http://www.theverge.com/2012/3/2/2840932/exclusive-valve-steam-box-gaming-console I have NO idea how solid this article/source is, but it seems like the Alienware X51 is the rumored prototype. I would buy the everloving fuck out of this.
I barely touch my PS3 console and generally consider it a waste of space for anything but zen pinball or netflix, but I would pay double for a Steam console.
Pass, I've already tried to make the transition to console gaming a couple times, didn't take either time. I've had fun on my consoles, but they don't command near the attention my PC gaming habit does. So if Valve is turning their attention to consoles, does this mean PC gaming is doomed or what?
The basic model of the Alienware X51 starts at $699. If that's really what they try to base it on, this idea is dead in the water. Also, there's the little problem that some PC games require mouse & keyboard, and people who still play on the PC often do so because they hate using gamepads even when supported. But if you have to sit on a desk to play it's hard to see why you wouldn't just keep using a regular upgradable PC. Especially since those same PC gamers who hate gamepads tend to love tinkering with their boxes anyway. I guess there's a small cross-section of people who don't mind playing with a gamepad and are willing to pay 3x the price of a console for better graphics, but other than that I don't see much of a target audience here.
Those are solveable problems though. Hardware can get a bit cheaper once they've tested the waters and they can probably fairly easily stick on a filter that shows only the games in your steam collection that have gamepad support pretty easily. I know I have some steam games I would only play on mouse, desk and keyboard PC but I also have others that would play just as well on a couch with a gamepad. That said I can't imagine a steam console ever being as mass market as the Wii or even the X-box. They have a couple of advantages as a potential console maker: Large built in install base for steam already with great backwards compatibility Cheaper games. With the general lower price of PC software, the ability to use cheap discs to get your games onto steam & steam sales. You could probably make up the cost of that hardware in a couple of years if you bought a lot of games. Wider range of games, mods & so on thanks to open architecture. Buy once play everywhere factor. With that steam cloud thing you could continue your game of Batman upstairs in the study while the rest of the family watches reality TV downstairs on the main TV.
First of all, consoles never cost ~$200 at or near launch. It would be a lot more accurate to say "willing to pay $100-200 extra." Second, I highly doubt that anyone who still plays games on PC does so solely out of hatred for gamepads. Third, if my life of hanging out with PC Gamers has taught me anything, it's that very few of them actually 'love' tinkering with their boxes (snicker) rather than doing it out of necessity. The whole point of this would be to bring the games that you play on your PC off of your desk and onto your comfy couch. I do this already by virtue of a nice setup and a long HDMI cable, but not everyone can do that. HTPCs are a huge market, and if Valve wants to try and make a gaming-specific one that runs Steam well, then I think it makes plenty of sense.
Yes, that's one of the reasons, but the PS3 also technically supports M&KB. What I really like about PC gaming is that it's more open, in that there are mods and you can tinker with your games, so I hope they keep that aspect of it, otherwise I'd rather pay more for PC hardware and keep those benefits. The problem is, I'm not sure how open their platform can be. Assuming they sell hardware at a loss, they would have to rely on steam licensing for their revenue, so their device might have to be somewhat closed to prevent other gaming services to use it. As much as I like Valve, I also like having other options for buying games (e.g. Gamersgate, GoG).
I'm sure there are some people who hate using a gamepad that game on PC, but I wouldn't call them "PC gamers" I would just call them idiots. I've been using gamepads on PC for 20 years (Gravis Gamepad for life!).
Wonder when they're gonna turn Steam into a streaming service. They're super well-positioned to do something like that.
There's a kernal of a great idea in here and Valve might be the ones to do it. They certainly know the gaming habits and hardware of PC gamers. Personally, i wouldn't have imagined three years ago that my gaming PC sits idle while i game on a laptop via HDMI, with a gamepad (!).
I already have a kind of "Steambox", meaning HTPC connected to TV where I play steam and nonsteam games mostly with gamepad.... but if Valve introduced their own nicely branded HTPC well preconfigured and idiot-proof (at least as much as they can make it), that would just be fantastic. There is a hole in the market of HTPCs, since today if you want to have one that can handle games, you have to spend a lot of money and time on it.
The first "Steam Box" was revealed at CES. Code named Piston, "This new development stage product will allow users to take full advantage of their large high-definition TV displays for an amazing computer game experience," acording to Xi3 founder Jason A. Sullivan. Sounds interesting for sure. What I'm not too clear on is what the thing actually does. Is it a streaming device or is it some kind of mini gaming PC? Clearly with this announcement and the Nvidia Shield announcement, PC gaming in the living room is definitely becoming a thing.
Also, (at least in that article) there's no mention of OS. Wasn't Valve pushing Linux pretty heavily when this was brought up last? Given the paucity of Steam games for Linux, I cant see a way that this thing doesn't have some form of Windows on it.
Here's more info. If it has media capabilities, and I can't see any reason why it would not, then I want it and will buy it as long as it's priced comparable to other consoles. My PS3 has turned into a defacto media device, and it kind of sucks at that. If I can access netflix, the google play store, and also play Mark of the Ninja on my TV, then I'm totally down. No optical drive, but I haven't watched a DVD or a blu-ray in about a year.
A Valve engineer mentioned at a conference in Germany that it will be running Linux, so everyone can commence talking about how there are no games for Linux and that it should really running Windows and completely miss the point.
Yeah. When compared to a game console, that's a lot of cash. Not unreasonable if it's a legit gaming PC, of course, but I couldn't justify having that in the living room AND a gaming PC in my home office. It's possible that by the time this comes out I'll be ready to upgrade my PC for gaming purposes and just go with this (or something similar) and just leave the older PC in the office for general email and internet use. Still, if the streaming solutions that are incoming work as advertised, I don't see any reason why I wouldn't just continue with a cheaper, but similarly capable desktop in the office that I stream to the TV when convenient.
