Steam Box: Valve working on gaming console

[Childs]

<sinp>

Microsoft had to buy their way in, but Valve doesn't necessary have to in the same way. A lot of MS's expenses were buying up devs and spending on exclusivity. Valve has a respectable catalog of titles that could carry a platform for awhile. Going with off the shelf components, and using something like Android can get you in the game relatively quickly and inexpensively. Remember, the first Xbox was really off the shelf parts. The only thing custom was the case. And we have a recent example of this...Google and Android in the cell phone market. And the proprietary way Apple did with the iPod, and extended it to the iPhone. Both markets were established with players that had more experience and lots of cash. Where are those folks now? Looking up at Apple and Google thinking about what could have been. In fact, Valve doesn't even really need to manufacture any hardware, just establish the specs and have hardware partners actually making the boxes. There are lots of ways to get this done. Just takes good execution.

Heck, Onlive is making a go at it, and those guys came out of nowhere. The problem with using Windows is that MS would be your competitor and the foundation for your product. Theres no point to it. They have a history of using Windows to beat their competitors by giving themselves advantages, and this would be no different. The only way I could see Windows as a valid option is only to get in the game and transition to something else for the long term.

 

[Sureshot324]

Microsoft had to buy their way in, but Valve doesn't necessary have to in the same way. A lot of MS's expenses were buying up devs and spending on exclusivity. Valve has a respectable catalog of titles that could carry a platform for awhile. Going with off the shelf components, and using something like Android can get you in the game relatively quickly and inexpensively. Remember, the first Xbox was really off the shelf parts. The only thing custom was the case. And we have a recent example of this...Google and Android in the cell phone market. And the proprietary way Apple did with the iPod, and extended it to the iPhone. Both markets were established with players that had more experience and lots of cash. Where are those folks now? Looking up at Apple and Google thinking about what could have been. In fact, Valve doesn't even really need to manufacture any hardware, just establish the specs and have hardware partners actually making the boxes. There are lots of ways to get this done. Just takes good execution.

Heck, Onlive is making a go at it, and those guys came out of nowhere. The problem with using Windows is that MS would be your competitor and the foundation for your product. Theres no point to it. They have a history of using Windows to beat their competitors by giving themselves advantages, and this would be no different. The only way I could see Windows as a valid option is only to get in the game and transition to something else for the long term.

The Android/iOS comparison is interesting, but phones don't have the same chicken and egg problem that consoles do. People aren't buying them primarily for the games or even 3rd party apps.

Valve's existing catalog isn't going to sell a console. Most of those games are already on consoles. They need NEW games. 3rd party developers aren't going to make games for it unless people are buying it, and people aren't going to buy it unless there are a lot of good games coming out for it.

Sony and MS have spent billions buying studios and paying for exclusive games. Valve could try to do the same, but the market is already crowded with 3 consoles. Devs aren't going to want to port their games to that many systems.

 

[Childs]

The Android/iOS comparison is interesting, but phones don't have the same chicken and egg problem that consoles do. People aren't buying them primarily for the games or even 3rd party apps.

Its not all that different, especially when you think about Android going against the iPhone. Apps was a big differentiator from an iPhone versus Nokia, Palm, etc. So Apple did it to the establishment, and Google is doing it to Apple. Games are just apps. Now many apps are made for both. And I beg to differ about people not buying new phones for apps and games. You can use a cell phone from 10 years ago if all you want to do is make calls. People want the new sexy, and thats driven by software. Newer hardware is important, but without the software you can't really sell the phones to customers because thats the interface to the phone.

Valve's existing catalog isn't going to sell a console. Most of those games are already on consoles. They need NEW games. 3rd party developers aren't going to make games for it unless people are buying it, and people aren't going to buy it unless there are a lot of good games coming out for it.

If you think about the Orange box, that was a suite of games that was unmatched in value, and you can only really do that if you are Valve. Established franchises and the ability to create new compelling IP. Put in HL3 (or HL2, ep 3), with Portal 3, TF3, CS2, L4D3, and you have a heck of a launch catalog. Plus, you get maybe one big franchise from each major publishers and get some indie titles, and you're good. Heck, I remember buying my PS3 and it was launched with much less quality titles.

