Steam Machines

[Doppel]

Valve, the maker of the Steam system for game distribution for PCs, is semi-entering the console market with a hybrid console/PC platform. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_Machine

Yesterday we see Alienware's effort: http://www.ign.com/articles/2014/01/07/ces-alienware-reveals-new-steam-machine But there are many other Steam Machines incoming as well--in fact, here are 13 of them: http://www.ign.com/articles/2014/01/07/ces-a-roundup-of-valves-first-steam-machines

Prices range from $499 up--and I mean way up (just like with a gaming PC).

I really don't see the viability of this entire thing. What is the point? Consoles exist because they are known hardware, not particularly expensive, and hook up to a TV. PCs for games exist because they have often superior methods of input and are highly configurable (read: power). These can also be hooked up to a TV.

One of the beauties of consoles for developers is the guaranteed known hardware they are coding for. That doesn't exist with PCs. As such, things scale, and in time a PC needs to be upgraded or it's irrelevant. How does that happen with Steam? Obviously there are low end and high end Steam machines. So, how can a game say it's "Steam approved", if Steam approved doesn't actually have a static standard or versions? Surely one can't presume a Steam game made in 2019 to be a good experience on a 2014 $499 Steam machine.

I realize there is also going to be a Steam controller, but controllers have been on PCs for years so unless it's as good as they claim (a reasonable replacement for a mouse and keyboard) it doesn't sound remarkable.

 

[ImpulsE69]

I see the point. It's competition. Competition is always good. Even if these are not for you, it will impact.

The Xbox 1 and PS4 are not next gen, they are a step up from last gen using middle of the road PC hardware. Are they better than the 9 year old 360/PS3? Yes. Are they "next gen"? No.

As for your opinion on consoles, that went completely out the window with the last generation, not to mention really out the window this gen. I welcome this, even if I can't see someone spending $6k on anything these days w/o being a moron. I find consoles now as tedious and more time consuming to use now than a PC because at least PC's you can pick and choose what happens most of the time (or tweak it to be faster).

With all the games now to basically be built on PC using the same architecture, I have a feeling we'll see more than just the Steambox coming.

 

[cmdrdredd]

This is full of fail. You still have the number one PC gaming issue. No hardware standard. So you'll have people with systems too slow to play next years games with a $1300 box that comes with a GTX 760. Also NO turning down the settings isn't an option. You should never have to do that. That's why consoles are so good. Standard hardware, will run any game made for the system the same as the next guy, and no messing with options to get it running. I'm all for going beyond 1080p and adding custom AA modes etc. However, the steambox fills neither the ease of use need or the hardcore PC tweaker needs because those people who would do that already built a PC far cheaper and the people who may buy it for simplicity would be left with all the varying hardware specs and ridiculous pricing when they could go down to the local WalMart, Target, Best Buy, and Gamestop (where steam machines may not even ever be sold or found or demoed) and get a PS4 or Xbox One and never have to mess with game settings, never worry about a game running slower on their box than the guy they play against, and never worry about opening the thing up because their GPU is 2 generations behind and can't get playable FPS on the latest game. Not to mention with this thing targeted to being used on a TV which means 1080p and 60hz limitations, giving someone dual Titans in a steambox is beyond overkill.

These things are no different than a company offering a mATX PC in a cube style case and giving you an Xbox 360 controller for it. The only difference is the OS which doesn't run DirectX. This means than 99% of the top games and game engines don't work. You can count out mantle support if you're thinking it because these all come with Nvidia GPUs and can't take advantage of any of the supposed benefits of Mantle for a GCN GPU from AMD and the porting from Xb1 or PS4 via this method.

 

[purbeast0]

what i've been saying along (in other threads too) is that i simply do not see the market for steam boxes. console gamers don't want it, because they play console games. if they wanted to play pc games, they would have a high end pc to play games on there as well (like many people on these forums do).