I'm certainly not going to say that a custom machined PC should be cheap. It's just a little surprising to see Valve endorsing a jump into the market at that price tag. If it's Linux based, the most demanding compatible game in their catalog is currently Team Fortress 2, which runs comfortably on the sub-$200 Xbox 360. Planning for the future is one thing, I just don't know who their intended audience is.
I know their plan is to make the thing modular, so maybe there will be different price points? I wouldn't pay to have a full-fledged gaming PC in my living room, but I would pay ~$500 for a machine that can play media and some of the less-graphic-intensive titles in my steam catalog, especially one that looks as nice as that does. I know I could probably build one myself, but lazy.
Like I said in the other thread on this exact topic: I really don't see how console development and support fits into Valve's corporate culture. They're fantastic game developers and have also built a wonderful distribution platform. What they're not very good at: delivering stuff on-time. The first time Activision has to delay CoDBLOPS 5 or whatever because Valve misses the window for an API update, this thing is dead in the water. On the other hand, if their goal is to just provide some sort of reference platform for living room gaming and hope that OEMs take care of the rest, that might make more sense. Assuming they go with a Linux solution, I don't see how they handle API support though. I gather Wine is pretty good these days, but how long does it take to catch up whenever MS revises the DirectX APIs?
Pretty sure the intention is the creation of a full platform and not just a distribution system. With that DirectX API changes become irrelevant Valve will control what version of DirectX is supported and will likely have their own APIs that wrap it. Developers won't be creating PC games that they distribute through Steam they'll be creating Steam games same as developers do for other consoles. I'm not sure what your example of Valve missing an API update has to do with anything. Valve likely won't commit to such a thing and I'm not sure I've heard of any other console manufacturing doing such a thing. Are there any games that require an exceptionally recent console update to function?
I have no idea; but it wouldn't surprise me. MS doesn't revise APIs just for fun! Anecdote: I worked (very briefly; like a month or three) in the Xbox API team, and I definitely felt as if the deadlines were very important. I seem to recall (and at this point I'm going back over five years so who knows if this is just me making shit up) that we had a pretty important deadline to hit in order for Halo 3 to make its targets. As far as making it its own platform: I'd sort of assumed the idea was to let PC games run on this thing with minimal hassle. If they're going to go and create their own platform (and API and etc), that runs into the usual business model problems (are developers really hungry for a third/fourth* platform?). They're not insurmountable of course and Valve might have the cash to burn to overcome them, but the console business is pretty ruthless (while the 360 generates an annual profit, I believe the Xbox endeavor as a whole is still in a multi-billion dollar.... hole) and - like I said - I'm not sure it's necessarily in Valve's DNA to be successful in that space. * Third if you count the PC and Xbox as one platform, four if you don't. I'm not including the Wii U in this count either.
Valve's approach to the Steam platform seems to be different to their approach to games - which is to say, they tend to miss deadlines for games (or do they?) but they push out Steam updates pretty promptly.
I think their approach to games is to eschew deadlines entirely! Which is perfectly fine since they're mega-rich and I think they effectively self-publish so there's no potential for a Publisher going all legal on you the way Take2 did with Duke Nukem. I should probably qualify my skepticism with a quick observation: the technology industry is rife with examples of companies sitting on piles of money that they end up investing in failed projects far outside their core competencies; more often than not this ends up being a disaster (of course there are examples of it succeeding!). I assume Valve is in this situation (the piles of money part), there's a pretty solid historical argument to be made that they should just return that money to their shareholders.
Valve is privately owned I'm not sure who has a piece of it but I'm willing to bet the vast majority is held by Gabe. Valve has also successfully moved into projects outside their core competency, Steam was outside their core competency when they started it. I'm willing to bet any Steam "console" that's released in the near future will just be PC and run PC games but I think their longer term goal is an actual unique platform that will likely also play PC games.
Yeah who knows! It'll be interesting to see what happens. I just think that the odds are at least 50/50 that any attempt at a Steam console boils down to lighting money on fire.
I agree with this a hell of a lot more if they're weighing relative size that much more than shipping cost, as seems to be the case with their opening salvo.
The near future is obviously going to be just HTPCs that might be able to do some gaming. But there's certainly potential for another platform that's not tied up with Microsoft's idiocy and comes with Steam's advantages.
I can't see myself paying $1100 to play Mark of the Ninja, Trine 2 or The Walking Dead on the couch, but if they've got a box available for ~$500 then I'm most certainly interested. There are a handful of brilliant titles released every year that I'd much rather play with a controller in a more relaxed setting, and if it can run the Orange Box games as well? Then I would find this a good value for my money. Also: it looks cool. Wow.
The main issue I have with this is that I am just not sure why the Piston would be preferred over just buying a PC and hooking it up to my TV? Does it run more efficiently? Is it super quiet? Maybe if it's drastically cheaper? Out of the gate, a PC box is definitely going to have a larger library of software.
It's a pretty good bet that it's going to be both smaller and more efficient than any (easily assembled) PC that you can hook up to your TV. I won't make any predictions on price, other than it costing $1100 not being a thing that will happen.
I'll take that bet: in order to be smaller and more efficient, it's going to need custom engineering (eg the 3 part MB in the Piston) that both drives up the price and reduces upgradability.
More info: http://kotaku.com/5974341/its-official-gabe-newell-shares-details-about-valves-steam-box (Sorry I can't link to the original interview, The Verge is blocked at work).
