• 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 Politics forum has been nuked. Please do not bring political discussion to the rest of the site, or you will be removed. Thanks.

Platform Google Stadia Expands to Chromecast With Google TV and More Devices

IbizaPocholo

NeoGAFs Kent Brockman
Dec 1, 2014
29,844
35,572
1,345
ibiza

On June 23rd, the Google Stadia service will see an expansion that adds compatibility with a number of new devices. Starting in just a few short weeks, those that already own these devices will now have the option of downloading the Stadia app and streaming games that are currently available on the service (with a subscription or trial, of course). For those that have been curious about trying the Stadia service, this could provide the perfect opportunity to see what it has to offer! In a new blog post, Stadia announced seven new devices in total, which can be found listed below:
  • Chromecast with Google TV
  • Hisense Android Smart TVs (U7G, U8G, U9G)
  • Nvidia Shield TV
  • Nvidia Shield TV Pro
  • Onn FHD Streaming Stick and UHD Streaming Device
  • Philips 8215, 8505, and OLED 935/805 Series Android TVs
  • Xiaomi MIBOX3 and MIBOX4
Android TV OS users with devices not on the list will also be able to opt into "experimental support" to play Stadia games. The feature is still considered in development, so users should expect some technical hiccups, but things should mostly run smoothly. Stadia controllers will be compatible with these devices, as will other compatible Bluetooth controllers.
 

6502

Member
Jan 25, 2021
288
385
280
What performance does their system give graphically? Are all games best settings? I did onlive streaming years ago which was pretty good but not max settings on an 8 meg connection.

Have things moved on?
 

//DEVIL//

Member
May 28, 2014
2,363
1,781
690
These guys can have really an easy win. Make it free just like google store . Get your cut from the devs . Problem solved
 
  • Like
Reactions: Thanati

IntentionalPun

Ask me about my wife's perfect butthole
Aug 28, 2019
8,973
16,506
660
So they didn't feel like they needed to add compatibility to existing devices running their OS until nearly a year after launch?

These weren't "Existing devices" at the launch of Stadia. Came out late last year... likely didn't launch w/ Stadia due to them being slightly underpowered and not handling 4k60 well until Google sorted out issues.
 

MvCSpiderman

Banned
Mar 22, 2017
1,071
737
440
These weren't "Existing devices" at the launch of Stadia. Came out late last year... likely didn't launch w/ Stadia due to them being slightly underpowered and not handling 4k60 well until Google sorted out issues.
Stadia came out late last year.
 

jshackles

Gentlemen, we can rebuild it. We have the capability to make the world's first enhanced store. Steam will be that store. Better than it was before.
Jul 2, 2013
18,237
20,597
1,455
Oregon
Pretty much what I wanted from launch - to be able to play on my Nvidia Shield.
 
  • Like
Reactions: wtftad

IntentionalPun

Ask me about my wife's perfect butthole
Aug 28, 2019
8,973
16,506
660
Which makes your point even more crazy. Stadia wasn't even compatible with chrome cast outside the one the special eddition came with. No excuse.
It's because they use a codec that requires faster hardware.

The excuse is they didn't want to release a shitty client.

I think game streaming sucks but it sucks less at a high IQ w/ low latency.. and Google does have the best tech. They seem protective of that, and only want to put the client on their own devices if they support high bitrate VP9.

Now why they let the PC/browser version suck so bad is another question lol
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Withnail

SF Kosmo

...please disperse...
Jul 7, 2020
7,741
9,180
735
How about Google Stadia expands into the free to play multiplayer game market and finds a business model that actually suits the tech, hm?
 

dvdvideo

Member
Sep 15, 2005
2,938
3,146
1,690
It's because they use a codec that requires faster hardware.

The excuse is they didn't want to release a shitty client.

I think game streaming sucks but it sucks less at a high IQ w/ low latency.. and Google does have the best tech. They seem protective of that, and only want to put the client on their own devices if they support high bitrate VP9.

Now why they let the PC/browser version suck so bad is another question lol

And yet they had new Google tv hardware they worked on for at least a year prior and still didn't support it until 8 months after launch, so really missed the mark. They also could have had nvidia shield ready from launch, no shortage of power there.
 

IntentionalPun

Ask me about my wife's perfect butthole
Aug 28, 2019
8,973
16,506
660
How about Google Stadia expands into the free to play multiplayer game market and finds a business model that actually suits the tech, hm?
They have Destiny 2 F2P,and you can use it on their free plan:


Thing about game streaming is it's not cheap to run the servers.. the entire business model is just stupid lol
 

IntentionalPun

Ask me about my wife's perfect butthole
Aug 28, 2019
8,973
16,506
660
And yet they had new Google tv hardware they worked on for at least a year prior and still didn't support it until 8 months after launch, so really missed the mark. They also could have had nvidia shield ready from launch, no shortage of power there.
Google TV hardware that launched for $49, less than half what Chromecast Ultra was.

