Stadia not so good after all?

odditory

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Dec 23, 2007
Messages
6,482
Its inevitable when you build a lot of hype, you'll end up dissapointing.

Stadia is coming out soon but not with many of its promised features.

https://www.tweaktown.com/news/68232/stadias-mobile-streaming-pretty-awkward-launch/index.html

You linked to a guy that seems to have an axe to grind, and all he can come up with is that the Controller will initially support wireless connectivity over WiFi only with Chromecast Ultra -- the very device it'll be bundled with in the Founders Edition.

So what specific "coming without many of its promised features" are you referring to?
 
Last edited:

odditory

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Dec 23, 2007
Messages
6,482
I don't think you have to buy that package, though. But for $10 a month plus full retail price for games, it's a non-starter for me. Even if I didn't have a gaming PC, I'm not sure I see the value.

It's Free for 1080p, unless you want 4K60. The value is you're getting free access to a high-end gaming PC, and therefore don't need to buy a high-end gaming PC, only the games you'd have to buy anyway. The tradeoff is latency and bandwidth issues, depending on your situation. People that already have a gaming PC kneejerk-scoffing at this - no shit - you're not the target demographic.

During the Stadia beta, I had low expectations but found AC:Odyssey to be surprisingly playable, and practically indistinguishable from running the game locally.
 

DukenukemX

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 30, 2005
Messages
6,240
Firstly, cloud gaming is a lie. Anyone that's told you otherwise is either a moron or has too much money shoved up their ass. Secondly, the service will never improve because in order to reduce latency you need to break the speed of light. Good luck with that one. Thirdly, you're getting an inferior gaming experience for something you'll end up paying more than buying physical hardware. Just stay away from this cloud gaming scam.
 
Last edited:

DukenukemX

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 30, 2005
Messages
6,240
The value is you're getting free access to a high-end gaming PC, and therefore don't need to buy a high-end gaming PC, only the games you'd have to buy anyway.
Ok, this isn't equivalent to a high end gaming PC. Running a game at 1080p 60fps is not a high end gaming PC. You can get those kind of results from a Ryzen 2400g. High end gaming PC's today do Ray-Tracing and or 4k 60fps.
The tradeoff is latency and bandwidth issues, depending on your situation.
The tradeoff is latency, image quality, and not owning something you paid for. This isn't the Netflix of gaming, because if it was then I'd pay $10 per month and have access to all games for no additional cost. Shouldn't cost $60 for a game on a cloud gaming service, as it should only cost the $10 per month.
 

ChadD

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 8, 2016
Messages
5,531
Firstly, cloud gaming is a lie. Anyone that's told you otherwise is either a moron or has too much money shoved up their ass. Secondly, the service will never improve because in order to reduce latency you need to break the speed of light. Good luck with that one. Thirdly, you're getting an inferior gaming experience for something you'll end up paying more than buying physical hardware. Just stay away from this cloud gaming scam.

If only latency wasn't already something online games have been dealing with for ages... oh ya wait that's right it is.

I may agree that some current games are not well designed to be streamed and will probably have to much input lag. Lets get serious people have been playing MMOs and online shooters for a long time now.

The only difference is streaming requires more width on the pipe. Sure you have to stream compressed video without buffering anything... but latency is no different. Most people play MMOs very comfortably at 70-150ms lag times.

Perhaps it isn't a good thing but over the next number of years a lot of developers are going to be tuning their game design and their engines for streaming. If a specific type of game is less likely to suffer input lag that is what we are going to see flood the market. Publishers want streaming to happen it would have to be damn near completely unplayable for them to not push it at this point. Its the evolution of DRM. lol
 

ChadD

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 8, 2016
Messages
5,531
The tradeoff is latency, image quality, and not owning something you paid for. This isn't the Netflix of gaming, because if it was then I'd pay $10 per month and have access to all games for no additional cost. Shouldn't cost $60 for a game on a cloud gaming service, as it should only cost the $10 per month.

