So I thought of a nice concept that could be helpful (especially with the troubled steam servers lately).
It's something like this:
In addition to the normal steam download servers (that you download games from) users will be able to use the torrent protocol. Anyone that will upload, oh idk, about 100mb of data will earn 0.1$ to their steam wallet. You will earn badges for milestones in your uploading history (first time uploading, first 1gig, 50gigs etc...).
The only thing that I don't know is that if people could exploit this system and upload fake data or viruses.

Does it seem like this could work?
No giveaway here, sorry )=

10 years ago*

Comment has been collapsed.

No, it doesn't, but it would be awesome to earn sth while uploading. I'm also not sure if Steam really needs any help. It gets clogged during sales only.

10 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Nope, it wouldn't work.

10 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Too risky. And Steam has enough servers imho

10 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Deleted

This comment was deleted 2 years ago.

10 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Right twice, you just saved me some typing :)

10 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Yeah, sure...like you knew all that stuff.

10 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

i see zero reason why they should change their system. This is not wow or wot,there is zero reason why they should make the data passing through such a visible and exploitable system

10 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

So basically, what you are asking is to earn money while sharing a game. Forget about it. You aren't getting any extra cash you whore.

10 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Wow, I was thinking of a way to make the downloads faster, save valve some server maintenance money + let people get rewarded for it. That escalated quickly.

10 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Sorry, I was being a bit harsh. :(

10 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Thanks Obama.

10 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I'd seed for free

10 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Seeding is caring <3

10 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Deleted

This comment was deleted 4 years ago.

10 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Its a nice idea, they would need to have less main servers and doing that spend less(even after giving some back to users)

After all everyone would win and steam would be more efficient

10 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Worst idea ever. Valve will never do that.

10 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

+1

10 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Send Valve a mail and ask them for ten bucks. That's more likely to get you some money.

10 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

+1

10 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Seems like a good idea, but somehow it will be exploited, I highly doubt this will ever happen, but if it does, they aren't gonna keep it for long.

10 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Well - with my 100 Mb upload it would make me rich!

But no - I don't think it would work - if they were to pay you 0.1 or even 0.01$ per 100mb upload it's much cheaper to just buy new servers and bandwich ;p

10 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Do you have any information on the cost of keeping steam's servers?
The numbers can be tweaked, and maybe have rewards in badges/other not money-related rewards.

10 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I don't need info of steam servers cost, as I know about commercial servers cost. And it's much lower than the payment you're proposing. And I can only guess, but I think that Valve buying a lot of servers with shitload of bandwich probably pay even much much less than a single commercial customer buying a single server slot and a little bit of bandwich.

10 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

plus there are copyright olicies - generally you don't own your games on steam, you own just licences to play them. And you are not allowed to share anything over the internet you don't own rights to. And steam doesn't earn rights to let you do so either. Every company that owns rights to any game on steam would have to give valve such rights, and with so many companies no longer around it would be much more pain in the arse to organize it than it's actually worth.

10 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Steam also recieves free servers from ISP's and game server providers.

Anyways data transfer is very cheap eg. $0.005 per GB, so 100 mb would cost just $0.0005 or 0.05 cents

10 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

First thing I do when I use Blizzard downloader is to turning off the p2p dl (aka torrent), I don't wanna upload data as it's the publisher's job. We're paying them for it.

10 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

YEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!

THIS GUY KNOW!!

we are paying so they has to have servers...

10 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I myself download torrents a lot faster than from a single server. It would save our time and their money. Maybe if they're good guys, they would lower the monthly fee, because they don't have to put so much money to the servers. I still doubt it, since all companies are douchebags and are only after our money. But anyways, I still like p2p options. That's just my humble opinion.

10 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Shrug, I kind of like the idea. There are a shocking amount of people, that while they are probably pretty knowledgeable on the subject of torrenting, like to pretend they know "where Valve's issues lie" and things like "the issue isn't with the file servers, it's with the database servers"... completely nonsensical techno-babble. Unless you work for Valve and have the inside scoop.

Since I can only speak for myself and my decent grasp on the subject... the biggest issue I see is finding people to seed less popular games, and if everyone is required to seed, then the impact on those with already limited bandwidth (making a 20gb game double-y difficult to download with monthly bandwidth limits). If you make the service optional, then it's not really helping anyone since apparently a number of people would turn it off solely on principle ("that's the publishers job"). Maybe Valve could "officially" seed all games, but is that really much different then what we have now? Incentive to seed (ie. free Steam wallet cash) could help to remedy this, but $0.10 per 100mb would probably net most people $50 for a night of seeding a reasonably popular game. It'd have to be scaled WAY back.

Too many questions for it to work IMO, I like the idea though.

10 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

One server can easily push 1-10 gbit of static data.

Valve has public data on servers usage: http://store.steampowered.com/stats/content/

10 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Im not opposed to P2P downloading whatsoever, but we wont be paid for it if it were to occur.

Opt out of it? Sure, but definitely not paid.

10 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

You do realize that money isn't free?

Valve can't just print money and put it into your Steam wallet because you helped seed a game. Sure, having some sort of P2P protocol for sharing data and updates across the Steam network would probably ease Steam's server load, but because of the way it works decentralizing probably isn't in Valve's best interest.

10 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Of course, but if this system would allow faster downloads for users + save valve money, they could reward the seeders (maybe with other not Steam Wallet rewards).

10 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

far easier is to change to server where you download or for Valve to implement multisource downloading. both free and no need to pay anymore than they already do.

It won't save them anything as large amount of costs are static - irrelevant to amount of total data, eg. storage, hardware, electricity. Basically it would increase total cost per GB. It might be faster or slower, also less reliable, development costs, etc.

10 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Sign in through Steam to add a comment.