Sony and MS have spent billions buying studios and paying for exclusive games. Valve could try to do the same, but the market is already crowded with 3 consoles. Devs aren't going to want to port their games to that many systems.

Onlive begs to differ! I dont even think that platform is viable for anything except single player games, but its was conceived, launched, got publisher support, and is still around. Who knows for how long, but they got in the game. And even if the market is crowded at 3 (4 if you consider Onlive), that doesnt mean Valve can't be one of the 3. They just have to do it better than the others, and when you look at all the mistakes MS and Sony made this generation, its not inconceivable that another company can get in the market.

 

[Dankk]

Onlive begs to differ! I dont even think that platform is viable for anything except single player games, but its was conceived, launched, got publisher support, and is still around. Who knows for how long, but they got in the game. And even if the market is crowded at 3 (4 if you consider Onlive), that doesnt mean Valve can't be one of the 3. They just have to do it better than the others, and when you look at all the mistakes MS and Sony made this generation, its not inconceivable that another company can get in the market.

Onlive isn't technically it's own platform, is it? Last time I checked, it's a PC gaming service for people who don't want to buy and maintain a gaming PC.

 

[Childs]

Onlive isn't technically it's own platform, is it? Last time I checked, it's a PC gaming service for people who don't want to buy and maintain a gaming PC.

http://www.onlive.com/service?autoplay=yes

I would consider this a platform. Its my understanding that these are Onlive ported or native games, not retail windows games. Even if its essentially using remote desktop to connect to a machine, and launch a windows game, its a service where you buy or rent games and use their software and/or hardware to play them. You have to go through Onlive to use it, although I can see an argument against this as a platform, and simply some weird proxy service to play flash like games. To be fair, I might be mistaken, as I dismissed the idea of this a long time ago. What I remember announced and what it became might be different.

 

[GodisanAtheist]

I think people are overthinking this WAYYYY too much and taking the "Console" hyperbole as truth. The article even refers to the Alienware box as a sort of alpha run of the whole concept.

I think Steam's objective here is to provide a Small Form Factor desktop PC that is affordable (~ $500 range +/- $100) that can actually play games decently at a set resolution (say 1080p). They can also pitch this box as the target hardware to various developers that use steam as a service, with the incentive that they would naturally increase their steam sales if people had computers that could run their games.

Simply get "Steam Box" or something onto the various blurbs and logos that litter game boxes and you would start to collect... ahem... steam.

I work at a pretty major electronics retailer in the BYOPC department, and there is a pretty strong demand among pre-built buyers to get a box that's fairly cheap, Dad and Mom can get their taxes done and little bobby can get in a few hours of MW or COD. A lot of 500 dollar machines are packed with processing power people will never need, or so much RAM even a professional graphics designer will never see all of it, but come with some seriously anemic graphics. Valve wouldn't even have to take a huge hit, just re-jigger some of the parts, bring the ram down some, bring the processor down some, pack in a better than average GPU and avoid the $300 "GAMERZ" mark-up and they'd have a serious winner on their hands.

I haven't bought a pre-built PC in ages, but along with the Steambox I would be aghast if Valve hasn't signed a deal with Dell's Alienware/XPS among others to have their software pre-installed on machines. Hell, not even gaming machines, regular folk need to discover Peggle Nights as well...

 

[JTsyo]

This would be an awesome form factor
Ctrl-Alt-Del

 

[JTsyo]

No steam box

On top of that, Lombardi didn't actually refuse to say that Valve isn't working on a hardware platform. Instead, he agreed that there's definitely nothing coming any time soon, nothing at GDC or E3. Like Newell said, there's a possibility that maybe some day Valve will make hardware, but Lombardi made it clear that (a) Valve partnering with hardware manufacturers and/or (b) Valve building its own hardware will not be happening anytime soon. End of story.