Its understandable that new releases are going to cost. Stadia though will live or die based on what and how many games they include with their $10 pro sub. If they manage to get a good number 6 moth to year old games on the service. They might do fairly well in areas with good pipe. Still a big unknown right now. This is more promising then you believe... but no doubt it could go tits up pretty quick if Google doesn't do a good job seeding satellite servers, or fails to attract a good stable of sub included games ect. The game selection included is all important. It has to be good enough to hook people and convince them to buy streaming only versions of new releases... which you are correct is a big ask. If your going to pay $60 for a new game steam and epic both seem like safer long term bets.
 

Derangel

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 31, 2008
Messages
19,944
It's Free for 1080p, unless you want 4K60. The value is you're getting free access to a high-end gaming PC, and therefore don't need to buy a high-end gaming PC, only the games you'd have to buy anyway. The tradeoff is latency and bandwidth issues, depending on your situation. People that already have a gaming PC kneejerk-scoffing at this - no shit - you're not the target demographic.

During the Stadia beta, I had low expectations but found AC:Odyssey to be surprisingly playable, and practically indistinguishable from running the game locally.

Who, exactly, is the demographic for Stadia? Pretty much everyone living in a rural area is out, so that's a pretty significant chunk of the country. Beyond that the demographic is:

A. Someone with a fast enough and stable enough connection to stream the games at not shit quality.

B. Have no data caps.

C. Don't already own one or more consoles and has no plans to buy one.

D. Has friends that are also going to play on Stadia since servers will likely be segregated.

E. Isn't turned off by paying $60+ for games that only exist "in the cloud".

F. Is in the know enough to actually have heard of Stadia.

Seems like a pretty small demographic to me.
 

dgz

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 15, 2010
Messages
5,838
If only latency wasn't already something online games have been dealing with for ages... oh ya wait that's right it is.

I may agree that some current games are not well designed to be streamed and will probably have to much input lag. Lets get serious people have been playing MMOs and online shooters for a long time now.

The only difference is streaming requires more width on the pipe. Sure you have to stream compressed video without buffering anything... but latency is no different. Most people play MMOs very comfortably at 70-150ms lag times.

Yes, let's get serious. People have been playing online games for a while now. I know I have for the last 20+ years. But looks like you haven't.

You may argue all year long about people playing slow MMO with 100+ ping but there's a fundamental difference in how frames are delivered to your screen. Network stack code optimizations do not apply to streaming and will never, ever, be as good simply because there's a massive additional step: sending your inputs to the server, then rendering the state changes, then sending them back to you.

Now, I am aware most people aren't as picky as Quake players but I cannot imagine how waiting 30ms, or more, to see the result of my mouse/keyboard input will be unnoticed. Man, some of us have been playing games for a long time. People used to laugh at us for overclocking PS/2 ports and demanding 120 FPS back in the very early 2000s, now 1KHz mice and 144Hz are the rock bottom of gaming peripherals.

What you're arguing is that a massive step backwards will be just as good.

Sure games will evolve and there's plenty a developer can do to optimize for cloud gaming. Plenty doesn't happen overnight and will never be as good. It will be close, mind you, but not as good.
 

Balkroth

Limp Gawd
Joined
Dec 15, 2011
Messages
420
Firstly, cloud gaming is a lie. Anyone that's told you otherwise is either a moron or has too much money shoved up their ass. Secondly, the service will never improve because in order to reduce latency you need to break the speed of light. Good luck with that one.
1. No It isn't, just isn't exactly setup well yet , low latency docsis and some other things in the pipeline are making things interesting

2. Um, no. I'll give you a hint, the fiber isn't where the latency comes from, the latency decreases are the devices along the route and speeding up, well I'll just call them transactions.
 

