Steam In-Home Streaming Now Available for All Users

[StewShearerOld]

Steam In-Home Streaming Now Available for All Users

Steam's in-home streaming feature has left its beta process and is now up and running for all users.

For some time now Valve has been investing in the goal of making its Steam service and PC games in general, easier and more convenient to use. Arguably at the center of its efforts in turn has been the development of in-home streaming options that would allow Steam users to stream games from their computer of choice to any other PC in the house. Sadly, this feature has only been available to a few select gamers lucky enough to try it as a part of its beta testing.

That, at least, was the case up until today when Valve announced that the beta trials had finally come to its end and that it will be opening in-home streaming to all of its 75 million users. According to an official page urging players to "start streaming today," the feature is now live and accessible via a few easy steps. To use it, all one has to do into two Steam equipped computers on the same network and then "visit your Steam library to start streaming between them."

What remains to be seen now, is just widely gamers use the feature, especially considering some of its negatives. For instance, while in-home streaming can makes it possible for lower tech machines to play games normally outside of their performance level, the process also <a href=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/129855-Steam-In-Home-Streaming-Monopolizes-Host-Computer>completely monopolizing the PC being streamed from. Just personally, I love the idea of being able to play more intense PC games without being chained to my computer desk, even if it means rendering another computer useless in the process. What's your take? Will you be using in-home streaming now that it's available, or were you happy playing from the confines of your desk?

Source: Steam


Permalink

 

[Vegosiux]

Now, as a single, virgin, basement dwelling gamer I see no use in this.

On a more serious note, no. When I'm gaming, it's "me time". It's time I spend on my own, sometimes online with my online friends, but it's something that's mine. You know, my corner of the cave, staring at the fire for a while while the other human beings around me get filtered out.

I've been opposing this forced shift to gaming being "social" and "connected" from day one; not that I don't want that to be an option, but it seems the companies are trying to tell us that "social" and "connected" is "t3h futrez!" of gaming.

And to that, I call a big, fat NO.

 

[TiberiusEsuriens]

Unfortunately the only people that this benefits are rich people. Most users won't have enough space in their house (most likely townhouse or even apartment) to even need streaming to another room in the first place. Even then, you still need multiple PCs, so that means you have to have enough disposable income to buy roughly a whole new computer. If you're buying a new PC you might as well just play off of it, because if only 1 PC if strong enough to render good graphics you've really just traded one gaming space for another, instead of making either one an option. If you can play on both PCs, then streaming is a 100% waste.

 

[sirjeffofshort]

This would have been awesome for me sometime last year. I ended up buying a surface pro 2 however which can handle anything that I'd want to play anyways and hooks right up to my TV via HDMI. So I can't think of anything I'd want to use this on at the moment, but it's still a pretty great feature to have available.

 

[MLChanges]

I actually like the idea, my only questions are how low end/low power can the receiving PC be and can you stream from Windows to Linux? Guess I'll find out this evening, it might just prompt me to build that HTPC I've had planned.

 

[senkus]

On a more serious note, no. When I'm gaming, it's "me time". It's time I spend on my own, sometimes online with my online friends, but it's something that's mine. You know, my corner of the cave, staring at the fire for a while while the other human beings around me get filtered out.

I've been opposing this forced shift to gaming being "social" and "connected" from day one; not that I don't want that to be an option, but it seems the companies are trying to tell us that "social" and "connected" is "t3h futrez!" of gaming.

And to that, I call a big, fat NO.

I don't think you understood what they're going for. In-Home Streaming is a way to play games in another place in your house, such as the living room. It's pulled off by streaming it to any PC with Windows/OS X/Linux/SteamOS. There's really none of that "social/connected" component to it. It's a convenience feature.

I actually like the idea, my only questions are how low end/low power can the receiving PC be and can you stream from Windows to Linux? Guess I'll find out this evening, it might just prompt me to build that HTPC I've had planned.

The most taxing thing that the client does is decoding the videostream, which can be H.264 or VP8 at a resolution of your choice, usually 1080p or 720p. But this does not mean that a machine that just barely handles YouTube's 1080p streams will do the trick. Steam uses much higher bitrates and faster encoding settings to avoid slowing down your host computer down too much, while maintaining picture quality. The higher bitrates mean higher decoding requirements. If I remember correctly, the bitrate for 1080p was around 15 MBPS, but don't hold me to it. That said, it can be very low-end, but a single-core machine won't cut it.

Even then, you still need multiple PCs, so that means you have to have enough disposable income to buy roughly a whole new computer.

If you already have a TV and a gaming-capable PC, it's really just a ~$150 investment for streaming.

If you can play on both PCs, then streaming is a 100% waste.

Most definitely.

 

[Vegosiux]

I don't think you understood what they're going for. In-Home Streaming is a way to play games in another place in your house, such as the living room. It's pulled off by streaming it to any PC with Windows/OS X/Linux/SteamOS. There's really none of that "social/connected" component to it. It's a convenience feature.

Well, I suppose it could work for "15 minute gaming" I suppose. But the kind of gaming I do, it takes a while, it takes me sitting down and committing to it. The walk to the room in which I do that consists of about 15 seconds at most, and that's if I'm outside.

 

[DaWaffledude]

Now, as a single, virgin, basement dwelling gamer I see no use in this.