VP9 barely worked on Chromecast with Google TV at launch.. they've optimized it... it was not as powerful as it's predecessor, did have the "support" for it, but the actual firmware needed optimizing.

nVidia also only recently released hardware with the latest VP9 codec support... and it also didn't work well at launch.

You guys are underestimating the video codec they use and what it requires.. specific hardware support on it's CPU... and quite a bit of power too.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Kuranghi

MarkMe2525

Member
Jul 16, 2017
1,396
1,787
485
35
What performance does their system give graphically? Are all games best settings? I did onlive streaming years ago which was pretty good but not max settings on an 8 meg connection.

Have things moved on?
Each instance of gameplay has access to around 10 Teraflops of gpu reasources. It's a decent rig which puts you around the high settings for graphically intensive games.

Edit: I also used onlive briefly back in the day. I would rate the stadia experience higher. It works better on mobile devices than onlive, it is also really good with an ethernet connection and a big screen.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 6502

SF Kosmo

...please disperse...
Jul 7, 2020
7,741
9,180
735
They have Destiny 2 F2P,and you can use it on their free plan:


Thing about game streaming is it's not cheap to run the servers.. the entire business model is just stupid lol
Yeah I mean they need something that leverages the model though. Like a Fortnite kind of game that can be popular with streaming and allow people watching to jump in with a click.

Like there is something to that ability to just remove all barriers to entry and allow people to jump into a game, especially a very social game, and integrate with YouTube and all of that.

But they're totally stuck in trying to make this an alternative to a console and it's just dumb.
 

MvCSpiderman

Banned
Mar 22, 2017
1,071
737
440
They have Destiny 2 F2P,and you can use it on their free plan:

Thing about game streaming is it's not cheap to run the servers.. the entire business model is just stupid lol
Game streaming is fine as an extended option for something else.

But alone you have to constantly maintain and update servers and since it isn't an option, eventually you lose everything. If they still want to compete, they have to revamp or build stronger servers from scratch to run higher end stuff 5-10 years from now, which will stack the costs to astronomical levels.

It's clear Google and Amazon never had a real plan or any idea how to profit on these services long term, they just assumed people playing games would be interested in hardware free digital streaming by default and thought spending mass amounts on servers would be lead to success with limited effort.

I assume the only reason Amazon or Google haven't killed their platforms yet is due to how much money has been burnt up, and they are hanging around searching, hoping for some new revenue model to come up to save them instead of just watching their platforms die and writing them off.
 

IntentionalPun

Ask me about my wife's perfect butthole
Aug 28, 2019
8,973
16,506
660
Game streaming is fine as an extended option for something else.

But alone you have to constantly maintain and update servers and since it isn't an option, eventually you lose everything. If they still want to compete, they have to revamp or build stronger servers from scratch to run higher end stuff 5-10 years from now, which will stack the costs to astronomical levels.

It's clear Google and Amazon never had a real plan or any idea how to profit on these services long term, they just assumed people playing games would be interested in hardware free digital streaming by default and thought spending mass amounts on servers would be lead to success with limited effort.

I assume the only reason Amazon or Google haven't killed their platforms yet is due to how much money has been burnt up, and they are hanging around searching, hoping for some new revenue model to come up to save them instead of just watching their platforms die and writing them off.
Well it's all partly just to perfect the tech with the assumption they can make platforms they can license to 3rd parties.

"Use StadiaTech to host your game streaming service" kinda thing.

It's all based on this pie in the sky idea that the billions of people gaming on phones will be streaming in X number of years.

I swear they'd all get murdered pitching this to Shark Tank..

"Well see, there are THREE BILLION potential customers using a cell phone to game.."

Mark Cuban: "Let me interrupt you right there.. where is their any evidence they want to stream games?"

Of course they all also want to have a profitable 1st party service... but Luna/Stadia will probably stick around for ages on the premise that it's worth the investment to keep the tech around/improving.
 
Last edited:

MvCSpiderman

Banned
Mar 22, 2017
1,071
737
440
Well it's all partly just to perfect the tech with the assumption they can make platforms they can license to 3rd parties.

"Use StadiaTech to host your game streaming service" kinda thing.

It's all based on this pie in the sky idea that the billions of people gaming on phones will be streaming in X number of years.

I swear they'd all get murdered pitching this to Shark Tank..

"Well see, there are THREE BILLION potential customers using a cell phone to game.."