M76

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 12, 2012
Messages
12,879
If only latency wasn't already something online games have been dealing with for ages... oh ya wait that's right it is.
Online gaming code has zero in common with streaming a game. I don't even know how you think that is a valid comparison ?! When you play an online multiplayer game your own inputs are all processed locally and instantly processed while also sent to the servers for other players.
Your own character moves with zero latency. And you don't directly wait for other players inputs, what you see in a multiplayer game is a prediction on where the other players might be based on their latest available inputs, which is constantly being corrected as their inputs become available, that's how they mask latency in mp games. But this method does not work for your own controlled character because you'd instantly notice that your inputs and the results are not exactly the same due to prediction errors.

I may agree that some current games are not well designed to be streamed and will probably have to much input lag. Lets get serious people have been playing MMOs and online shooters for a long time now.
Every game will have the exact same amount of input lag, you can't cheat physics. Yes they have been playing MMOs and shooters and it is completely irrelevant to streaming.

The only difference is streaming requires more width on the pipe. Sure you have to stream compressed video without buffering anything... but latency is no different. Most people play MMOs very comfortably at 70-150ms lag times.
As I've explained you wouldn'T be comfortable with 150ms lag for your own controlled character, I'd not even be comfortable with 10ms.

Perhaps it isn't a good thing but over the next number of years a lot of developers are going to be tuning their game design and their engines for streaming. If a specific type of game is less likely to suffer input lag that is what we are going to see flood the market. Publishers want streaming to happen it would have to be damn near completely unplayable for them to not push it at this point. Its the evolution of DRM. lol
Again, you cannot cheat physics no matter how much you optimize. If your inputs are made at location A, and they are processed at a server which is at location B, there is no way to "optimize" out the input lag. The information needs to travel that distance trough a bunch of network infrastructure and that takes time.

Of course there are a few types of games where input lag does not matter that much, like turn based games, and strategy games, but shooters and action games will be a pita to play over streaming.

But the real deal breaker for me in streaming is IQ. Yes 1080p 60fps is fine, until you account for all the compression artifacts. You'll basically play a game with the image quality of a twitch stream.
 

DukenukemX

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 30, 2005
Messages
6,240
If only latency wasn't already something online games have been dealing with for ages... oh ya wait that's right it is.

I may agree that some current games are not well designed to be streamed and will probably have to much input lag. Lets get serious people have been playing MMOs and online shooters for a long time now.

The only difference is streaming requires more width on the pipe. Sure you have to stream compressed video without buffering anything... but latency is no different. Most people play MMOs very comfortably at 70-150ms lag times.
You play on a client, dummy. What you see on the screen in a multiplayer game is a lie. Why you think that in some multiplayer games what you thought you saw was a kill will then show you dieing instead? Because the client fools you into thinking everything is instant and smooth, when in reality everything is not. If everything works out, the client and server agree with the results, but sometimes that's not the case and the server will correct the clients mistakes and suddenly a kill you thought you had will then a split second later show you getting killed instead.

You could correct for this problem by having software that can anticipate your moves, but that requires dramatically more processing power.


Perhaps it isn't a good thing but over the next number of years a lot of developers are going to be tuning their game design and their engines for streaming. If a specific type of game is less likely to suffer input lag that is what we are going to see flood the market. Publishers want streaming to happen it would have to be damn near completely unplayable for them to not push it at this point. Its the evolution of DRM. lol
What publishers want doesn't matter because it will be unplayable for most people. Like you said, depends on the game. MMOs and turn based combat games won't have an issue, but everything else will suffer. Look at the AAA gaming industry and how their loot boxes and micro-transactions are effecting their sales. Cloud gaming has no itch to scratch, not benefit to be had. I guarentee you that Stadia won't even take off.
 

