6 ms·

> partnered with Valve and shipped something mind-blowing I tend to agree. In these cloud game streaming wars, Steam is a reservoir of totally untapped crude o

by 015a 6y ago

> partnered with Valve and shipped something mind-blowing I tend to agree. In these cloud game streaming wars, Steam is a reservoir of totally untapped crude oil. Its the largest and most active western game platform, period, its beloved by its users, and Valve hasn't even remotely signaled an intention to compete. Companies and products like Steam are one in a million; Stadia, Luna, GeForce Now, xCloud, PSNow, are not. There is no amount of money they could pay Valve to make that partnership happen that would not pay dividends. Valve/Steam is just "behind" in all of this modern gaming crap, and the fact that they're still the most popular platform (and its not close) speaks volumes about whether the CloudStreamingGamePass-way things are going is actually the right one. Its reasonable to believe that people who identify as "gamers" right now are not interested in that stuff, and the strategy Google/Amazon/etc have of "Netflix for gaming, no console, convert non-gamers to gamers" won't work. Time will tell, but maybe Valve's traditionalism is the right one long-term. You know where Valve is investing their money? VR and Linux. God damn do I love that company.

dfgdghdf 6y ago
Valve can do this stuff because they are a private company. Gabe has publicly stated that he does not believe in game streaming services, because he thinks computation is best done at the edge.
- ilikehurdles 6y ago
  If Valve fully backed cloud gaming, that would have downstream effects on publishers and PC gaming as a platform. Who would sign on to publish a competitive, reaction driven game if the market is segmented between the high-latency cloud where anyone can play, and physical hardware only purchased by a relatively diminishing market? The audience for tactical precise shooters, MOBAs, RTSs, etc would deteriorate and with it so would one competitive advantage of PC gaming. Might be tautological, but the games that thrive in the cloud are games designed not to need a PC to be played.
  - lutte 6y ago
    Moreover Valve's hardest push in the past years was in VR. They are literally the only major (not indie or AA, and not doing a bad port of an already existing game, like Bethesda) developer to make a full game's worth of content for the platform that makes full use of the platform. Alyx was a breath of fresh air for anyone who wanted something out of VR that didn't feel like an incomplete experience. And VR is inherently incompatible with the design goals of cloud computing. The slightest of latencies destroy the illusion in VR. Valve is not going to support a world that doesn't encourage people to own the hardware necessary to run VR.
    - Duralias 6y ago
      With technologies like re-projection or whatever specifically the Oculus Quest uses, wireless local streaming isn't that bad, It can easily be a terrible experience if you do not know what you are doing, but its fine most of the time, the latency honestly isn't noticeable, unless you play beat saber. Although doing over-the-internet streaming is definitely a terrible idea because of how many out-of-your-control factors exist.
  - riversflow 6y ago
    > The audience for tactical precise shooters, MOBAs, RTSs, etc would deteriorate Maybe, but I tend to think that it wouldn’t diminish, and that this idea that very many will just “get over” latency is something VPs and PMs have convinced themselves of and not something that would bare out in the data. The first time I gamed on a 120hz display was life changing in a way, I was never totally satisfied playing any sort of competitive multiplayer game at 60hz again, it’s like wearing hazy scratched glasses when the competition doesn’t. And all it took was playing on a friends PC with a 120hz display for half an hour. I think considering how great the push to >120Hz has been in PC gaming, and that High-hertz are now being adopted in smartphones and tablets I’m not alone in this experience. My point being here that a large part of why people choose to play competitive, reaction driven games, is precisely because they are competitive and especially because they are very fast paced. So fast paced that 8ms of output latency makes a significant difference to a large segment.
- kn8a 6y ago
  I accidentally realised I could stream from Steam the other day which is interesting that they can technically do it.
anonymousab 6y ago
Valve did build out a lot of features like Remote Play and streaming on Steam, but just to a level of ok functionality. It's just clearly not their main interest. So I agree with your point, but it's not like Valve as a company is totally unaware of the opportunities. They are just... uninterested.
- w0utert 6y ago
  >> Valve did build out a lot of features like Remote Play and streaming on Steam, but just to a level of ok functionality. I think Remote Play works brilliantly? I've finished multiple games using it, streaming from the PC at the other side of the house to the TV with SteamLink in the living room, using an Xbox One S controller. I hardly see a difference compared to sitting directly behind the PC (granted, this is limited to 1080p on the SteamLink hardware, but my eyes are old enough to not care about higher resolution anymore).
chaostheory 6y ago
> Valve/Steam is just "behind" in all of this modern gaming crap Valve is not behind in VR
- Jochim 6y ago
  I do wish valve would put some cash into publishing some high quality VR titles though. So many quality VR games are Oculus exclusives, it's saddening watching Facebook try to monopolise the space.