 

[Sureshot324]

Its not all that different, especially when you think about Android going against the iPhone. Apps was a big differentiator from an iPhone versus Nokia, Palm, etc. So Apple did it to the establishment, and Google is doing it to Apple. Games are just apps. Now many apps are made for both. And I beg to differ about people not buying new phones for apps and games. You can use a cell phone from 10 years ago if all you want to do is make calls. People want the new sexy, and thats driven by software. Newer hardware is important, but without the software you can't really sell the phones to customers because thats the interface to the phone.

What really set the iPhone apart wasn't apps. It had a revolutionary form factor and user interface. When it was first released I'm sure there were much more/better apps for Blackberry/Palm/Nokia/etc.. Smart phones all ship with a browser, music player, video player, email app, and GPS/map app. That covers at least 95% of what most people do with a smart phone. 3rd party apps are a factor but aren't really that important. Many people don't use them at all, or maybe tried a few for fun and then stopped using them.

If you think about the Orange box, that was a suite of games that was unmatched in value, and you can only really do that if you are Valve. Established franchises and the ability to create new compelling IP. Put in HL3 (or HL2, ep 3), with Portal 3, TF3, CS2, L4D3, and you have a heck of a launch catalog. Plus, you get maybe one big franchise from each major publishers and get some indie titles, and you're good. Heck, I remember buying my PS3 and it was launched with much less quality titles.

There's no way all those sequels are going to be ready at the same time when the system launches. Valve ships one game every 1-2 years at best. TF2 and CS won't get sequels for a long time if ever since it makes more sense to do incremental updates for them. Plus is Valve really going to make those games console exclusive?

Valve really needs to give people reason to buy their console instead of the other consoles. Being able to play the entire Steam library would be a good reason. Otherwise, what? The other consoles already have online distribution systems.

Onlive begs to differ! I dont even think that platform is viable for anything except single player games, but its was conceived, launched, got publisher support, and is still around. Who knows for how long, but they got in the game. And even if the market is crowded at 3 (4 if you consider Onlive), that doesnt mean Valve can't be one of the 3. They just have to do it better than the others, and when you look at all the mistakes MS and Sony made this generation, its not inconceivable that another company can get in the market.

Not sure what your point is with Onlive. They are all Windows/Mac games. They're running the games on Windows/Macs on the backend and streaming them to the OnLive console. The developers of the original games didn't have to do anything except sign the papers.

The only real drawbacks to making a Windows box is having to pay for the Windows license and potential competition from other distribution platforms. However, having thousands of Steam games available from day 1 give it real chance of succeeding. Without that, it will most likely be dead in the water like so many consoles of the past.

 

[Childs]

What really set the iPhone apart wasn't apps. It had a revolutionary form factor and user interface.

There was nothing all the revolutionary about the form factor or the UI. Its basically a 3x5 phone, which existed long before the iPhone. Maybe you are thinking of the materials and build quality. So people like new and shiny? A new console fits that bill. The UI wasn't all the original, as LG had the Prada, that predated the iPhone, which had a capacitive screen. No one even remembers the Prada. So I guess Apple did it better. That just means you can get into a market and succeed by making a better product.

When it was first released I'm sure there were much more/better apps for Blackberry/Palm/Nokia/etc..

I'm not sure what youre saying here. So the Blackberry/Palm/Nokia were established and had better software, but a newcomer handed them their butts? Or maybe its that a newcomer came in with better software and took over the market? I think any way you try to phrase it, one thing for sure is that being in dominate position doesnt ensure your place at the table till the end of time.

Smart phones all ship with a browser, music player, video player, email app, and GPS/map app. That covers at least 95% of what most people do with a smart phone. 3rd party apps are a factor but aren't really that important. Many people don't use them at all, or maybe tried a few for fun and then stopped using them.

If you dont take the differences and quality of the experience, you could say the same about the PS3 and Xbox. You can claim most people play FPS or 3rd Person horror or whatever, so why would you specifically need a PS3 or Xbox for that? An FPS is an FPS, so it doesnt matter which platform you choose to play it on.

