Steam Games To Be Playable On Xbox

[Novalee]

Exactly what i was hoping to be true is going to be true . Good bye Playstation , hello Microsoft .


https://www.theverge.com/2021/4/26/...eam-games-edge-browser-mouse-keyboard-support

"Microsoft’s new Chromium-based Edge browser is coming to Xbox soon, and the company has now added all-important mouse and keyboard support that will pave the way to stream PC games to Xbox consoles."

 

[sesselpupser]

I remember reading a gaming magazine back in the '90s that used to have a column written by an analyst who'd write about where the market is going and stuff like that, I remember reading one where they wrote something to the effect of "one day we won't have Sega, Sony and Nintendo consoles, we'll have 'a games machine' that just plays games made by anyone, the same as we have VHS decks that play any tape".

I think it's pretty funny that the technology has moved so quickly that the specifics of that statement no longer apply and we're now looking at a future (not even really the future anymore, this is possible already) where you just subscribe to get instant access to games on any internet-connected device you own. That would've sounded so impossibly outlandish in 1998.

 

[Wolfe]

...to stream PC games to Xbox consoles.

Oh. So it's not really playing Steam games on Xbox, even though the Xbox is a PC. That's too bad for Xbox owners without the funds for a PC -- the thread title implies Microsoft had finally fully bridged the gap.

Still, I concede the value of the gimmick for edge cases, for select games and for those who are interested and not sensitive to latency.

 

[Joey D]

I just want to be able to play all Xbox games on my PC.

 

[sirjim73]

I just want to be able to play all Xbox games on my PC.

 

[mika haka]

Stadia gave up too easily with streaming as its the future of gaming. Bad decision from google

 

[Johnnn]

Stadia gave up too easily with streaming as its the future of gaming. Bad decision from google

LOL, maybe they know the same as me. Streaming is hardly gaming main stream. It's for casuals who play on mobile phones today. Streaming doesn't make any sense for high FPS gaming. Input lag is crazy high for 2021 and every service knows it. But it has its place for sure. My grandma would love it.

 

[Veinz]

I was intrigued until I seen streaming mentioned. Good luck playing a multiplayer fps or something on this.

 

[Novalee]

There is 2 things to keep in mind , first is microsoft plans on bringing pc games to xcloud , second is for people like me that want to play pc games without spending 2 grand plus on a video card , can for now stream to a xbox series s and have good graphics for less than half the price .

On top of all that , id they can get the browser to work properly how far behind is win 10 running on the new xboxes ? once that happens it would just be a matter of installing steam unless Valve comes out with a xbox app .

 

[Joey D]

LOL, maybe they know the same as me. Streaming is hardly gaming main stream. It's for casuals who play on mobile phones today. Streaming doesn't make any sense for high FPS gaming. Input lag is crazy high for 2021 and every service knows it. But it has its place for sure. My grandma would love it.

The good thing about technology is that it rapidly advances. While streaming might not make sense on a big scale today, there's nothing to say that it won't make sense in as little as a year.

It's not for just for casuals either. I'd love to be able to stream console games on my PC or steam PC games on my TV since it would mean I could game where I wanted to.

 

[Wolfe]

@Johnnn -- There's no need to be quite so derisive. It undermines our shared point of view.

Stadia gave up too easily with streaming as its the future of gaming. Bad decision from google

Yeah, that'll be a big fat "never" from me. To each their own.

 

[mika haka]

Once the lag gets sorted its fine. Faster internet should sort that

 

[Wolfe]

Once the lag gets sorted its fine. Faster internet should sort that

I'm sure it will be fine for a lot of people to enjoy, perfectly suitable for a number of popular games. I'm not even slightly interested. Faster internet just means faster download speeds for digitally-distributed files kept locally.

Streaming is like VR. It makes sense for certain genres, there's nothing wrong with being excited about it, it isn't for everyone, and it isn't the future of all gaming.

 

[Joey D]

It makes sense for certain genres, there's nothing wrong with being excited about it, it isn't for everyone, and it isn't the future of all gaming.

