Google announces Stadia cloud-based gaming system


#1

Here’s the official announcement:

And here’s a pretty balanced take from The Verge:

All in all, it looks very interesting but is unlikely to unseat consoles just yet, imo.

Also

Google, like Facebook, has massive problems with respecting its users’ privacy. So there’s that to consider …


#2

So I saw something about this yesterday, and I’m intrigued. Apparently (if I understood correctly) it’s supposed to be able to run high-end games on almost any device. Could someone with more knowledge explain this to me?


#3

The games run in the cloud, on servers in Google’s data centers. They’re streamed to whichever device/PC/smart TV you’re using. All you need is the controller and a device that can use the Chrome browser.

The most intriguing thing to me is … what will developers build with all that computing power available to them???


#4

And what can be done about the latency as it will surely have plenty of it (even 30-40ms is quite a lot and super easy to feel via controller/mouse/keyboard)?


#5

You didn’t read the Verge article, I guess. :wink: Of course, that’s the biggest concern in gaming, and it’s an unanswered question about the service. (The Google announcement was light on specifics, as most of Google’s announcements are.) The proof is in the pudding, and I doubt we’ll know anything about how the system performs until they release something – which is supposedly going to be sometime later this year.


#6

I read it now, my point still stands and is valid. I know thing or two about network connectivity and so on, the latency can’t be avoided in this case when we talk about gaming.

P.S. ofc I hope that I am wrong and there is some super revolutionary technology.


#7

Don’t get so defensive. I didn’t accuse you of anything :laughing: Re-read my reply to you.


#8

I’m honestly not that interested. Not a big fan of cloud-streaming games bc of the many inherent problems it has. I really prefer not to be heavily reliant on my internet connection to play a game at its fullest.


#9

I don’t disagree. I’ve always preferred to have the hardware for my projects under my direct, physical control. However, over the past few years, I’ve launched a number of things on cloud servers – including this forum, btw :sunglasses: – and it’s been a breath of fresh air not to have to worry about maintaining the hardware and OSes.

That said, as @cha0z emphasized, latency and jitter are the killer issues here. If they can’t get those to acceptable levels (I agree that latency under 30 ms is a must, with jitter close to zero), this is doomed to fail for anything more than simple games.


#10

On the topic:


#11

Ok… if that works, it seems like it would end up being hella expensive, with all those possibilities. I think it could really increase some amazing game designs… I’m looking forward to this.


#12

Go search shadow gaming cloud, same thing basically


#13

The difference between previous efforts and Google’s is … Google. They have the infrastructure to address the problems inherent in such an architecture: they have numerous data centers around the world, and they have a lot of experience with delivering high-performance internet connectivity. Plus, they have really, REALLY deep pockets and appear to be willing to lose money on a project for quite a while.

That said, as you point out, it’s been tried – unsuccessfully – by others. It remains to be seen whether Google will really be able to deliver what they’re promising. (Their history in that regard is not especially good, actually.)


#14

Yea, uh forget the cpu and gpu required… the amount of ram and network infrastructure would have to be ridiculous.

First, let’s look at cellular. Our current cellular infrastructure quite honestly blows.

TLDR: For guys who don’t know the specifics of how cellular works: Your device sends signals into the air, which is picked up by a cell tower, which sends signals back to your device.

Think of bandwidth like a freeway. If you have lots of cars (customers), and only 2 lanes (frequency & system processing), then you’re gonna have lots of traffic. (lag). If you have more lanes, well then there’s less traffic. (Faster speeds.) Over time, people wanted to figure out the “goldielocks” frequency. “How can I get the most amount of data transmitted, at a reasonable time, with the most amount of range?” Geological obstacles also effect this question, as some waves pass through objects easily but not others. This led us to our current tech.

Now, the demand for high speed internet is really high, but there is unfortunately so far no perfect frequency better that we can use. 5g is being tested on right now. It’ll probably use a millimeter wave. It gets absorbed by solid objects frequently, but it’s bandwidth is incredibly large. It’s range also sucks lmao. (current frequency is about 2 miles, mm wave 0.9 miles iirc)

Essentially, cellular data needs a long long time to be able to cope with what google is thinking about.

Wifi is bit more optimistic. Generally, we have copper cable used to transmit data, but it’s capped around 1 ghz, while fiber optics are capped around 10ghz. Why do we use copper? Well, it was perfect for phone lines and fiber optics are relatively new. Upgrading would be a pain from a construction standpoint. Fiberoptics can go up to roughly 1 gbps speeds. For this proposal, you’d need high end internet. Now, most people with very high bandwidth speeds need it for a reason: whether it’s gaming, network of video editing, ect.

ironically, to make full use of that internet, you’d typically be using high end devices which nullify the whole basis for google’s idea lmao.


#15

Google provided some more specifics about Stadia yesterday – here’s the Verge’s take.


#16

And birds drop dead from the sky where it’s tested. :wink: hf with the 5g + it’s true, really easy to get absorbed = a lot more signal towers are needed for good coverage/signal.


#17

Lol the more i’m digging, the more and more I’m thinking the world needs more network engineers :joy:

image

Okay, so according to this you need atleast 20 mbps speeds to get 1080p. This makes cellular a complete joke and pretty much nonviable. So, let’s take wifi in account.

Source 1

In 2018, California got 20.1 mbps as a state average. Let’s think about this for a second. If every family had this speed, then all members share that total bandwidth. So ignoring other factors, technically you’d be able to play Stadia 1080p.

Advertised internet speeds is based on the isp to your router- not your router to your device. I’ve said it before, but wifi is notoriously bad at dealing with environmental obstacles. Think of a hose: only so much water can flow out of it at one time. If you try demanding more water (having a bunch of devices with wifi) then first come, first served. The faster devices (such as ones with mimo) will take precedence but everyone takes a hit.

Conclusion? It’s not uncommon for your wifi speed to be about 1/3 your advertised speed.

(Note: Though there are sources that talk about this, I am basing this number on anecdotal evidence. Just know you almost never get advertised speed.)

So, you have a few options. Spend more for wifi… or spend more for wifi lmao. You either need a super higher mbps rate to compensate for drops, or use an ethernet cable with still higher speeds if you have other people living with you. “Why would anyone sacrifice near perfect ethernet speed for wifi?” Convenience. Most people, even in their own house do not want to be jailed to next to the router lmao.

So my initial theory held up. This feels like another good idea gone wrong such as an automatic translate app that uses crappy machine translation.

Source 1


#18

My 4g is over 100Mbit/s, but what about the ping? Imho this will end up failing like nvidia/ms try.


#19

A 100 mbps for cellular? Are you sure you don’t mean wifi? Because 4g lte on the higher end is around 12mbps currently in the states.


#20

I don’t live in the US, I live in Bulgaria. The benefits in later technology upgrades is that they are better and cheaper. The same reason why I got a 100Mbit/s GPON in my home for 10$ month. Optical network directly to your home is a really comon thing here… the “bad” net here is when the optical cable is at the basement on your entry.

I know how it’s in the US and for what price, I know how bad is in London too… so yeah ‐ one of the few good things here in BG.

So yeah, I mean over 12MB/s download speeds and 55ms ping on average with rare highs at 80ms max and as low as 35ms on 4G.