It didnt help Blackberry/Palm/Nokia/etc hold onto their market from having essentially the same core things available on their devices. They were established brands, with the core features that you need, yet all three of those companies are in decline. If you have another console with good hardware, strong software, and give the people what they want, or what they didnt know they want, you can succeed.

*I also dont really agree with the assertion that 95% just use the basic shipping apps. Looking at the iPhone App store statistics, there are almost 600K apps available for download, and over 500 app store submissions a day. People buy and use these apps. Maybe not every hour of every day, but then you can say the same about games. If developers werent making money on this stuff, they wouldnt write it.

There's no way all those sequels are going to be ready at the same time when the system launches. Valve ships one game every 1-2 years at best. TF2 and CS won't get sequels for a long time if ever since it makes more sense to do incremental updates for them.

Who knows what Valve is up to or how fast they can go if they needed to make a specific date. Portal 2 came out of nowhere, and so did L4D, and one year later L4D2. They can bulk up on staff to do it internally, farm it out to 3rd party devs while maintaining creative control, etc. Valve takes their time, simply because they can. They have no pressure from anyone to get something out by a specific date, and they are possibly the last true "When its done..." developers left. That doesnt mean that its impossible for Valve to ramp up their productivity. If they were to make a Steam box I'm sure they could make the necessary adjustments to release what they need for a strong launch.

Plus is Valve really going to make those games console exclusive?

hahaha Sure they can, they just have to do it! Or they can do timed exclusives, simultaneous multiplatform launch, whatever they need to do. Even do a dick move and hold back on the PC version. I see the concept of a Steam box as eating into PC gaming more than the TV consoles initially. I'm thinking the PC market is ready for some change. Remember, Microsoft leveraged the PC market to get the Xbox going by moving games and franchises over from PC, but it was mainly just one franchise...Halo. Sometimes it doesnt take much to get the ball rolling.

Valve really needs to give people reason to buy their console instead of the other consoles. Being able to play the entire Steam library would be a good reason. Otherwise, what? The other consoles already have online distribution systems.

I spent over $1500 on a new PC, mainly for BF3. For the first few weeks I had to suffer through graphical issues and crashes, supposedly from bad video drivers or OC'd hardware or gremlins, who the bleep knows! Thats your reason right there. Spend $600 on something with fixed hardware, so the software is optimized and better tested, and you get a better gaming experience for your money. Even crappy 360 and PS3 ports would run better on this Steam box. A PC gaming experience (mouse and keyboard, dedicated servers, etc) without the hassles, pretty much sells itself.

Not sure what your point is with Onlive. They are all Windows/Mac games. They're running the games on Windows/Macs on the backend and streaming them to the OnLive console. The developers of the original games didn't have to do anything except sign the papers.

The point was there was supposedly no market for something like this, and there it is. This thing is still operating, so there is a market for something that isnt a 360, PS3, or PC.

And this isnt just PC or Mac gaming. Its a console. PC gaming without an actual PC isnt PC gaming.

The only real drawbacks to making a Windows box is having to pay for the Windows license and potential competition from other distribution platforms. However, having thousands of Steam games available from day 1 give it real chance of succeeding. Without that, it will most likely be dead in the water like so many consoles of the past.

You act like companies try this 10 times a year. :biggrin: At one time it would have been foolish to think Nintendo could break into the market when Atari was running things. Same thing with Sega, Sony, and Microsoft. Companies come and go in this business.

I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, but you seem to imply there is no room for innovation and change in gaming. Why should the Subway franchise succeed when McDonalds dominated the fast food market. Apple doesnt know anything about music devices, they should just stick to computers. Well, they really dont know anything about phones, they should stick to music devices. Microsoft doesnt know squat about consoles, they should stick to PCs. Even before that, Microsoft doesnt know anything about operating systems, they should stick to productivity software. Even when they had their OS established, they supposedly didnt know anything about reliable server OSs, web servers, databases. Companies and individuals succeed because they got in the game, instead of sitting around talking about how they cant do this or that. You just need a good product and you have to execute better than your competition, and you'll put them out on their asses. Valve seems to know what they are doing, and if they entered the market I'm sure they'd think it through.

