Better maybe not, considering it needs to support thousands of device configurations and can get into trouble, versus one dedicated piece of hardware for just one thing. But I'd personally never consider something like the Steam Link which is definitely limited vs an android box for the same price of cheaper even with better specs and more versatility.
The Shield TV has a Steam app that's just as good if not better than the Steam Link. Once I bought the Shield TV there was really no reason to use the Link anymore, so it's sitting in a box in storage somewhere. I imagine Valve saw that to the extent people were interested in streaming games from their home PC to their living room TV (I have to imagine this is already a small niche), it made more sense to just have an app that facilitates this and let the streamer manufacturers worry about making the hardware.
Same, I use my Shield TV to stream games (it will stream any game from a GeForce-equipped PC, not just Steam games) and my Steam Link is currently a hobby platform thanks to their SDK. I have RetroArch running on it and it can emulate NES/SNES games fairly well. It struggles a bit with GBA games but that may be due to the emulator core not being optimized for the Marvell chip in the Link.
I haven't researched this one bit, but do these streaming apps have the controller support that the steam link does? I have an X360 wireless dongle connected to the steam link and it works perfectly.
The Steam Link was OK if you put it on a dedicated wireless channel (2.4Ghz would be fine) - or better, linked it to a router or the machine in question via Ethernet or a good powerline connection.
It was also possible to stream the desktop - so you could, for example, use it as a ghetto network movie player, emulator head, or app interface. H.264 at 25-30Mps was adequate for the resolution, although if you lack hardware encoding or were low on GPU resources you have to tweak settings.
Ultimately though, it was limited to Full HD, which renders it essentially obsolete now. A new 4K version with H.265, VP9 or even AV1 support might work out for some use-cases - though I doubt sure we'll see the latter this Christmas, and as Ryan says it may just be seen as redundant now.
Obsolete is pushing it, depending on how far you are sitting from your TV, you won't see a difference anyway. In that case, do you really need the increased processing requirements & lag associated with rendering a 4K picture, encoding, transmitting and decoding it on your TV? I reckon a good quality 1080p signal should suffice in most cases.
People sometimes obsess over buying products with the highest possible numbers in order to feel like they've gotten the best value for the cost. In the case of a screen's resolution, the return for the cost may not be a tangible improvement in viewing whatever it displays, but a psychological comfort attained during its use that comes from a place of purely irrational emotion (though often justified by claims that there are indeed tangible differences). The benefit is that though irrational buyers self-penalize when they shop and tend to repeatedly inflict harm that causes financial distress in both the short- and long-term future, they drive the development of newer technologies and assist in reducing costs for customers that aren't gripped around the proverbial throat by their various feelings. Let them pay and then reap the benefits that result from their expenditures.
Basically this. My next monitor will probably be 2560x1440 or something along those lines.
I agree with the premise; in many cases 1080p will be enough, and it's less likely to hit bottlenecks. Yet, it is still a hard sell to have a device that can only address 1/4 of the pixels on your screen. I guess at leas it that means it should scale without blurred lines.
The larger the screen, the higher you want the resolution to be. Going from 23 to 28 inch, you definitely want to be at 1440p or 2160p(4k). Some of this is based on how far you sit from the screen of course, but saying that 4k is overkill ignores that if you go from 28 inch to 32 inch, or to 40+ inches, you will definitely want higher resolutions. The whole Pixels Per Inch discussion applies.
I hate that too, I had to really search to find a 2K monitor for less than a 4K. I don't need nor do I want 4K for workstation purposes, anything between 1080 and 2K is fine. 1600x1200 would be ideal but they are astronomically expensive and rare. I ended up getting a refurb Benq 2K for $20 less than a new 4K at the same size. It's maddening.
As I recall it was more "you work on things that interest you". I don't know how real that ethos is but I can see people not being so interested in doing Stream Link v2, especially in a competitive marketplace; and arguably the app version in combination with smart TVs is more important.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
19 Comments
Back to Article
wrkingclass_hero - Tuesday, November 20, 2018 - link
Insert Fry GIF."I'm shocked. SHOCKED! Well, not that shocked."