DukenukemX

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 30, 2005
Messages
6,240
Its understandable that new releases are going to cost. Stadia though will live or die based on what and how many games they include with their $10 pro sub. If they manage to get a good number 6 moth to year old games on the service. They might do fairly well in areas with good pipe. Still a big unknown right now. This is more promising then you believe... but no doubt it could go tits up pretty quick if Google doesn't do a good job seeding satellite servers, or fails to attract a good stable of sub included games ect. The game selection included is all important. It has to be good enough to hook people and convince them to buy streaming only versions of new releases... which you are correct is a big ask. If your going to pay $60 for a new game steam and epic both seem like safer long term bets.
Look at PSNow which is arguably the most successful cloud gaming service. It's been out since 2014 and has 700,000 active users, plus they have like 40% of the cloud gaming market. They have an entire catalog of PS3 games, and are now getting into PS2 and PS4 games. If PSNow was a game console, it has sold less than an Atari 5200. It has sold less than a Nokia Ngage, which was around 3 million. Since it uses mostly older games, it has less active users than the NES & SNES Classic has in sales, individually. It bleeds millions of customers and has only retained 700k.

So what does Stadia have to offer that PSNow, Geforce Now, and Shadow haven't been able to achieve? PC games that can run on a $100 graphics cards, with latency and image compression?
 
Last edited:

DukenukemX

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 30, 2005
Messages
6,240
1. No It isn't, just isn't exactly setup well yet , low latency docsis and some other things in the pipeline are making things interesting

2. Um, no. I'll give you a hint, the fiber isn't where the latency comes from, the latency decreases are the devices along the route and speeding up, well I'll just call them transactions.
1. What about people using fiber like FIOS? If it made that much of a difference then fiber internet would have a competitive advantage.

2. You mean routers, hops? Yea, those aren't going away like ever.
 

Ebernanut

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 15, 2010
Messages
1,637
As others have mentioned input lag is the big issue because there's not really any tricks to hide it like there is with multiplayer games, the other aspect that I don't see mentioned yet is that any lag will be doubled since there's lag from sending the input to the server and then there's lag from sending the image/audio data back to you. Compression will kill any graphics improvements over consoles or low end gaming PCs and the fact that there's a sub fee to access games you've already bought are likely the final nails in the coffin.

This feels like one those things where the company behind it is so enamored with the potentially lucrative financial situation(along with silicon valley's obsession with "the cloud") that they completely ignore certain realities of the situation.
 

Brian_B

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 23, 2012
Messages
3,356
Who, exactly, is the demographic for Stadia? Pretty much everyone living in a rural area is out, so that's a pretty significant chunk of the country. Beyond that the demographic is:

A. Someone with a fast enough and stable enough connection to stream the games at not shit quality.

B. Have no data caps.

C. Don't already own one or more consoles and has no plans to buy one.

D. Has friends that are also going to play on Stadia since servers will likely be segregated.

E. Isn't turned off by paying $60+ for games that only exist "in the cloud".

F. Is in the know enough to actually have heard of Stadia.

Seems like a pretty small demographic to me.

Sounds like they have the college dorm demo locked up
 

OutOfPhase

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 11, 2005
Messages
5,209
Another factor to consider - the main demo for Stadia was AC:Odyssey which importantly does not contain any real aiming. That's a pretty key point. I can't imagine playing something like Destiny 2 with additional mouse aim lag.

As others have indicated, client side prediction makes "zero latency" feel possible, but not if the image itself is coming from a remotely encoded stream.

It could work for many titles, I'm sure. But as a general console, I'd give it a hearty no thanks. But to be fair, I give ALL consoles a no thanks, because PC.
 

DukenukemX

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 30, 2005
Messages
6,240
As others have mentioned input lag is the big issue because there's not really any tricks to hide it like there is with multiplayer games, the other aspect that I don't see mentioned yet is that any lag will be doubled since there's lag from sending the input to the server and then there's lag from sending the image/audio data back to you.
The lag is doubled since most people have terrible setups when it comes to latency already. Wireless game pads, along with TV's that have terrible latency and wifi has already added a large amount of latency to begin with. If you use a desktop PC with an Ethernet connection along with a wired keyboard+mouse then your latency will be better, but that asks the question who is Cloud Gaming really for? Because if you have a desktop PC with that setup then why are you gaming on the cloud?

There's a reason why Google made their wifi controller, because it helps deal with this source of latency a little better. Still uses wifi and still uses the same high latency TV that you have.

