Steam Box: Valve working on gaming console

[wuliheron]

but a good console can be a good computer (and i'm certain it will be, ushering pc boxes as we know them into extinction) and amd could have been ahead of the pack by miles. and a few years ago there was absolutely zero content for smartphones, so if you build it they will come.

If a console becomes a PC then its no longer a console!

Last year the biggest selling desktop PCs were all-in-one models where the entire PC is built right into the monitor. With future chips coming out like Haswell that use 15 watts or less you could upgrade even an all-in-one PC for crossfire just by plugging a second chip into the mobo in the back.

Cheap PC gaming is about to rock the world and within five years even tablet PCs will be capable of playing games like Crysis. Cheap is good. I like cheap. But that also means consoles and high end PCs will have to be capable of producing significantly better graphics then games like Crysis and Skyrim to remain competitive.

I'm talking resolutions so high the human eye can't detect it and jaggies become a thing of the past. Video games with graphics every bit as good as any animated film today and sometimes approaching photo-realism. In fact, there are already plans for making the first video games that use the exact same graphics as feature films. You may find yourself going over to friend's house and having to ask if they are playing a video game or watching a movie.

 

[Golgatha]

 

[SMOGZINN]

Sounds like a cool idea. Obviously there's nothing they could really do to get PC users to switch, but there's a lot of people who just want something they can plug in and it'd be cool to offer people PC gaming with ability.

Of course they can do something to get PC users to switch. Just give it decent hardware and subsidize it just slightly. Then watch how fast we hack it to run standard Windows and use a mouse and keyboard.

In fact this is probably the biggest problem with their plan. If they lock it down too much it won’t run standard Windows games, don’t lock it down enough and you will sell a bazillion of them and lose your shirt as most never run steambox and buy the games you are trying to sell them.

It has to run Windows for DirectX compatibility. That means no performance advantage compared to a desktop PC.

Of course they can get a performance advantage, they just run a heavily cut down version of Windows that has nothing but the absolutely required processes running, and kills everything when a game starts. Tey can also give game developers a hardware profile to optimize for, have specially tweeked drivers, and game specific software profiles, all of which can lead to a lot of performance gains.

They also couldn't force-adjust old games to support controllers.

No, but most games these days already support controllers, and for the few that don't they just don't put the steambox flag on them and they never show up on the specialized steambox UI. This will actually lead to even more games having controller support.

If a console becomes a PC then its no longer a console!

I think it is going to be the other way around, PC's are becoming consoles. Just look at Windows 8. The future is going to be nearly ubiquitous disposable computers with locked in content.

Last year the biggest selling desktop PCs were all-in-one models where the entire PC is built right into the monitor. With future chips coming out like Haswell that use 15 watts or less you could upgrade even an all-in-one PC for crossfire just by plugging a second chip into the mobo in the back.

Cheap PC gaming is about to rock the world and within five years even tablet PCs will be capable of playing games like Crysis. Cheap is good. I like cheap. But that also means consoles and high end PCs will have to be capable of producing significantly better graphics then games like Crysis and Skyrim to remain competitive.

I'm talking resolutions so high the human eye can't detect it and jaggies become a thing of the past. Video games with graphics every bit as good as any animated film today and sometimes approaching photo-realism. In fact, there are already plans for making the first video games that use the exact same graphics as feature films. You may find yourself going over to friend's house and having to ask if they are playing a video game or watching a movie.

And this is why, while I would love to have that sort of graphics, it is just not happening.
We are seeing diminishing returns on graphic hardware, and AMD and Nvidia are already moving away from faster and better graphics and looking more at general computing with their future graphics cards.
This is in part because the standards are moving so slow. You don't have to beat the best and fastest graphics of last generation any more, just the graphics on a 7 year old xbox360.

So, while I would love to have a game playing in photo-realistic graphics, it is not happening until Sony or Microsoft can put it in a box and make a profit selling it for $400.
In the mean time consoles and PC's are going to move towards each other. The ultimate dream of Microsoft and other end user software companies is to have a computer that is so simple to use that anyone can operate it with no training and so cheap to produce that if something goes wrong you can toss it out and buy a new one.

