Stadia gets Elder Scrolls Online on June 16, 1440p in web and more

I was going to try to play the ranked mode in PUBG but it seems it's only for controllers. A bit disappointing since I can't even seem to get my steam controller to work with Stadia.

I don't play PUBG much but I tried a few times and I did it all via of KB + M.

Here are the controllers that I have working with Stadia:

* Steam Controller
* Logitech F310 (Wired)
* Hori RAP 4 KAI (Wired)
* MadCatz Fightpad (Wired)

I'm using Google Chrome Web Browser on Ubuntu Mate 18.04.

I'd be willing to bet they use Linux for the servers because, first, Linux servers are more efficient, and second, they don't have to worry about licensing (and, third, with open source they can tweak 'em as they need, and fourth Google know all about running Linux servers because they already use them for most of their other stuff for the other three reasons). Savings mount up when you've got huge numbers of servers; it wouldn't have made economic sense to use Windows.
I get the impression Windows licensing is fairly cheap right now, but you never know when they'll try to get more revenue through that channel; what would Google do if MS realize their fond dream of going subscription-based? And MS is Google's competitor; no need to hand them a rug to pull out from under you.
But no, it's not like they give a damn about Linux as used outside of Google, and certainly they don't care a bean for the Linux desktop.

I heard there are like 12,000 users of Stadia? It goes back to point I made. That it wasn't hard for them to support Linux because Google is heavily invested on the platform on server side and know their way around and because it's based on Debian. The second reason being that they will need to cast as wide net as possible to ensure enough players are on the platform, so that it doesn't feel like a wasteland.
To your comments; who doesn't use Linux? Many companies either use Linux or BSD for their products or servers. It's just desktop that they don't care about.

Grid and Metro: Exodus are likely to get Linux support on the Steam version. Other Games had Linux support before, like the Serious Sam Games or the Tomb Raider Games.

Well no, you don't play them locally, it's game streaming.

If you mean does it have games, that also have Linux desktop support on other stores, yes it does including: Jotun, Sundered, the SteamWorld series, soon to be Metro Exodus, we've seen hints of GRID coming too. That is entirely besides the point though, it's a different platform, that works on Linux. It's an additional / different way to play. Still, nice it uses Vulkan and Linux though behind the scenes.

I was thinking of if there are games on Stadia store that has Linux local play support because of Google i.e Google showing love to Linux by encouraging developers to release their games locally too for Linux. Grid and Metro EXodus are among the two games that has been on Linux already prior to Stadia, so I think the credit of why it will come to Linux goes to developers (Feral and Metro devs). Metro Exodus was released DRM free on GOG recently, so another point for Metro Devs. The fact Stadia uses Vulkan seems to make the process for devs, who have or are already supporting Linux, easier.

EDIT: Wait Stadia doesn't support local play? It's strictly streaming?! I thought it did as a way to break into the market..

You're right, it wasn't, so it's actually a nice addition. They only originally said 720p, 1080p and 4K. Now they're expanding on from that.

I misunderstood. Thought ESO was max supported resolution was only 1440, i.e no 4K. That's pretty good indeed.

What's amusing here is that there are in the vicinity of about 800000 to 900000 Linux Gamers on Steam, and only about 12000 Stadia users, yet studios/publishers are more willing to throw money at those 12000 than to the hundreds of thousands of the rest of us.

Not amusing at all. ESA, Entertainment Software Assosciation, are banded together for a reason. That reason is to support their interests, whether it be microtransaction or whatever. Streaming with Stadia seems like it will give them another edge on consumers freedom. For example, now with Stadia's existence they will have opportunity to ask for money from Nvidia to allow their games on GeForce Now. Another being they can limit third party cheats for their games, which leaves gamers with no choice than pay up for microtransaction to speed up lvling or other things.

And I don't think it's fair. When Steam machines were a thing, many companies jump on board. So it's not like they haven't tried before. Also because Linux marketshare is not sustainable for all game development.


Last edited by Linuxwarper on 27 May 2020 at 3:53 pm UTC

EDIT: Wait Stadia doesn't support local play? It's strictly streaming?! I thought it did as a way to break into the market..

A very early test that used Assassin's Creed gave participants a normal copy of Assassin's Creed as a reward for taking part. You might be thinking of that. Stadia itself is strictly streaming.

A very early test that used Assassin's Creed gave participants a normal copy of Assassin's Creed as a reward for taking part. You might be thinking of that. Stadia itself is strictly streaming.

No, that's not where I got it from. I just was left with impression that you could play games you bought locally (provided you were online) in addition to being able to stream it. Now it all makes perfect sense. Why Geforce Now is being abandoned. Why games aren't made available on Linux. It's meaningless to hope for Google to encourage devs to release locally on Linux when they aren't even providing that opportunity to even Windows users.

