Bryank75
Banned
Hardware comes with a warranty.disappointing, when you consider the long list of consoles that had open betas prior to launch.
that list in full:
Hardware comes with a warranty.disappointing, when you consider the long list of consoles that had open betas prior to launch.
that list in full:
disappointing, when you consider the long list of consoles that had open betas prior to launch.
that list in full:
Your console is guaranteed to work unless it's faulty in which case you can exchange it.disappointing, when you consider the long list of consoles that had open betas prior to launch.
that list in full:
I hope that kid wasn't injured
The beta was limited to a small group of people.It's free, why do you need a beta? Well, I guess you'll need to buy a first game if there aren't any demos or free games available on the store? Will there be any? Thought they already beta-ed with Assassin's Creed or something, no?
I hope that kid wasn't injured
Thank goodness. We should remove the padding, and let Ree member's do that instead imo.It’s a joke. He fell onto some giant padding below camera sight.
That's great for you but not for all the people that didn't get in the beta or want to test it on something other than pc.I thought the Assassins Creed Odyssey was the beta? I even got a free game out of it for helping them test the service.
That's great for you but not for all the people that didn't get in the beta or want to test it on something other than pc.
How was your experience?
isnt that normal for a beta? In terms of quality, I'm on an At&t 1gb fiber line, in Dallas, where google had one of the servers. The game was 100% playable. Input lag was about equivilant to a TV without game mode (noticable but still playable). The thing I didnt like was the soft image quality. I was playing on a 82" 4k screen my computer is hooked up to. The game was soft and compression artifacts were there in minor fashion (heavy movement, dark gradients, the normal areas where compress blocking can show). I was able to compare the game running natively at 4k on my pc to it (1080ti) and the difference between native quality and streaming was a very large jump. Overall i'd never use the service but it was cool to see and i think less critical people will enjoy it fine enough (but not when the games cost full price, thats stupid)
The only thing that interest me about the service is the though of games like Civ 6, where i can be playing on the big screen, then switch to my phone or tablet when I have to travel somewhere, all seamlessly without worrying about remote play software or anything. Thats where I think google should really be trying to advertise, the users who are always moving and want there game with them at all times, able to instantly resume it anytime, anywhere.
Correct.PlayStation now had a beta. I know as I was in it and that is obviously the closest thing to it as there both streaming platforms.
I'm not planning on using it either.isnt that normal for a beta? In terms of quality, I'm on an At&t 1gb fiber line, in Dallas, where google had one of the servers. The game was 100% playable. Input lag was about equivilant to a TV without game mode (noticable but still playable). The thing I didnt like was the soft image quality. I was playing on a 82" 4k screen my computer is hooked up to. The game was soft and compression artifacts were there in minor fashion (heavy movement, dark gradients, the normal areas where compress blocking can show). I was able to compare the game running natively at 4k on my pc to it (1080ti) and the difference between native quality and streaming was a very large jump. Overall i'd never use the service but it was cool to see and i think less critical people will enjoy it fine enough (but not when the games cost full price, thats stupid)
I give this about a year before Google shuts it down cause I don’t think Google yet understands just how niche a streaming only service will be.
Except it is expensive. Casual gamers do not want to pay subscription, that is why free to play is a thing. The issue is that currently the Stadia buisness model is not something you can randomly do without needing a credit card.I want you to be right, but "gamers" nowadays are so lazy and low effort I could honestly see something like this working. People just want to kill time. They don't care about quality or latency. A streaming machine that could last for a really long time would probably be appealing to a lot of casuals.
This doesn't have a chance of being worth its weight in shit for any hardcore gamer, but for casuals (the only market these bloodsuckers actually care about anymore), it could work.
I agree with you this probably doesn't have any value to hardcore gamers.I want you to be right, but "gamers" nowadays are so lazy and low effort I could honestly see something like this working. People just want to kill time. They don't care about quality or latency. A streaming machine that could last for a really long time would probably be appealing to a lot of casuals.