The Xbox 360 has come very close to that first goal. That is why the Windows 8 UI is so heavily derived from it. The next goal, the disposable computer, is just a matter of changing the goals of hardware design from increasing raw compute to using die shrink to improve power use per cycle. Sound familiar?

 

[wuliheron]

And this is why, while I would love to have that sort of graphics, it is just not happening.

You obviously don't understand much about the business.

Forget about PC gaming, AMD and Nvidia sell $5,000.oo video cards to companies like Pixar and Valve. If they fall behind the competition by just a few months in developing the latest and greatest graphics cards its a big deal that can cost them billions of dollars. Portables and cheap consoles are a great way to expand their markets, but all the technology in them that makes them competitive is first developed in their high end graphics cards. Just this year Nvidia's profits were down significantly because their newest SoC was a flop and they fell behind AMD in putting the best graphics cards on the market first.

Meanwhile AMD's latest and greatest 7000 series video cards come with new hardware acceleration for partially resident textures capable of handling textures up to 32TB. That's enough textures to require over a hundred bluray disks just to load them compressed. If that doesn't count as serious progress in graphics to you then nothing will.

 

[SMOGZINN]

You obviously don't understand much about the business.

Forget about PC gaming, AMD and Nvidia sell $5,000.oo video cards to companies like Pixar and Valve.

I think you are the one that does not get it. The $5,000.00 video cards are just barely worth making for AMD and Nvidia, they simply do not sell enough of them. The real money is in the $50.00 video cards they sell to companies like Dell by the tens of thousands.

Portables and cheap consoles are a great way to expand their markets, but all the technology in them that makes them competitive is first developed in their high end graphics cards.

That is exactly what we are seeing change. The cheap video cards don't need more raw graphics powers as much as they need less power consumption. So, instead of putting out bigger and faster high end video cards we are going to see R&D money go into making video cards that hold graphics power level while decreasing power consumption. We are facing a time when we can't rely on die shrinks to give that to us automatically anymore.

 

[wuliheron]

I think you are the one that does not get it. The $5,000.00 video cards are just barely worth making for AMD and Nvidia, they simply do not sell enough of them. The real money is in the $50.00 video cards they sell to companies like Dell by the tens of thousands.

That is exactly what we are seeing change. The cheap video cards don't need more raw graphics powers as much as they need less power consumption. So, instead of putting out bigger and faster high end video cards we are going to see R&D money go into making video cards that hold graphics power level while decreasing power consumption. We are facing a time when we can't rely on die shrinks to give that to us automatically anymore.

Cheap video cards are about to become extinct, but so are cheap processors! Its all going onto one chip that does it all cheaper and better. If you want more processing power you just shove a second chip in, but its the same chip you would shove in if you wanted more graphics power. Dad can buy his cheap all-in-one desktop for work and surfing the web, but if he wants it to run faster and do more things he'll have to upgrade the graphics at the same time allowing Jr to play more games.

That also means if you want a small desktop supercomputer or just better graphics then a console can produce its all the same small box. One tiny power supply and a motherboard with multiple sockets. No more large cases, huge power supplies, video cards, processors, water cooling, countless fans or spaghetti wiring. All your money goes right into the chips themselves.

So what is happening is consoles are becoming more like computers, but computers are also becoming more like consoles. The only real difference remaining is that consoles are proprietary and that's always bad news in the long run. People want to play whatever games they want and not just the ones that run on any particular console. As the quality of graphics go up and price comes down people will increasingly demand computers they can play any game on. First the handheld consoles will suffer, and then the more expensive ones.

 

[Childs]

I would probably buy this if all games ran at 1080p, 60fps, 4XAA, 16xAF, and I could use my keyboard and mouse. Its not that far fetched when dealing with fixed hardware and native software. $600 every 4 years is less than what I spend now just to keep playing with a mouse and keyboard. I spent more than that on my video cards. And I would pay $100 more for the special edition companion cube case.

