• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

The ultimate Red Dead Redemption 2 Stadia vs. XBox One X comparison. Digital Foundry.



*Sighs*

  • Contrary to what Google claimed before the launch, the game runs on Stadia in 1440p/30fps at best with a rendering lower than the XB1 X and not in 4K/Max settings.
  • In 4K it remains upscale and not native.
  • According to DF, it is complicated to count the exact number of pixels because of artifacts and compression.
  • Overall the rendering is quite blurry.
  • It lags, even if the Stadia version in 1080p/60fps is actually more reactive than the XB1 X version in 4K/30fps.
  • The game on Stadia in its standard version is quite far away in terms of rendering and quality offered on XB1 X and PC.
  • In its Pro version, it is a little closer but remains below the XB1 X and PC version.
  • In Balanced mode the game runs at 1080p/50~60fps although not quite smooth.
 
Last edited:

ares04

Neo Member
I watched this video on my ks8000 4ktv. I can say that the image is very comparable to xbox one x. reserve judgement on the resolution until your watch this video on a 4k screen
 

dotnotbot

Member
I watched this video on my ks8000 4ktv. I can say that the image is very comparable to xbox one x. reserve judgement on the resolution until your watch this video on a 4k screen

Lol, it doesn't work that way. If you say it's comparable it means you're sitting too far away from your tv to see enough details and make a proper judgement.

There' already a huge difference when watching this video on a phone or 1440p monitor from my standard viewing position. Big 4k tv should make it even worse, not better.
 
Last edited:

MastAndo

Member
The one thing RDR2 was really calling out for: more input lag.
To be fair, their tests showed that the Stadia version is actually more responsive (input lag-wise) than the Xbox One X version.


JLFTJ2K.jpg


I can't say I'm as appalled by all this as others seem to be. If Google didn't go and promise the sun, the moon and the stars in the marketing of this (combined with the terrible pricing plan), it actually doesn't seem all that terrible.
 
S

SpongebobSquaredance

Unconfirmed Member
I've finished Half Life 2 on OG Xbox and games running at 20 FPS like Perfect Dark or OoT. I can deal with lag.
 
S

SpongebobSquaredance

Unconfirmed Member
Standards change with the times. Those were tolerable at best back then. By today's standards though, no way I could play them that way.
If I have the option to play a game in 60 FPS then I definitely prefer that. However, I dont think those games are unplayable by today standards, just not exactly the ideal way to play.
As for Stadia, I think people will be fine with games running at 30 FPS (or 50-60 FPS) with occasional lag. Many gamers dont care that much about FPS, at least not in the sense like we do.
As long it runs well enough to be enjoyable for the casual gamer its fine imo.
 

Stuart360

Member
People always go on about input lag (rightly so), but its the awful image quality thats my main problem. I want to see the texture detail, the pin sharp image quality, not blurry with colour banding and artifacts all over the screen.
I mean people joke about it but it really is like playing a Youtube video.
 

Evilms

Banned
  • Contrary to what Google claimed before the launch, the game runs on Stadia in 1440p/30fps at best with a rendering lower than the XB1 X and not in 4K/Max settings.
  • In 4K it remains upscale and not native.
  • According to DF, it is complicated to count the exact number of pixels because of artifacts and compression.
  • Overall the rendering is quite blurry.
  • It lags, even if the Stadia version in 1080p/60fps is actually more reactive than the XB1 X version in 4K/30fps.
  • The game on Stadia in its standard version is quite far away in terms of rendering and quality offered on XB1 X and PC.
  • In its Pro version, it is a little closer but remains below the XB1 X and PC version.
  • In Balanced mode the game runs at 1080p/50~60fps although not quite smooth.
 
