Steam In-Home Streaming Monopolizes Host Computer

[niknar266]

I'm very interested by this if it means I can stream to my mac and play the 1/3 of my steam library not compatible with it. I actually experimented with streaming batman arkham origins to my nexus 7 through a program called splashtop wasn't ideal though as the screen was too small.

 

[Strazdas]

Steam, what are you doing? are you really wanting to be console so bad?

I'm kinda surprised anyone thought this wasn't going to be the case.

Im surprised anyone thought it would. Computers are not one-track cassete tapes. you can use its resoruces for multiple things. For example i can download a movie, code video i filmed earlier, listen to music and play a game, all at the same time. just because it plays a game does not mean it cant do anything else.

Same. Computers aren't magic, they have to process things according to the programming of the firmware/software.

But hey, maybe someone will figure out a way to use multiple control inputs seamlessly, especially if the streaming becomes a standard.

At any rate, it's not really a loss, because if you wanted to play WITHOUT the Steam Machine, you still had to use your computer anyways.

A programmer thatp rogramms its software in such a way that it would hog whole PC and wont let you do anything should be fired. Then again, COD: ghosts guys are still working and they done worse.
YOu CAN use multiple control imputs seamlessly. In fact, its been done in variaty of ways from 2 mouses at once to 10 people using the same computer via remote-desktop that is built-in in windows. Yes, thats right, windows already comes in with software that can do it better than steam streaming does. Heck, you can hook up your tv as remote acess and what you need is some itnernediate machine to handle the imputs locally (as in you would need a keyboard for TV, then you can use the PC while nto disturbing the person actually sitting in front of it (other than loading it with work, but lets face it unelss you do something very specific yournot goign to load it 100%).

Nice thing, you can still just have video output to the TV, switch the TV over to that INput and have your PC span/duplicate displays.

Nobody will be using the computer while you're doing this, I assume. If you're gaming, then you're not likely to be sharing the comp anyways.

there are no problems with, say, somone gaming on the PC and other person using remote acess to browse internet (like this forums) on same PC. the browsing hardly loads the PC at all and will not disturb the game. and the game wont disturb browsing since browsing wont require a lot of resources.

Be creative, people. You could use this to stream FROM a Steam Machine, which look like they'll be as small and well designed as possible for a computer that holds a high-end GPU, TO a lighter device such as an Ultrabook or an older PC.

I'm personally looking into moving away from a bulky PC and towards an Ultrabook connected to my 27" screen and keyboard. If that means I can ALSO play games with graphics only a desktop-based GPU can handle, this is amazing.

Wait what? So you want to paly PC games on PC with keyboard and mouse but streamed to your ultrabook which in turns streams it to your monitor for exactly what reason? why involve the ultrabook at all?

And to people who might complain about running long ethernet cables, you can get these devices at electronic shops now, they're called Broadband-Over-Mains plugs. And they work like they're labelled. You get two plugs, one goes into a power socket next to your modem/router, the other goes into a socket next to your PC or whatever and it sends the network signal through the power lines. As far as I know you can have four plugs (one transmitter and three receivers) in the one house and they're dumb terminals so it doesn't matter which plug is delegated to which role. Using these, you could easily bring network points to any part in your house. They're also plummeting in price, when we got them in at work, they were usually 80+ euros, now you can get a very decent pair for twenty six euros which, for what they are, is a steal.

i never heard of such a thing. but even if we look at it from an idea perspective, transmitting the internet via electricity cables.... wont work. first of all it already transmits electricty so that will interfere. unelss you disconnect it from the main circut. lets assume you do. then your left with standart electricity cable in echange for internet cable. that thing wont transmit fast enough for high definition streaming, unelss your transmitting very short distance.

Because now I can take my crappy laptop and play games on the toilet without an HDMI cable connecting my laptop to my PC.

