Stadia uses a web app to bypass Apple's policy on cloud gaming apps
extremetech.com
extremetech.com
I recently moved, and that's what made Stadia so much better. Now that I have gigabit fiber with unlimited data, and a WiFi 6 router, with less congestion, the quality of the streaming has been superb. I honestly can't tell I'm streaming. And the convenience of just starting immediately back into a game, no download or install, no updates, freedom to change screens at a whim, from PC, to TV to phone, to iPad, etc.
The only thing missing is for it to have much more content, and for some guarantee from Google that it won't be killed off.
I tried other similar services, like GamePass and PSNow, but they don't work as well, the streams are lower resolution, seem to have more artifact and the latencies are higher. So whatever Google is doin seems to be working, that said the game selection is so much better on PSNow and GamePass, and the option to install the games (which gives the best image quality and lowest latency), they still compete with Stadia.
At this point, I'm just hoping some more reliable company then Google comes up with a service that's just as reliable, maybe Amazon Luna will be it, or GamePass streaming could get a lot better, or PSNow, but the one I'm most hoping for is for Valve to get onboard and offer a Steam streaming service.
Edit: I also wish they added RT support, I feel a cloud gaming service should offer best graphic settings at all time, since that's one of the advantage I'm looking from it, paying monthly for hardware that gets kept up to date.
If you use the free version of Stadia, it's the same resolution as GFN. If you're a monthly subscriber, the picture quality is much better than GFN because GFN doesn't support resolutions higher than 1920x1080. GFN is REALLY frustrating if you have a 1920x1200 or 1440p monitor. Because of this, GFN can complement my gaming PC (like when traveling with a crappy laptop) but never replace it. Stadia probably could replace my gaming PC if I was willing to buy the subscription.
No waiting period (its rare, but there's occasionally a wait for GeForce Now even with the founders edition)
Games don't disappear from the service like they sometimes do with GeForce Now (granted, if a game you bought disappears in GFN you can still install locally so this may be a win for GFN as long as Steam's cloud saves don't glitch on you)
Stadia doesn't require you to install a 200 megabyte app (assuming you already have Chrome installed)
GFNs video clip feature is a bit buggy for me compared to Stadia although I haven't used those features enough to tell if GFN is consistently glitchy or if I'm just unlucky with the NVidia overlay
The UI for GFN feels clunkier to me but I suppose that's personal opinion. It feels more like VPNing into a really locked down PC, where you'll hear Windows sound effects when there's errors and if a game crashes you're stuck with a Steam error and you have to restart the whole app and wait in a queue to play again. Stadia feels a bit more well-integrated to me.
One advantage is that you can play Cyberpunk for free on Stadia (after you purchase the game, which you also have to do for GFN too). Also, last I tried GFN, it seemed a bit clunkier (it felt like more of a "PC on cloud" that you managed, vs a built for web service).
Disclaimer: I work at Google, though not on Stadia.
Stadia also doesn't have to pay the Windows tax
Back where I did gamedev we designed gameplay specifically for network usage(predictive based design) or had time-rewind, or both(ala half-life/cs). I just don't see how this works unless you're okay with a quality bar well below what a local client will provide.
Amazing.
This is a big selling point for Shadow vs the other platforms. I was considering doing something similar with an AWS image but if this is custom tailored to “just work” I’ll definitely give it a go.
I don't see any mention of this on the site, only:
"After you subscribe, we create your Cloud PC in our nearest datacenter."
Unless I misunderstood in that it's not your own PC, but an instance of one you have full control over.
Contrast that with AirPlay 2. Locally, between 2 speakers (wifi router in the same room) and I frequently get dropouts. What ?
>“We worked with the Safari team to ensure that some of the things that weren't there are there, and that allowed us to kind of get to where we are today,” Luna head of engineering and technology George Tsipolitis said.
All they needed was one of them to cave and the others would follow. This significantly undermines the antitrust cases against them, especially the "essential facilities" claims.
[1] https://www.engadget.com/luna-amazon-cloud-gaming-interview-...
After all, when game streaming runs in-browser, Apple forego their censorship/app review powers and their 30% cut of sales.
[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-06-18/microsoft...
Apple could allow 3rd party app stores knowing very well that they’ll be barely used
They'll be widely used if even one big app (like gmail, facebook, or whatsapp) require use of a third party store.
A service could do a gradual shift to a third party store by saying "you must use a third party store for new installations only", and your users will migrate slowly as they get new devices.
What they do care about is that they maintain control of their store.
They care about the store primarily for some other other reason, and the fee is just incidental they don't care about? I say, "Unlikely".
If that was the case, then why did they ever create the store in the first place? They started out with no public store and all installed apps were fully internally owned and controlled. If they only cared about that, they already had that before creating the store. If they only created the public store to allow a wider range of other apps to exist for the users, many years of prior examples of external apps that a device/os vendor could support without caring about controlling or extracting a fee from existed already from PalmOS and WinCE etc. They didn't need any store, or they could have allowed a 3rd party to operate a curated convenient store, or they could have just maintained a directory that had listings that pointed to all the random apps on their own websites etc and the end user experience could be exactly as smooth as today. The os and the app package format could provide all the same user protections and procedural consistency.