This doesn't have a chance of being worth its weight in shit for any hardcore gamer, but for casuals (the only market these bloodsuckers actually care about anymore), it could work.
Except it is expensive. Casual gamers do not want to pay subscription, that is why free to play is a thing. The issue is that currently the Stadia buisness model is not something you can randomly do without needing a credit card.
You are avoiding the issue of ongoing costs of both subscribing and crippling internet bandwidth. It is not cheap, and even more expensive if you pay the fee for 20 years.The original Xbox, Xbox 360, and Xbox One gamepads are all almost identical. Imagine if something like Stadia lasted 20 years. Even if it's $500, being able to buy a console that would play current games for 20 years is definitely something for casuals to think about.
You need the stadia controller to get low latency.The original Xbox, Xbox 360, and Xbox One gamepads are all almost identical. Imagine if something like Stadia lasted 20 years. Even if it's $500, being able to buy a console that would play current games for 20 years is definitely something for casuals to think about.
You are avoiding the issue of ongoing costs of both subscribing and crippling internet bandwidth. It is not cheap, and even more expensive if you pay the fee for 20 years.
Your console is guaranteed to work unless it's faulty in which case you can exchange it.
Stadia is not guaranteed to work to your satisfaction so a test is essential especially if there is no free trial.
No it's quite simple really if I can feel the lag and the picture has bitrate problems and noticeable compression artifacts it is not to my satisfaction.Are you just sneaking the 'to your satisfaction' qualifier into that about the stadia to make a point about how console owners will conveniently settle 'their satisfaction' at whatever compromise the console manufacture delivers to them?
If it doesn't play games I'd expect people to get a refund.
If it plays games but you've invented some arbitrary "but with x milliseconds latency or less or with never dropping below y resolution at any point is my satisfaction, no I've literally never complained about input lag or dynamic resolution scaling before, I just magically decided to draw lines in the sand this gen for this console because reasons" I don't think you were going to be reasonably satisfied in the first place
No it's quite simple really if I can feel the lag and the picture has bitrate problems and noticeable compression artifacts it is not to my satisfaction.
That doesn't happen on my consoles so it doesn't disrupt my experience.
Also I am not telling you or anyone else what is acceptable for them I was stating why it is not appealing to me.you are verNo it's quite simple really if I can feel the lag and the picture has bitrate problems and noticeable compression artifacts it is not to my satisfaction.
That doesn't happen on my consoles so it doesn't disrupt my experience.
Like I said the picture does not break up on my console games,I have used playstation now and onlive and it did not feel good to play even though I had a far faster than recommended connection speed.those are legitimate reasons and I also said I interested to try it which is why a free trial would be good.Yeah.
That's my point.
You're inventing criteria you don't apply to consoles.
Because there are absolutely games on the market right now that fall to sub-HD resolutions dynamically, or that have more input lag than stadia is reported to, but you're not claiming that consoles 'don't work'.
You're just inventing reasons to not like something you were already decided you wouldn't like in the first place, so you can say "Oh, okay, maybe it does work, but not to my satisfaction"
I see what you did there.Do not fucking trust Google. Don't do it son!
I am allowed to have reasons I'm not interested in this.I see what you did there.
As for latency this report measured stadia at 166ms Vs 67ms for Microsofts xcloud at 67ms.
67ms of course being higher than native latency on an Xbox one.
The proof is in the trying.
If it works how you want it to then great.
yes, yes, shockingly windowscentral think the MS solution is going to the best, and I have no doubt dualshockers think that the sony solution is going to be the best.
But brass tacks: when Digital Foundry measured this shit, the latency of a 60fps Stadia game is the same as the latency for a 30fps Xbox One X game.
So adding your pointless "to my satisfaction" qualifier is just a means to move goalposts.
If you're happy with your Xbox latency, you would have no real reason to not be happy with identical latency on stadia, outside of placebo effect.
You are repeating yourself and I'm not sure why or who you are trying to convince.
I'm done with this so if you want to argue some more I suggest you visit resetera and argue with one of the 85% of people in this thread who also have no interest in stadia.