I'm sure Stadia is good, but I am more certain now that supporting it will be to detriment to Linux and PC gaming as a whole. And I honestly don't think Linux needs Stadia. Just look at the progress Proton has made ever since it was released. If Linux gamers can wait a year, two or three for Feral to release games natively, perhaps we should wait a year or two for anti cheat to be resolved and we can play PUBG and other stuff. Or maybe months, if these games will be available on Steam Cloud before anti cheat is supported on WINE.


Last edited by Linuxwarper on 27 May 2020 at 9:27 pm UTC

If Google decided to cancel Stadia things could get interesting, although we should not forget that it's the developers, not Stadia, who are ultimately responsible for their games, so it's not unreasonable to assume most will issue keys to other platforms, such as Steam if the event ever arises.

This is what happened when Desura went down. I did not get into Steam to really late but all of they keys I got from Desura worked when I passed them to friends. I kept playing the DRM-FREE binaries til the games were ended or if they have endless local kept them on my machines to play with my family.

I was playing Doom Eternal on Stadia from day one through Chrome without any issues, unlike what was experienced through Proton/Valve and I saved a lot of hard drive space. Each has their respective pros and cons. If Google decided to cancel Stadia things could get interesting, although we should not forget that it's the developers, not Stadia, who are ultimately responsible for their games, so it's not unreasonable to assume most will issue keys to other platforms, such as Steam if the event ever arises.

Anyone who claims streaming (in general) is bad, don't know what they are talking about.

I am not concerned Google will cancel Stadia. I am of damages Stadia can do to PC (Linux) gaming. Many of us want Linux to be adopted and to see the platform flourish. My main concern is that supporting Stadia could lead to ChromeOS becoming bigger than Linux. If such a scenario happens I worry it will detract from Linux ecosystem. That we will be beholden to Google's platform and less free. As opposed to a scenario where Linux finally is adopted (past few percentages) and the platform is supported more than ever before. Not only support of games but also support of other software.

Your points about being able to play Doom Eternal seems kinda meaningless for lack of better wording. Stadia is strictly streaming yes (as I was informed), but why? Why not give gamers choice of playing a game both locally and by streaming it? The answer should be obvious, they want to make streaming predominant option. Limiting of user choice. It could have been fine if Stadia was strictly streaming because then people could buy games on platforms of their choice. You want streaming? Stadia. Local? Steam/GOG/Other. Except Google is making exclusive deals. I would bet that in future they will pull a Sony and make deals to ensure games are available exclusive for streaming on Stadia and nowhere else.

If a future where users choices on how they can play games and where, with drm and potentially geopardizing Linux ecosystem is something we can be ok with by supporting Stadia, then we might as well just switch back to Windows and stick to their walled garden. Doom Eternal runs even better on Windows than it does on Stadia/Proton. Yes, you can play the game through Stadia ON Linux, but I think supporting the service will have detrimental effects on Linux marketshare when ChromeOS becomes another major competitor.

I don't mean to shame anyone for using Stadia, these are just my thoughts


Last edited by Linuxwarper on 27 May 2020 at 11:17 pm UTC

It's meaningless to hope for Google to encourage devs to release locally on Linux when they aren't even providing that opportunity to even Windows users.

In the time before Stadia developers would make their games for Windows and take on the costs of supporting them on Windows, and a very small number with the skills to do so would also make their games for Linux and take on the costs of supporting them on Linux.

Stadia won't, by itself, encourage game developers to release a standalone version of any game, for Windows or Linux; quite the opposite, Google will pay developers not to release a standalone version if they think it will help their goal of growing Stadia as a platform.

But what it does do is force developers to learn how to make their games work on Linux with Vulkan - since that's necessary for a game to work on Stadia - and Google will provide resources to help them do that. What the developers do with that knowledge and the product they've created after that is down to the developers. Many are going to shy away from the (real or perceived) costs of supporting actual Linux versions on actual customers' hardware, but they'll all have learned how to make games without Windows and without DirectX, which has been a barrier in the past.

Some developers are going to say, "just use the Stadia version," just like some developers would say, "just use Wine." They want an easy life. Customers that aren't OK with that will miss out, and customers that are OK with that will be able to play games that aren't available natively. Just like if they were using Wine.

