Digital Foundry: Final Fantasy 15 on Stadia is a Technical Disappointment - Stadia vs Xbox One X Comparison

Box

Avenger
Oct 27, 2017
4,804
Lancashire


Capture footage Chromecast Ultra at 4k.

Positives.
Convenience.
DLC.
Essentially Royal Edition inc Comrades but no crossplay.
Exclusive minigames.
Load times are much better than consoles. 21seconds on Stadia vs 49 on 1X.
No regular drops beneath 30 FPS.
Runs better than console overall.

Negatives.
Hitches due to 4k streaming.
1920 x 1080 count regardless of setup.
Only benefit to 4k mode is presumed higher bandwidth available for picture quality at 1080p
No available options in game for perfomance/quality mode
Mostly 1X quality but foliage looks base PS4.
Better AO but DOF and texture filtering are lower quality.
Mostly closer to base consoles.
None of the PC niceties appear in the game. Increased vegetation, improved tessellation and model LODs and missing.
Stable 1080p (!!!)
Input latency an issue.
Game runs at 30 FPS with Vsync and shares the framepacing issues of the PS4 pro version.


Eurogamer link.
 
Last edited:

Aru

Member
Oct 28, 2017
254
Like most people, I expected the Stadia version to be the best looking one, but Stadia still lets us down once again.
I'm done with FF15 but this is interestingly sad to watch.
 

TAoVG

Verified
Oct 27, 2017
93
While still early, this, once again, demonstrates how Google WAY oversold what can be achieved with game streaming platforms. But Google had to launch this year due to the new consoles and 3 major streaming competitors in market coming in 2020. If they missed this window, it would have been extraordinarily difficult to catch up.
 

JahIthBer

Member
Jan 27, 2018
5,476
The Vulkan API appeared in the Steam database a while ago for FFXV, i guess because they were working on the Stadia version then.
Also shame this isn't using PC's ultra graphics, it would be a good example of showing off Stadia's 10 TF's, but this service is really just a massive disappointment so far, it's hard to get around that.
 

CruzerBass

Member
Aug 3, 2018
149
I'm actully so curious as to why games are running worse on stadia. Not that im expecting all hit to hit 4k 60 that's a joke but the hardware those servers run on should easily push this version of the game past the x1x version no?
 

KojiKnight

Member
Oct 25, 2017
10,091
I just don't get how they could fuck this so hard... I was seriously considering getting the service because my connection would have handled it fine... But why when even my weak secondary gaming PC gives better results, let alone my main one hooked to my tv.
 
Last edited:

chandoog

Member
Oct 27, 2017
13,283
Game runs at 30 FPS with Vsync and shares the framepacing issues of the PS4 pro version.
how ?

my middling gaming laptop can run it better than that and that thing has a GTX 1060 in it ..


The "Stadia promise" has been a pretty big dud so far.
 

Stop It

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,732
"Game runs at 30 FPS with Vsync"

Fucking hell Google.

This isn't working out so well for a platform with supposedly 2x the power of the OneX per instance.
 

Gestault

Member
Oct 26, 2017
6,799
Google marketing Stadia as "4K" and a "next-gen now" experience has to be one of the most self-defeating set of expectations to have set up for users. In so many ways, this is a solid underlying result, but Google's own characterizations of what to expect set it up for disappointment. Half the framerate and 1/4 the resolution you would realistically expect is way below the par they set up for themselves.

The power claims re: rendering performance come across as straight-up dubious, basically across the board right now. It frankly doesn't surprise me that Phil Harrison headed up this effort.
 
Last edited:
Oct 25, 2017
3,312
There's a positive side to the 1080p resolution: You don't need a Stadia Pro subscription to get the full experience!
 

Charpunk

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,787
I gave this a try when it was one of the pro sales and holy shit it looked terrible. I really don't get what's going on with this service. Some games like AC:O look great but this just looked bad.
 

Absoludacrous

The Fallen
Oct 26, 2017
1,407
There's either some kind of streaming overhead, or developers are really struggling to get these games on linux.

There's some kind of bottleneck somewhere on their platform that's causing all these games to run worse than they should on paper.
 

metalslimer

Avenger
Oct 25, 2017
5,504
Yeah there has to be somethung that is killing performance in these games but this is pathetic and google should be ashamed of themselces with their bullshit promises of 4k.
 

Xater

Member
Oct 26, 2017
2,758
Germany
There's either some kind of streaming overhead, or developers are really struggling to get these games on linux.

There's some kind of bottleneck somewhere on their platform that's causing all these games to run worse than they should on paper.
or devs don’t see why they should put in so many resources into a port that probably won’t make that much money.
 

Gibordep

Member
Nov 1, 2017
728
Imagine when the next gen consoles arrive, the comparisons will not be good to stadia. Although they supposedly have next gen console hardware on their blades..
 