It isnt an amazing new feature but its an option that can be convinient in some cases.

first of all who plays games on the toilet? if your sitting there wouldnt a chair be better? and if your "doing pooop" your busy doing poop and not gaming.
secondly you coudl ahve done the same with, surprise surprise, 20 dollar router.

I think what the intention of the home streaming is to get around the directX issue. RDP is platform independent so you can run your Windows games on your main PC and stream it to a SteamOS box. You can run a linux screen on windows using RDP and vica versa. I still don't see the reason why you buy two PC's but its a part solution to the problem.

except that if it monopolizes the PC its not using RDP.

There it is! For me it would be over 200 ft of cable to do this. I have 5 computers in my house but only one of them is the real Beast. The others are just crappy laptops and decent desk units. This lets me play a game on my best PC is ANY ROOM, and I do not have to sit next to the giant unit.

How does steambox conenct to your beast without a cable?

That's a shame. Most operating systems including Windows aren't really designed to handle multiple users being online at the same time. The reality is a good PC can quite easily run a demanding game and surf the web at the same time as games rarely max out every CPU core (I have never seen it happen). But Windows is designed to have one thing, one active window in focus at once. Sure you can have multiple windows open, perhaps on multiple displays but only one is "on top" at once.

Yes it is. Its called user accounts. when i was in a group hosting a gaming server we would connect directly to the host via remote desktop with a limited account set up. sometimes we would be 5 people doing stuff on same computer at once. It handled it with no problems.

I can't plug in a second mouse and keyboard and tell windows these inputs only apply to screen #2. That said it isn't far off. Case in point I found earlier when playing AC Black Flag if I alt-tabbed out of the game and was using Firefox, the game would still recognize the controller inputs and it wouldn't interfere with the Firefox window. So while Windows doesn't really support simultaneous multiple user input and output I don't think it would be too difficult for Microsoft to implement, or for an application developer such as valve to build that functionality.

You can, or at least you could. You could have 2 mouses controller by 2 mouses. Though i havent tried that since 98 so maybe they dropped the functionality. Either way, since you can use multi-accounts that issue is solved anyway.

 

[Slash2x]

.

There it is! For me it would be over 200 ft of cable to do this. I have 5 computers in my house but only one of them is the real Beast. The others are just crappy laptops and decent desk units. This lets me play a game on my best PC is ANY ROOM, and I do not have to sit next to the giant unit.

How does steambox conenct to your beast without a cable?

Ummm. I think you missed the entire point of the article.....

1. Who said anything about a Steambox? I have computers already I will be installing the SteamOS..

2. I would stream my best computer onto one of the shitty ones via wireless.... So it can stay where it is at and I can connect another system in the room I am in instead of moving a 4ft tall full tower around my house or getting 200ft of cable.

 

[O maestre]

Why wouldn't you just connect the host PC directly to the TV.... This seems dumb and complicated for something that could be solved with a lengthier HDMI cable. Internet streaming Would have been a true step forward.

So you can access you steam games round the house on less powerful devices than your gaming rig? Not useful to everyone but thats fine its almost as if evey feature doesnt need to be useful to everyone....

This isnt designed to just be a longer HDMI cable. Hell the guy above you has proposed one of the likely intended uses.

The guy above me could bypass his laptop completely by getting a cable from his bedroom to his living room TV. If he needs to access files there are plenty of remote desktop apps like team viewer. I still don't see the practical or revolutionary aspect of this, maybe it is just me that has a ridiculously small apartment compared to Darkzero

so you have an HDMI cable strung across the house maybe from the first floor to the second floor and are using this tv as another monitor, do you also string usb cables across the house so you can have your mouse, keyboard, controller, head set?

Guess I am one of the few people that lives in a flat and not a 2 story house. I use a wireless mouse and keyboard FYI.
It just seems wasteful to have two machines running and one of them is only dedicated to one function, if this was a remote desktop app then you wouldn't loose the functionality of the host as a computer, making it more useful, like teamviewer, VNC, logmein or chrome remote desktop. Homestream doesn't seem very revolutionary or unique, beyond the fact that it is restricted to a home WLAN/LAN network, which is faster but limited.

