Steam's play anywhere isn't unconditional.

Oh, your game can only run on Windows XP? Sorry, we won't let you target that platform. Your game is now a digital paperweight.

In a few years, Windows 7 will share the same fate...

GOG has DRM free offline installers. Even if GOG galaxy was updated to forcibly prevent itself from running on XP, I can still copy the installers over to an older system.

My point of view.

Proton - good for Linux users but means literally nothing for Windows users.

Remote Play - why would I play full fledged PC games on an inferior gaming device? If I want to play on such devices, I will play games actually made for them.

Remote Play Together - This is how it used to be in the past with many games. You could install the game on multiple computers with a single disc and then you could start the game without a CD and play multiplayer only. So nothing incredible besides that this is done through Steam so sheeple will praise it like something revolutionary, never seen before.

Steam Cloud Gaming - just no. Latency, dependency on a stable connection, having absolutely no control over the game whatsoever. I did not get a 165 Hz monitor just to be bogged down by a constant 50+ ping. Storage is super cheap these days so no reason to not have a game installed locally.

So basically, none of these new features are relevant to me.

A DRM'd game is not free in the first place. No matter how many fancy features the client has.

I kinda like both in various ways. The play anywhere aspect of some services is nice for when I don't want to sit at my desk and play there(even though it has various restrictions/drm/etc), and the games on gog are nice because I can install them to any of my PCs and keep the installers forever/use them(within reason) how I see fit.

I will use remote play with my friends maybe on free titles, but I won't give my money to Steam. Galaxy has some to catch up but the two things don't compare. And there are DRM free titles on Steam. The reason why I made a Steam account was to be able to get the Abbey of Crime, for example. And you don't need the client to play it. Once it's installed you can keep it forever as you can move the folder as you wish and it will always work without any internet connection. There is a list of Steam titles that work this way.

https://steam.fandom.com/wiki/List_of_DRM-free_games

Too true, I expect they are already researching facial recognition and such like for logins too. Perhaps the “console of the future” will be nothing more than a camera, card slot, and controller (although if let’s plays are anything to go by, a controller will be a thing of the past soon too.

You keep saying that but avoid answering to my queries of where are the signs of this move of games to streaming services.
Have the game game publishers implied they'd rather release their games (only) on streaming services? And I am talking about the game publishers which are not releasing a streaming service of their own.
Have the customers (gamers) said they'd rather play on streaming services and not on standalone consoles and PCs?
There is a reason Onlive died a horrible death, and the reasons were not technical.

Are all the game installations transferable as you say? E.g., can I install for example Crusader Kings 2 on one computer and then copy the install to a PC with no internet access? Or do I have to download the game from Steam on the said computer for it to work?

Thanks.

Steam games are a services, GOG games are products.

I'll prefer to buy products :)

It's just a folder with the game that you can move around, Steam has DRM free games. Sometimes the Windows version has DRM and the Linux version doesn't. You need the Steam client to download the game first.

Apart from Google Stadia coming out just now and Xcloud and Geforce Now beta's running you mean? Not to mention PSnow did a deal with MS to use Azure, and Amazon just announced they're also starting a cloud service next year.

Devs go where the money is. If even one service grows to become a default Cloud streaming 'Steam' so to say it's inevitable devs are going to follow. Not all at once, but one by one. There's plenty of benefits to Cloud streaming for developers if the tech is solid (and Stadia's apparently doing pretty well right now), not in the least full control over their game, the metrics, less cheating impact on multiplayer etc, as well as things that aren't possible at all in a non-cloud environment.

Customers go where the games are. Would you have not said the same about DLC's and microtransactions? Did customers say they'd rather do that? That doesn't matter. If they get enticed with games they want to play or it offers benefits they want, they'll pay for it. As a GOG regular you should be well aware by now that most consumers aren't idealistic about their purchases.

Apples can be used to make apple pie and cider, yet with a car you can drive to work. Which seems more magenta to you?

Can you say that in German?

I specifically asked about the ones that matter, the game developers and the gamers.

Yes I know that right now there are several companies shouting their lungs out about their streaming service, but that doesn't make them a success. They need the games, and they need the gamers. Onlive also made a big show of itself and even got lots of big-name AAA titles into its service, but it wasn't enough.

Exactly, and currently the money is not in streaming gaming services.

Also, even if many developers would sign up to some streaming services, why wouldn't they also release the game on non-streaming services? That is exactly what happened with Onlive, it wasn't the only place where you could "buy" e.g. Arkham Asylum/City or Saints Row 3.

Your suggestion was that publishers would rush into streaming services exclusively. Why would they, if they could make even more money by selling both in a streaming and non-streaming service?

Only if their customers were there. The hen and egg problem.

And even then, why wouldn't they release their games also on non-streaming services, to the people who don't join the streaming service?

And the games go where the customers are.
Neither are currently in streaming services, especially exclusively. The hen and the egg.

What could attract masses of gamers to streaming services (and leaving behind Steam etc.) would be that they could play lots of AAA games cheaper there, than they can by playing them on their console or buying from Steam. The big question is: will it be cheaper on a streaming service?

OnLive failed with its pricing, it was more expensive to play there than buying a game from Steam etc., and that is only logical because running a streaming service is much more expensive than a digital store. Someone has to pay for the running expenses of the server farms.

If they are willing to pay for them, then (enough) customers wanted them.

I don't believe gamers are as stupid as you suggest. The death of OnLive already proved that. People didn't flock into it when they realized it would cost them more to play there, than buying the same game for their console or PC.

Same for game publishers, they'd flock (exclusively) into streaming services only if they managed to make more money that way.

The only ones keeping big shout about the streaming gaming companies are, not surprisingly, the streaming gaming companies themselves.