramatically compromised graphical fidelity. They're not doing anything cool or impressive at all on the rendering side -- they appear to have completely cheaped out on their initial launch.
"Pretty good for a console" is just not the barrier that was set. Google repeated, fraudulently and multiple times, that it would be as good as a high end PC, as good as an enthusiast PC, eventually more responsive and better looking than the most powerful consumer machines available.
If you're enjoying Stadia, that's totally cool! It sounds like there exists some space for what Stadia is doing, despite google completely lying about what they were going to deliver. But please, spare me all of the talk about what google is going to do going forward and with the new generation. We need to stop inventing ways that they're going to solve problems of their own making -- really simple problems in this case. They cheaped out on their hardware when we're 1 year away from a new console generation -- they can't run existing titles at settings resembling a high end PC (no not a 2080 Ti -- my 2070 Super costs $600 less than that and blows Stadia out of the water rendering Red Dead 2) and they're not going to suddenly spend twice as much on their hardware refresh for the next gen next year. They didn't blow the bank on hardware this time around -- where are they going to get the money to upgrade to hardware that's relatively better in a year when their entire spiel is that you don't have to shell out $400 for a new console?