 

[Vivi22]

Why wouldn't you just connect the host PC directly to the TV.... This seems dumb and complicated for something that could be solved with a lengthier HDMI cable. Internet streaming Would have been a true step forward.

Because everyone keeps their desktop in the same room as their TV, or wants to go to the trouble of moving it around the house to play games on a big screen.

In my case for instance, while there are HDMI cables that could reach from my desktop to the TV in the living room, why do you figure I'd want to run an HDMI cable from my desktop, through the dining room, the kitchen, and across the entire length of the living room? How is that a solution? And how the hell are my wired controller or keyboard and mouse going to reach?

 

[Vivi22]

It just seems wasteful to have two machines running and one of them is only dedicated to one function, if this was a remote desktop app then you wouldn't loose the functionality of the host as a computer, making it more useful, like teamviewer, VNC, logmein or chrome remote desktop. Homestream doesn't seem very revolutionary or unique, beyond the fact that it is restricted to a home WLAN/LAN network, which is faster but limited.

Why is it wasteful? Most people leave their desktops running 24/7 anyway. And you couldn't make this a remote desktop or anything else that is going to retain the functionality of the host computer when a game is being played. I'm not sure you realize just how much power is being devoted to running games by the typical PC. You wouldn't expect to multitask on it while playing Call of Duty or something anyway, so why would the expectation change when the PC is now streaming the game on top of it?

I'm also not seeing why it's that big an issue. Most homes have more than one computer. Hell, more than one per person. So it's not like someone else is cut off from all computer use while someone is playing a game. And if they do need to use the desktop, that's what compromise is for.

 

[Gennadios]

This might actually be cost effective. I can buy a more powerful gaming tower for 1/3rd the price of an equivalent gaming laptop, and I can actually start buying decent priced/weighted laptops without worrying about them going obsolete in two year's time, brill! And television interface!

 

[AT God]

I thought that the Steam Box was going to be the host computer an it would send the video/audio to the TV, like a console but with Steam as the entire games library. The ability to stream PC games into a TV isn't new, I do it when I play games that work better with a gamepad. Streaming from the computer, to another object like a Steam Box, and then to a TV seems silly, what purpose does the steam box serve other than to manage the user input, something gaming PCs can handle wirelessly very well.

And did people expect to be able to run the new Battle of Duty on ultra while browsing the web? If it is streaming to another place, what ever is doing all the rendering is obviously going to be busy. And if you want to play an less demanding game through your TV, plug your TV into your computer. Which is what I thought the Steam box was, a Steam Box capable of playing Steam games through TV's without the need of a high end PC.

I'm so confused now.

 

[Chaos Marine]

we look at it from an idea perspective, transmitting the internet via electricity cables.... wont work. first of all it already transmits electricty so that will interfere. unelss you disconnect it from the main circut. lets assume you do. then your left with standart electricity cable in echange for internet cable. that thing wont transmit fast enough for high definition streaming, unelss your transmitting very short distance.

They work perfectly. I use one for my housemate's PS3 because the WiFi receiver on the PS3 are crap.

http://www.maplin.co.uk/buy-networking/powerline-over-the-mains

You may also want to run your posts through a spell checker.

 

[Agayek]

Im surprised anyone thought it would. Computers are not one-track cassete tapes. you can use its resoruces for multiple things. For example i can download a movie, code video i filmed earlier, listen to music and play a game, all at the same time. just because it plays a game does not mean it cant do anything else.

Except you can still do all that while streaming Steam games.

What you can't do is have someone else surfing the net or whatever. This is the case because of the nature of Windows. There's two major problems with having the computer available to do something else. Windows is designed for only one task/process to be "active" at any given time. That's what the selection/highlight thing on the task bar represents. Inactive tasks get both lower resources/priority for resources and do not receive inputs without special considerations taken by the developers. That's why when you type in MS word with IE open, you don't start randomly browsing the internet.

