Slashdot Mirror
Steam Link Anywhere Will Let You Stream Your PC's Games On the Go (pcgamer.com)
Valve is expanding its Steam Link game-streaming feature in a big way with Steam Link Anywhere, a new service that will allow you to stream your Steam games from your computer to anywhere in the world through Steam Link hardware or the Steam Link app. From a report: Steam Link Anywhere is an extension of Steam Link that will enable users to connect to their PCs and play games from anywhere (thus the name), rather than being limited to a local network. It's compatible with both the Steam Link hardware and app, and will be rolled out automatically (and freely) to everyone who owns the hardware with beta firmware installed, the Android app beta, or the Raspberry Pi app. You'll also need to be enrolled in the Steam client beta, and have the latest version installed. Assuming you've got all that covered, you'll see an "Other Computer" option on the screen when searching for computers to connect to via Steam Link. Select that, follow the instructions, and you'll be set. Valve didn't provide specific network requirements but said you'll need "a high upload speed from your computer and strong network connection to your Steam Link device" in order to use it.
I agree. I can't see how it could possibly have ANY chance of working as advertised UNLESS the user managed to satisfy ALL of the following requirements:
* 5mbps uplink, absolute bare minimum.
* Expensive router. Most people have NO IDEA that if they have internet connectivity faster than 50mbps down and 5mbps up, their own router/access point is likely to be their network's single biggest chokepoint.
* Good (or better) quality gigabit switches, with proper wiring. The majority of cheap "gigabit" switches can't themselves sustain a true gigabit between two ports, let alone MULTIPLE gigabit connections among their ports. Even IF they can genuinely switch a gigabit from a port, their own back-end fabric probably maxes out at a gigabit too. The internet connectivity might be a tiny fraction of a gigabit per second, but the latency of this is likely to be so bad, even a millisecond of extra latency caused by using 100mbps or less could be the latency that makes it intolerable to use.
* Video card that can do hardware-accelerated h.265... which pretty much eliminates any laptop more than a year or two old, and any desktop video card more than 2-3 years old. ... and even THEN, it would probably still suck. Or at least, end up being an EXTREME disappointment, given the reality that very, very few people can sustain more than 10mbps up, regardless of how fast their nominal downlink speed might be (and because ISPs constrain uplink speed both to allow them to advertise bigger numbers for the download speed AND preserve the distinction between 'residential' and 'business' service by forcing anyone who wants faster upload speeds to pay enormously higher rates to get it).
Netflix can pull off high-quality HD with a 4-6mbps link budget because it does offline non-realtime multi-pass compression. Attempting to pull off a similar stunt in realtime is another matter entirely. It's ~80% of the reason why we didn't get to have 1080p60 in ATSC1.0... back in the 1990s (when ATSC1.0 was finalized), realtime compression of 1080p60 MPEG-2 within the ~19mbps link budget was flat-out IMPOSSIBLE... and for the most part, it still is (at least, as MPEG-2). In retrospect, the decision was kind of short-sighted... we never would have gotten to have things like live sports in 1080p60 using MPEG-2 (at least, not without a 15-60 second time-delay, using commercial breaks as an opportunity to play "catch-up" and re-fill a depleted video compression pipeline), but we most certainly COULD have had things like prime-time TV shows (and pretty much ANYTHING that can be compressed long in advance of airing) in 1080p60, even with mpeg-2
Nevertheless, I think it's absolutely delusional to expect low-latency 1080p60 live video from even a high-end gaming PC connected to fiber or premium cable/vdsl2 within a realistic, achievable present-day link budget. There are just too many things that can (and absolutely WILL) go wrong. It might be good enough for Candy Crush, but I just don't see it as being even REMOTELY viable for things like a multiplayer FPS.
Maybe... MAYBE... if Valve got networks like AT&T and Verizon to colocate high-powered virtual gaming rigs at tower sites (so literally the only constraint was the wireless data link between the phone and tower), it MIGHT not TOTALLY suck.
...except on iOS.
Incipiamus, fratres, servire Domino Deo, quia hucusque vix vel parum in nullo profecimus.
This is good news. It may or may not work for SuperUltraMegaTwitchBlast'Em'Up but maybe you fancy a relaxed game of Civ, or perhaps an MMORPG, or....well, you get the idea. Plenty of good uses cases, and hey - you're gaining a new facility anyway.
Steam Link hardware went on sale for around £3 the other month. They're not asking for much here. I'm happy with the announcement, whether I intend to make drastic use of it or not.
A gave a shot to the steam link at home. And essentially, you can forget it over wifi. So good luck getting it to work on the go; where network connectivity is typically terrible.
In the future, I could imagine that steam would be bundled on smart TVs that you find in hotel rooms and if they have decent internet and are wired to the network, that it could work.