But it is going to be the future unless something comes along that's better, which right now is nothing. Couple faster internet with the potential for chip shortages to last until the end of 2022 and companies will need to do something to get people to play their games. Streaming makes the most sense because you don't need a high-end device to be able to stream effectively.

Sure streaming won't be the norm for at least a little bit, but is there really another alternative on the horizon? I can't think of any and given how popular streaming TV has been, it makes sense to move other media to that. I have to imagine Netflix and Amazon would both get into the streaming video game service since that would more or less print money for them. Disney is probably poised to do that too with some sort of add-on for Disney+ that has all the Disney, Marvel, and Star Wars games on it.

Honestly, I'm excited about the prospect of a good streaming video game service. I did beta testing for Google's and it worked great with no real pitfalls on Assassin Creed Odyssey. If I could get that without having to wait on game downloads, I'd easily spend $10 a month or whatever it'll be.

 

[Wolfe]

@Joey D -- That POV is so far removed from the world I inhabit, I don't know what to say. Like...I am not even the least bit insecure about my conviction. I'm just tired of the refrain that streaming is the future of gaming, and I sometimes chip in for the sake of anyone reading who may be concerned about it.

Will it become totally viable for interested parties, and corporations will lean in on it? Sure, maybe, whatever.

 

[Joey D]

I'm just tired of the refrain that streaming is the future of gaming, and I sometimes chip in for the sake of anyone reading who may be concerned about it.

You can be concerned about it, but as of right now, streaming is the future of gaming whether people like it or not. Unless some better technology comes along, which very well might happen, streaming is the way things will go. Streaming devices can be made cheaper which means companies won't take a huge hit by selling traditional consoles at a loss. Consumers will undoubtedly like it because they're paying $10 a month instead of dropping $60 or $70 on a game while being able to buy a $100 streaming box instead of a $600 console. People with PCs will just be able to subscribe to the service they want and play whatever games are being offered. If anything, it'll allow more people to play more games and that's not a bad thing. You won't need to buy the $600 console for one game anymore.

I guess I don't understand the concern though, what possible disadvantages are there to a streaming service that's built correctly? I suppose collectors of physical media probably won't like it, but physical media is being phased out in favor of digital, which isn't a bad thing since it reduces waste substantially. Past that, I'm not sure what the hold-ups are once internet speeds catch up, or rather affordable internet speeds catch up. You can easily get super-fast internet capable of streaming right now, it's just not exactly cheap. I pay over $100 a month for my ISP, but it's extremely fast and I do need it for work.

Hell, once 6G is readily available for mobile platforms, you'll be able to get super-fast internet pretty much anywhere. I'm sure Star Link will contribute as well.

I'm sure there will be poorly built services that don't perform very well, but the market will sort that out real quick just like it did with TV streaming services.

 

[Samus]

second is for people like me that want to play pc games without spending 2 grand plus on a video card , can for now stream to a xbox series s and have good graphics for less than half the price .

Unless I'm reading this article wrong, all this is doing is allowing you to send your PC output to a browser window, which you then view and interact with on the Xbox. It's still your PC doing the game rendering, the Xbox isn't doing anything.

I’ve played Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, Death Stranding, DOTA 2, and a bunch of other PC games that simply aren’t available on Xbox right now. I’ve been able to do this using Parsec, which is essentially a remote desktop app that lets you stream what’s on your PC to a browser.

 

[Novalee]

It says in the article xbox will bring Pc games to the xcloud , so how far behind can playing pc games on xbox with the xbox rendering it be ? Why do you think microsoft is trying to get it's browser working the same as on a pc ?

I predict windows os coming to xbox sooner than most would think , which in turn means playing steam games .

 

[Wolfe]

I guess I don't understand the concern though, what possible disadvantages are there to a streaming service that's built correctly?

Really? Like...requiring an internet connection to play anything? Has everyone in the GT Sport subforum forgiven it for being always-online now? It's dumb, no matter how infrequently it comes up. I spend small amounts of time on a recurring basis playing games in places with no internet, with no mobile broadband reception. I'm going to keep doing that.