What this means in the case of Steambox is that if someone else were to try and use the computer, the game it's streaming would become inactive and be unable to receive commands. Thus, the guy on the TV end wouldn't be able to play their games.

In short, you're completely misunderstanding everything, from what the streaming is supposedly going to do to the very nature of Windows, and it's not doing you any favors.

 

[O maestre]

Spoiler: snip about cables

Why wouldn't you just connect the host PC directly to the TV.... This seems dumb and complicated for something that could be solved with a lengthier HDMI cable. Internet streaming Would have been a true step forward.

Because everyone keeps their desktop in the same room as their TV, or wants to go to the trouble of moving it around the house to play games on a big screen.

In my case for instance, while there are HDMI cables that could reach from my desktop to the TV in the living room, why do you figure I'd want to run an HDMI cable from my desktop, through the dining room, the kitchen, and across the entire length of the living room? How is that a solution? And how the hell are my wired controller or keyboard and mouse going to reach?

wireless keyboard and mouse? I use it. Often cables are pegged alongside walls or the holes for telephone cables, not just lying on the floor.

It just seems wasteful to have two machines running and one of them is only dedicated to one function, if this was a remote desktop app then you wouldn't loose the functionality of the host as a computer, making it more useful, like teamviewer, VNC, logmein or chrome remote desktop. Homestream doesn't seem very revolutionary or unique, beyond the fact that it is restricted to a home WLAN/LAN network, which is faster but limited.

Why is it wasteful? Most people leave their desktops running 24/7 anyway. And you couldn't make this a remote desktop or anything else that is going to retain the functionality of the host computer when a game is being played. I'm not sure you realize just how much power is being devoted to running games by the typical PC. You wouldn't expect to multitask on it while playing Call of Duty or something anyway, so why would the expectation change when the PC is now streaming the game on top of it?

I'm also not seeing why it's that big an issue. Most homes have more than one computer. Hell, more than one per person. So it's not like someone else is cut off from all computer use while someone is playing a game. And if they do need to use the desktop, that's what compromise is for.

It is not a big issue, it just doesn't seem like that big a deal given the alternatives. Also multitasking on a computer while playing a game is very much possible, all sorts of background tasks, from music to encoding, downloading or even screen capture, at least it is on my PC and I don't have a super desktop computer. With a remote desktop I can access these functions of the host with alt tab, as far as I understand this won't be possible with Steam Homestream. So it is falling short of my expectations, not changing them. I get that you can only have one active process at a time but you can easily switch between them with a remote desktop, I don't think you can do that with homestream.

In regards to wasteful power use, I am guessing you and your "most people" don't pay the bills in your household, or you live in a country with no power fees, or are too rich to care.

 

[Steve the Pocket]

I'd just like to point out that both the PS4 and the Xbox One can stream what you're playing without having to buy a second machine, as can any half-decent PC. (Well, the Xbox One doesn't have the feature yet, but they're working on it.) I'm really starting to wonder how Valve thinks this thing won't be laughed out the door before it even launches.

You...you DO realize the difference between just streaming a video feed and syncing remote video feeds and remote inputs across a network, right?

...Apparently not. I saw "streaming" in the title and a lot of technobabble in the article and completely skipped over what the article was actually about.

 

[Vigormortis]

...Apparently not. I saw "streaming" in the title and a lot of technobabble in the article and completely skipped over what the article was actually about.

Ah. Thought as much. Honest mistake, really.

I've see a good number of people assume it's just a basic streaming feature.

Might have been better if Valve had used a slightly different moniker than "In-Home Streaming". Seems to be confusing a lot of people.

 

[Vigormortis]

Ummm. I think you missed the entire point of the article.....