I don't even need that huge of a game library. Just the Valve games and the current shooters.

 

[dagamer34]

How does such a box cost less than $300 when the cheapest Core i7 CPU is $200? When a Windows 7 license is at least $50? Or the fact that to get a reasonable improvement over current console graphics, you'll want a $150 graphics card? You've already gone over the cost of a console without the benefit of saying that the system will work almost 100% of the time you stick a disc into a slot.

Convenience gamers absolutely don't want to deal with menus, options, and settings. There is almost some relief that you can't change any settings and what you see is what you get.

Hardcore gamers won't bother with a pre-built box and would rather go build there own.

What market exists in between those two? Is it larger than the other two? I don't get it.

 

[Childs]

How does such a box cost less than $300 when the cheapest Core i7 CPU is $200? When a Windows 7 license is at least $50? Or the fact that to get a reasonable improvement over current console graphics, you'll want a $150 graphics card? You've already gone over the cost of a console without the benefit of saying that the system will work almost 100% of the time you stick a disc into a slot.

Convenience gamers absolutely don't want to deal with menus, options, and settings. There is almost some relief that you can't change any settings and what you see is what you get.

I am sure they won't source the parts from Newegg. :biggrin:

Hardcore gamers won't bother with a pre-built box and would rather go build there own.

Hardcore games also spend most of their time actually playing games!

What market exists in between those two? Is it larger than the other two? I don't get it.

I've been building gaming PCs since Doom, but I will admit I'm getting to the point where I don't necessarily want to do it anymore. Its not the money, just time investment needed to keep up to date on the right parts at the right price delivering the best performance. Not to mention crappy drivers from both Nvidia and AMD, so you don't even know if you will be able to play the game when you buy it. The only thing stopping me from just playing on a console is the lack of a keyboard and mouse. I think people like me would be in the market this.

 

[wuliheron]

How does such a box cost less than $300 when the cheapest Core i7 CPU is $200? When a Windows 7 license is at least $50? Or the fact that to get a reasonable improvement over current console graphics, you'll want a $150 graphics card?

Usually when you buy 20,000 units at a time of anything and you can get better then half price. Also, its a console and not a PC so they probably have their own stripped down operating system. At a rough guesstimate that's $100 for the i7 + $75 gpu + $15 ram + $15 psu + $15 box = $220 not counting the operating system and hard drive.

The last survey I saw for what console players want in their machines indicated they're more interested in things like motion control and other bells and whistles then PC gamers. Valve could carve a niche for itself by providing just a basic controller, stripped down box, cheap games, and the ability to download from other sites. If its successful they could add more features later.

 

[dagamer34]

Usually when you buy 20,000 units at a time of anything and you can get better then half price. Also, its a console and not a PC so they probably have their own stripped down operating system. At a rough guesstimate that's $100 for the i7 + $75 gpu + $15 ram + $15 psu + $15 box = $220 not counting the operating system and hard drive.

The last survey I saw for what console players want in their machines indicated they're more interested in things like motion control and other bells and whistles then PC gamers. Valve could carve a niche for itself by providing just a basic controller, stripped down box, cheap games, and the ability to download from other sites. If its successful they could add more features later.

Erm... your pricing is way too optimistic. Intel gives everyone the price of it's CPUs when you buy 1000 of them, and it is not "half-off". Also, a $75 budget on a GPU isn't going to suddenly get you into the $150 retail range of a Radeon HD 6870. Plus, you need to factor in assembly costs, shipping costs, warranty costs, and support costs, plus an actual margin on all of this, as well as the OS and hard drive and I don't see how you get below $400. Microsoft and Sony make consoles that have components produced in the millions range with far lesser hardware, and you have to start at $250 to get a decent console.

Believe me, I'd love to see Valve build something like this but trying to pick up the cheapest components possible only leads you to something like the inevitable RRoD problem Microsoft had that cost them $1.15 billion.

 

[Sureshot324]

Usually when you buy 20,000 units at a time of anything and you can get better then half price. Also, its a console and not a PC so they probably have their own stripped down operating system. At a rough guesstimate that's $100 for the i7 + $75 gpu + $15 ram + $15 psu + $15 box = $220 not counting the operating system and hard drive.