FredFS456 6y ago
GeForce Now can be used with Steam quite seamlessly. In fact, GeForce Now's value is to play the games you already own on various platforms on their hardware. They're not trying to be another games store.
- foota 6y ago
  I don't think this is true anymore after publishers pulled back.
- zhynn 6y ago
  To clarify the other commenter's point, I am a founders edition of geforceNow and it used to have just everything. Like if it was in my Steam library, I could play it. Early editions just basically launched a slimmed down RDP session with Steam being started. It was awesome. Now, they put you in a weird virtual zone where your library is restricted to only the game you are currently playing. And if that game is not allowed by the publisher, you can't play it. So I can't play Slime Rancher. I can't play Shadows of Mordor. And it seems like over time there is less and less there. It sucks, because it was basically my dream gaming service. Kind of like Google Play Music was my dream music service. :(
  - 194765 6y ago
    I loved Google play music. When they migrated over to Youtube Music I was happy that I could still upload my albums and migrate my playlists. https://support.google.com/youtubemusic/answer/9716522 https://support.google.com/youtubemusic/answer/9716522
ahelwer 6y ago
The 2008-2017 period was great for PC gaming. Now graphics cards alone cost as much or more than an entire console. The prices only seem to go up. Game streaming has the opportunity to dramatically decrease costs. I think it will work.
- clankyclanker 6y ago
  I already have friends for whom it’s cheaper to own a computer and use streaming systems (Shadow?) than it is to own a single Gaming PC.
- delecti 6y ago
  Graphics cards have ranged across the price spectrum for the past 20 years. The first GeForce "Titan" card was $1000 and came out right in the middle of that time range (2013). I'm not sure what PC market you were watching for the past 20 years, but it's not the one I remember.
  - 5d749d7da7d5 6y ago
    Titan was the most premium card available and probably not representative of a typical build.
    - delecti 6y ago
      Sure, but it also remains the defining example of "ludicrously expensive graphics card". The card below it, the GTX 780, was $650, which is still more expensive than any current generation consoles. Meanwhile the current top and 2nd tier GeForce cards (3090 and 3080) have MSRPs of $1500 and $700, which are more expensive, but not outrageously so. I just don't think it's accurate to paint a picture of the market from 2008-2017 as affordable in contrast with the current expensive market.
      - ahelwer 6y ago
        MSRP doesn't matter anymore. These cards are so difficult to get that they basically go used for MSRP, and on the secondary market for nearly a multiple of MSRP.
cwyers 6y ago
Valve also has shipped exactly one first-party game since Dota 2 in 2013, outside of VR stuff, and it's a card game. I don't think they're tops on the list of studios that could give Google a big hit game to put on their new cloud console.
- fuzxi 6y ago
  Didn't they make that DOTA autochess game as well?
  - cwyers 6y ago
    Huh, so they did. I don't think that materially changes my point, but, yes.
- icelancer 6y ago
  >> and it's a card game And a massive failure at that.
- 015a 6y ago
  No, the point I and I think the OP are making is not Valve as a developer, its Steam as the storefront. Steam has tremendous power in moving developers toward, say, the cloud; if Valve just made it a checkbox on the publisher's page (or something to that effect), any cloud streaming service that integrated with Steam would be tier 1 overnight. But I'm also happy they haven't. These cloud streaming ecosystems are the apex of locked down closed systems. Valve is built on a culture of modding, revving games to make new ones, and being fair to users in a way that doesn't compromise being fair to developers. Cloud streaming systems, by and large, are not. They're built by big-tech megacorps that are looking to buy-in then cash-out on an industry they know nothing about (except Nvidia; if there were one cloud streaming service I'd support, its theirs. Nvidia isn't perfect, but its definitely within their wheelhouse, not a cash grab). Beyond that, you're marginalizing Valve's dominance in the gaming industry. Of the top ten games by players on Steam right now, again, the most popular western gaming platform ever made, three are made by Valve (CS:GO #1, Dota2 #2, TF2 #4, and #3 is Rust, the monthly TwitchFad). Overall, the only non-Steam western PC games which compete with their numbers are Call of Duty, League of Legends, Valorant, Fornite, Minecraft. The one theme with most of these games is that they're pretty old. People love games they know; when the developer sticks around, builds out a fair monetization scheme, and iterates on the gameplay, the games become unbeatable pillars on whatever service they're distributed on (the few that aren't old: Fortnite/Valorant will get there, and CoD has this in a way, but is definitely the most different every year). Valve is a rock-solid game developer; the fact that they don't release new games every year just speaks to their commitment to their existing communities. And, they also made Half Life Alyx last year. Its legitimately the most groundbreaking game to be released in the past decade, that unfortunately so few people are able to play. You physically cannot play that game and not have a shit-eating grin on your face the whole time. It is the only game I've ever played in VR (on Valve Index) that made me think "if this game were in both non-VR and VR, I would choose to play it in VR".