1. Who said anything about a Steambox? I have computers already I will be installing the SteamOS..

2. I would stream my best computer onto one of the shitty ones via wireless.... So it can stay where it is at and I can connect another system in the room I am in instead of moving a 4ft tall full tower around my house or getting 200ft of cable.

And, in theory, one could stream the game to almost any remote location.

With a proper VPN setup, like say through Leaf or Hamachi, one could theoretically use the In-Home streaming outside the home network.

Granted, it may not work. And, even if it does there will almost assuredly be latency issues. However, it's a possibility worth noting.

 

[Strazdas]

They work perfectly. I use one for my housemate's PS3 because the WiFi receiver on the PS3 are crap.

http://www.maplin.co.uk/buy-networking/powerline-over-the-mains

I see these tings actually exist and work. I didnt knew about those. Though what i could gather is they are low sped due to wiring limits which is what i said to begin with and would not be fast enough for high definition video streaming for gaming from the other side of the house. Its good enough for online gaming because that does not need much bandwitch, however video stream - does.

Why is it wasteful? Most people leave their desktops running 24/7 anyway. And you couldn't make this a remote desktop or anything else that is going to retain the functionality of the host computer when a game is being played. I'm not sure you realize just how much power is being devoted to running games by the typical PC. You wouldn't expect to multitask on it while playing Call of Duty or something anyway, so why would the expectation change when the PC is now streaming the game on top of it?

I'm also not seeing why it's that big an issue. Most homes have more than one computer. Hell, more than one per person. So it's not like someone else is cut off from all computer use while someone is playing a game. And if they do need to use the desktop, that's what compromise is for.

No, most peopel turn thier desktops off when not in use. ANd yes you could make it a remote destop type of app. you overestimate how much pwoer is put into gaming. the PCs have kept leaping forward while consoles kept holding gaming back enough so you can run 3 games efficiently on a high end PC now. so one game running and another person browsing the web is nothing. Yes i expect it to multitask while gaming, in fact i DO multitask while gaming. For example i am now playing a game, watching desert bus livestream and typing this post. This is a 5 year old PC. Current load? around 55% CPU and 2,8 GB of RAM. GPU is working pretty hard to handle the game and stream but its a 8600 GS, so that one will work hard doing anything.

Also no, msot homes are not full of rich people with too much money so they dont have more computers than people. In fact you will often find whole family sharing a single computer. and when you create a time schedule to get your time on PC ability for 2 peopel to be on at once is very useful. Alas, what stema offers now is the opposite - for one person to hog not one but 2 machines.

What you can't do is have someone else surfing the net or whatever. This is the case because of the nature of Windows. There's two major problems with having the computer available to do something else. Windows is designed for only one task/process to be "active" at any given time. That's what the selection/highlight thing on the task bar represents. Inactive tasks get both lower resources/priority for resources and do not receive inputs without special considerations taken by the developers. That's why when you type in MS word with IE open, you don't start randomly browsing the internet.

What this means in the case of Steambox is that if someone else were to try and use the computer, the game it's streaming would become inactive and be unable to receive commands. Thus, the guy on the TV end wouldn't be able to play their games.

In short, you're completely misunderstanding everything, from what the streaming is supposedly going to do to the very nature of Windows, and it's not doing you any favors.

No, thats simply not true. A windows built in software - remote dektop - already offer posibility for one person to game and another to browse web. microsoft already programmed such capabilities themselves. you cant have two things active with same profile logged in. you can easily go around that by using a temporary account for running the game (windows support on-demand usage of special profiles since win 7).
You seem to not udnerstand how windows work beyond a single profile and hence the misconception.

 

[Agayek]

No, thats simply not true. A windows built in software - remote dektop - already offer posibility for one person to game and another to browse web. microsoft already programmed such capabilities themselves. you cant have two things active with same profile logged in. you can easily go around that by using a temporary account for running the game (windows support on-demand usage of special profiles since win 7).
You seem to not udnerstand how windows work beyond a single profile and hence the misconception.