 

[ImpulsE69]

I don't particularly see a market for it either, but it's not going to hurt anything by being out there. I suppose maybe some ppl who don't want to build their own systems would buy them...maybe a few years ago they'd have been good HTPC's...but until they release actual specs as related to price..I don't know.

However..all that being said...people actually pay for overpriced Alienware still..so...

 

[boomhower]

Good idea in theory but in reality it's playing out like regular gaming PC's, just has another OS installed. Most are hugely expensive. I just don't see many people paying north of $1k for just a gaming box and a gaming box only. PC gamers and console gamers are, in general, different breeds of gamers. Console folks want to pop in a game and be done with it. PC gamers tend to like to tweak and change out parts. This seems to want to bridge that gap, that isn't going to happen. Sure there is some overlap but the market for this is extremely small, again, IMHO.

 

[Doppel]

The Xbox 1 and PS4 are not next gen, they are a step up from last gen using middle of the road PC hardware. Are they better than the 9 year old 360/PS3? Yes. Are they "next gen"? No.

Consoles ARE gen. There are no gens of PCs, just atomic evolution. Outsides of consoles there is no qualitative state that delineates gens.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Especially when you consider overclocking and sli configurations that have capabilities beyond base systems.

 

[Arkaign]

I'm both a PC and a console gamer, and I can't see the appeal of this.

(1)- It seems like poor value for the hardware.
(2)- How many games will really be available for this OS? How many GOOD games?

If you can simply install and dual boot or dedicated boot the SteamOS on a regular gaming PC, then a lot of the target market might just do that if there are enough games.

At the risk of repeating myself too much, if they don't bring major titles to SteamOS somehow, they're doomed. It will be a niche oddball product like the Shield or Ouya.

 

[dguy6789]

I think the Steam Box concept will fail because it can not play Steam games in general. It can only play Steam games that were ported to Linux. You need a secondary gaming capable PC to stream its games(making that PC more or less unusable while streaming) to play the lion's share of steam games on a Steam Box.

Why would you buy a Steam Box if you already had a gaming PC? Why buy a $500 box if all it can do is be a proxy to an expensive gaming rig you already own? A $500 HTPC that ran Windows with an Xbox 360 controller plugged into it would be better than Steam Box in every way.

 

[Aikouka]

I think one of the important things to do is to help remove the need to configure games. As much as that sounds crazy to some of us, some people are too lazy to set up a few things. Both AMD and NVIDIA have tools to automatically configure games. I recall an amusing story about how it came about. Apparently, the CEO of NVIDIA gave his son a GTX 680 and he came in later to find that his son was still playing it at the lower settings. So, GeForce Experience was designed to help automate that process that seems daunting to some users. Valve should work with them both to integrate it into Steam.

One of the problems with the whole thing is that PCs are meant to be general purpose. Hooking it up to a TV doesn't remove that, but distances can make it rather hard to read text. In other words, you're trying to use a 1-foot UI instead of a 10-foot UI.

EDIT:

Alright, just 'cause I type on my phone doesn't mean I don't need to proofread my posts.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

I think one of the important things to do is to help remove the need to configure games. As much as that sounds crazy to some of us, some people are too lazy to set up a few things. Both AMD and NVIDIA have tools to automatically configure games. I recall an amusing story about how it came about. Apparently, the CEO of AMD gave his son a GTX 680 and he came in later to find that his son was still playing it at the lower settings. So, GeForce Experience was designed to help automate that process that seems daunting to some users. Valve should work with them both to integrate it into Steam.

Why would the CEO of AMD give his son an Nvidia card? But I agree with this point. People who are used to console gaming don't have to fiddle with graphics options because there aren't any; there's a single configuration for everyone. After I installed my first 3D accelerator card, I continued running games in software mode for several months because I had no idea you needed to change graphics options to take advantage of the hardware. It's just not something you think about as a console gamer. Granted, I think a lot of that has been addressed in recent years with the addition of automatic configurations being included to best take advantage of a user's specific hardware, but unless you can automate the entire process, it's still more of a hassle than the plug-and-play ease of consoles, and at an inflated cost. Meanwhile, PC gamers already build their own machines, so I don't know that Steam Machines will appeal to them either. I just don't see these supplanting consoles in the slightest; they'll be a niche product at best.