PS...these long winded replies are what you get when Fringe is on hiatus! Sureshot, if you reply to all of this, I will post a novel in response! I'll just copy and paste random text from wikipedia. :biggrin:

 

[wuliheron]

Onlive isn't technically it's own platform, is it? Last time I checked, it's a PC gaming service for people who don't want to buy and maintain a gaming PC.

Just a quick note, but that may change in the near future. Intel is currently experimenting with using knights Ferry/Larrabee servers to produce ray cast video games for cloud computing. For slower paced games like Sims more photo-realistic graphics could become a huge selling point and provide a unique niche market for onlive that won't be possible with desktop computing for another twenty years.

 

[Sureshot324]

My whole point with the phone comparison is that 3rd party software support is not nearly as important for phones. The number of apps in the marketplace isn't what makes people flock to certain phones. With video game consoles the games that are on the console is a huge factor in people's decision.

Who knows what Valve is up to or how fast they can go if they needed to make a specific date. Portal 2 came out of nowhere, and so did L4D, and one year later L4D2. They can bulk up on staff to do it internally, farm it out to 3rd party devs while maintaining creative control, etc. Valve takes their time, simply because they can. They have no pressure from anyone to get something out by a specific date, and they are possibly the last true "When its done..." developers left. That doesnt mean that its impossible for Valve to ramp up their productivity. If they were to make a Steam box I'm sure they could make the necessary adjustments to release what they need for a strong launch.

They take that long because that's how long it takes to make the games as good as they are. Cutting dev time will inevitably reduce quality. It's not just about the launch, what about the games that come 6 months later? They can't do it all themselves.

I spent over $1500 on a new PC, mainly for BF3. For the first few weeks I had to suffer through graphical issues and crashes, supposedly from bad video drivers or OC'd hardware or gremlins, who the bleep knows! Thats your reason right there. Spend $600 on something with fixed hardware, so the software is optimized and better tested, and you get a better gaming experience for your money. Even crappy 360 and PS3 ports would run better on this Steam box. A PC gaming experience (mouse and keyboard, dedicated servers, etc) without the hassles, pretty much sells itself.

I said give me a reason people would buy a steambox instead of other consoles, not instead of a PC. A PC like experience? Other consoles already have mice and keyboard accessories but no one uses them because no one wants to hunch over their coffee table to play a game. Dedicated servers? Battlefield 3 for consoles has dedicated servers. It's only going to get more common. If a PC like experience is really the main selling point, why not just run Windows?

I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, but you seem to imply there is no room for innovation and change in gaming.

Don't get me wrong, if Valve comes up with some brilliant idea for a console like Nintendo did with the Wii, they could succeed with a propriety console. But that's not easy. I'm sure Nintendo tried really hard to come up with something amazing for their follow up to the Wii but all they came up with is a gamepad with a touchscreen.

Otherwise, they ain't gonna succeed unless it can run all 2500+ Steam games right off the bat.

 

[Childs]

My whole point with the phone comparison is that 3rd party software support is not nearly as important for phones. The number of apps in the marketplace isn't what makes people flock to certain phones. With video game consoles the games that are on the console is a huge factor in people's decision.

Software support is huge when it comes to phones. If not, Windows Phone would be successful. Symbian would be successful, and Palm would still be riding high. Supposedly, the biggest positive Xbox has over PS3 isn't even a game, its Live, and you have to pay extra for those features.

They take that long because that's how long it takes to make the games as good as they are. Cutting dev time will inevitably reduce quality. It's not just about the launch, what about the games that come 6 months later? They can't do it all themselves.

I disagree. Look at the last 4 Valve games, Portal 2, Alien Swarm, L4D and L4D2. OK, Alien Swarm might be a stretch, but it was released. They came out quick, and you can't say that it effected the quality. And I don't think anyone is saying Valve would be the exclusive publisher and developer for games on the box. Just like MS, Sony, and Nintendo, you publish a couple of your own and bring in other publishers to have something at or near launch. Valve also has strong ties with indie devs, and they can fill the gap between tent pole releases just like smaller devs do on XBL and PSN.

