Hi Stadia Team,
I want to talk to you about the promise that the service would have the possibilities to scale, and in the future support more advanced games.
The future is here now, and what i mean by that is for example a game like Assassins Creed Valhalla.
Operating at 60FPS at 4K on Xbox Series X, with very high graphics, compared to the results we are having today on Stadia: 30 FPS at 4k (medium graphics comparrision generally).
The Stadia platform have according to you scaling possibilities, and if these scaling possibilities was working, a game that requires more hardware power then Stadia is operating on at the moment, shouldnt this be automatically configured behind the scenes in the datacenters?
You talked earlier about the graphics cards being able to scale, and this is what all of us are buying into, we dont need to upgrade our hardware when new next gen consoles and games are appearing, so from what i can tell today, you are not scaling your hardware automatically to enable games to be played in a way that was explained in 2019.
So, can you clarify if the plan is to manually upgrade Stadia components in datacenters at a later date, or are you going to have the games that Stadia runs determine what graphics components is required, and scale it instantly based on the hardware demand of the games, providing the user with a more satisfying next-gen experience?
Can we get an official reply to this?
BR,
Mikael
Push
Stadia's stated long terms plans aren't possible with current hardware, so upgrades will have to happen at some point.
Stadia is capable of scaling in theory, aside from upgrades, although the Vega architecture can only do so much.
But bear in mind that this stuff isn't 'free' - there's costs involved, from hardware to implementation. Next Gen elsewhere has a $400+ entry fee right now, expecting Stadia to match it immediately feels a little unreasonable.
Thank you for your reply!
The example of Assassins Creed Valhalla, is a good example right now, however, it has been shown in other previous titles that the scaling isnt working/implemented, since games that was not next-gen titles, were not able to keep 60 FPS at close to true 4K to the end user.
Alot of people are saying that the games are running 4K 60FPS on the Stadia Platform, and its just the users that are receiving a capped 30 FPS experience in some of these titles that are abit more hardware demanding then others.
Thats like going into a Porsche, and the salesguy says you get 400 Horsepower when you buy this car, and then when you drive it afterwards you are capped at 200 Horsepower.
Who cares what the game runs at on the Stadia Platform, its the end-user experience that matters!
And I think what is really dissapointing to alot of users is that this is GOOGLE we are talking about, its world leading infrastructure, and for this result to be the end-user Experience, and calling this the future of gaming..
IF you want to convince the existing PC owners to swap to Stadia, you need to do better in keeping the hardware matched, and you need to be careful on what you are saying that the End-user is going to get with the service.
I think even trying to convince PC Gamers is worthless.
Especially with a Console-like Service just in a Cloud...
but at least they shouldn't offer a worse solution than other consoles.
We are already living with small artifacts in most games. Sometimes more sometimes less.
But I don't want to have a Switch-like Experience AND Artifacts....
Yeah there are costs when we talk about upgrading huge data centers, but google can't afford to have all their player base waiting and thinking that they are playing an old gen version of the new incoming games or at least a capped version. This will lead alot of people to unsubscribe from the service soon, it was sold as a scalable solution but the invest regarding this step up in hardware terms should be ready today and not in 1 or 2 years.
I totally agree with you there, and this is extremely important for Google Stadia team to understand, its not like they have millions of users on the platform, they need to listen to the already quite small user group.
Theres nothing more i would Love to do then to be able to BRAG about Stadia to my fellow friends and collagues, but when the results are in .. game after game..
Just imagine if Google Stadia had been what they said it was going to be, from start!
Imagine the PR they would have gotten for FREE! We the End-users are the best PR for their product. Now we are stuck with the service we got, and I would never recommend this to my friends, since its not competitive enough to whats out there today and tomorrow.
Your last paragraph nails it! They bragged real hard at the start how got the system would be, but I keep on reading these kind of reactions from people. Gaming-news publishers hardly right about Stadia.
I feel completely the same: I don't want to tell people to try out Stadia, especially if they are used to certain standards set by the competition. Stadia works and what it does, does it really well. But the result you get is just not the same.
Stadia will probably blame Ubisoft. They decided to port the PS4/XBox One Version althought Stadia was promised to be able to run 4K/60FPS.
