Parsec Arcade is closing soon, Steam should take over.

[::RA::TYCOON]

Update of March 15, 2023 (one month before Parsec Arcade's death)

I've made an update to expose my new ideas for the future Steam Remote Play Arcade. These ideas could avoid the controversy that developers would not be willing or have any motivation to release their game to the public for free and open access.


To solve this problem, which is above all a question of profitability, this new function could be created in the following way:

Free games, demos (and maybe games that are more than 10 years old or have been abandoned by their developer), could be put in the public distribution list automatically. Of course Steam could have an email sent to all developers at least one month before the launch of the Remote Play Arcade to let them know that their games will be put on the public mailing list for free. So developers could have the choice to let or not their games in this list. And of course this will not prevent some developers from putting their paid games in the public mailing list, the choice will be entirely up to them. Those who do not have Remote Play Together enabled on their game and have local co-op and/or local pvp may receive an incentive to enable this feature and thus be part of the VIP list following the launch of the Remote Play Arcade by Steam.

Now there is the question of what to do with all the other paid games that are not in the public list: a V.I.P. list could be created. What does that mean? A monthly or yearly paid subscription could be set up on the steam store, a bit like EA Play does now. Not a subscription for free access to games, but only for access to the new Remote Play Together feature in the public list for games that are paid for. To get the developer's consent there are two ways: Send them an email to let them know about the new feature so they can make the choice, yes or no, to put their game in the V.I.P. list OR Steam puts all paid games in the V.I.P. list and it's up to the developer to leave or remove their game from the list. If there is no reaction from the developer, the game stays in the list but can be removed later by the developer when they become aware of it. Personally I prefer the second option because it would force the developer to be aware of the new feature. Because for someone who has never heard of Parsec Arcade it's a bit difficult to understand how it works. So it would make the developers curious and make them decide.

At some point in the year, developers could promote their game by creating an event like "Free Weekend on the Public Remote Play Arcade for non-V.I.P." to better promote their game. And maybe at the same time promote a discount on their game. There could also be the possibility that the developer could sell a DLC that gives free access to the public list function without being obliged to be registered VIP. At launch, Steam could also promote a free month for new subscribers to raise awareness of Remote Play Arcade.

As a privileged member, V.I.P. subscribers could see their server at the top of the list for more visibility. Also they could have access to ultra fast servers to decrease latency and saccade of image and sound on the public listed Remote Play Together.

The profit generated by the subscription could be distributed to the developer as compensation and in a fair way according to the percentage of the number of hours of use of each game by the VIP members, or with any other more appropriate calculation made by the Steam Team. Developers would now have the motivation and time to make new updates or create new projects etc., this could now be ensured through this kind of funding.


Personally I'm not very excited about the monthly or yearly subscription, but if it can motivate Steam to set up this project to create an alternative to Parsec Arcade and if it would help the developers in their work then I would be the first to sign up. The best gaming sessions I've had in my life are the ones with my friends on Remote Play Together or with strangers on Parsec Arcade. Everyone has to try this at least once. It could introduce some people to couch co-op. Single player games are great for relaxing, but for having a good laugh, split screen games are the best.

So many people ask the developer to put an online co-op mode because they have no one to play with on Remote Play. The developers work hard to make this happen but once this feature is created, there is sometimes a hype of 1 month or up to 6 months but then the game dies and no one goes online anymore. The reason is simple, there is no way to know who is playing the game right now. Yes there is sometimes a function on the community hub in some games to indicate how many people are playing without having to launch the game. But it doesn't show how many people are in the lobby waiting for someone to play with. And if it says that there is no one, it doesn't motivate the person to start the game. It would be nice if there was a way to indicate this in more detail, but this is something that is far too complicated to implement compared to a public Remote Play.


There could also be a different overlay when the game is launched with the remote play together on the public option. The overlay could look a bit like the one in Parsec Soda with the possibility to choose the designation of each controller for each person. Other options could also be inserted, like a bigger chat window. What would also be nice is that when the person activates the overlay, the game continues to play and does not interrupt for the guest user unlike the current Remote Play together.

I also reworked the interface by improving it in a new screenshot to show you what this feature could look like on steam. In my opinion it's more ergonomic than the one in Parsec Arcade. On the picture you can see that I made some important modification:

https://i.ibb.co/23dgNvR/newinsteam.jpg

-When the person leaves the cursor on the name of the game, a mini video of the game appears in preview.