Except that's not how remote desktop works. Remote Desktop is a remote client connecting to the host machine and sending inputs from the client to the host, and the host sending the output to the client. It's certainly doable to have two users using a machine at the same time, but not on a standard Windows install.

Multiple concurrent users are only supported on server editions of Windows, which is not something the average person has, and most don't even know it exists. Home/Pro/etc only allow one user to be active at one time, and that means any remote desktop user would end up clashing with the one physically using the host machine, and that's the same reason SteamOS can't function with someone else using the computer.

 

[Happiness Assassin]

This is why I don't think the Steam Machine is going to be any kind of game changer: to get the most out of the machine, you will already have to have a PC able to play these games by itself. And if you already have a device to play these games on, why not just hook it up to a TV yourself? Surely doing this is more cost effective than getting a whole new machine. Unless you are just really into Linux, I just don't this as being something any different from the Ouya: a niche machine that will be forgotten by the mainstream inside of a few months.

 

[Chaos Marine]

They work perfectly. I use one for my housemate's PS3 because the WiFi receiver on the PS3 are crap.

http://www.maplin.co.uk/buy-networking/powerline-over-the-mains

I see these tings actually exist and work. I didnt knew about those. Though what i could gather is they are low sped due to wiring limits which is what i said to begin with and would not be fast enough for high definition video streaming for gaming from the other side of the house. Its good enough for online gaming because that does not need much bandwitch, however video stream - does.

If you'll note, some of the plugs from that store have speeds of 500Mb/s. That's... just over 62MB/s which is about half of the maximum speed of a gigabit level connection. Considering common broadband speeds can vary from a few megabits to two hundred megabits with fibre, that's a substantial level of speed. More often than not, far faster than most people actually need.

 

[Strazdas]

Except that's not how remote desktop works. Remote Desktop is a remote client connecting to the host machine and sending inputs from the client to the host, and the host sending the output to the client. It's certainly doable to have two users using a machine at the same time, but not on a standard Windows install.

Multiple concurrent users are only supported on server editions of Windows, which is not something the average person has, and most don't even know it exists. Home/Pro/etc only allow one user to be active at one time, and that means any remote desktop user would end up clashing with the one physically using the host machine, and that's the same reason SteamOS can't function with someone else using the computer.

yes and steam should be using remote desktop way of doing its streaming. It is still a remote client connecting as you still need a machine locally at your TV, just not a powerful enough to run the game.

Now i dont know where you got the idea that multiple users are not supported on regular versions because i have used it on Pro and corporate editions. And it did not create any clashes as far as im aware. and even if you were right what exactly is making steam nota ble to function in the same manner as, say, the server?

If you'll note, some of the plugs from that store have speeds of 500Mb/s. That's... just over 62MB/s which is about half of the maximum speed of a gigabit level connection. Considering common broadband speeds can vary from a few megabits to two hundred megabits with fibre, that's a substantial level of speed. More often than not, far faster than most people actually need.

The plugs claim to have 500mbps speeds and maybe the plugs thenselves even do have such speed. That however is useless because the wiring used for electricity does not have such speeds, as they were never designed to transfer data to begin with. We had 100mbps ethernet cards 20 years ago. we had 1gbps ethernet cards 10 years ago. does not mean we had 1gbps internet 10 years ago though as the wires we had were not up to par for that.
Also fiber optic cable has theoretical limit of 1gbps, practically most ISPs cap it at 300mbps. Regular broadband cables are... slow.
And speed heaviliy depends on what people are doing. Browsing internet you can do with 90KB/s connection. Streaming HD into your TV? you better start at 50mbps if you want good quality. Now TV-over-net is getting more popular so people are watching TV via internet and not via regular cable so that brings a lot more load onto the ifnrastructure as well. Thing is, we NEED a lot of internet bandwitch, and hence the problem - we dont have it because ISPs are greedy.