FwFred - Tuesday, November 20, 2018 - link
Too bad it didn't catch on. Really nice way to play controller enabled PC games--was just playing Super Blood Hockey using Steam Link on my TV today.stanleyipkiss - Wednesday, November 21, 2018 - link
Isn't there an App that does Steam Link better?Death666Angel - Wednesday, November 21, 2018 - link
Better maybe not, considering it needs to support thousands of device configurations and can get into trouble, versus one dedicated piece of hardware for just one thing. But I'd personally never consider something like the Steam Link which is definitely limited vs an android box for the same price of cheaper even with better specs and more versatility.gerz1219 - Wednesday, November 21, 2018 - link
The Shield TV has a Steam app that's just as good if not better than the Steam Link. Once I bought the Shield TV there was really no reason to use the Link anymore, so it's sitting in a box in storage somewhere. I imagine Valve saw that to the extent people were interested in streaming games from their home PC to their living room TV (I have to imagine this is already a small niche), it made more sense to just have an app that facilitates this and let the streamer manufacturers worry about making the hardware.kaidenshi - Thursday, November 22, 2018 - link
Same, I use my Shield TV to stream games (it will stream any game from a GeForce-equipped PC, not just Steam games) and my Steam Link is currently a hobby platform thanks to their SDK. I have RetroArch running on it and it can emulate NES/SNES games fairly well. It struggles a bit with GBA games but that may be due to the emulator core not being optimized for the Marvell chip in the Link.FwFred - Wednesday, November 21, 2018 - link
I haven't researched this one bit, but do these streaming apps have the controller support that the steam link does? I have an X360 wireless dongle connected to the steam link and it works perfectly.Manch - Wednesday, November 21, 2018 - link
Too laggy for my tastes. Same as the PS4 streaming box. Meh.GreenReaper - Wednesday, November 21, 2018 - link
The Steam Link was OK if you put it on a dedicated wireless channel (2.4Ghz would be fine) - or better, linked it to a router or the machine in question via Ethernet or a good powerline connection.It was also possible to stream the desktop - so you could, for example, use it as a ghetto network movie player, emulator head, or app interface. H.264 at 25-30Mps was adequate for the resolution, although if you lack hardware encoding or were low on GPU resources you have to tweak settings.
Ultimately though, it was limited to Full HD, which renders it essentially obsolete now. A new 4K version with H.265, VP9 or even AV1 support might work out for some use-cases - though I doubt sure we'll see the latter this Christmas, and as Ryan says it may just be seen as redundant now.
Spoelie - Wednesday, November 21, 2018 - link
Obsolete is pushing it, depending on how far you are sitting from your TV, you won't see a difference anyway. In that case, do you really need the increased processing requirements & lag associated with rendering a 4K picture, encoding, transmitting and decoding it on your TV? I reckon a good quality 1080p signal should suffice in most cases.E.g. https://www.forbes.com/sites/kevinmurnane/2017/11/...
PeachNCream - Wednesday, November 21, 2018 - link
People sometimes obsess over buying products with the highest possible numbers in order to feel like they've gotten the best value for the cost. In the case of a screen's resolution, the return for the cost may not be a tangible improvement in viewing whatever it displays, but a psychological comfort attained during its use that comes from a place of purely irrational emotion (though often justified by claims that there are indeed tangible differences). The benefit is that though irrational buyers self-penalize when they shop and tend to repeatedly inflict harm that causes financial distress in both the short- and long-term future, they drive the development of newer technologies and assist in reducing costs for customers that aren't gripped around the proverbial throat by their various feelings. Let them pay and then reap the benefits that result from their expenditures.Oxford Guy - Wednesday, November 21, 2018 - link
4K is overkill but 1440 is a good improvement in image quality.GreenReaper - Thursday, November 22, 2018 - link
Basically this. My next monitor will probably be 2560x1440 or something along those lines.I agree with the premise; in many cases 1080p will be enough, and it's less likely to hit bottlenecks. Yet, it is still a hard sell to have a device that can only address 1/4 of the pixels on your screen. I guess at leas it that means it should scale without blurred lines.
Targon - Monday, November 26, 2018 - link
The larger the screen, the higher you want the resolution to be. Going from 23 to 28 inch, you definitely want to be at 1440p or 2160p(4k). Some of this is based on how far you sit from the screen of course, but saying that 4k is overkill ignores that if you go from 28 inch to 32 inch, or to 40+ inches, you will definitely want higher resolutions. The whole Pixels Per Inch discussion applies.kaidenshi - Thursday, November 22, 2018 - link
I hate that too, I had to really search to find a 2K monitor for less than a 4K. I don't need nor do I want 4K for workstation purposes, anything between 1080 and 2K is fine. 1600x1200 would be ideal but they are astronomically expensive and rare. I ended up getting a refurb Benq 2K for $20 less than a new 4K at the same size. It's maddening.kaidenshi - Thursday, November 22, 2018 - link
Grrr at no edit function. I meant to say 1920x1200 would be ideal. 1600x1200 is 4:3 which is ok but not ideal.jordanclock - Wednesday, November 21, 2018 - link
Really, the company that is notorious for being against iteration isn't iterating on a mildly successful product?Valve must be run like Google where everyone gets bonuses for new products doing well and nothing for updating existing products.
Icehawk - Wednesday, November 21, 2018 - link
Was it successful - considering they were selling them for $10ea and there is no revenue stream directly created I am going to go with a big "nope".Now if Apple would just let them release their damn streaming app!
GreenReaper - Thursday, November 22, 2018 - link
As I recall it was more "you work on things that interest you". I don't know how real that ethos is but I can see people not being so interested in doing Stream Link v2, especially in a competitive marketplace; and arguably the app version in combination with smart TVs is more important.