Whether a move to streaming is good or bad for gaming as a whole in the long run, it's too early to say. It opens up gaming to people whose Internet is better than their hardware, which might increase the size of the market so that more people can make more games. Geforce Now doesn't tie purchasers to one provider, but it does tie game developers to Windows; Stadia is the other way round, and Google's reputation for dropping services does hurt them. There are things like anti-cheat and enormous worlds that are easier to do "in the cloud" than locally. But there is less (real or perceived) ownership with streaming than local installs. It could shake out as good, bad, or neutral over all.

Personally, I'm more interested in a streaming service from Valve than anything that exists now. They have a better reputation for longevity than Google and they have a long-term investment in desktop Linux as a gaming platform. But it doesn't exist yet, except as speculation.

But what it does do is force developers to learn how to make their games work on Linux with Vulkan - since that's necessary for a game to work on Stadia - and Google will provide resources to help them do that. What the developers do with that knowledge and the product they've created after that is down to the developers. Many are going to shy away from the (real or perceived) costs of supporting actual Linux versions on actual customers' hardware, but they'll all have learned how to make games without Windows and without DirectX, which has been a barrier in the past.

Yes, this is the only reason I am glad Stadia exists.

Whether a move to streaming is good or bad for gaming as a whole in the long run, it's too early to say. It opens up gaming to people whose Internet is better than their hardware, which might increase the size of the market so that more people can make more games. Geforce Now doesn't tie purchasers to one provider, but it does tie game developers to Windows; Stadia is the other way round, and Google's reputation for dropping services does hurt them. There are things like anti-cheat and enormous worlds that are easier to do "in the cloud" than locally. But there is less (real or perceived) ownership with streaming than local installs. It could shake out as good, bad, or neutral over all.

That streaming is good and has benefits is undeniable. I am not questioning that for a second. When I say streaming will harm PC gaming I am thinking of all the bad practices that will be baked into Stadia. We have already seen signs of these practices. Games being removed from Geforce Now, exclusive deals and Stadia not providing local play release. As you pointed out Google will pay developers to not release their games locally if it will help Stadia. And have they already not done that? Isn't Gylt currently exclusive to Stadia? So already today we see the signs of damage to PC gaming.

Personally, I'm more interested in a streaming service from Valve than anything that exists now. They have a better reputation for longevity than Google and they have a long-term investment in desktop Linux as a gaming platform. But it doesn't exist yet, except as speculation.

Me too. I've already tested Remote Play, and it was OK experience. According to a post I came across the streaming is not as good on AMDGPUs as it is on Nvidia because of some encoding thing. I'm eagerly waiting for that to happen, if it happens at all.


Last edited by Linuxwarper on 28 May 2020 at 1:50 am UTC

But what it does do is force developers to learn how to make their games work on Linux with Vulkan - since that's necessary for a game to work on Stadia - and Google will provide resources to help them do that. What the developers do with that knowledge and the product they've created after that is down to the developers. Many are going to shy away from the (real or perceived) costs of supporting actual Linux versions on actual customers' hardware, but they'll all have learned how to make games without Windows and without DirectX, which has been a barrier in the past.

Beyond Vulkan, it also creates pressure for the whole developer software ecosystem to support Linux. Everything from graphics drivers to game engines have another reason to treat Linux as a first class citizen with Stadia, and Google has reason to intervene directly to make that happen. They will want the whole toolchain, wall to wall, to be competitive with any other platform. That makes life easier for developers on Linux even if they have nothing to do with Stadia.

Which is not to say that I have no qualms about the idea of games moving to a streaming service model. I'm distinctly unenthused about that concept. I'm hoping Stadia does reasonably well, well enough to create those benefits, but not too well.

Last I checked PC gaming itself was shrinking

Is it? I mean, at this point the majority of PC gaming involves Steam. And Steam is growing, has been fairly consistently for years. For PC gaming overall to be shrinking, everything outside Steam would have to be friggin' imploding, which doesn't seem to be the case.


Last edited by Purple Library Guy on 28 May 2020 at 8:20 am UTC

Gotcha, but I was expanding on your points to the common issue I read. Linux does flourish, in fact its growing, just not perhaps in areas you're aware of. Last I checked PC gaming itself was shrinking and if you're looking at just numbers, are you will to invest in an OS that's very muddy when it comes to future projections? I know Steam is helping here, but it may take awhile longer to have a case made.

What will happen to that growth and momentum if another propietary OS (ChromeOS) outgrows Linux? Google has the money to sell laptops (they already are) with ChromeOS installed. It could lead to another OS for Linux to compete with. With Stadia I believe Google has a strong case to gain marketshare. And that's just one service that Google has.