-On the picture it says "In Lobby" or "In Game" or "Drop In Drop Out" on the right in the server list: The new overlay could have the possibility for the host to control this crucial option. Rare are the games that have the drop in drop out option in their games like in the arcade. Most are only street fighting games. This option to indicate in the server list "In lobby", "In game" or "Drop in Drop out" would be the minimum required for the public server list to be exploited to its full potential. Also it could have 3 type of color indicator. Red to say that the server is complete InGame. Yellow to say that is in progress InGame but it is not complete: the person can join it as a player waiting for a game over or a restart of the party after a save point. Green means that the person is in the Lobby and is waiting for a player to join his game.

-There could be the mention of the region in the world sorted by continent and/or the flag of the country in question. All these options are of course configurable in the new overlay.

-A filter may be needed to select multiple options for the available lobby search.

The three small dots next to "waiting for player" could also flash progressively to attract attention.

-In the second Steam menu, as on the screenshot, it could also directly integrate the "Remote play Arcade" and the font could be changed, and even inserted a small icon on the right with a gamepad. And when the cursor goes on the name, there could be a small simple animation. Everything can be done to draw the attention of Steam users to the new feature.


To conclude I say it again: very good games fall into oblivion and this project could well solve this problem. That's the reason of this post, I hope to attract the attention of the Steam team. If not I'll probably edit my entire post to be better structured and less messy for more visibility on every point I've made. Again if you are interested in this project or have any other suggestions or questions, post a comment.

Thanks for reading.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As some people have noticed, and to my great disappointment, Parsec Arcade will be removed on April 15th 2023. The saddest thing is that there is currently no alternative to this function.

That's why I'm writing here, Steam should enable this feature. It already has the Remote Play Together feature implemented, and there is also the chat box feature on Steam Streaming. Both combined with the ability to explore a list of games that you can join at any time on the Steam application would be wonderful. It's true that you can send a Remote Play Together link to anyone, but it's much more convenient with a list of games to join at any time. There is also a great advantage for game developers because it can be a great free advertisement to make their games known to people who would not have known them otherwise. Also it's an opportunity to dig up games that have been forgotten in the never ending list of games on the Steam store. Many of the friends I've invited to play with Remote Play have put the game on their wish list, or bought it the next day. It's great for everyone. The cost of implementing such a feature could be quickly amortized by the increased sales in the steam store. Also it could motivate developers to implement split screen on PC games.


The advantage of Parsec Arcade is that you can play cooperatively without having to have a friend available at the time. You don't have to make an appointment with your friends to play later. Of course it's more fun with friends, but sometimes you just like to play spontaneously without having to beg your friends to join you. Also some games are played with 4 players, with a friend and two other strangers it is even more fun.

There are disadvantages to Parsec Arcade, but the weight of the disadvantages is nothing compared to a good cooperative game session with strangers who sometimes become good friends.

Also if this is implemented on Steam, there is also the reputation of the profiles in game, so it's a bit less anonymous, which could diminish the trolling on the chat or the game. By disadvantage also I mean... 1 - No one who logs in and closes the game in the menu (however the alt-f4 function is disabled on Parsec Arcade)... But this could be easily avoided by implementing a panic button with a shortcut key on the keyboard that would disable all controller inputs, and restore them when the wrong person is sent back. Often the troll is the new person who logs in, so it's easy to guess who the troublemaker is. 2- The second inconvenience is the person who logs in to the game session, connects their controller and then logs out, leaving an error message "connected a controller to continue" by the game. But the Steam Remote Play menu can switch controllers in their 1,2,3,4 etc. designation. So you can remove a useless player in this way when the game allows it. 3-Sometimes a person can connect and disconnect constantly and the stream gets destabilized. This could be avoided by limiting the time to try to join the same session by a 20 second interval before reconnecting.



I also created some screenshots to show you what this new feature, hopefully in the future, could look like.

https://i.ibb.co/K0H5th6/insteam.png

https://i.ibb.co/R3YTPnW/ingame.jpg

I would love to see this feature integrated on Steam. Leave a comment if you are interested in this new feature to get the topic up on the list and to get the attention of the steam development team, or if you have any other suggestions on this topic. Parsec Arcade should not be forgotten without an alternative.

Thank you for reading!

[❤ Sly Succubus ❤]

Aint Parsec a Unity technology piece? Steam literally would have to go through Unity to get the copyright and the trademark IP's for it before they could even legally put it on the store, does not matter if it shutsdown as the IP's would still be under Unity rights.

