Info on Google Stadia from today’s Stadia Connect, Baldur’s Gate III announced too

Well, it mostly confirmed what I already knew: I have zero interest in the kind of games they will offer (well, a remote chance I'd someday maybe want to play a little bit of BG3), my internet connection couldn't take it if I wanted to and online-only play would be a joke, my country isn't supported (probably for those reasons), and games announced for Stadia have been announced/sold as Windows-only on Steam (but I'm already happy they are on Steam at all). The games I usually play, with a few exceptions, wouldn't really benefit; I get by decently with Intel HD4000 graphics after all. So, Stadia is more of a curiosity than anything of relevance for me personally.

That said, it isn't as bad as it could be. Subscription is not outrageous by trying to mix the actual service with the catalogue, and there is even a free version that is very capable. You gain access to specific games by paying only once and not constantly, and you can pick individual games. Oh, and games don't seem to be exclusive so far. It's still really bad though; online-only single-player games, I assume games bought can't be played outside of the service, you probably would need to re-buy the games, there are severe regional limitations, and while it allows savings in graphics cards it has extra costs in internet services and the subscription itself.

My probably unpopular opinion is that if high-end computers to play those games are really a big limiting factor (enough to justify this kind of service), developers should just make lighter games. Those expensive and heavy graphics AAA games use aren't meaningless, but are absolutely not worth it; games from 10 years ago still look more than good enough, and artsy indies look better than any big titles and run on potatoes.

I'm reading through the footnotes on the Google Stadia page:

Stadia Controller requires a Wi-Fi® network and a mobile device running Android 6.0, Marshmallow or later, or iOS 11 or later.

Does this mean it won't be possible to use the controller/stream games directly with/to a PC?

It's possible, but the whole point of the stadia controller is it's ability to connect directly to google servers.

You don't have to use it, but it should have less input lag than using any other controller or mouse+keyboard

For stadia pro (which will be the sole option in November 2019) you will have to fork 129.99 $ Then, after three months 9 $ a month. That's steep.

No. the 129$ are for the founder's pack, wich is optional.

I wonder if the DOOM 2016 will come from the in house Linux version. And if it will be released for desktop users (i doubt it, because of the cost of support)

Who knows... maybe.
At least, it runs pretty well on wine.

My 2 cents: if you can't access the source code, the hardware schematics or can't participate in decision about the software or hardware, it is a closed proprietary thing... Vulkan + Linux, sure, but...

Well, yes.

But maybe thanks to stadia more developers will release their games on linux too, and more developers will consider using Vulkan for their games, even on windows.

...Or maybe not.

Now Borderlands 3 being part of the first set of games is very interesting. Wasn't it supposed to be an Epic exclusive for 6 months?

It's esclusive on PC.... But It will also be available for consoles (PS4 and Xbox One).
Stadia is not considered as a PC game store, so no problem.


Last edited by Iperpido on 6 June 2019 at 9:03 pm UTC

So gamers spend hundreds of dollars on multi-GPU rigs just to squeeze a few extra frames out of their games - and people now expect them to tolerate completely unnecessary and completely unavoidable lag in their games, and dedicate a big portion of their bandwith to streaming a game they could play in much better quality locally? Apparently gamers don't mind spending money on hardware, otherwise they wouldn't do it.

On the other end of the spectrum, casual games run on the same low-end machines you'd still need to stream games on anyway.

I don't even get who game streaming is targeted at. It seems to make zero sense for all possible audiences.


Last edited by Kimyrielle on 6 June 2019 at 9:43 pm UTC

From the perspective of a Linux gaming historian it would be interesting to know whether "The Elder Scrolls Online" and "Destiny 2" are really running on Debian natively or via Wine. It would be the first Linux game "published" by Bethesda and Activision if I'm not mistaken.

It will be interesting to see if any of the games on this list which are already out but not available on Linux become available. For example Shadow of the Tomb Raider. The other two in this series are already available for Linux.

i wonder who gets the money for stadia sells
feral, or enix

It all looks a bit “meh” to me. What worries me is that five, ten years down the line (assuming they can keep it running that long), developers will start producing games that are massively out of the scope of consumer hardware but look absolutely incredible when running on Google's servers. Then, for people who don't care about the downsides and dangers of the SAAS model - i.e., the mainstream - it becomes hard to resist.

For that reason, I kind of hope that things like resolution and framerate increases will mean that the bandwidth requirements for a comfortable experience comparable to local code will always remain ahead of what most people actually have. I suspect they will, but we'll just have to wait and see. I never thought we'd see streaming HD video over, basically, copper twisted-pair phone lines, yet here we are.

So gamers spend hundreds of dollars on multi-GPU rigs just to squeeze a few extra frames out of their games - and people now expect them to tolerate completely unnecessary and completely unavoidable lag in their games, and dedicate a big portion of their bandwith to streaming a game they could play in much better quality locally? Apparently gamers don't mind spending money on hardware, otherwise they wouldn't do it.