That's quite rude, wanting for better wording? I gave you a point that you missed, not having to download extra libraries, drivers, proton, Valve etc. it a lot easier if you're wanting to jump right in with streaming that Staida provides, this attracts people who don't think about the angle you're coming from. Other streaming services may not so friendly to what we have on Linux, if I recall Geforce Now

I meant that Stadia can lead to ChromeOS success. And if we aren't careful we might end up contributing to ChromeOS far more than to Linux. There are already ChromeOS laptops on the market, and Google has had moderate success with them. If they make a bigger move to promote ChromeOS for gaming, it will outshine Linux.
ChromeOS comes with specs that are in line with the things you said Stadia doesn't need. Storage, memory, software etc. And ChromeOS is preinstalled on these laptops.

I don't like exclusives like that on any platform, Epic Store is a prime example, plus if you're into consoles you know they each have their exclusive games too. It's called competition however, of course they want it to be dominant, and is it OK if the exclusive isn't permanent?

It's a poor excuse for competition. Actual competition would be Google leveraging the benefits of Cloud to attract players to Stadia. Features like what they did with Ghost Recon (split screen cam views of fellow players). No, I don't find it OK. Because if you accept exclusivity they will continue to stretch that. It's OK if it's first party titles that Google themselves have developed from start to finish, but I wouldn't put it past companies like Google to pay for permanent exclusivity for third party games. If you accept a limited time exclusivity, they could move the goal post. Now the game is exclusive to Stadia on ChromeOS. It seems like a absurd thought, but that I think can surely happen if it becomes popular enough and Google has enough leeway to do that.

Isn't it already like that with Linux, go to GOG for example, are they fully supportive of Linux? Last I checked their launcher did not support Linux. I would argue with Valve's work on Linux/Proton we're better off now than ever before with the ability to play almost anywhere. Is Steam DRM? The effects with Stadia is unknown at this time, but again I get to play on Linux wherever I want and I am not limited to ChromeOS...Honestly, I can't blame developers wanting DRM, this is unpopular, but I know too many people, usually not linux ones weirdly lol, who are quick to pirate when they can.

GOG isn'tfully supportive no, but they do support Linux.They reported that their business was not doing so well. And in light of this, they had to drop a monetary benefit that buyers in certain region had. In other words, they dropped that benefit for all users (not just Linux) because they had to. It proves that they may be more restrained by costs than anything else. Ultimately they do support Linux, but more importantly they don't try to harm the platform.

Steam has DRM yes, but there are a big list of games that are DRM free. And Valve has not, to my knowledge, encouraged developers to add Denuvo to their games. And reason why Steam and Valve are not a issue is because they have been supporting us in so many ways over the years.

Overall though, I simply don't fully agree with your assessment, but time may and perhaps will tell one way or another.

According to netmarketshare, ChromeOS is at 0.42%. How accurate that number is, is for another discussion. But that's not far from Linux's 1.89%. Google has the brands and money. They have said they want to enter gaming space and use Youtube to promote Stadia. If they make a major push for gaming on ChromeOS with Stadia laptops, what do you think that will do to Linux? Do you think average users will think "I'll install Linux on my ChromeOS laptop and enjoy Linux gamin with Stadia"? No, they will stick to ChromeOS, and why not? From what I've heard they don't seem like bad laptops.

I could be entirely wrong in my thinking. But I find that the puzzles all line up perfectly for such business strategy, if that's what Google intends with ChromeOS and Stadia.


Last edited by Linuxwarper on 28 May 2020 at 3:10 pm UTC

@linuxwarper, thank you for that awesome writeup :).

Glad that my points came across the way I meant them to:) Those are my concerns for Stadia. But as has been stated many times, Stadia is good in that it will help Vulkan adoption. It also can improve Linux ecosystem, with more work being done for issues Google has with running Stadia servers (It's Debian), which could came back to benefiting the platform as a whole.

What will happen to that growth and momentum if another propietary OS (ChromeOS) outgrows Linux? Google has the money to sell laptops (they already are) with ChromeOS installed. It could lead to another OS for Linux to compete with. With Stadia I believe Google has a strong case to gain marketshare. And that's just one service that Google has.