I said give me a reason people would buy a steambox instead of other consoles, not instead of a PC. A PC like experience? Other consoles already have mice and keyboard accessories but no one uses them because no one wants to hunch over their coffee table to play a game. Dedicated servers? Battlefield 3 for consoles has dedicated servers. It's only going to get more common. If a PC like experience is really the main selling point, why not just run Windows?

Major difference being you don't use keyboard and mice accessories to play the actual games. Thats the PC like gaming experience that isn't available on consoles. And its not like a 360 or PS3 won't work on a desk...many people use them that way. Consoles are not limited to the living room, just like PC's are not limited to the office. It would be a console with a superior input interface.

BF3, MAG and maybe Homefront where maybe the only games to do dedicated servers. One reason it won't take off is because MS doesn't allow it. And you don't necessarily want to run Windows because its not locked down, and you lose the benefits for running on a fixed, known configuration. Not to mention MS will find a way to cripple you, either via licensing or software time bombs. PC like gaming experience on a console inspired hardware design would probably appeal to many current and former PC gamers. Not worrying about whether or not your video card or CPU is faster, bad drivers, and cost, but playing the way PC gamers have played for the last 15 or so years is a very appealing proposition.

Don't get me wrong, if Valve comes up with some brilliant idea for a console like Nintendo did with the Wii, they could succeed with a propriety console. But that's not easy. I'm sure Nintendo tried really hard to come up with something amazing for their follow up to the Wii but all they came up with is a gamepad with a touchscreen.

You laugh at the next Wii eh? Just like everyone laughed at the first Wii, and it was Nintendo laughing all the way to the bank. Wii should have been a joke, but they had a way to differentiate themselves from their competition while leveraging their strong IP. The market will tell whether the next Wii is a failure, but I'll wait for it to fail before I start laughing in their face!

Otherwise, they ain't gonna succeed unless it can run all 2500+ Steam games right off the bat.

hmmm...what console launched with 2500 titles??? I don't think thats as necessary as you do. You just need a couple of good ones for launch.

It can be said, Valve revolutionized FPS with their game design. Brought in digital distribution when people didn't ask, nor want it, and now most refuse to buy any game unless its on or activates in Steam. These guys are smart, and if they got in this business I'm sure they can look at where the industry is and how they can bring value to the market where others have failed to capitalize. I'd need to see them fail at it first before I categorically dismiss the notion.

 

[Sureshot324]

Software support is huge when it comes to phones. If not, Windows Phone would be successful. Symbian would be successful, and Palm would still be riding high. Supposedly, the biggest positive Xbox has over PS3 isn't even a game, its Live, and you have to pay extra for those features.

I guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree here. Windows phone doesn't have as many apps because it's unpopular, not the other way around. The biggest reason Apple and Google succeeded and Microsoft failed is simply fanboyism. Apple and Google are popular companies and have many fans (Apple has as many haters as it does fans, but that doesn't matter). Microsoft is an unpopular company. Nobody considers themselves a Microsoft fan. People buy Xboxes and Windows because there are good reasons to buy them instead of the competition. Windows Phone 7 is an excellent product, but there isn't much reason to buy it instead of an Android or Iphone, so people go with the company they like. It also didn't help that they were much slower than Google to copy the Iphone.

Valve is of course also a popular company, but again the point I'm trying to make here is for phones, unlike consoles, the number of apps is a consequence of popularity, not the cause if it.

I disagree. Look at the last 4 Valve games, Portal 2, Alien Swarm, L4D and L4D2. OK, Alien Swarm might be a stretch, but it was released. They came out quick, and you can't say that it effected the quality. And I don't think anyone is saying Valve would be the exclusive publisher and developer for games on the box. Just like MS, Sony, and Nintendo, you publish a couple of your own and bring in other publishers to have something at or near launch. Valve also has strong ties with indie devs, and they can fill the gap between tent pole releases just like smaller devs do on XBL and PSN.

Whether or not Valve can bring enough good games is something we can argue about forever, but MS and Sony have both invested billions in buying Studios and exclusive games, and I don't think Valve is ready to do the same, nor can they succeed without doing so.