The last survey I saw for what console players want in their machines indicated they're more interested in things like motion control and other bells and whistles then PC gamers. Valve could carve a niche for itself by providing just a basic controller, stripped down box, cheap games, and the ability to download from other sites. If its successful they could add more features later.

I believe it's going to be running Windows, not some stripped down operating system. There's no other way they could make it compatible with all Steam games, and it wouldn't make sense for them to start over and require developers to make games specifically for yet another console.

I think they could make a decent gaming box for around $400 by cutting a few corners. If they could get AMD to make something like Fusion with a moderately better GPU than it has now that would be perfect.

 

[wuliheron]

I believe it's going to be running Windows, not some stripped down operating system. There's no other way they could make it compatible with all Steam games, and it wouldn't make sense for them to start over and require developers to make games specifically for yet another console.

I think they could make a decent gaming box for around $400 by cutting a few corners. If they could get AMD to make something like Fusion with a moderately better GPU than it has now that would be perfect.

You may be right, but that's what I'm waiting to see. With consoles the developers have to adapt their games to limited and unique hardware. With computers they have to adapt them to run on any hardware and be compatible with any software. If Valve could merely compile windows games to run on a stripped down operating system using standardized hardware that might do the trick.

Of course, that could just be a pipe dream, but its nice one...

 

[WildW]

Who is going to make this stripped down DirectX-compatible operating system? I doubt anyone but Microsoft would have the rights to the various IP that would be required. I suppose they might compete against their own XBox if the price was right ::shrug::

 

[Red Storm]

Who is going to make this stripped down DirectX-compatible operating system? I doubt anyone but Microsoft would have the rights to the various IP that would be required. I suppose they might compete against their own XBox if the price was right ::shrug::

Microsoft would never support such a thing, it would directly compete with the 360 and they don't want that.

 

[busydude]

Microsoft would never support such a thing, it would directly compete with the 360 and they don't want that.

I agree. I would totally love to see this one running on Linux.

 

[Childs]

They don't necessarily need Direct X. All the Valve games also run on Mac OS X, and the current ones also run on PS3. And Source used to have an OpenGL renderer in Windows. They don't need Windows, they could use Android or custom Linux, and base the gaming and i/o apis on what they are already doing with their cross platform efforts.

 

[Dankk]

They don't necessarily need Direct X. All the Valve games also run on Mac OS X, and the current ones also run on PS3. And Source used to have an OpenGL renderer in Windows. They don't need Windows, they could use Android or custom Linux, and base the gaming and i/o apis on what they are already doing with their cross platform efforts.

You make it sound easy when you limit the scope to Valve's 1st-party games.

What about the ~2,500 other games that are available on Steam? Most of which use DirectX? I don't see how using Linux will be feasible or practical at all.

 

[Childs]

You make it sound easy when you limit the scope to Valve's 1st-party games.

What about the ~2,500 other games that are available on Steam? Most of which use DirectX? I don't see how using Linux will be feasible or practical at all.

Its a new gaming console, so you start with your base. Valve can easily say, going forward, base your code around this set of apis, and you get compatibility on PC, Steam box, PS3 and Mac OS X. Just like they have a mechanism now for getting your games working on PC and Mac, so its buy once, and then download the appropriate version on your platform of choice. If you look at Steam now, you see much more than just Valve's games that are Mac + PC. This concept can easily be applied and expanded to the Steam box.

Or they can license or buy CrossOver or use some wine based tech to actually run Windows versions. None of this stuff is impossible.

Valve probably sees the writing on the wall with relying on Windows. Microsoft is doing a new push with Live on PC, which probably means a Live PC Marketplace down the road which is more like the App Store in Mac land. Once MS strong-arms people into using it, they'll buy their games from there instead of Steam. After all, it serves the same function, but it comes with the OS, so its the defacto primary option. If you've been around for a bit its a familiar story. Valve is even getting competition from the publishers, and in the next few years all the major ones will have their own store, with exclusives that won't be in Steam, i.e. Origin.