I'm actually hoping for ChromeOS to prosper. Oh, sure, it's not precisely Linux--but it's a lot closer than Android. It's basically Linux crippled. For Google to expand it beyond its niche, one thing they'll probably need to do is expand its capabilities by bringing more of Linux back in. It's going to be really hard for them to end up with a ChromeOS that runs things that can't be made to run in Linux. The bottom line for me is, growth in ChromeOS reduces the effectiveness of Windows lock-in and network effects, and does so with an OS that is basically Linux.
And as you note, it is currently smaller than Linux proper. It is blocked by the same lock-out barriers Linux is blocked by, and unless and until it gets a far, far larger market share its expansion is going to have to involve getting rid of them for all, not just for ChromeOS. When you're tiny and try to create lock-in, you just get whacked by the network effects of the bigger fish--you actually lock yourself out.
So looking at Stadia--sure, Stadia is potentially a tool for growing ChromeOS. But it is to the exact same extent a tool for growing Linux, and for that matter MacOS. And it's going to have to stay that way to work; they might be able to close it down and exclude other platforms if ChromeOS gets to, I dunno, 30% of the desktop. Talk to me again when we're in that kind of territory. In the mean time, Stadia is a cross-platform thing and an illustration of the kinds of tactics Google will need to use to grow ChromeOS, which are essentially the same ones proper Linux tends to use--encouraging cross-platform things so that the playing field with Windows is more level.

Last I checked PC gaming itself was shrinking

Is it? I mean, at this point the majority of PC gaming involves Steam. And Steam is growing, has been fairly consistently for years. For PC gaming overall to be shrinking, everything outside Steam would have to be friggin' imploding, which doesn't seem to be the case.

It's the old tale lol:

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/pc-gaming-is-in-a-decline-and-deserves-to-be-2019-07-03

These views don't represent my own, but it's possible they could sway those management types with no PC gaming experience.

@linuxwarper, thank you for that awesome writeup :).

Glad those views don't represent yours, 'cause it seems a silly article. Someone had a vaguely reasonable take on trends in game design, and dearly wanted that to be bad for sales so that they could have some reason to suggest maybe the studios should stop doing the bad things. But it's rubbish.
Sure, a fair number of years ago few people had smartphones and fewer gamed on them. Now almost everyone has a smartphone and lots of that almost everyone games with them. So, their percentage of "the game market" has grown massively--by creating a whole new game market with a whole new stack of revenue. And since the percentages have to add up to 100, that means everyone else "shrank".
But that's a stupid measure, certainly in this case. Mobile games didn't displace immobile gaming platforms; those people the author mentions waiting for buses did not, before mobile phones, wait for buses while playing games on their desktop or their XBone. It's really a different market; combining them to make a point is misleading.
The question is, has the PC gaming market grown or shrunk--in, like, dollars? The author never mentioned that. Far as I can tell, it's fairly definitely grown quite a bit.

Also it seems a bit of a reach to be saying "The PC market is shrinking because it's been making crappy games that are influenced by the way they make games . . . on the platform that's growing spectacularly!" Uh, sure, whatever. Really, I'd be happy to be able to say that PC game sales are being hurt by the kind of crap the article's author takes aim at, but I've seen no evidence that's the case. Although the backlash against loot boxes seems to have been strong enough to shift the fashion against them, which is nice.


Last edited by Purple Library Guy on 28 May 2020 at 11:28 pm UTC

I'm actually hoping for ChromeOS to prosper. Oh, sure, it's not precisely Linux--but it's a lot closer than Android. It's basically Linux crippled. For Google to expand it beyond its niche, one thing they'll probably need to do is expand its capabilities by bringing more of Linux back in. It's going to be really hard for them to end up with a ChromeOS that runs things that can't be made to run in Linux. The bottom line for me is, growth in ChromeOS reduces the effectiveness of Windows lock-in and network effects, and does so with an OS that is basically Linux.
And as you note, it is currently smaller than Linux proper. It is blocked by the same lock-out barriers Linux is blocked by, and unless and until it gets a far, far larger market share its expansion is going to have to involve getting rid of them for all, not just for ChromeOS. When you're tiny and try to create lock-in, you just get whacked by the network effects of the bigger fish--you actually lock yourself out.
So looking at Stadia--sure, Stadia is potentially a tool for growing ChromeOS. But it is to the exact same extent a tool for growing Linux, and for that matter MacOS. And it's going to have to stay that way to work; they might be able to close it down and exclude other platforms if ChromeOS gets to, I dunno, 30% of the desktop. Talk to me again when we're in that kind of territory. In the mean time, Stadia is a cross-platform thing and an illustration of the kinds of tactics Google will need to use to grow ChromeOS, which are essentially the same ones proper Linux tends to use--encouraging cross-platform things so that the playing field with Windows is more level.

I think Linux has a real chance to be used more with things are going, with Proton, Valve and Vulkan. If ChromeOS is marketed towards gamers more heavily, it will without a doubt take users away from proper Linux. At same time you could be right, the hold Microsoft has on the industry could be to hard to break with Valve alone.I find it hard to believe that Ubisoft chose Vulkan for their games simply because of performance it gave. Stadia had to be another reason why they chose it.


Last edited by Linuxwarper on 29 May 2020 at 1:00 am UTC