No, they only care about the app store for 2 main reasons: 1 - Because other platforms were already more useful to users like Palm which already had thousands of unpredicable random special purpose apps for many years, and so they were simply required to provide some sort of equivalent facility whether they wanted to or not. 2 - To extract a fee from all of that activity.
Once web apps allow both developers and users to skip the store... then what? Apple still doesn't care? No way. Come on.
It sells iOS devices because it’s a curated and environment where people feel safe to buy software, and because Apple can deliver apis for new hardware as they release it rather than moving at the speed of web standards.
Apps also can be engineered for privacy and security in ways that web apps cannot.
The store will always be a differentiator from the open web in this way.
It is in Apple’s interest to have both the best browser and the best native platform and store.
This statement is complete bullshit.
But in any case, that’s exactly why they want the browser to be successful too.
Otherwise there might be an antitrust case which would cause them to lose the store.
My comment reacts to a comment claiming Apple doesn't care about collecting a fee from web apps.
Web apps theoretically allow both developers and users to skip the app store, and thus it's fees.
Both users and many developers benefit from the store for reasons already outlined in ways that the web can’t replicate.
It’s not going to be ‘dropped’ just because streaming games don’t fit the model.
Perhaps you missed the top of this thread and lost track of what this conversation is even about?
If web apps can take the place of apps (and in broad strokes, yes they can) then the thought experiment is to ask "What if all apps became web apps?"
And that was just part of evaluating the plausibility of the position that Apple doesn't care about collecting fees from web apps.
If anything, this undercuts Apple's position that the restrictions were necessary in the first place.
For all I know, this may be in response to Stadia; I hadn’t seen this functionality when last I checked a few months back.
In the end the answer was that each video frame had to be copied between buffers about three times with Chrome, among other things, whereas mplayer was able to draw directly to the framebuffer.
Now I'm not saying it isn't theoretically possible to make this fast (and Chrome has various optimizations nowadays for a select number of platforms), but abstractions can be expensive - especially for video.
It's best to go as native as possible if you're on underpowered hardware or want to go easy on your user's battery life.
Disclosure: I work on Stadia, and am speaking only for myself.
[0] https://9to5google.com/2019/11/08/google-stadia-app-play-sto...
Because obviously then it would be irrelevant whether it's Safari, Flutter or Visual Basic.
Do you mean that Apple's policies on cloud gaming aren't a specially-crafted edge case? Because if so, it seems like you're wrong there. They allow browsers on the app store, which can access the whole (unmoderated) web, so it can't be about moderation. Seems like they just don't want anyone to create an "app store" within their App Store. Either that, or they're trying to keep competition at bay while they develop Apple Arcade. Maybe there's a better explanation that I'm missing.
The post right above yours describes how Apple added capabilities to Safari in cooperation with Amazon’s team to enable this use case... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25544687
If you have a high end gaming pc, probably not, but if you have a regular laptop or want to play on your tv, then I'd say yes
Edit
Should add that you need a solid internet connection
Do you care if you actually own your games? Or are OK with google owning the games, they just allow you to play them?
FTFY
I trust steam to continue existing and providing access for a very long time. I do not expect that stadia will still exist in 10 years. If the service ends up failing, they aren’t going to have gaming hardware sitting around for you to use it.
* The input lag is _still_ noticeable. I've tried this from multiple locations on various devices, all with extremely good internet (one of them was in the UK with gigabit internet) and the lag was always there. I'm not ultra-snesitive to input lag either - I regularly use Nvidia GFN, which also has some input lag, but it's actually playable.
* The overall experience is very unpolished. You'll most likely get stuff to work but, if anything fails, you're gonna have to post on google forums and hope someone will be able to help you. (It's google, so no support). Also, none of the features promised at launch (join a game from YT, large MMO worlds etc) have been delivered.
* It's google, so who knows how long the platform will be around for. (It's a meme, yes, but it's also a real risk, compounded by the fact that you'll own the games that you buy solely on Stadia)
* You have to re-purchase games that you already own. e.g. if you own a title on Steam, you can't play it on Stadia, you have to buy it all over again.
EDIT: if you like what Stadia is claiming to offer, I suggest you look at Nvidia's GeForceNow, which has a couple of advantages:
* You can play the titles that you own on Steam
* (In my experience) gameplay is smoother
The one disadvantage is that games get removed from GFN based on the whims of the publishers (you'll still own the titles on Steam, you just won't be able to play them on GFN).
I haven't seen any bugs in the past few months. You can also join games from Youtube now (launched like 3 or so weeks ago).
Google has never abandoned paid services, only free ones. Although they do migrate them sometimes like with Play to Youtube Music.