I don't like paying subscriptions when I can avoid it, period -- it rubs me the wrong way -- and the suggestion of paying a sub to "play whatever games are being offered" is shooting yourself in the foot. I've seen what that looks like with Stadia, PS Now, Games with Gold, PS+, etc. I would not get my money's worth.

Besides, I want to spend $60+ on a game, to go out of my way to support developers like Monolith Soft, because making games on that level is expensive and niche games on that level are enormous labors of love. I'm not looking to cut back, because gaming is such an affordable form of entertainment. All by themselves, Xenoblade X and Xenoblade 2 each made the Wii U and Switch an investment of less than $1 per hour. To me it's robbery to demand better.

Indie games have almost completely replaced third-party multiplats in my gaming diet, and not all my favorite ones are household names. I also play games that are older than online services that have shut down, and driving/racing games with expired licensing. Another Metroid 2 Remake is superb; Mega Maker; Super Mario Crossover...I've only scratched the surface there. There's so much out there I don't even know.

PC gaming -- mods, unofficial mods, skins, all that. Grassroots development and open source collaboration -- this is one main thing I had in mind in my last post. A future of streaming games isn't anywhere in the picture at all!

And finally, yes -- internet speed. Bandwidth is bandwidth. Ping is ping. I am almost as sensitive to latency as the fighting game community (that's not just an uphill battle for streaming, it's the face of a cliff). I mostly play games designed to have tight controls, not sludge like walking around in Assassin's Creed or RDR2. I'm not surprised if people didn't really notice latency playing AC on Stadia, because it's built-in.


TL;DR -- This is a lot of words to have to explain: it isn't for me, or for a lot of people, for pretty plain reasons, and the future you describe is not gonna happen whether you like it or not. To each their own. I'm sure you'll love it.

 

[Samus]

It says in the article xbox will bring Pc games to the xcloud , so how far behind can playing pc games on xbox with the xbox rendering it be ? Why do you think microsoft is trying to get it's browser working the same as on a pc ?

I predict windows os coming to xbox sooner than most would think , which in turn means playing steam games .

Xbox is already running on a base version of Windows 10. They're never going to have it all running like a PC where you can run any executables though, that would be a security nightmare.

They're putting Edge browser on Xbox to promote it and try to have more people install it on their other devices, that's all.

Steam running natively on an Xbox is highly unlikely. Moreso from a licensing POV than anything.

 

[Johnnn]

@Johnnn -- There's no need to be quite so derisive. It undermines our shared point of view.

I know but this technology is not for gaming. I just had to If somebody believes in it it's fine but it's wrong for many reason. For casual playing it's fine but that's all. I can see casuals are the biggest group but still I love gaming and gaming never will be thru streaming.

 

[Moglet]

Besides, I want to spend $60+ on a game, to go out of my way to support developers like Monolith Soft, because making games on that level is expensive and niche games on that level are enormous labors of love.

Niche games are a much more risky prospect in terms of recouping costs, if anything being paid upfront to be included on a streaming service can be beneficial in getting niche games developed.

 

[Joey D]

TL;DR -- This is a lot of words to have to explain: it isn't for me, or for a lot of people, for pretty plain reasons, and the future you describe is not gonna happen whether you like it or not. To each their own. I'm sure you'll love it.

The thing is the market doesn't care about you or me, it cares about money and what's going to make them the most in terms of profits. Streaming is better for the market since it doesn't require makers to lose money on expensive to develop and produce consoles. For game makers, it means getting paid X amount of dollars, which as @Moglet pointed out is beneficial to smaller game developers. And really it's better for the consumer because it gives them a wider choice in games while paying less and allows them to jump services pretty easily.

You'll likely see PC gaming have traditional games for quite some time, but I can't see console gaming sticking with that model much longer. I doubt the next-generation or even current-generation 2.0 will even have disc drives since digital is quickly outpacing physical media. While disc drives are cheap, if a company can save even $10 in the manufacturing process it will because with the number of units they push, it's a pretty big savings.