Nintendo is a bit of a special case, since first party games alone can carry their consoles. You could argue Valve's can do the same, but I honestly don't think they can. History has shown though that without an amazing innovation like the Wiimote Nintendo is clearly in last place in the console race due to lacking 3rd party support. Wii U will be another Gamecube.

Major difference being you don't use keyboard and mice accessories to play the actual games. Thats the PC like gaming experience that isn't available on consoles. And its not like a 360 or PS3 won't work on a desk...many people use them that way. Consoles are not limited to the living room, just like PC's are not limited to the office. It would be a console with a superior input interface.

Some people play their consoles on a desk but the majority of them are in living rooms where as I said it's just not comfortable to use a mouse/keyboard. Console FPS games don't support mice because less than 5% would use them, and that <5% would have an unfair advantage in multiplayer.

BF3, MAG and maybe Homefront where maybe the only games to do dedicated servers. One reason it won't take off is because MS doesn't allow it.

Add Final Fantasy 11 to the list. I think Console companies were reluctant to allow player hosted servers since players will install all kinds of crap on their servers, but are fine with it when there's on official hosting company like with BF3 or Black Ops, so they still have control over the servers. I think this is going to become more popular for consoles because it clearly works better than P2P like Modern Warfare and I don't see any drawback for MS/Sony/Nintendo.

You laugh at the next Wii eh? Just like everyone laughed at the first Wii, and it was Nintendo laughing all the way to the bank. Wii should have been a joke, but they had a way to differentiate themselves from their competition while leveraging their strong IP. The market will tell whether the next Wii is a failure, but I'll wait for it to fail before I start laughing in their face!

I wasn't laughing at the Wii. I saw the potential right away and bought one soon after it came out. I was disappointed that few games really made good use out of it but I still believe motion controls will one day revolutionize gaming. Touch screen on a console controller just isn't that great an idea IMO. It will do ok but it will be more like the gamecube than the Wii in terms of success.

hmmm...what console launched with 2500 titles??? I don't think thats as necessary as you do. You just need a couple of good ones for launch.

True what definitely is necessary is a damn good reason to buy a Steam Box instead of one of the already numerous competitors. A 'PC like experience' isn't it.

 

[cmdrdredd]

You laugh at the next Wii eh? Just like everyone laughed at the first Wii, and it was Nintendo laughing all the way to the bank. Wii should have been a joke, but they had a way to differentiate themselves from their competition while leveraging their strong IP. The market will tell whether the next Wii is a failure, but I'll wait for it to fail before I start laughing in their face!

Thing is...90% of the people who bought a wii only bought maybe 4 games. Two of them were Mario and two were Zelda. I'd say another 5% bought a lot of different titles and the last 5% probably just got it for Wii fit or the Wii Sports game that came with it. Many people dusted their WIi off only a couple of times to play these titles. I know mine sat unused for months.

I don't have any basis for these numbers in a large sampling. I am talking from my own experience and the experience of my friends and family who have a Wii.

 

[busydude]

I don't have any basis for these numbers in a large sampling.

And yet you start off by accounting 90% of Wii users?

 

[Lonyo]

Thing is...90% of the people who bought a wii only bought maybe 4 games. Two of them were Mario and two were Zelda. I'd say another 5% bought a lot of different titles and the last 5% probably just got it for Wii fit or the Wii Sports game that came with it. Many people dusted their WIi off only a couple of times to play these titles. I know mine sat unused for months.

I don't have any basis for these numbers in a large sampling. I am talking from my own experience and the experience of my friends and family who have a Wii.

99% of people who might buy a "Steam box" already own something that can play Valve games.
There's no way that first party Valve games could possibly sell a console because the market would be all people who care, less all the console people, less all the PC people.
Unless they decide to commit game developing suicide and not release their own games on any platform except their own console.

(This isn't responding directly to you but also to other above posts).