This feels like one those things where the company behind it is so enamored with the potentially lucrative financial situation(along with silicon valley's obsession with "the cloud") that they completely ignore certain realities of the situation.
Cloud gaming is an idea dreamed up by people who never play video games. I'm really surprised of how many people on YouTube support Stadia who should know a thing or two about computer networking. But more than likely Google handed them a bunch of money to say positive things about Stadia. Google hopes that latency won't be an issue for those entitled gamers. But I think the industry knows that the PS5 and Xbox "Whatever" are going to cost a lot more than what the PS4 and XB1 did originally, and see an opportunity to disrupt that market. Anytime a game console cost more than $400 it had a hard time penetrating the market, like the PS3 and Xbox One. Cloud Gaming maybe the poor mans alternative to spending that kind of money on a game console. It won't happen, but that's the thought process behind cloud gaming.

The reality is PC gaming is approaching PS4 in game sales and profits. The Xbox is a dead game console with a fraction of sales compared to the PS4 and PC. The PS5 has to be fast and capable of playing games like a desktop PC would, otherwise PC gaming will grow so big that they can't do a thing about it. The Xbox is dead and Nintendo has removed themselves from the home gaming console market, so that just leaves PlayStation and PC gaming. Cloud Gaming maybe looking to fill in niche that doesn't exist.

 
  • Like
Reactions: N4CR
like this

NeoNemesis

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 10, 2004
Messages
2,466
So if I'm understanding this correctly, I'm paying for the privilege to pay full price for games that I won't be able to access unless I keep paying money to Google for a service that they'll probably discontinue in a year or two.

Where do I sign up????
 

NeoNemesis

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 10, 2004
Messages
2,466
The reality is PC gaming is approaching PS4 in game sales and profits. The Xbox is a dead game console with a fraction of sales compared to the PS4 and PC. The PS5 has to be fast and capable of playing games like a desktop PC would, otherwise PC gaming will grow so big that they can't do a thing about it. The Xbox is dead and Nintendo has removed themselves from the home gaming console market, so that just leaves PlayStation and PC gaming.


I was with you right until you posted the above paragraph, which I really disagree with.

First off, PC gaming has always been an order of magnitude larger than Console gaming both in terms of offerings and profitability. Certain AAA publishers DO make more money off consoles, but that's starting to change.

XBox is not dead, in fact they're far stronger now than they were a couple of years ago and with the purchase of high quality studios I think they'll be very successful with their next console. Also XBox Game Pass has been hugely successful. (Let me caveat this by saying I do not own nor have I ever owned an XBox 1, just in case someone wants to call me a fan boy). Their decision to release all their games on PC means I won't buy the next XBox console, but I'll still buy their 1st party exclusives and their peripherals.

Nintendo has most definitely not removed themselves from the home console market, they've just found a specific niche that they service to great success. My Switch is the first Nintendo I've bought since the GameCube and the only current gen 'console' I own.

The PS4 has some intriguing titles and I believe Sony will continue to do well this generation. I will likely buy a PS5, but only because FF7 Remake is exclusive.

In short, rather than the doom and gloom I believe that the gaming landscape is more robust than ever and I am extremely excited about the future of both console and PC gaming.

Edit: You are correct though, streaming is not the way of the future for gaming.
 

Sycraft

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Nov 9, 2006
Messages
5,114
Yep, too rich for my blood. Potential lag and data caps is a deal breaker.

Not just lag and data caps but lack of quality as well. 35mbps for 4k60 video is not very much, that's like half of Youtube's rates. So you WILL get artifacts/smearing/ loss of detail in fast scenes. But it is worse than that: One thing that all of our video compression technologies like H264 and VP9 rely on for lower data rates is chroma subsampling. They all use 4:2:0 color. That means blurry text and color fringing. Now that doesn't make a game unplayable, of course, just like Youtube/Twitch video of games aren't unwatchable... but it does cut in to how much "better" it can look than something rendered locally.