JimD

Member
Aug 17, 2018
212
Every one of these tech comparisons just makes the decision to launch Stadia Pro first even more bizarre. I mean, yes, Google screwed up almost every aspect of the business model for this thing. But the only thing they're selling *now*, a subscription service with almost no games, just... doesn't DO the thing they're selling.

If devs are struggling to get good benchmarks on the service, why not launch base Stadia first? It's not like Google needs the money. I get trying to beat your competitors to the market, but there's SO many better ways to sell this to potential customers. It's just a profoundly odd decision on their part.
 

exodus

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,324
Google marketing Stadia as "4K" and a "next-gen now" experience has to be one of the most self-defeating set of expectations to have set up for users. In so many ways, this is a solid underlying result, but Google's own characterizations of what to expect set it up for disappointment. Half the framerate and 1/4 the resolution you would realistically expect is way below the par they set up for themselves.

The power claims re: rendering performance come across as straight-up dubious, basically across the board right now. It frankly doesn't surprise me that Phil Harrison headed up this effort.
I mean yeah they certainly set themselves up for disappointment. Most of us didn't realistically expect them to output 4K60. But most of us assumed 4K30 or 1440p/60 at the very minimum.

1080p/30 is so far off the mark.
 

Gestault

Member
Oct 26, 2017
6,799
or devs don’t see why they should put in so many resources into a port that probably won’t make that much money.
If the hardware power Google itself described per game-instance actually exists, there's nothing magical that would cause them to not use it. We're looking at purportedly standardized PC hardware, with software solutions that are intended to benefit the end-result. Considering how widely this (relative) under-performance seems to be showing up, individual devs are not where I'd be placing blame.
 

Devil

Member
Oct 25, 2017
708
I didn't believe google that Stadia would run without latency issues.

I DID believe google that they will offer hardware and software results WAY superior to current gen consoles. The actual game performance of all games so far is the biggest nail in Stadia's coffin so far.
 

Kafkaa

Member
Oct 28, 2017
1,236
What are these exclusive mini games that are in this version? That’s pretty annoying that they aren’t putting them into the console versions.
 

Ricker

Member
Oct 27, 2017
2,609
Beautiful Province of Quebec.
So far on the only 2 games I tried,Destiny and TR,on my new 60 Mb/s connection,I find leaving Stadia on Balanced with HDR on with a 1X controller for Destiny gives me the best looking and best performance...
 

Dreamwriter

Member
Oct 27, 2017
4,092
It's good at least that the Stadia version of the game is superior to the basic PS4 and Xbox One versions, but Google's claims about the strength of the hardware, 50% better than Xbox One X, sure seem to be ringing false across the board. I personally think 1080p would have been fine *if* either close to the same quality as PC/Ultra or 60fps. But 1080p/30 at worse visual quality than X1X?

Yup, streaming future ain't quite now.

Maybe in two-three years, who knows.
This has nothing whatsoever to do with streaming. The quality issues are based on the hardware running the game, not the fact that it is streaming. The review mentioned a couple streaming issues, but the majority of it was problems with the graphical effects, rendering framerate and resolutions, not the streaming. Streaming just compounded it - since the game isn't graphically better than home console, you might as well get it on home console unless you are really interested in the portability factor or the improved loading times.
 

Seik

Member
Oct 25, 2017
8,028
Québec City
It's good at least that the Stadia version of the game is superior to the basic PS4 and Xbox One versions, but Google's claims about the strength of the hardware, 50% better than Xbox One X, sure seem to be ringing false across the board.


This has nothing whatsoever to do with streaming. The quality issues are based on the hardware running the game, not the fact that it is streaming. The review mentioned a couple streaming issues, but the majority of it was problems with the graphical effects, rendering framerate and resolutions, not the streaming. Streaming just compounded it - since the game isn't graphically better than home console, you might as well get it on home console unless you are really interested in the portability factor or the improved loading times.
I didn't express myself properly, my bad.

I meant that Stadia isn't able to deliver the 4K/60 they chanted about pre-launch. Making it a not so enticing offer to replace consoles.

Being 4K/60 would make this game glow and would be a nice show off of the Stadia hardware, I'm surprised they can't squeeze more out of it than that.
 

gofreak

Member
Oct 26, 2017
3,388
If the hardware power Google itself described per game-instance actually exists, there's nothing magical that would cause them to not use it. We're looking at purportedly standardized PC hardware, with software solutions that are intended to benefit the end-result. Considering how widely this (relative) under-performance seems to be showing up, individual devs are not where I'd be placing blame.
I’d place my bet on immature software stack and maybe a dash of dev deadlines/resources. Hardware can easily be hobbled by a bad driver here or a suboptimal library there. There’s a lot more to floating a good new closed platform, in terms of performance, than getting the hardware right.