On the other end of the spectrum, casual games run on the same low-end machines you'd still need to stream games on anyway.

I don't even get who game streaming is targeted at. It seems to make zero sense for all possible audiences.

If you have a gaming machine under your desktop, nobody expects you to buy all your game on Stadia. Stadia isn't targeted at people who have their own expensive gaming rig. Stadia is targeted at all the people who like to get into gaming without paying big money upfront just for the possibility to buy a game. There are countless people in China or India who fall into this category. Google mentioned a potential of 2 billion customers.


Last edited by Doc Angelo on 6 June 2019 at 10:59 pm UTC

It's esclusive on PC.... But It will also be available for consoles (PS4 and Xbox One).
Stadia is not considered as a PC game store, so no problem.

That seems like a stretch. What does it run on besides PCs?

It's esclusive on PC.... But It will also be available for consoles (PS4 and Xbox One).
Stadia is not considered as a PC game store, so no problem.

That seems like a stretch. What does it run on besides PCs?

They said 'anything with a screen' at one point; though what they mean is likely 'anything that can run chrome'.

So gamers spend hundreds of dollars on multi-GPU rigs just to squeeze a few extra frames out of their games - and people now expect them to tolerate completely unnecessary and completely unavoidable lag in their games, and dedicate a big portion of their bandwith to streaming a game they could play in much better quality locally? Apparently gamers don't mind spending money on hardware, otherwise they wouldn't do it.

On the other end of the spectrum, casual games run on the same low-end machines you'd still need to stream games on anyway.

I don't even get who game streaming is targeted at. It seems to make zero sense for all possible audiences.

Well, there is the audience of the people who are just bellow those crazies; they aren't quite willing to spend that much money, but want those AAA graphics and those easy to quantify quality indicators like "4k 60fps". Or the crazies that spent a ton of money and can stream last year's games with perfect graphics, but would need an upgrade to get the new hotness.

There are also people who are willing (and capable) of paying for incredible internet speeds for online games or something, and now can use that instead of replacing their high end rigs every few months.

There are also the casual and/or low-end players that want to run that one heavy game besides their normal stuff, but don't want to get new hardware just for that.

And of course, there are all the people that can be tricked by marketing, the people that jump into every new thing, the people that see the deceptively small but recurrent price...

It all looks a bit “meh” to me. What worries me is that five, ten years down the line (assuming they can keep it running that long), developers will start producing games that are massively out of the scope of consumer hardware but look absolutely incredible when running on Google's servers. Then, for people who don't care about the downsides and dangers of the SAAS model - i.e., the mainstream - it becomes hard to resist.

For that reason, I kind of hope that things like resolution and framerate increases will mean that the bandwidth requirements for a comfortable experience comparable to local code will always remain ahead of what most people actually have. I suspect they will, but we'll just have to wait and see. I never thought we'd see streaming HD video over, basically, copper twisted-pair phone lines, yet here we are.

To develop this idea, I think more computing power would be needed for some sophisticated AI, not for better visuals. A cluster of multiple servers would run some AI algorithm surely more effectively, than any local PC. In this sense, imagine a game that simulates more realistic behavior, not "presents visuals more realistically". There is some quite interesting potential for gaming there, that's far from being tapped yet.


Last edited by Shmerl on 6 June 2019 at 11:36 pm UTC

If I can run this on my Switch or Roku I'll think about it.

Would be nice to make use of my wired network for once.

Guessing its a monthly subscription model and run as a service, so you own nothing.

If you actually BUY games then they need to provide a copy that isn't stadia dependant, maybe a steam or gog key comes with that purchase for future use when stadia stops working (and it will) sometime in the future.

To develop this idea, I think more computing power would be needed for some sophisticated AI, not for better visuals. A cluster of multiple servers would run some AI algorithm surely more effectively, than any local PC. In this sense, imagine a game that simulates more realistic behavior, not "presents visuals more realistically". There is some quite interesting potential for gaming there, that's far from being tapped yet.

That is be a really intriguing idea. I am quite curious about the application of "real" AI (machine learning) into making better and more fun computer-controlled adversaries (something that is somewhat important in strategy games, for example). AlphaStar (Google's Starcraft-playing AI) is a really interesting project, for example... and I'm sure hardware would be a limiting factor (it already is, to a certain point). And detailed simulations in general can also be ridiculously heavy, and are if anything easier to make than lighter ones; things like city builders that model vehicles/people individually on humongous maps.

But I am afraid this is something in the realm of speculation only for several years at best... while the current model of game development has been in place for years, and graphics (the high-fidelity, photorealistic, super-heavy 3d kind) are a much more immediate concern. Games that require high-end hardware for sophisticated mechanics might arise to benefit from cloud gaming, or might push us in another direction entirely, but I don't think they are going to define the services and products in the short term.

