5 ms·
I might not mind if Valve just made all the games available this way. No download, no waiting: a button in the Steam client starts streaming the game immediatel
by joblessjunkie 12y ago
I might not mind if Valve just made all the games available this way. No download, no waiting: a button in the Steam client starts streaming the game immediately.
- chii 12y agowould you pay $2-$3/hour for such a service from steam?
- sagichmal 12y agoProbably not. $0.50-$1/hour, absolutely.
- lucaspiller 12y agoSame here. Assuming you game for 5 hours a week that works out to be under $300/year. Much cheaper than buying and keeping a gaming PC up to date.
- thedrbrian 12y agoIf you only game for 5 hours a week buy a console and save $270 next year. ( minus $30 for an XBL or PS Plus subscription for online play and free games ) Also it's locally rendered thus no input lag and you don't need to tie up your entire internet pipe when you want to game.
- path411 12y agoI think this ignores a lot of other points. Console requires a high quality TV. Console may require controller or other accessories to play local multiplayer. Console games are significantly more expensive, especially for a more casual gamer. The games they like to play 5 hours a week may only be available on PC.
- drummer32 12y agoI think they already do. You begin the download and after it has downloaded some portion of the game you can launch it and the stream the rest.
- albertoleal 12y agoI didn't know about this. Which games?
- KJasper 12y agoNot Steam, but Ubisoft did this for instance with the latest Far Cry and Assassins Creed.
- fletchowns 12y agoBlizzard games also do this, you usually only have to download about 25% to start playing
- pjc50 12y agoOnLive tried to do this and went bankrupt recently, IIRC.
- xedarius 12y agoBiggest win I see is you could even be rid of the steam client.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]