Bullet Club
Banned
Things are getting...steamy...in the game streaming wars.

Or literally anything that anyone that uses Steam has asked for. If they need a list of stuff people actually care about, I'd be happy to oblige them.Meh. Do some Big Picture bugfixing first?
I could definitely see the appeal over existing alternatives. For starters, if this were like Stadia you wouldn't have to install the games or worry about keeping them patched. There have been a few instances where I was like "oh man it might be fun to jump in this game for an afternoon and then probably never play it again" and been greeted with a 80GB download that would take several hours to finish. I end up noping out and playing something else.i guess it'd be cool if you could stream your existing library from cloud hardware, but you can already use the Steam Link app to stream from your own PC so what's the point lol
Is not only streaming like stadia or PS now,Is like also like crackdown 3 and Flight SimulatorStreaming can fuck off, especially for competitive games. But there is a legit market for it for people on mobile devices and people gaming on potato machines.
... and the filthy casuals.
Hire this man already, Gabe !Or literally anything that anyone that uses Steam has asked for. If they need a list of stuff people actually care about, I'd be happy to oblige them.
That could definitely happen. HL2, CS : Source was the gateway drug if you will, for Steam. For Steam Cloud streaming HL3 could be the thing that gets people on board for it. Just for PC though. I think the console versions of game streaming is pretty far off.HL3 launch title, confirmed.
Valve already has pretty significant investments in CDNs around the world - and like you said they're already providing bandwidth (which gets cheaper the farther you scale your operation upwards) for things like downloading game files to customers.Probably gonna need a subscription service (to cover its costs independently from the software sales, rather than have developers ask for a cut from the subscription, they already get the cut from the game sale and this is just a Steam feature just like family sharing or remote play together, those just happen to be free services instead as they don't have much overhead). It's gonna add crazy overhead to their servers without additional income beyond the sale of the software. Technically you can already stress Steam servers as you can download your games as many times as you want at will but realistically most don't do this too often. Such a service opens up a lot of possibilities like playing without downloading/installing the games you do own, doing that for family shared libraries without waiting at all to try the newly added games, playing on secondary (or primary but not upgraded in a while) weaker machines that wouldn't run the games at all (or acceptably) otherwise and so on. As an optional side feature you can choose to pay for and utilize it's pretty great if it works well enough to justify its existence, as the only way to play as in Stadia however not so much.
Hire this man already, Gabe !
Valve already has pretty significant investments in CDNs around the world - and like you said they're already providing bandwidth (which gets cheaper the farther you scale your operation upwards) for things like downloading game files to customers.
The sweet spot for Valve - in my opinion - would be to only allow cloud streaming for games while they're being downloaded in the background. Or more accurately, to stream the game assets to the local PC while doing full rendered streaming in the data center. This would give games the illusion of running "in the cloud", but the benefit of being able to hand off the assets to a local machine until eventually, all assets exist on the local machine and the game is no longer running in the data center. Game streaming services are definitely systems with front-loaded benefits for content providers. If you have an 80GB game (I'm looking at you, Destiny 2) and you're trying to deliver said data to jshackles who only maybe wants to play your game for an hour, it takes less data to stream the game - even at 4K - for said hour then it would be to waste 80GB having him load all of the game's assets locally and then launching the game, connecting to your matchmaking services and server infrastructure, etc. Now if, while you're streaming the game this way, you could also stream the game's assets locally - front-loaded to what is needed immediately - then if he changes his mind and wants to keep playing then the longer he plays the less frame data you're streaming and the more he's playing with local assets - until he's got all of the assets locally and can run the game 100% on his own hardware.
Of course, to do this would be a significant shift in how games are delivered, how assets are packaged, and be a huge pipeline headache for developers. It would also cut off the scenario where someone wants to play Grand Theft Auto V on their phone. I guess it all really comes down to what exactly they're trying to accomplish with this feature. Are they doing it to save bandwidth? Or are they doing it to entice new players into their ecosystem?
That's Valve's "oh, someone might threaten our monopoly".
The previous time was when Microsoft was rolling out its software store.
That is how we got that lousy "steam box" program, with "steam console" which was somehow supposed to detach you from windows, while offerring options to stream from a windows machine to a "steam box".
Remind me, how well that brilliant, constantly innovating company, and not some lousy fat monopolist motherfucker company, initiative went.
Let's argue about semantics, shall weMaybe learn what a monopoly is before opening your trap in future.![]()
Let's argue about semantics, shall we
Let's argue about semantics, shall we
Valve has a dominant position as PC game software store. It doesn't matter if it is called monopoly, bazinga or radasma.Kind of important when you're trying to make a point versus be pointless.
Valve has a dominant position as PC game software store. It doesn't matter if it is called monopoly, bazinga or radasma.
That's an interesting way to define "monopoly" although, I don't find it feasible.If Valve truly were a monopoly they'd have shut out Epic a long time ago.
That's an interesting way to define "monopoly" although, I don't find it feasible.
You've conveniently replaced "dominant position" with "market leader". The latter might or might not have dominant market powers. In some countries, one crossing 30% of market share becomes a subject of monitoring by respective agencies.Being a market leader doesn't make you one by default as you seem to purport.
You've conveniently replaced "dominant position" with "market leader". The latter might or might not have dominant market powers. In some countries, one crossing 30% of market share becomes a subject of monitoring by respective agencies.
I don't care enough to argue about semantics. Valve has a dominant position in the market, call it Bazinga or Radamsa if it sounds better....doesn't make then an actual Monopoly...
I don't care enough to argue about semantics. Valve has a dominant position in the market, call it Bazinga or Radamsa if it sounds better.