 

[Aikouka]

Why would the CEO of AMD give his son an Nvidia card?

I meant Jen-Hsun Huang, the CEO of NVIDIA.

 

[Lil Frier]

These really seem to sit in an awkward spot between consoles and PCs. They lose out to consoles in value, in my opinion. Consoles are the same or less for the hardware, and that hardware seems to last longer--you aren't likely to see a PC that was $300-400 in 2006 run 2013 games like the 360 and PS3 do. Consoles just have a longer shelf life than PCs, and for the same price. Where a PC would win out is that the online play is free, and you have an ENORMOUS catalog of older games to lean on with a PC, and your games will follow you if you upgrade the hardware. The software investment is much cheaper for a Steam Box than a traditional console.

When you compare it to a regular PC, it really makes little sense. I don't see why you'd bother with this over a pre-built from Best Buy. We'll have to see the costs and specs to see if it offers a compelling alternative to pre-builts we can get now. That, and an already-available PC comes with a more-familiar OS, and one that will run the programs you're used to using. It seems like a VERY-specialized scenario that you'd care to get a Steam Box over a Best Buy PC, in my opinion.

I think that the Steam Box market is very niche. It would be among a group of friends who all want to play together, I think. You wouldn't abandon all of your Xbox LIVE friends for this, and if you already game on PC, you'd not have a reason to get it over what you have now. I could see it fitting in among newer gamers. If you and your friends all wanted to play together, you could all get a Steam Box over a console, but that's the only time I see it as compelling.

 

[Nintendesert]

The pricing is insane, the players I see are the old system builder companies too. I'm sure they'll love getting on this bandwagon and pillaging the pockets of gamers once again. Alienware and Falcon Northwest computers used to be the rage..ish a long time ago.

This really strikes me as an abomination between a Gamecube and those ultra-portable gamer boxes for LAN parties that were pushed years ago too. They looked like little cubes as well.

The price is just wrong too, but that's not surprising seeing who the players are in this. The Steamcubes that aren't expensive also have pretty poor hardware. That may not matter on normal 1080p TVs nearly as much, but I have newer games pushing my GTX 680 at 1080p. With new consoles out that graphical need for more power will just go through the roof. I'd have to see benchmarks though to see if the SteamOS provides any sort of benefit over DX.

I haven't been a fan of this SteamOS or Steamcube move, and I think the lack of threads and discussions here after this big unveiling of boxes shows just how much they've missed the mark with this.

 

[smackababy]

I haven't been a fan of this SteamOS or Steamcube move, and I think the lack of threads and discussions here after this big unveiling of boxes shows just how much they've missed the mark with this.

There was a thread posted about the rumors of a Linux based SteamOS on a SteamBox console a while back that was ripped apart by myself and a few others. The OP actually edited all his posts to blank and gave up.

I understand why Valve wants to get off Windows as much as possible (their DD monopoly is being challenged and locking it down on a "new" OS keeps the competitors away, for now), but this move really isn't going to move any units. Those interested are PC gamers. Nobody who doesn't have Steam and a gaming PC already is going to be interested in something Valve does. The console market is about name recognition. If I went to BestBuy to get a console and saw an Xbox, a PS4, and a company I've never seen before's product, even if they are all priced the same with the same features, I wouldn't get one I never heard of. Same with a Roku or an iPod. Consumers aren't going to buy some knock off (well, some will, but not enough to sustain much). They want the "real deal", regardless of a feature set being equivalent or even better on the one they haven't heard of. Apple realized this a long time ago in the MP3 player market. That is why only the die hard geeks know of a Zen and the extremely poor people have some knock off.