As for the internet, this will catch up and catch up rather quickly. COVID has taught us the importance of having solid internet and you'll see more and more companies start to roll out new ways to deliver fast, reliable internet to the masses. Star Link is the first step with this and offers upwards of 150Mbps, but over the next couple of years, you will see other technologies come online that boost internet availability. Even 6G is less than 10 years away right now, but will likely be available much, much sooner. Right now 5G can offer speeds up to 20Gbps, but 6G will increase that to nearly 100Gbps. I have fast internet that more than capable of streaming games and get 1200Mbps (1.2Gbps). Prices will also start to rapidly fall too as competition for internet heats up. Once you no longer need a line into your house, that opens up the market substantially.

I don't care one way or another if streaming happens or not. If it does, I will certainly utilize it because of its benefits. If it doesn't take off, I'm perfectly happy using Steam, Origin, and, to a less extent, Epic Games. But given the way technology is going, unless something new comes up (which it totally might), the future is definitely game streaming at this moment.

 

[Wolfe]

Niche games are a much more risky prospect in terms of recouping costs, if anything being paid upfront to be included on a streaming service can be beneficial in getting niche games developed.

A moot point when they won't be on the service. Also, that is a non sequitur in relation to the Monolith Soft + Nintendo story. It's a nice story.

The thing is the market doesn't care about you or me, it cares about money and what's going to make them the most in terms of profits.

Not everyone who makes games is even out to sell them, Joey. You're too conditioned by and immersed in technophile society to see the bleeding obvious. You're a fish telling a bird there's no sky. Incredible.

Enjoy the water.

 

[Joey D]

Not everyone who makes games is even out to sell them, Joey. You're too conditioned by and immersed in technophile society to see the bleeding obvious. You're a fish telling a bird there's no sky. Incredible.

Enjoy the water.

Sure not everyone is out to make games to sell them, plenty of people do their own side projects to share with friends, family, or fans. However, a vast majority of the industry is out to run a business. Gaming will likely continue to have these very small niche projects, but the industry as a whole really doesn't care about you or me, they care about selling a product. Yes, plenty of people make games as "an art form" or whatever, but at the end of the day, it's still about a publisher and developer turning a profit.

It's not about being conditioned by technology either, it's looking at how things are advancing realistically. There's no point in trying to fight it because in order to fight it you need to convince enough people to buy into X. It's why manual transmission cars are going away, people who like them don't buy new ones and companies are going to do whatever makes them money. You might not like it, but it's just the reality. Gamers, as a demographic, tend to be younger and younger people tend to be more open to technological changes. The industry is also skewing towards a mobile platform at the moment, so companies are going to take advantage of that. If they can somehow work out a streaming device that also doubles as a phone, then they're going to make a mint.

As for the rest of your statement, have you ever thought about maybe taking your own advice?

There's no need to be quite so derisive. It undermines our shared point of view.

You're over here ridiculing me about how I'm indoctrinated by technology when I'm just trying to have a reasonable discussion about why things are going the way they are. There are a ton of advances going on in terms of internet availability and speed which will ultimately lead to better streaming. Streaming is the way media is being delivered to people right now, whether it be music, movies, or TV. The next logical step is gaming, it's just that the internet hasn't quite caught up with it yet, but will be there very soon.

 

[ImaRobot]

Really? Like...requiring an internet connection to play anything? Has everyone in the GT Sport subforum forgiven it for being always-online now? It's dumb, no matter how infrequently it comes up. I spend small amounts of time on a recurring basis playing games in places with no internet, with no mobile broadband reception. I'm going to keep doing that.

If anything, I feel you're completely opposite to what you're accusing @Joey D of being, in such a reclusive way that you're seemingly being offended by the aspect that this is likely where the future is going, whether you like it or not. I think the fact that it is so close to teetering that way that it bothers you. You're really fighting a loosing battle here, whether you "keep doing that" or not.