[::RA::TYCOON]

Steam already uses its own technology called "Remote Play Together" which is much more stable than parsec's in my own experience. I only ask that Steam creates a lobby (server list) where people can join their own game remotely, unlike what is currently available on Steam; that is, on Steam, it is the host that has to send the invitation.

[robingekkie (NL)]

i dond hope so

[Start_Running]

Originally posted by ::RA::TYCOON:

Steam already uses its own technology called "Remote Play Together" which is much more stable than parsec's in my own experience. I only ask that Steam creates a lobby (server list) where people can join their own game remotely, unlike what is currently available on Steam; that is, on Steam, it is the host that has to send the invitation.

Yeah that's not gonna happen.
Devs aren't too happy with services like Parsec letting other people play their games for free like that.

[::RA::TYCOON]

Unlike Parsec, Steam leaves it up to the developers to enable or disable the Remote Play Together feature on their games. If this feature is enabled, it means that the developer is ready to share their game with this feature.

And to avoid conflicts with some developers who do not want their games to be shared on a server list, Steam could create a blacklist of games that are only allowed to be shared with a link as it is currently the case. So the developer would just have to put their game in the blacklist and the problem is solved. If a user tried to host the blacklisted game in the server list lobby, he could simply get an error message saying that this game is not allowed to be played in this feature but only with a link to share.


As I said in my first post, posting a game on a server list is a good way to make your game known, a free advertisement in short.

And there are some disadvantages in the broadcasting that make people buy the game after a free trial. For example, the host must have a fiber optic connection to avoid intermittent sacade in the video and sound when playing. And even with a good connection there is still a very slight input lag. But the real problem is that the guest is dependent on the host, so the host can pause the game, or can stop the broadcast at any time. So you have done the first level with your friend but you have to wait for the next meeting to continue. This is the main reason why people prefer to buy the game afterwards. But a good game session with friends is always a good memory.

[Start_Running]

Originally posted by ::RA::TYCOON:

Unlike Parsec, Steam leaves it up to the developers to enable or disable the Remote Play Together feature on their games. If this feature is enabled, it means that the developer is ready to share their game with this feature.

And to avoid conflicts with some developers who do not want their games to be shared on a server list, Steam could create a blacklist of games that are only allowed to be shared with a link as it is currently the case. So the developer would just have to put their game in the blacklist and the problem is solved. If a user tried to host the blacklisted game in the server list lobby, he could simply get an error message saying that this game is not allowed to be played in this feature but only with a link to share.

It's actually the reverse for such matters. Developers have to Opt-In, not Opt-Out. That's how it works for all features so it sorta boils back down to whether the dev wants to have their game being played for free jin such a manner. I some how doubt many are keen on that.

Originally posted by ::RA::TYCOON:

As I said in my first post, posting a game on a server list is a good way to make your game known, a free advertisement in short.

So is getting a youtuuber to play it by tossing them a free key. and that doesn't cost them sales :p

As said. There are already options for devs that want this. but devs have to want this. parsec worked because it largely ignored developer wishes and concerns and me thinks that's why theis is being shut down now. I suspect legal concerns and nudgings may be mounting. And clearly the developers were not interested in any pitches made by parsec devs regarding the matter.

So. in light of that. why do you think it would work any differentlyon Steam? COnsidering you don't even have fulladoption of Remote Play together on steam.

[::RA::TYCOON]

With the blacklist it would solve the problem of choice for the developers. Or steam would have to implement a new feature on its store: Remote Play Together and Remote play With Whoever You Want

Many developers, especially independent ones, have adopted Remote Play Together. In my personal experience, this is beneficial to sales. More recently Steam has made it so that you can send a link to a complete stranger without them necessarily being in your friend list to join the game. The line between private and public streaming is thin.

I understand that Parsec has been under some pressure, they just can't have strict control over the streaming. But Steam has the means to control the streaming because it is a retailer and it is very specific in its functionality on each game that is on its store. With good moderators who know the games at their fingertips and good communication with the developers, this could solve a lot of annoying problems

[Crazy Tiger]

Considering that Steam has its own service in that regard, I wouldn't get my hopes up. Especially when you take into account that the advantages you list are quite big in the realm of "I think so". Valve might not actually think the same way in that.

I think that it's more likely that Valve will build upon their own service to offer it in the way Valve wants it to.