Going with Windows on the box doesn't buy you much, as MS will most likely make it difficult to do so, because they will compete with PC gaming and the Xbox.

 

[Red Storm]

If Valve were able to ditch Windows for Steam somehow I would be one happy customer. Steam is the one and only program that made me buy a Windows license.

I dream of the day when I no longer need Windows (or Mac OS, or any other OS that isn't free) to play the majority of modern games.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Erm... your pricing is way too optimistic. Intel gives everyone the price of it's CPUs when you buy 1000 of them, and it is not "half-off". Also, a $75 budget on a GPU isn't going to suddenly get you into the $150 retail range of a Radeon HD 6870.

This would not use discrete graphics, memory, or CPU. It is going to be an integrated board with all three cooked in. It will act just like a discrete PC, but be built more like a xbox or PS3.
That will allow them to save a bunch of money on the build.

Microsoft would never support such a thing, it would directly compete with the 360 and they don't want that.

They already directly compete with the 360 with every "gamer' PC Alienware and others like it sells. Microsoft's primary business is selling software, the hardware is just to create a market for it. If Sony wanted the PS4 to run a special version of Windows 8 Microsoft would fall all over themselves to sell it to them.

 

[dagamer34]

If Valve were able to ditch Windows for Steam somehow I would be one happy customer. Steam is the one and only program that made me buy a Windows license.

I dream of the day when I no longer need Windows (or Mac OS, or any other OS that isn't free) to play the majority of modern games.

Systems that don't require a desktop OS are called consoles and have existed for years.

 

[biostud]

Maybe it'll be like windows phone, where different vendors can make a steam box, with very specific hardware guidelines + a special interface (probably going to use win8), making the experience similar, no matter what vendor producing it.

 

[Red Storm]

Systems that don't require a desktop OS are called consoles and have existed for years.

And with a few exceptions, their games are mostly crap.

I still need a desktop OS, but the only reason why it has to be Windows is PC games.

 

[Sureshot324]

Its a new gaming console, so you start with your base. Valve can easily say, going forward, base your code around this set of apis, and you get compatibility on PC, Steam box, PS3 and Mac OS X. Just like they have a mechanism now for getting your games working on PC and Mac, so its buy once, and then download the appropriate version on your platform of choice. If you look at Steam now, you see much more than just Valve's games that are Mac + PC. This concept can easily be applied and expanded to the Steam box.

Or they can license or buy CrossOver or use some wine based tech to actually run Windows versions. None of this stuff is impossible.

Valve probably sees the writing on the wall with relying on Windows. Microsoft is doing a new push with Live on PC, which probably means a Live PC Marketplace down the road which is more like the App Store in Mac land. Once MS strong-arms people into using it, they'll buy their games from there instead of Steam. After all, it serves the same function, but it comes with the OS, so its the defacto primary option. If you've been around for a bit its a familiar story. Valve is even getting competition from the publishers, and in the next few years all the major ones will have their own store, with exclusives that won't be in Steam, i.e. Origin.

Going with Windows on the box doesn't buy you much, as MS will most likely make it difficult to do so, because they will compete with PC gaming and the Xbox.

Bringing a new propriety console to the market is a HUGE undertaking. You have to develop a propriety OS, hardware, and pretty much bribe developers to make games/exclusives for it. Remember how many billions of dollars MS invested in the original Xbox and 360 before they finally started to make money?

When MS did it there were really only 2 major consoles since Sega was already on the way out. Now there are 3. Valve just doesn't have what it takes to make that happen and they know it.

If Valve makes a Windows box the cost to entry isn't much at all. They don't need to develop an OS, hardware development won't be as hard, and they already have TONS of awesome exclusives (exclusive to consoles that is).

Yes they are facing increased competition from other digital distribution platforms. On the PC there's nothing they can do about this. On the Steam Box, Steam will already be the 'default defacto' platform. The main thing is getting Steam into your living room and selling a Windows box is the easiest way to do that.