 

[Doppel]

I haven't been a fan of this SteamOS or Steamcube move, and I think the lack of threads and discussions here after this big unveiling of boxes shows just how much they've missed the mark with this.

Great point. I made the same one in the Ouya thread. It was like pulling teeth to get anybody to engage. Simple reason: nobody cared.

 

[mizzou]

this is smart for a variety of reasons on valves part

#1 they are using steambox certified almost like how speakers use thx branding. thx branding was succesful in its own way

#2 valve doesnt have to bother with manufacturing and all the headaches of designing pcs...this is left to those who actually build premade pcs, who likely see this as a great way to start selling a new brand lineup. also, burden of hardware will still fall into the hands of people who build their own.

# 3 valve only has to focus on game porting or creating on the linux platform. Getting microsoft out of the picture gives them freedom

#5 if steamOS fails....what will valve really lose? nothing much. there are no shareholders to keep happy.

there is one big fail i see coming and its the completely lame controller. its rocking a boat that doesnt need to be rocked.


ive always imagined steam certification as a way for game designers to finally have a stability test for their games. microsoft tried this....but failed because games for windows was horribly implemented. I think ATI and Nvidia tried something similar as well.

Mainbproblem is that pc userbase tends to appreciate graphics that push the envelope. consoles try to, but ive rarely had an action game maintain 60fps throughout...let alone 30fps ....

steamos and steamboxes really cant fail epicly. its being built on a platform that already exists....pc gaming hardware.

 

[mizzou]

These really seem to sit in an awkward spot between consoles and PCs. They lose out to consoles in value, in my opinion. Consoles are the same or less for the hardware, and that hardware seems to last longer--you aren't likely to see a PC that was $300-400 in 2006 run 2013 games like the 360 and PS3 do. Consoles just have a longer shelf life than PCs, and for the same price. Where a PC would win out is that the online play is free, and you have an ENORMOUS catalog of older games to lean on with a PC, and your games will follow you if you upgrade the hardware. The software investment is much cheaper for a Steam Box than a traditional console.

When you compare it to a regular PC, it really makes little sense. I don't see why you'd bother with this over a pre-built from Best Buy. We'll have to see the costs and specs to see if it offers a compelling alternative to pre-builts we can get now. That, and an already-available PC comes with a more-familiar OS, and one that will run the programs you're used to using. It seems like a VERY-specialized scenario that you'd care to get a Steam Box over a Best Buy PC, in my opinion.

I think that the Steam Box market is very niche. It would be among a group of friends who all want to play together, I think. You wouldn't abandon all of your Xbox LIVE friends for this, and if you already game on PC, you'd not have a reason to get it over what you have now. I could see it fitting in among newer gamers. If you and your friends all wanted to play together, you could all get a Steam Box over a console, but that's the only time I see it as compelling.

it is a regular pc...its just got different software on it.....but i dont see anyone ditching a nice gaming rig for a steambox...these people could simply do a double boot or reformat just to try it out.

upgraders who dont want to build and rich people will be the only consumer base.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

it is a regular pc...its just got different software on it.....but i dont see anyone ditching a nice gaming rig for a steambox...these people could simply do a double boot or reformat just to try it out.

upgraders who dont want to build and rich people will be the only consumer base.

It's not just a regular PC though. It's running a custom OS, so you don't have access to the same programs and basic UI that PC users are used to, and that OS is Linux-based, so a lot of the games that are available on Steam now won't actually be supported as they're Windows-only. The number one thing that sells consoles is a killer app (Xbox has Halo, Sony has Metal Gear, Nintendo has Mario and Zelda); if the Steam console experiment is going to be successful, Valve is going to need to transition their franchises to being only accessible through it. Half-life 3, Portal 3, Team Fortress 3, Left for Dead 3, Counter-Strike 2? That might move some systems. Without exclusives, there's no incentive for console gamers or PC gamers. Why would I pay for a PC that runs fewer titles than a true gaming PC and has none of the exclusives of a console?