by 015a 6y ago

dfgdghdf 6y ago

Valve can do this stuff because they are a private company. Gabe has publicly stated that he does not believe in game streaming services, because he thinks computation is best done at the edge.

ilikehurdles 6y ago
If Valve fully backed cloud gaming, that would have downstream effects on publishers and PC gaming as a platform. Who would sign on to publish a competitive, reaction driven game if the market is segmented between the high-latency cloud where anyone can play, and physical hardware only purchased by a relatively diminishing market? The audience for tactical precise shooters, MOBAs, RTSs, etc would deteriorate and with it so would one competitive advantage of PC gaming. Might be tautological, but the games that thrive in the cloud are games designed not to need a PC to be played.
- lutte 6y ago
  Moreover Valve's hardest push in the past years was in VR. They are literally the only major (not indie or AA, and not doing a bad port of an already existing game, like Bethesda) developer to make a full game's worth of content for the platform that makes full use of the platform. Alyx was a breath of fresh air for anyone who wanted something out of VR that didn't feel like an incomplete experience. And VR is inherently incompatible with the design goals of cloud computing. The slightest of latencies destroy the illusion in VR. Valve is not going to support a world that doesn't encourage people to own the hardware necessary to run VR.
  - Duralias 6y ago
    With technologies like re-projection or whatever specifically the Oculus Quest uses, wireless local streaming isn't that bad, It can easily be a terrible experience if you do not know what you are doing, but its fine most of the time, the latency honestly isn't noticeable, unless you play beat saber. Although doing over-the-internet streaming is definitely a terrible idea because of how many out-of-your-control factors exist.
- riversflow 6y ago
  > The audience for tactical precise shooters, MOBAs, RTSs, etc would deteriorate Maybe, but I tend to think that it wouldn’t diminish, and that this idea that very many will just “get over” latency is something VPs and PMs have convinced themselves of and not something that would bare out in the data. The first time I gamed on a 120hz display was life changing in a way, I was never totally satisfied playing any sort of competitive multiplayer game at 60hz again, it’s like wearing hazy scratched glasses when the competition doesn’t. And all it took was playing on a friends PC with a 120hz display for half an hour. I think considering how great the push to >120Hz has been in PC gaming, and that High-hertz are now being adopted in smartphones and tablets I’m not alone in this experience. My point being here that a large part of why people choose to play competitive, reaction driven games, is precisely because they are competitive and especially because they are very fast paced. So fast paced that 8ms of output latency makes a significant difference to a large segment.
kn8a 6y ago
I accidentally realised I could stream from Steam the other day which is interesting that they can technically do it.

anonymousab 6y ago

Valve did build out a lot of features like Remote Play and streaming on Steam, but just to a level of ok functionality. It's just clearly not their main interest. So I agree with your point, but it's not like Valve as a company is totally unaware of the opportunities. They are just... uninterested.

w0utert 6y ago
>> Valve did build out a lot of features like Remote Play and streaming on Steam, but just to a level of ok functionality. I think Remote Play works brilliantly? I've finished multiple games using it, streaming from the PC at the other side of the house to the TV with SteamLink in the living room, using an Xbox One S controller. I hardly see a difference compared to sitting directly behind the PC (granted, this is limited to 1080p on the SteamLink hardware, but my eyes are old enough to not care about higher resolution anymore).

chaostheory 6y ago

> Valve/Steam is just "behind" in all of this modern gaming crap Valve is not behind in VR

Jochim 6y ago
I do wish valve would put some cash into publishing some high quality VR titles though. So many quality VR games are Oculus exclusives, it's saddening watching Facebook try to monopolise the space.