First set of games includes...

buying AAA titles to stream them through Google's network

I'm confused, you still have to buy the games, right ?

Then why is it restricted to a set of games ? All the other video game streaming solution let you run any game.

Got a nvidia geforce now account, you have to buy the games too.
edit : and they only accept steam/battle.net and a few epic games games, so you can forget your gog account.


Last edited by Massinissa on 7 June 2019 at 4:11 am UTC

That is be a really intriguing idea. I am quite curious about the application of "real" AI (machine learning) into making better and more fun computer-controlled adversaries (something that is somewhat important in strategy games, for example). AlphaStar (Google's Starcraft-playing AI) is a really interesting project, for example... and I'm sure hardware would be a limiting factor (it already is, to a certain point). And detailed simulations in general can also be ridiculously heavy, and are if anything easier to make than lighter ones; things like city builders that model vehicles/people individually on humongous maps.

But I am afraid this is something in the realm of speculation only for several years at best... while the current model of game development has been in place for years, and graphics (the high-fidelity, photorealistic, super-heavy 3d kind) are a much more immediate concern. Games that require high-end hardware for sophisticated mechanics might arise to benefit from cloud gaming, or might push us in another direction entirely, but I don't think they are going to define the services and products in the short term.

I think complex simulation should be the real benefit of cloud gaming. Pushing more pixels per second? Local PC hardware handles that better and better every year. How much photorealism do we really need? At some point we won't see any difference, while server clusters is an overkill for that purpose.

And this heavy bend on graphics is really weird, given how many interesting things in gaming are underdeveloped. Strategy is more straightforward sure, but imagine something more complicated. Such as simulating climate, or a biological ecosystem, or simulating NPC behavior not based on predefined scripts, but on their self learning driven by in-game interactions. It's surprising these kind of ideas aren't yet applied more widely in gaming, with all this push for the cloud.


Last edited by Shmerl on 7 June 2019 at 5:14 am UTC

I remain unconvinced by it, especially now we know we will be buying games as well and you're locked to 1080p unless you also pay a monthly subscription. Buying a game, to have no real access to it with Google controlling every part of it? I mentioned before I didn't particularly like the idea of even less ownership but with a Netflix-like subscription model it might have made more sense but not if you're still paying full price.

In the world of cloud gaming this is an INSANELY affordable offer - not only it is completely free to try and enjoy on lower resolutions if you are low on cash but also the full subscription price is pretty low. And since it is Google we are talking about, I kinda expect them to trump all other services with the quality and stability.

I think it is also unfair to keep repeating how not having access to the game files is a drawback. What about the upsides of this solution? There is no download and installation time, you can seamlessly switch between devices without stopping the gaming session and you do not have to own a gaming PC or a gaming console that is capable of running the game. And one more for us, Linux fans - you do not have to deal with the Windows 10 bullshit :)

I remain unconvinced by it, especially now we know we will be buying games as well and you're locked to 1080p unless you also pay a monthly subscription. Buying a game, to have no real access to it with Google controlling every part of it? I mentioned before I didn't particularly like the idea of even less ownership but with a Netflix-like subscription model it might have made more sense but not if you're still paying full price.

In the world of cloud gaming this is an INSANELY affordable offer - not only it is completely free to try and enjoy on lower resolutions if you are low on cash but also the full subscription price is pretty low. And since it is Google we are talking about, I kinda expect them to trump all other services with the quality and stability.

I think it is also unfair to keep repeating how not having access to the game files is a drawback. What about the upsides of this solution? There is no download and installation time, you can seamlessly switch between devices without stopping the gaming session and you do not have to own a gaming PC or a gaming console that is capable of running the game. And one more for us, Linux fans - you do not have to deal with the Windows 10 bullshit :)

As discussed on Twitter, repeating here as it's easier.

It's not free in any form:
Base Stadia - You buy the games.
Stadia Pro - You pay monthly, you buy games, you get few select free.

Also, "unfair" about paying and not having any real access to the files, what's fair about it?
Google has issues? No game.
Your net has issues? No game.
Modding? Haha no.

I think it is also unfair to keep repeating how not having access to the game files is a drawback. What about the upsides of this solution? There is no download and installation time, you can seamlessly switch between devices without stopping the gaming session and you do not have to own a gaming PC or a gaming console that is capable of running the game. And one more for us, Linux fans - you do not have to deal with the Windows 10 bullshit :)

But... it is a drawback, and not even a necessary one to have those benefits. Stadia is basically Steam Link, except Google provides their own host hardware and arbitrarily denies the option to run the games yourself. Stadia could be a regular ol' game store with streaming as an extra feature, and if anything Google would save money because anyone playing locally wouldn't be using their hardware or network infrastructure. The only way disallowing local execution makes sense is with a Netflix-style buffet subscription, but that's not what this is.