Mark Cuban: "Let me interrupt you right there.. where is their any evidence they want to stream games?"

Of course they all also want to have a profitable 1st party service... but Luna/Stadia will probably stick around for ages on the premise that it's worth the investment to keep the tech around/improving.
The problem is they are using the same flawed logic easily predicted as the Ouya and other Android consoles.

" X millions play games on phone, therefor with no effort we can do this thing and it will immediately be a success because x millions of people will move to our product automatically"

I've yet to see anyone actually try to move players off phones to another product. Just lazy bullshit relying on deceptive marketing and large brand names.
 

IntentionalPun

Ask me about my wife's perfect butthole
Aug 28, 2019
8,973
16,506
660
The problem is they are using the same flawed logic easily predicted as the Ouya and other Android consoles.

" X millions play games on phone, therefor with no effort we can do this thing and it will immediately be a success because x millions of people will move to our product automatically"

I've yet to see anyone actually try to move players off phones to another product. Just lazy bullshit relying on deceptive marketing and large brand names.
I'd like to think that they are realistic that it might take decades, or might never happen (streaming really taking off).. but I'm not really convinced of that.

I seriously doubt it's even feasible to make it profitable today if you are pushing anything remotely high end.. maybe 20 years from now when really great looking games can run on a tiny fraction of an APU in the cloud, but today, with Google dedicating 10TFlop GPUs to every instance? Not a chance.. (and TBH, I think they actually ARENT doing that, and are already vitualizing GPUs and sharing them.. Destiny 2 runs at settings far below what it could on a 10TF PC, that's for sure.)

It's all just a bunch of Catch 22's to me..

It's possible the tech giants know this.. and still think it's a drop in the bucket compared to the potential if it does take off.. but tech giants have also been wrong before, many times.. about what 'will take off."
 

dvdvideo

Member
Sep 15, 2005
2,938
3,146
1,690
Google TV hardware that launched for $49, less than half what Chromecast Ultra was.

VP9 barely worked on Chromecast with Google TV at launch.. they've optimized it... it was not as powerful as it's predecessor, did have the "support" for it, but the actual firmware needed optimizing.

nVidia also only recently released hardware with the latest VP9 codec support... and it also didn't work well at launch.

You guys are underestimating the video codec they use and what it requires.. specific hardware support on it's CPU... and quite a bit of power too.

All I know is Google is a multi billion dollar company with deep pockets. They could have easily launched thier $50 Google tv with full stadia support - it clearly wasn't a priority.
The hardware and it's launch should have been designed with stadia in mind from the get go. It should have shipped with 3 months free stadia, a voucher in every box.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: jigglet

DavidGzz

Member
Jan 7, 2018
2,908
3,551
625
So this plus GPU and new console scarcity could be a very good thing for Stadia.
 

Murdoch

Member
Mar 11, 2014
618
275
530
What performance does their system give graphically? Are all games best settings? I did onlive streaming years ago which was pretty good but not max settings on an 8 meg connection.

Have things moved on?

I think clarity in movement and minimal consistent response is what sets stadia apart from Geforce now/shadow/Luna/XCloud and PsNow.

It feels like a generation ahead when it comes to cloud gaming. It just needs a healthy robust gaming catalogue which simply needs time to build and developers to jump on board with
 

MvCSpiderman

Banned
Mar 22, 2017
1,071
737
440
I'd like to think that they are realistic that it might take decades, or might never happen (streaming really taking off).. but I'm not really convinced of that.

I seriously doubt it's even feasible to make it profitable today if you are pushing anything remotely high end.. maybe 20 years from now when really great looking games can run on a tiny fraction of an APU in the cloud, but today, with Google dedicating 10TFlop GPUs to every instance? Not a chance.. (and TBH, I think they actually ARENT doing that, and are already vitualizing GPUs and sharing them.. Destiny 2 runs at settings far below what it could on a 10TF PC, that's for sure.)

It's all just a bunch of Catch 22's to me..

It's possible the tech giants know this.. and still think it's a drop in the bucket compared to the potential if it does take off.. but tech giants have also been wrong before, many times.. about what 'will take off."
They would be better off streaming high end Android games from the servers to devices than every 3 or 5 years update the servers power so they are always 3 years ahead of smartphones. Eventually you'll have powerful cost effecient servers though they won't likely compete with dedicated gaming hardware or PCs.

It would still cost a fortune to run and maintain though. Then if it succeeds you have to scale servers for volume.
 

Trogdor1123

Member
Mar 2, 2012
9,964
3,317
955
Why hasn't it been extended to all Chromecasts? I have one sitting, gathering dust I could try it on but I guess not