 

[Doppel]

#1 they are using steambox certified almost like how speakers use thx branding. thx branding was succesful in its own way

I'm not sure this is fair because can you use THX speakers from 10 years ago? 15 years ago? Absolutely. On the other hand, there is zero chance a 2014 Steam Machine will be worth anything 10 years from now (or even five, if it's an entry model).

Why would I pay for a PC that runs fewer titles than a true gaming PC and has none of the exclusives of a console?

This is an important question.

 

[Qwertilot]

Well I may well be considering one when I get round to replacing my main machine, simply to get a small form factor gaming capable machine where all the bits are guaranteed to play nicely with Linux. (Next gen (or two) graphics cards say, wireless etc.).

I just happen to notably prefer Linux for everything else so the gaming doesn't have to be brilliant. The strategy style gaming is actually already perfectly good mind. I'd expect to be able to make it boot to desktop one way or another so no reason not to really.

That's a small market of course Still, so far all anyone has really commited to doing with this is branded cases so it and curiosity buys should cover those expenses OK.

I guess the other thing that might tempt would if/(when?) someone manages to get a small one down quite cheap. That might just be tempting just to play some of the games with a controller etc.

There's no sign that they're really after the mass market yet. Almost like an extended public beta. Maybe someone will really give it a go in a couple of years with more games/updated tech etc.

 

[cmdrdredd]

It's not just a regular PC though. It's running a custom OS, so you don't have access to the same programs and basic UI that PC users are used to, and that OS is Linux-based, so a lot of the games that are available on Steam now won't actually be supported as they're Windows-only. The number one thing that sells consoles is a killer app (Xbox has Halo, Sony has Metal Gear, Nintendo has Mario and Zelda); if the Steam console experiment is going to be successful, Valve is going to need to transition their franchises to being only accessible through it. Half-life 3, Portal 3, Team Fortress 3, Left for Dead 3, Counter-Strike 2? That might move some systems. Without exclusives, there's no incentive for console gamers or PC gamers. Why would I pay for a PC that runs fewer titles than a true gaming PC and has none of the exclusives of a console?

Metal gear is not exclusive.

As for hl3 etc being steamos exclusive. Valve would be shooting themselves in the foot. Every one who played hl2, did so on a console or a windows machine. Telling them they now have to buy into an unproven os that might not do everything they currently do and has a more limited game selection will make many people say f-that. Plus I am one of those who at this point dont give a damn about half life anymore. I cared 5 years ago but I have moved on to games which IMO eclipse it in almost every way.

IGN didn't seem to like the steam controller either. Seems way too clunky and offers none of control or feedback of an analog stick and no precision of a wasd keyboard. To me it seems like it would be like using a touchscreen phone without looking at it. There is no way to feel your way around. No feedback.
http://www.ign.com/articles/2014/01/08/ces-steam-controller-hands-on-impressions

 

[gorcorps]

Steam is gambling pretty heavily that the AAA developers will have linux support. You can look at the list of linux based games right now on steam, and apart from some popular indie games I didn't see much I even have in my own library. Unless they're working on a way to entice the big dogs to make Linux versions of their games I just don't see this working out.

 

[Qwertilot]

One other potential (maybe modest) target group has occured to me - basically as a second console for people without a gaming desktop.

There aren't (and probably won't be) any exclusives vs steam on Windows/osX but there are a lot of games that will be on this but won't be on any of the consoles.

Arguably whole genres of games even. Of course there's a good reason for that in many ways. Still, if that controller can (as intended) make stuff like Civ/CK2/turn based RPGs etc work plausibly well then there's a potential market there.

Not perhaps an enormous one but it certainly exists. That sort of thing would again suit more of a smallish/relatively cheap box.