 

[mirandu04]

yeah but that would also mean the death of their games. let's be honest nobody is buying a console just for 3-4 games

 

[OVerLoRDI]

I wonder what OS it will be running. Licensing windows from a cost perspective is not ideal, however it is the only OS that supports DX, which is essential for 95% (or more) of steams current game library. If they pick Linux they are signing up for driver problems and OpenGL only. Seems like this could be a real issue going forward for this device.

 

[Childs]

I guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree here.

<snip>

Not just here, but the rest of it. I could reply, but I choose not to, to save us both a lot of time. :biggrin:

Thing is...90% of the people who bought a wii only bought maybe 4 games. Two of them were Mario and two were Zelda. I'd say another 5% bought a lot of different titles and the last 5% probably just got it for Wii fit or the Wii Sports game that came with it. Many people dusted their WIi off only a couple of times to play these titles. I know mine sat unused for months.

I don't have any basis for these numbers in a large sampling. I am talking from my own experience and the experience of my friends and family who have a Wii.

Even if that is the case, which I am inclined to dispute, that didn't stop the Wii from being successful. If anything it shows people will buy new hardware if it appeals to them, even if there isn't a whole lot to do with it. Wii appealed to people outside the core and hard core gaming crowd. Steambox could appeal to those outside the "hard core" pc gaming and PS3/360 crowd.

I've been building my own PCs since Doom, and at this point in life I'm willing to consider such a box. And its not cause of cost, I just want to play what I play the way I want to play it with little hassles. Back in the day there were many different video cards and sound cards to choose from, even CPU manufacturers, yet I don't recall the crap people deal with in regards to just to get a game to run without crashing or graphic corruption. Hardware and software has gotten more complex, yet quality control has gone way down. If a Steambox can bring some of that quality back, I'm all for it.

 

[Shaydza]

I think you guys are missing the one thing that this could bring to the PC gaming industry... Standardisation! Steam is popular enough that companies would write the game for the Steam box as a benchmark and as long as your hardware matches or exceeds the Steam box you know you will be good to go.

Also buyers of the Steam box will most likely have standardised profiles in game that ensure it runs smoothly. I am seriously looking forward to this, It may bring sanity to as very fragmented industry.

For the programmers to write better code and simply help everybody out, we need less SKU's of products. There are simply too many options out there and many of them are pretty much the same thing. Ask yourself this question? Is there really a market for the Pentium G620,G630,G840,G850,G860 or would the market be satisfied by having a Sandy bridge Pentium,i3,i5,i7 and their mobile variants.

This combined with as Low/Medium/High option in graphics cards say an AMD 7770/7850/7790 it could make software developers lives a lot easier and make optimising code in their games a lot easier.

I know I am going to get shredded for this opinion but there is definitely something that can be learned for Apple. Maybe not only having 1 option but we definitely need less.

 

[Beev]

Here's my problem with a SteamBox (this may have already been said):

All this will do is cause devs to "steambox-ize" games. We complain about consolized games now? Well what about when the SteamBox gets older and games chug on the hardware? No one wants that, so instead games will be tailored to the SteamBox, then enthusiasts with REAL PC's have to put up with inferior product yet again.

The SteamBox sounds great, but it worries me as a gamer.

 

[Shaydza]

Valid point Beev, the one advantage that the Steam box will have over custom hardware is that it is simply regular PC components. That means that they could have a release every 3 years without having to sink billions into development.

Plus it would become a "minimum" benchmark for games once new hardware comes out. Games have had performance optimisation options for years and the box would move from the "Ultra" setting to the "High" setting to the "Medium" setting and then be retired. Or the game will say that it needs a Steam box "Alpha" or Steam box "Beta" to run instead of giving complex lists of components.

 

[BudAshes]

No Playstation, no Xbox, no Steam, no iPhone or Android, etc etc.

None of those examples made sense. Sony made entertainment hardware already, Xbox is crap and shouldn't exist, Steam is software made by a software company, apple never did anything best until the iPhone and I have no idea what you meant by Android as they are a software group bought by google.

 

[ManBearPig]

http://www.engadget.com/2012/04/13/valve-job-posting-reveals-plans-for-homegrown-hardware-promises/