FredFS456 6y ago

GeForce Now can be used with Steam quite seamlessly. In fact, GeForce Now's value is to play the games you already own on various platforms on their hardware. They're not trying to be another games store.

foota 6y ago
I don't think this is true anymore after publishers pulled back.
zhynn 6y ago
To clarify the other commenter's point, I am a founders edition of geforceNow and it used to have just everything. Like if it was in my Steam library, I could play it. Early editions just basically launched a slimmed down RDP session with Steam being started. It was awesome. Now, they put you in a weird virtual zone where your library is restricted to only the game you are currently playing. And if that game is not allowed by the publisher, you can't play it. So I can't play Slime Rancher. I can't play Shadows of Mordor. And it seems like over time there is less and less there. It sucks, because it was basically my dream gaming service. Kind of like Google Play Music was my dream music service. :(
- 194765 6y ago
  I loved Google play music. When they migrated over to Youtube Music I was happy that I could still upload my albums and migrate my playlists. https://support.google.com/youtubemusic/answer/9716522 https://support.google.com/youtubemusic/answer/9716522

ahelwer 6y ago

The 2008-2017 period was great for PC gaming. Now graphics cards alone cost as much or more than an entire console. The prices only seem to go up. Game streaming has the opportunity to dramatically decrease costs. I think it will work.

clankyclanker 6y ago
I already have friends for whom it’s cheaper to own a computer and use streaming systems (Shadow?) than it is to own a single Gaming PC.
delecti 6y ago
Graphics cards have ranged across the price spectrum for the past 20 years. The first GeForce "Titan" card was $1000 and came out right in the middle of that time range (2013). I'm not sure what PC market you were watching for the past 20 years, but it's not the one I remember.
- 5d749d7da7d5 6y ago
  Titan was the most premium card available and probably not representative of a typical build.
  - delecti 6y ago
    Sure, but it also remains the defining example of "ludicrously expensive graphics card". The card below it, the GTX 780, was $650, which is still more expensive than any current generation consoles. Meanwhile the current top and 2nd tier GeForce cards (3090 and 3080) have MSRPs of $1500 and $700, which are more expensive, but not outrageously so. I just don't think it's accurate to paint a picture of the market from 2008-2017 as affordable in contrast with the current expensive market.
    - ahelwer 6y ago
      MSRP doesn't matter anymore. These cards are so difficult to get that they basically go used for MSRP, and on the secondary market for nearly a multiple of MSRP.

cwyers 6y ago

Valve also has shipped exactly one first-party game since Dota 2 in 2013, outside of VR stuff, and it's a card game. I don't think they're tops on the list of studios that could give Google a big hit game to put on their new cloud console.

fuzxi 6y ago
Didn't they make that DOTA autochess game as well?
- cwyers 6y ago
  Huh, so they did. I don't think that materially changes my point, but, yes.
icelancer 6y ago
>> and it's a card game And a massive failure at that.
015a 6y ago
No, the point I and I think the OP are making is not Valve as a developer, its Steam as the storefront. Steam has tremendous power in moving developers toward, say, the cloud; if Valve just made it a checkbox on the publisher's page (or something to that effect), any cloud streaming service that integrated with Steam would be tier 1 overnight. But I'm also happy they haven't. These cloud streaming ecosystems are the apex of locked down closed systems. Valve is built on a culture of modding, revving games to make new ones, and being fair to users in a way that doesn't compromise being fair to developers. Cloud streaming systems, by and large, are not. They're built by big-tech megacorps that are looking to buy-in then cash-out on an industry they know nothing about (except Nvidia; if there were one cloud streaming service I'd support, its theirs. Nvidia isn't perfect, but its definitely within their wheelhouse, not a cash grab). Beyond that, you're marginalizing Valve's dominance in the gaming industry. Of the top ten games by players on Steam right now, again, the most popular western gaming platform ever made, three are made by Valve (CS:GO #1, Dota2 #2, TF2 #4, and #3 is Rust, the monthly TwitchFad). Overall, the only non-Steam western PC games which compete with their numbers are Call of Duty, League of Legends, Valorant, Fornite, Minecraft. The one theme with most of these games is that they're pretty old. People love games they know; when the developer sticks around, builds out a fair monetization scheme, and iterates on the gameplay, the games become unbeatable pillars on whatever service they're distributed on (the few that aren't old: Fortnite/Valorant will get there, and CoD has this in a way, but is definitely the most different every year). Valve is a rock-solid game developer; the fact that they don't release new games every year just speaks to their commitment to their existing communities. And, they also made Half Life Alyx last year. Its legitimately the most groundbreaking game to be released in the past decade, that unfortunately so few people are able to play. You physically cannot play that game and not have a shit-eating grin on your face the whole time. It is the only game I've ever played in VR (on Valve Index) that made me think "if this game were in both non-VR and VR, I would choose to play it in VR".