The repurchasing of games is valid criticism. I know they are currently working on adding support for Ubisoft+ games, which I believe will be live 2021 Q1 based off language in their updates.
Wasn't aware of the YT thing.
There is a very large segment of the gaming community that's all about the 120-144hz experience these days. A lot of that is how it feels. At "just" 120hz that's only 8.33 frame time. You start throwing in 20ms of input latency on top of all the rest and you'll never get that 120hz experience.
It doubly won't cut it for the PC VR crowd. Ever.
That's high-end low latency experience but where things are headed and certainly noticable by non-pro gamers. But sure, it's high-end.. Even though the PS5 supports 120hz.
But forgetting high end, 20ms is more than a frames time at 60hz! PC Gamer's review of Stadia had the input lag as high as like 70ms on some titles doubling the total input latency!
For example, I wouldn't use it to play CS, LoL, DotA or any other competitive game where reflexes matter.
However, these services are great for AAA single player games, like Witcher 3, Cyberpunk, RDR, The Last of Us etc. You can max out the graphics and enjoy the story/game world.
Google will probably kill this service before long. I'd rather trust Steam and Uplay with the actual game purchase.
That and I really can't picture it ever being fast enough to keep up with a real machine on anything other than pretty games rather than (say) counterstrike.
Is there a reason not to switch e.g. YouTube and Netflix, Zoom etc to a similar model and forego the app? (Yes, the app has its positives but also the 15%-30% tax)
I think there's also some other APIs they need to coordinate with the stadia controller, though that may be optional.
Of course Google has been one of the companies that has been pushing for these APIs in the first place. (Which makes me wonder if Zoom would exist without Google meet...)
> Use Google Chrome to play Stadia on computers & tablets.
https://stadia.google.com/warning/8
Which seems strange given that I believe both iOS and macOS Safaris use essentially the same code base.
The UI clearly acknowledges that I clicked on the game, but something is obviously supposed to happen and it just doesn't happen.
I don't use twitter, but I could forgive them for being a little slow (if they are?) because of the sheer volume but the reddit app literally grinds my phone to a holt just to load one photo (often, too)
Nothing like that here on HN, and it's some of the best news/comments on the web.
When you need ad revenue, you need user tracking as well as incendiary content. If you can't get people upset so they keep interacting, and then suggest they go and buy some new coffee filters, how will you ever turn a profit.
It's not like Reddit is one guy who lives in the woods, it has so much investor money they need to keep growth up. And app installs are absolutely a fantastic kpi, the more people they can force to install the app the more active installs they can claim, and that makes board members happy
To be completely fair I think hacker News also attracts a much more mature demographic. The mod team does a very good job in filtering out even borderline content.
Some games are also available for free:
https://stadia.google.com/games/super-bomberman-r-online
https://stadia.google.com/games/destiny-2
The subscription gives you 4k streaming and games that you can claim and keep (as long as you have a subscription, even if you interrupt it and resume). Very similar to Xbox Games with Gold:
https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/store/collections/gameswithg...
I was skeptical at the beginning, but I prefer it to a Netflix style subscription (like Xbox Game Pass Cloud or Playstation Now)... since if the movie that you're interested in leaves the streaming service, it's not a big deal (or even if it's a whole season of a series), but if a videogame is leaving, that might be quite a bit more frustrating, since it might take you more than 1 month to actually complete your game. At least with Stadia I know that (as long as my Stadia account is active) I'll always be able to come back to the games that I'm playing now.
Just like on Windows and Luna, you can also make use of your Ubisoft Plus subscription, though (only available in the US, for now)
One nice thing is that a lot of modern games (like some available with Ubisoft Plus) have "cloud synced saves" or cross-progression. So you could stop playing on Stadia, and continue your savegame on another platform.
Alternatively, you can just buy games outright and play them whenever/wherever; no subscription required.
I have ~70 games in my library right now because I claim the Pro games each month. If I were to cancel my subscription, my library would shrink to just the ones I've actually bought (Hitman and Cyberpunk).
https://www.theverge.com/2019/4/2/18292177/microsoft-ebooks-...
So, there's a precedent, and this leaves me a bit hopeful. OTOH, normally you can only ask for a refund if you played a game for < 2 hours
It basically just gives you a Windows desktop you can install whatever you want in and stream games from there. It lets you use your entire investments in Steam, Epic, etc. with the benefit of a streaming service. It's also surprisingly not all that expensive (especially compared to buying equivalent hardware yourself).
It also entirely solves waiting for games to show up on these services, or going away (a la Geforce Now), and ownership issues. There's no problem even putting custom software, games, dev environments, whatever, into the Shadow machine.
I was about to buy an entirely new rig and tbh, I'm probably just going to get a Shadow subscription in a month or two.
note there may be a several month wait for your Shadow rig to be ready as they provision dedicated hardware upon subscription and are pretty popular at the moment.