While it certainly is possible to not do chroma subsampling... it takes a shitload more bandwidth. For example Panasonic's AVC-Ultra spec, which does 4K 4:4:4 (no chroma subsampling) is spec'd at 800mbps for 30fps. At that level the compression is pretty effectively "visually lossless" meaning you'd have real trouble telling it from a pure, uncompressed HDMI/DP signal... but somehow I don't think we are going to see streaming like that any time soon.
 

odditory

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Dec 23, 2007
Messages
6,482
So if I'm understanding this correctly, I'm paying for the privilege to pay full price for games that I won't be able to access unless I keep paying money to Google for a service that they'll probably discontinue in a year or two.

Where do I sign up????

I must have missed the part where "you have to keep paying Google" -- where did you read that? 1080p60 is free. People without a gaming PC (or just crappy gaming PC's) are gaining access to a high-end gaming PC for free, accessible through phones, tablets, Chromebooks, cheap streaming boxes and anything with a Chrome browser. Its only 4K60 that's $10/month. Its pretty simple.
 

Derangel

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 31, 2008
Messages
19,944
I must have missed the part where "you have to keep paying Google" -- where did you read that? 1080p60 is free. People without a gaming PC (or just crappy gaming PC's) are gaining access to a high-end gaming PC for free, accessible through phones, tablets, Chromebooks, cheap streaming boxes and anything with a Chrome browser. Its only 4K60 that's $10/month. Its pretty simple.

Since when is 1080p/60 "high end PC gaming"?
 

odditory

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Dec 23, 2007
Messages
6,482
As others have mentioned input lag is the big issue because there's not really any tricks to hide it like there is with multiplayer games, the other aspect that I don't see mentioned yet is that any lag will be doubled since there's lag from sending the input to the server and then there's lag from sending the image/audio data back to you. Compression will kill any graphics improvements over consoles or low end gaming PCs and the fact that there's a sub fee to access games you've already bought are likely the final nails in the coffin.

This feels like one those things where the company behind it is so enamored with the potentially lucrative financial situation(along with silicon valley's obsession with "the cloud") that they completely ignore certain realities of the situation.

The AC:Odyssey demo I played blew away the console versions. I'd suggest actually trying it before making assumptions. I was on the insane cynicism/hatewagon too until I played the beta and then had to conclude it went beyond expectations.
 
Last edited:

Derangel

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 31, 2008
Messages
19,944
The AC:Odyssey demo I played blew away the console versions. I'd suggest actually trying it before making assumptions. I was on the insane cynicism/hatewagon too until I played the beta and then had to objectively realize I had been wrong.

No, no it doesn't. For what it is, the AC: Od demo was impressive but the lag was noticeable and unless you have a fast connection the video quality is definitely NOT up to the quality of consoles.
 

odditory

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Dec 23, 2007
Messages
6,482
Since when is 1080p/60 "high end PC gaming"?

Not sure what your point is, the back-end hardware is the same whether you're choosing 1080p60 for free or paying $10/mo for 4K60.

Would a 9900k + 2080Ti outputing to a 1080p screen no longer be a high-end gaming PC because its outputting at 1080?
 

odditory

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Dec 23, 2007
Messages
6,482
No, no it doesn't. For what it is, the AC: Od demo was impressive but the lag was noticeable and unless you have a fast connection the video quality is definitely NOT up to the quality of consoles.

This is divorced from reality. What do you think is going to look better - the PC version of Red Dead Redemption 2 through Stadia - with all of the refinements the PC version is coming with - or the Xbox One X version running locally? Its not even going to be a contest - both for 1080 and 4K.

Yes that of course assumes you have a halfway decent internet connection. Not suggesting this is for everyone, certainly not people that already own a decent gaming rig.
 

Derangel

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 31, 2008
Messages
19,944
This is divorced from reality. What do you think is going to look better - the PC version of Red Dead Redemption 2 through Stadia - with all of the refinements the PC version is coming with - or the Xbox One X version running locally? Its not even going to be a contest - both for 1080p and 4K60.