[Start_Running]

Originally posted by ::RA::TYCOON:

With the blacklist it would solve the problem of choice for the developers. Or steam would have to implement a new feature on its store: Remote Play Together and Remote play With Whoever You Want

YUou mean WHitelisty and that's the key thing. How many devs do you think YOU could convince to sign in for such a feature?
The devs that you could convince likely already have their game F2P or a standalone F2P mode for that game. Those that don't...aren't likely to say yes.

As said. Not all devs support Remote Play Together. so the number of Devs that would support this would be by nature signirficantly smaller than that.

Originally posted by ::RA::TYCOON:

Many developers, especially independent ones, have adopted Remote Play Together. In my personal experience, this is beneficial to sales.

Yes and ask yourself why?
See. Remote platy together works because well. to face the truith its meant to give games that were designed around couch co-op ore simyultaneous multiplayer a chance to prop up their dying playerbases. It also saved time in dealing with their own NETcode, by simply leaning on remote Play together.

Also the way it works really doesn't make any difference than having a friend over at your place. You're suiggesting something that is far more open in a 'Imma run an arcade business outta my library' way. And valve and dev/pubs are unlikely to sign up to that.

As said. Parsec couldn;t get devs onboard with the idea, and its safe to say they tried.

[::RA::TYCOON]

Yes, only Steam can decide this opinion. If initially only free games with this feature were eligible, that would be great in my opinion. There are many free games that allow you to play both locally and remotely. I'm sure there are developers who will incorporate this feature into their games. Yes, this is a personal opinion on the benefits of selling. So many good games have died or been forgotten because they didn't get the exposure they deserved, this could be the little boost that could help them.

I had so many good times on Parsec Arcade when I was hosting my games that it prompted me to publish this post when I heard the bad news. I hope this idea gets the attention of the Steam team.

[::RA::TYCOON]

An update has been added on my first post

[BJWyler]

Originally posted by ::RA::TYCOON:

An update has been added on my first post

The issue is that Steam does not have a right to do this type of thing with games they do not own.

Naturally, you want to force the option to be opt out because you want the access, free or otherwise, to the games. Again, that ignores the overall issue of opt in/out systems, and the problems inherent when it's designed as out opt by default. You've missed the two decades of customer dissatisfaction and legal issues surrounding that system.

Parsec Arcade is a niche product for a reason. And that reason is not because someone does not understand it. In fact, it's niche because it is understood very well. It is not something that Steam should be involved in, and it is not something devs should be forced to interact with one way or another.

[Nx Machina]

Originally posted by ::RA::TYCOON:

(and maybe games that are more than 10 years old or have been abandoned by their developer), could be put in the public distribution list automatically. Of course Steam could have an email sent to all developers at least one month before the launch of the Remote Play Arcade to let them know that their games will be put on the public mailing list for free.

Valve does not own the IP's to put 3rd party games up for free.

Originally posted by ::RA::TYCOON:

Unlike Parsec, Steam leaves it up to the developers to enable or disable the Remote Play Together feature on their games.

Because it is the developer's choice.

Originally posted by ::RA::TYCOON:

If this feature is enabled, it means that the developer is ready to share their game with this feature.

Incorrect as your proposal is to enable a feature without developer consent due to the very simple fact that you state the developer has to opt out of the feature.

[::RA::TYCOON]

To avoid any legal issues you may have mentioned, a new feature could be added. Its addition would be solely at the discretion of the developer.

https://i.ibb.co/Fb8DVXz/remoteplayarcade.jpg

For free games and demos, a new policy could be put in place that would stipulate that any free game that has the Remote Play Together feature would be added to the Remote Play Arcade feature automatically. Then the developer would have the choice to leave this feature in his game or to remove it by himself.

[Nx Machina]

Originally posted by ::RA::TYCOON:

To avoid any legal issues you may have mentioned, a new feature could be added. Its addition would be solely at the discretion of the developer.

https://i.ibb.co/Fb8DVXz/remoteplayarcade.jpg

For free games and demos, a new policy could be put in place that would stipulate that any free game that has the Remote Play Together feature would be added to the Remote Play Arcade feature automatically. Then the developer would have the choice to leave this feature in his game or to remove it by himself.

Valve already has Remote Play Together which is OPT IN for developers, IF they choose to enable the feature.

Whereas your idea is encompassed by:

Originally posted by ::RA::TYCOON:

These ideas could avoid the controversy that developers would not be willing or have any motivation to release their game to the public for free and open access.

As in it ignores the legal rights of developers who own the games you believe should be "free and open access".