On a more serious note, no. When I'm gaming, it's "me time". It's time I spend on my own, sometimes online with my online friends, but it's something that's mine. You know, my corner of the cave, staring at the fire for a while while the other human beings around me get filtered out.

I've been opposing this forced shift to gaming being "social" and "connected" from day one; not that I don't want that to be an option, but it seems the companies are trying to tell us that "social" and "connected" is "t3h futrez!" of gaming.

And to that, I call a big, fat NO.

I think you might have misread the article. All this does is let you use one computer's processing power to play games on another, less powerful computer. No more than one person is required.

 

[Vegosiux]

Now, as a single, virgin, basement dwelling gamer I see no use in this.

On a more serious note, no. When I'm gaming, it's "me time". It's time I spend on my own, sometimes online with my online friends, but it's something that's mine. You know, my corner of the cave, staring at the fire for a while while the other human beings around me get filtered out.

I've been opposing this forced shift to gaming being "social" and "connected" from day one; not that I don't want that to be an option, but it seems the companies are trying to tell us that "social" and "connected" is "t3h futrez!" of gaming.

And to that, I call a big, fat NO.

I think you might have misread the article. All this does is let you use one computer's processing power to play games on another, less powerful computer. No more than one person is required.

Well, that's my post just above yours then

Really now, does Valve think most of their customers live in sprawling castles, or something?

 

[Vivi22]

Really now, does Valve think most of their customers live in sprawling castles, or something?

Not sure why someone would need to live in a sprawling castle to enjoy playing some Super Meat Boy, Rogue Legacy, or any number of other controller suited games in the comfort of their living room on the big screen rather than at a desk on a computer.

 

[Vegosiux]

Really now, does Valve think most of their customers live in sprawling castles, or something?

Not sure why someone would need to live in a sprawling castle to enjoy playing some Super Meat Boy, Rogue Legacy, or any number of other controller suited games in the comfort of their living room on the big screen rather than at a desk on a computer.

Not sure why anyone would need two separate devices to do that...?

 

[Nowhere Man]

I approve this. Now I can stream Far Cry 3 to my craptop and play from the comfort of my toilet.

 

[Weaver]

Unfortunately, my particular situation could simply be solved with a 15 foot HDMI cable and a wireless controller. I might give streaming to my laptop a go though, why not?

 

[thiosk]

Can i stream to a chromecast? That would be something (i doubt it)

 

[Jadak]

Can i stream to a chromecast? That would be something (i doubt it)

If Chromecast ever gets a decent implementation of desktop streaming, it'll be able to do this all on it's own.

But no, this requires Steam be on both computers so Chromecast isn't quite suited for the way it works now.

 

[NuclearKangaroo]

i guess it could be useful for some XCOM battles before going to sleep, but the last time i tried it during beta it was hopelesssly laggy, they might have improved it now that the feature is out of beta tough

 

[Imperioratorex Caprae]

Unfortunately the only people that this benefits are rich people. Most users won't have enough space in their house (most likely townhouse or even apartment) to even need streaming to another room in the first place. Even then, you still need multiple PCs, so that means you have to have enough disposable income to buy roughly a whole new computer. If you're buying a new PC you might as well just play off of it, because if only 1 PC if strong enough to render good graphics you've really just traded one gaming space for another, instead of making either one an option. If you can play on both PCs, then streaming is a 100% waste.

I think you're misinterpreting "rich" and "middle-class" as "uber-rich" and "rich". Or folk like myself who're lower middle-class and thrifty. I've got 3 gaming PC's in my home, one of which I paid for, one I traded for and one I cobbled together with extra parts laying around. I also find awesome deals at auctions, swap-meets and donation centers that resell the donations for charity (supposedly).
But yeah many middle-class families can afford this. Also have you *seen* the amount of iPhones, iPads and other tablets in possession of regular folks? I mean if the rich are a small percentage of the population, you shouldn't see that many expensive gadgets around... they can't all be sittin on a fat stack, that would preclude your notion of only the rich can have nice things.

 

[grigjd3]

So I plop steam OS onto a machine that isn't nearly as big as my desktop, hook that up to my TV and now I have the power of my desktop on the 46" television with the speaker system. It seems like this is for the technology savvy but I like it.

 

[barbzilla]

Unfortunately, my particular situation could simply be solved with a 15 foot HDMI cable and a wireless controller. I might give streaming to my laptop a go though, why not?

Mine already was with the addition of a wireless keyboard/touchpad combo that is about 6" long (though my HDMI was a 30' one, the 15' made it to the TV, but it was in the way of everything, so I had to opt for the longer option).

As far as my laptop goes, I really can't see any situation where I'd want to play on my laptop. Unless maybe I was bedridden or something, but I think my worries would extend beyond gaming at that point. Really, 90% of the time, my laptop sits right next to my PC monitor incase I need to research something on the fly, while in game, or I get a phone call (my phone comes out of it).

 

[thiosk]

So I plop steam OS onto a machine that isn't nearly as big as my desktop, hook that up to my TV and now I have the power of my desktop on the 46" television with the speaker system. It seems like this is for the technology savvy but I like it.

I think its one step towards replacement of the windows machine. Theres only one reason I don't use linux-- games. Windows is more than 100 bucks oem!! Only in the last couple years has linux support been a non-joke, but theres a problem with going solid steam-machine linux only as steam is wont to do: backwards compatibility. Your whole library is shot.

HOWEVER.

You can stream that shit.

And stream it we will.