Yes that of course assumes you have a halfway decent connection. Not suggesting this is for everyone, certainly not people that already own a decent gaming rig.

IF you have a fast, entirely stable, connection obviously Stadia should look better. However, that cuts out a pretty large portion of the United States. This country's networks can barely handle all the video streaming going on, you really think we're ready for game straming?

Its not for people who already own consoles either. Unless that person happens to want to rebuy their console games, play with different people, and happens to want to play those games while they travel.
 

DukenukemX

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 30, 2005
Messages
6,240
First off, PC gaming has always been an order of magnitude larger than Console gaming both in terms of offerings and profitability. Certain AAA publishers DO make more money off consoles, but that's starting to change.
I'm talking about individual game sales, not as a platform as a whole. Witcher 3 sales were 44.5% on PC. The Dark Souls series has about 1/3 of sales on PC. Borderlands 3 on PC is selling incredibly well and breaking records for 2K. But the thing is the PS4 still does better in most titles, which means the Xbox is doing far worse than people think.
XBox is not dead, in fact they're far stronger now than they were a couple of years ago and with the purchase of high quality studios I think they'll be very successful with their next console.
Maybe but as it stands right now Xbox is a dead brand. The sales of games themselves are very low. With the exception of GTAV which did sell decently well on Xbox, but maybe because it took nearly two years before a PC port was done.
Also XBox Game Pass has been hugely successful. (Let me caveat this by saying I do not own nor have I ever owned an XBox 1, just in case someone wants to call me a fan boy).
The problem with the HUGE success of Xbox Game Pass is that it doesn't make up a substantial amount of their Xbox revenue. They say it's successful but the numbers don't show it.

Their decision to release all their games on PC means I won't buy the next XBox console, but I'll still buy their 1st party exclusives and their peripherals.
You know why they released Xbox games on PC? Because there's little money to be made on Xbox.
Nintendo has most definitely not removed themselves from the home console market, they've just found a specific niche that they service to great success. My Switch is the first Nintendo I've bought since the GameCube and the only current gen 'console' I own.
As great as the Switch is, it'll be significantly behind once the new consoles are out. Nintendo removing themselves from the home console market was genius btw. Nintendo has been trying to avoid Sony and Microsoft for some time and making a portable console makes sense. No need to develop games for both a home and portable console, and they're not competing with Sony or Microsoft directly.
 

DukenukemX

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 30, 2005
Messages
6,240
Not sure what your point is, the back-end hardware is the same whether you're choosing 1080p60 for free or paying $10/mo for 4K60.

Would a 9900k + 2080Ti outputing to a 1080p screen no longer be a high-end gaming PC because its outputting at 1080?
A 9900K + 2080Ti wouldn't be doing 1080p at 60fps but like hundreds of fps. If you're using 1080p that's because you're trying to take advantage of a 144hz or 120hz monitor, which oddly enough decreases latency in games. 1080p @60fps is not high end, but now low end. If you want 1080p @60fps then a GTX 970 will do the job fine, which is like a 5 year old GPU.

This is divorced from reality. What do you think is going to look better - the PC version of Red Dead Redemption 2 through Stadia - with all of the refinements the PC version is coming with - or the Xbox One X version running locally? Its not even going to be a contest - both for 1080 and 4K.

Yes that of course assumes you have a halfway decent internet connection. Not suggesting this is for everyone, certainly not people that already own a decent gaming rig.
The higher the image quality settings the more of it you'll lose through video compression. So yes, the Xbox One X version would look better, assuming you do have a good connection. Red Dead Redemption 2 isn't even demanding with it requiring a Core i5-2500K and GeForce GTX 770. A 2500K was made in 2011 and the GTX 770 was made in 2013. Stadia certainly doesn't have the refinement of the PC version cause you can't mod it. I can't be the only one here that's planning to install mods that turn the women slutty in the game?
 
Top