I'm sure there's people like you that have the same mindset on streaming about TV or Movies, and that really hasn't changed how popular these services have gotten, especially during this pandemic. Is always online dumb? Sure, I can agree with that. However, I don't think it's presented myself with too many issues so far.

I don't like paying subscriptions when I can avoid it, period -- it rubs me the wrong way -- and the suggestion of paying a sub to "play whatever games are being offered" is shooting yourself in the foot. I've seen what that looks like with Stadia, PS Now, Games with Gold, PS+, etc. I would not get my money's worth.

Besides, I want to spend $60+ on a game, to go out of my way to support developers like Monolith Soft, because making games on that level is expensive and niche games on that level are enormous labors of love. I'm not looking to cut back, because gaming is such an affordable form of entertainment. All by themselves, Xenoblade X and Xenoblade 2 each made the Wii U and Switch an investment of less than $1 per hour. To me it's robbery to demand better.

Shooting yourself in the foot maybe. I'm getting my moneys worth off indie games alone off the Xbox Game Pass, so do tons of others apparently. My friend was adamant about this too and has finally gave it a try and now he's jumped completely onboard with the sub. It's especially convenient not having to pay for any Xbox exclusive on top of that. If there's some random cross console game that I like, I can just buy that, because like you said, this isn't an expensive hobby for me either. Cross-console titles are so far and few in-between for me too, so it's win-win really.

TL;DR -- This is a lot of words to have to explain: it isn't for me, or for a lot of people, for pretty plain reasons, and the future you describe is not gonna happen whether you like it or not. To each their own. I'm sure you'll love it.

It seems to be for just as many people as it is not, so who knows right? Seems to be inching that way more than not, that's for sure though.

 

[Moglet]

A moot point when they won't be on the service. Also, that is a non sequitur in relation to the Monolith Soft + Nintendo story. It's a nice story.

I wasn't specifically referring to Monolith Soft games, I quoted that bit because you mentioned niche games. They don't need to look at streaming services to launch niche games on the Switch because they're majority owned by Nintendo...

 

[sirjim73]

An interesting article from the BBC today.

According to OFCOM (the UK regulator) there are currently 1.5m homes in the UK with no internet supply provided by ANY supplier and no mobile internet either. If 2 people live in each home, that's about 5% of the UK population.

 

[Wolfe]

If anything, I feel you're completely opposite to what you're accusing @Joey D of being...

Yeah, I know some of you long-termers still have it wrong. It seems I can't help that. The only difference now is that I have had years of like-minded company backing my intuitions.

...you're seemingly being offended by the aspect that this is likely where the future is going, whether you like it or not. I think the fact that it is so close to teetering that way that it bothers you.

You missed a post that would have made you think twice about saying this.

...You're really fighting a loosing battle here, whether you "keep doing that" or not.

I'm sure there's people like you that have the same mindset on streaming about TV or Movies, and that really hasn't changed how popular these services have gotten, especially during this pandemic.

The popularity of streaming music hasn't changed my MP3 collecting, or CDs in the car. If not even music is lost -- the first, lightest, and most rational of these things to stream -- I really cannot see any battle I'm losing here.

I never said in this thread that streaming games will never be a thing, or never popular (maybe I said one of those before). I said it will never be the future of all gaming, which is a statement of fact. At minimum, betting against that is pointless. I will never understand what is important about that being false. It just means there are other ways to play. This is a stupid argument.

I wasn't specifically referring to Monolith Soft games, I quoted that bit because you mentioned niche games. They don't need to look at streaming services to launch niche games on the Switch because they're majority owned by Nintendo...

Right. That was an additional bit, not meant to suggest it was the crux of your post. 👍

 

[Johnnn]

Streaming is the way media is being delivered to people right now, whether it be music, movies, or TV. The next logical step is gaming, it's just that the internet hasn't quite caught up with it yet, but will be there very soon.

It's not logical at all. Game needs input, everything else doesn't.