Steam is the future of gaming
I honestly think the future of gaming is going to move toward a mix of PC architecture with console-like simplicity.
Right now gaming feels a bit broken in several ways: €80–90 games, poor optimization, increasingly closed or subscription-based online services on consoles, and a PC gaming ecosystem that is still too inaccessible for most people.
Not because it’s inherently “hard”, but because the experience is still too technical. Launching a game on PC often means dealing with DLSS, FSR, frame generation, ray tracing, drivers, APIs, endless graphics settings… when most people just want to play.
And this is where I think the future is already starting to take shape, largely thanks to the ecosystem built around Valve. What they’re doing with Steam, Proton, Steam Deck, and what’s coming next (Steam Machine, Steam Frame, etc.) is slowly blurring the line between console and PC. Even recent progress like Proton on ARM opens the door to more efficient handheld hardware that could run PC games without losing compatibility, which is currently one of the biggest limitations of those devices.
But the interesting part is that this doesn’t have to stay just with Valve. If this model succeeds, we could see many more companies entering this space: ASUS, Chinese manufacturers, or new brands building their own PC-console hybrids based on this open ecosystem. It would no longer be a closed market dominated only by Sony, Nintendo, and Microsoft running isolated systems.
We could see all kinds of devices emerge: low-cost consoles focused on lighter categories, balanced mid-range ones, or high-end systems. Even very cheap devices aimed at indie games, retro titles, emulation, or something like GTA San Andreas-level performance without needing to spend a fortune.
And that changes market dynamics a lot. Because when there’s real competition—especially from manufacturers capable of producing efficient and cheap hardware—prices inevitably get pressured downward. If one company can offer a decent low-cost device for a specific tier of gaming, everyone else is forced to adapt.
It’s not just about raw power, but about opening the ecosystem and making it more accessible depending on what people actually want to play and how much they want to spend.
And this is where the main idea comes in: a universal performance category system.
Something like:
- Category A → lightweight hardware (indies, retro, 2D, emulation, low-demand games)
- Category B → AA games / well-optimized mid-range experiences
- Category C → modern AAA games at reasonable high settings
- Category D → the most demanding, cutting-edge games
The point isn’t just to classify power, but to reflect real user preferences: what kind of experience you want, regardless of where you play.
This would apply across the whole ecosystem, not just handhelds or home consoles. Because what matters is not the form factor, but the experience you’re looking for.
Having a clear label like this for both games and devices would make decisions much easier without needing specs comparisons or endless benchmark videos.
And I also think it would create an interesting effect on the industry: if a game launches and gets a high-demand category because it’s poorly optimized, that becomes a marketing problem. Meanwhile, a visually impressive but well-optimized game landing in a lower category becomes a selling point.
That would push studios to optimize better instead of just increasing system requirements.
I don’t know, but to me it feels like gaming is inevitably heading toward something like this:
open PC ecosystem + console-like experience + clear performance standards.