  • Contrary to what Google claimed before the launch, the game runs on Stadia in 1440p/30fps at best with a rendering lower than the XB1 X and not in 4K/Max settings.
  • In 4K it remains upscale and not native.
  • According to DF, it is complicated to count the exact number of pixels because of artifacts and compression.
  • Overall the rendering is quite blurry.
  • It lags, even if the Stadia version in 1080p/60fps is actually more reactive than the XB1 X version in 4K/30fps.
  • The game on Stadia in its standard version is quite far away in terms of rendering and quality offered on XB1 X and PC.
  • In its Pro version, it is a little closer but remains below the XB1 X and PC version.
  • In Balanced mode the game runs at 1080p/50~60fps although not quite smooth.
Thanks, I'll ad to the post.
 

ares04

Neo Member
Lol, it doesn't work that way. If you say it's comparable it means you're sitting too far away from your tv to see enough details and make a proper judgement.

There' already a huge difference when watching this video on a phone or 1440p monitor from my standard viewing position. Big 4k tv should make it even worse, not better.

I sit fairly close to my television and I would bet that the average gamer would be hard-pressed to see the difference
 

A.Romero

Member
That better response from Stadia will fuel some more discussions with the resident Stadia fanboys...

Slightly off-topic but what's the best Xbox X vs PC comparison for RDR2?
 

Pallas

Gold Member
If I have the option to play a game in 60 FPS then I definitely prefer that. However, I dont think those games are unplayable by today standards, just not exactly the ideal way to play.
As for Stadia, I think people will be fine with games running at 30 FPS (or 50-60 FPS) with occasional lag. Many gamers dont care that much about FPS, at least not in the sense like we doAs long it runs well enough to be enjoyable for the casual gamer its fine imo.

If it’s a single player game, you are right but multiplayer games(especially first person shooters) really need that 60 FPS.
 
Last edited:

kraspkibble

Permabanned.
but i thought Google said we wouldn't need our own PCs anymore? lol

lol at all the people thinking they could play the game at PC quality without spending the money building a PC.

PC, as always, is the best place to play this game (and mostly every other game).
 

Aceofspades

Banned
While I tend to agree, early streaming video was a mess as well, it took a while for the quality to be acceptable.

And most people still can't stream 4k (let alone at 60fps).

Too many variables can affect connection quality. Server distance, user internet speed, unstable connection. Also you have to consider that games graphics and details are progressing way faster than quality of internet connection globally. That's why I don't see the industry shifting towards Stadia, Xcloud and PSNow in the near future. Good thing for Sony and MS that they still are offering local hardware that complements current advancements in gaming. Google in the other hand, they are in trouble.
 
Last edited:
Too many variables can affect connection quality. Server distance, user internet speed, unstable connection. Also you have to consider that games graphics and details are progressing way faster than quality of internet connection globally. That's why I don't see the industry shifting towards Stadia, Xcloud and PSNow in the near future. Good thing for Sony and MS that they still are offering local hardware that complements current advancements in gaming. Google in the other hand, they are in trouble.
Yup, well I pointed out some of the potential local issues, that doesn't even go to the ISP, geography, etc.

Another problem is how you are supposed to scale computing ressources. Let's say on 90% of the days in a month 10 people are playing at the same time, so you need to have 10 machines + GPUs available, but one day a huge game comes out, of you have Christmas and a ton of kids get new games that they want to play right away... now you need 30 machines for a couple of hours for that one time in the year.

How do they provision for this without making the service's price really close to a console's price? or how do they make it work without having some recurring fee along the games purchase (you essentially rent the machine to ensure it's available to you, even then I am fairly sure it's not guaranteed at all time).
 

CatLady

Selfishly plays on Xbox Purr-ies X
Hell, did you even notice how articles and videos only compare Stadia to MS products? It's like no other streaming services exist. ;)

Stadia claimed gaming would be better and more advanced on Stadia than on NEXT gen consoles. X1X and PC are the most powerful gaming machines THIS gen so it makes sense to compare it to those machines to see if Skynet's claims are legit. (Hint- they're not)

PSNow never made any ridiculous claims about their streaming being better than even the OG X1, the least powerful console this gen, so there is no reason to compare to PSNow. I don't know anything about any other streaming services but I doubt they made absurd performance claims like Stadia either.
 
Top Bottom