As a long time Nintendo fan I know that publishers just don't care to release the best version on every platform
They ported the PS4 version because Stadia's current hardware can't run the PS5 version, this has nothing to do with the publisher, it has all to do with the server hardware.
the server hardware was promised to be able to run up to 4K/60FPS
Promised but even since release we have got games that only do 4K/30FPS, Odyssey was also only 30 fps, even at 1080p.
i get it, but the why is still up to debate.
were we promised something that cannot work which makes Stadia the bad guys for lying
or is it Ubisoft which do not want to invest the needed resources to make it run at 4K/60FPS
I can invest as much as I want in training my donkey, it still won't be able to compete with race horses at the track. Stadia needs to upgrade their servers to at least match PS5/Xbox Series X if they want to run the upcoming AAA games at 4K/60FPS.
well, if it is really up to Stadia then...the wait will be long
If it Were Ubisoft why does every other company have the same Problems?
So how is it possible that a game like RDR2, which does not have to envy AC: Valhalla in terms of graphics quality, works on Stadia with the graphics of an Xbox One X and at 60 fps, while on consoles it works at 30 fps?
I agree that if Stadia wants to compete in this generation should improve their servers, but Ubisoft also has much of the blame doing such bad ports.
Hi Pacomelse,
RDR2 runs with 30FPS, which is mentioned under game in Stadia App. Anyway, even RDR2 should be able to be played with 60.
Wow, I saw the analysis that Digital Foundry did on YouTube, and they put that it worked at 60 fps/1080p and at 30 fps/4k, mb then.
In Stadia app, there is only 4K/30fps mentioned. Nothing about 1080p, so it may be possible to run with 60fps.
But this discussion is about 4K/60fps should be possible ![]()
DF actually put RDR2 at 1440p upscaled, 30fps. It more closely matches PS4 Pro. This is maddening when the TFLOPs have been "next-gen" since launch (slightly higher than PS5). The reasons for this have to be on Google's end in not pushing developers to make their code utilize the hardware, because the hardware is/was clearly there. The only game that I know of that did so was Rise of the Tomb Raider. But, now that PS5 and Xbox S: X/S are out, the advantages Stadia brings are non-existent. Play anywhere? You have XCloud or PS Remote Play. Highest TFLOPs? Never used and not anymore. Vast games library? No. Highly populated online community for multiplayer? No. It's really a sad story for Google, but ultimately for us. I bought Stadia very early, but Google should be held accountable for terrible messaging, because they really didn't market this service well, nor are they running it against the competition well either. When I am able to get a PS5 or Xbox S: X I will be cancelling my Stadia account. (Also because surround sound doesn't work through ARC!? Madness, again.)
Why would Stadia games be ported from console versions? If Stadia is running on Linux, then it should by default run PC version games ported to Linux, and only port console versions when no PC version is available.
Why don’t you take a look at the hardware specs of the PS5 compared to the stadia’s specs. They are virtually the same so I don’t see any reason why I wouldn’t be able to run PS5 version
Yeah some kind of announcment would be nice, I don´t except it to match new gen consoles, but I excpected better than 30 fps on medium ![]()
And it being up to the developer I don´t really buy into that, I mean sure if they optimize and optimize and optimize they might be able to do better, but if the hardware was more powerfull they could probably get 60fps/4k with way less time spent on optimization and just brute force it.
I hope so too, but to be fair: all Google is announcing is games. It's a miracle they told us about Family Share. They didn't tell us anything about Tandem Mode and I even saw a guy use a steering wheel in Stadia (desktop). Why o why would you not simply tweet about these kind of things? 5 min job, come on!
I may be wrong but wasn't Stadia presented as being better than current gen in the year 2019?
I think it’s more of an Ubisoft problem than a Stadia problem. The specs (10.7 Teraflops, etc) already match PS5 specs. No reason for Far Cry 5 to look like an early Xbox One game.
Teraflops isn't everything, the Vega that Stadia is using is a few generations older than what PS5 and Xbox Series X uses. Stadia is about as powerful as the Xbox One X, which is why games run at about the same specs on both platforms. PS5 is a lot more powerful than what we have.
this is just a proof that teraflops doesnt matter but Playstation and Xbox Fans still kill themselves for who got how much teraflops....
Compatibility, Efficiency of the Plattform, Developement Kits, Scaling of Hardware and so on. There are many Things wich matter far more than the Teraflops....
Maybe they needed the next iteration after Vega - which hopefully is already being tested by Stadia. We also likely don't know how Google is setting up their server architecture.
Or maybe it's better to say they were waiting for the "right hardware" and now we have next-gen with Vega 6000. I sure hope so.