zlacker

nvidia has a competing service that supports that title, and it honors your steam account instead of needing you to re-buy it

https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/geforce-now/games/

>>nerfha+(OP)
Unfortunately Stadia is the only one that supports 4K (I'm a casual user of Nvidia's service since it was in beta)

>>nerfha+(OP)
Yeah I don't see how nVidia doesn't dominate this market. Their product just makes way more sense.

To even get on Stadia you have to port to their custom Linux distribution, which is a pretty huge ask for most games.

>>akisel+Md
Does 4k matter? The way you state it makes it sound like it's a major issue (disclaimer: I've never seen a 4k game)

This is an honest question, since I don't game much (witcher 3, death stranding and a few point and click) , and regular 1080 doesn't bother me, so I'm genuinely curious.

>>akisel+Md
It's also much more performant and user friendly than GeForce Now

>>Agingc+lp
Would describe Stadia 4k to be inline with native 1080p, at least when playing stadia in a browser. Stadia 4k may look better using a chromecast ultra, but I haven't tried that.

And It is weird how resolutions are the focus in streaming when the most important thing is bitrate, feel like we need some kind of standard, because bitrate means nothing to most people.

>>Durali+Yx
At least with game streaming services, I suspect advertising resolution serves the double purpose of being understandable to most consumers, while specifically obfuscating bitrate, which is the sacrificed statistic.

>>Agingc+lp
It depends on the game. Anything that has a lot of text or small icons - e.g. many strategies - benefits from high DPI in the same way desktop apps do.

>>Durali+Yx
> It is weird how resolutions are the focus in streaming when the most important thing is bitrate

Yep. I see a good example of this when I watch gameplay videos on Youtube in the highest available 1080p bitrate, and regularly see results that look far worse than playing the game in 720p, maybe even 480p. For example, it's obviously very common to pan the camera through a high-detail scene, which is trivial for a GPU to do, but incredibly information dense for a video encoder. So anything with a lot of detail blurs (in a very ugly way, not like motion blur) when there's movement.

And Youtube has the advantage that the video has as much time to record as Youtube will allow it, it doesn't need to be done with low-latency settings as Stadia does.

Of course, cable TV is even worse, but ordinary consumers don't seem to have noticed or cared about that either.

>>xyzzy_+zj
Publishers specifically pulled out of Geforce Now because they didn't like the idea of people not having to buy the game again.

>>bscphi+AN
YouTube's bitrates are atrocious. I don't understand why they can't at least offer a higher bitrate to their paying Premium customers.

> Of course, cable TV is even worse, but ordinary consumers don't seem to have noticed or cared about that either.

According to Wikipedia, a DVB-C stream can be between 6-65 Mb/s [1], certainly higher than YouTube's 3-9 Mb/s (assuming 1080p video). The situation for resolutions above 1080p seems to be a bit better [2].

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/DVB-C

[2] https://www.androidauthority.com/how-much-data-does-youtube-...

>>nerfha+(OP)
I used both. When time came to Play cyberpunk, I went for Stadia.

It runs a lot better (streaming quality, glitches, start-up times) are incredible. Using Stadia in general is a polished (yet basic) experience. In contrast Nvidia very much felt like a hack. Log-in in my steam account, seeing weird window glitches.

I see a lot of comments negative on stadia here,based on bias rather then actual experience. Stadia is nothing short of tech star even with its downsides compare to the rest of the market.

>>Tijdre+1a1
I'm not sure about Europe, but in the US it's very rare to see bitrates even a large fraction of that. (I don't see a minimum bitrate on the ATSC Wikipedia page, and it wouldn't surprise me to find out that it's often lower than 6 Mbps.) Worse still, in a bunch of places the cable companies still deliver MPEG-2 video, which is going to look pretty atrocious at anything other than an extremely high bitrate. It's a big disadvantage compared to Youtube. Plus a whole bunch of programs are in 60 fps, which need a higher bitrate anyway.

I plugged in my cable box for the first time in months to watch the Super Bowl, and was shocked at how terrible the video was. I could see obvious artifacts without glasses on, and I can't even tell 720p from 1080p at that distance. Some of my relatives have those MPEG-2 channels, and I remember them being significantly worse.

Not trying to say that cable TV can never be better than Youtube's quality, of course, just trying to give a general impression of my experience with various American cable companies.

>>bscphi+Va2
Ah yes, I forgot that there are different standards depending on the country. To be quite honest, I haven't sat down and watched linear TV in years, but from what I can tell at relatives' homes the quality here is not bad.

Actually, out of curiosity I just looked up the bitrates for my local cable company. The quality seems to differ a lot: on average between 3 Mb/s MPEG-2 [1] and 12 Mb/s MPEG-4 [2]. So I guess my previous statement isn't really accurate and it depends on the channel.

That website appears to be quite interesting btw; it also tracks YouTube bitrates for live and non-live video and in different encodings! [3]

[1] https://www.digitalbitrate.com/dtv.php?mux=C049&pid=19126&li...

[2] https://www.digitalbitrate.com/dtv.php?mux=C049&pid=19130&li...

[3] https://www.digitalbitrate.com/dtv.php?lang=en&liste=2&live=...

>>Tijdre+OF3
Nice I'll check that out.

12 Mbps MPEG-4 should be quite good, for the stations that support it.

>>bogdan+HV1
I can't speak about Nvidia, but we just hosted a ~25 person LAN party at work and decided to go with Stadia... never again. Some people couldn't even make an account because they didn't have a credit card (even though we planned to mostly play free titles). Literally every game needed 20-40 minutes before we finally got everyone in - we never pinpointed the root cause, but a combination of restarting Chrome (emptying cache), relogging into Stadia, rebooting PCs and re-hosting a match, we managed to play a few titles. In a couple cases, we just gave up trying to get more than a handful of people in the game. Some people couldn't ever get their keyboard or mouse working in some titles (myself included, one game in particular was fine for awhile, then suddenly my mouse stopped registering in-game - rebooting and having the host restart the server didn't help - googling my issue says I'm not alone).

Some of these titles I've played multiplayer via Steam without any of the related issues, granted Steam/Stadia is an apples/oranges comparison.

At the end I suggested we try Armagetron. 2.7MB download and runs on Mac/Win/Linux/Potatoes. I started up a private server and we were running a 16-player game without any issues in literally 5 minutes.