Steam page shows 3 announcements coming

[BD2003]

Nvidia blog on SteamOS and collaboration with Valve: http://blogs.nvidia.com/blog/2013/09/25/steam-rolling-into-your-living-room/

Well, there goes the argument that hardware manufacturers will be an issue. Obviously most of this is because nvidia got shut out from the next gen consoles, but this goes a very long way towards the legitimacy of SteamOS.

 

[mizzou]

i dont' care what the fuck happens, it's cool that we finally get a fresh look at PC gaming.

I'm in.

 

[Childs]

You'd certainly hope this was the case. However, as we've seen even those selling $500+ video cards fail to give proper drivers upon being forced to! See Nvidia and Vista.

I am not saying they won't, but if they don't, I can see this having a big negative impact on a SteamBox being hailed as good in the minds of consumers.

And, I do understand why Valve is doing this. I just don't agree they are going about it the right way. Even their beta test reeks of "be a Valve fanboy and get to beta test it!". I think a far better test would be someone who is completely unfamiliar with Steam test it, because that is, or seems to be, their target market.

Well, Valve already has their games running on Linux, so they probably have a handle on what needs to be done for it to succeed. Nvidia has had good drivers on Linux for a long time...I used to play Enemy Territory on Linux back in the day. I would rather they try it and fail than not try it at all.

Of course I would prefer to have everything ready to go now, but there is no rush for everything to be perfect at this moment. It just has to be solid when its released. Knowing Valve, that might be 5 years from now, so they have the time to get it right!

 

[Skel]

i dont' care what the fuck happens, it's cool that we finally get a fresh look at PC gaming.

I'm in.

What's the fresh look?

 

[fixbsod]

Ok so announcement #2 was SteamBox. No surprises there. Announcement #3 in 2 days -- Half Life 3 exclusive to SteamOS ? Half Life 3 exclusive to SteamBox? HL3 at all??

 

[smackababy]

Ok so announcement #2 was SteamBox. No surprises there. Announcement #3 in 2 days -- Half Life 3 exclusive to SteamOS ? Half Life 3 exclusive to SteamBox? HL3 at all??

Most likely a controller, based on the picture.

 

[Qbah]

My bet is a controller as #3 too.

 

[Nintendesert]

If it's a controller I'm going to laugh at all the fanbois that were preaching the HL3 bit. Prove me wrong Valve... :sneaky:

 

[Alex C]

Wouldn't upgrading it later down the line be prohibitively expensive? To get anything more than minor improvements you'd probably want to upgrade the CPU, GPU, and MoBo all together, which is likely to cost as much as buying a brand new console.

I like the idea, but I'm not sure how they're going to get the performance of a gaming PC into a console priced package. Everybody else sells consoles at a loss and makes up for it in game sales, but Valve isn't the one actually selling these systems so I don't know how they're going to be able to keep costs down.

 

[blurredvision]

So those of you who claim "PC master race", what do you think about Valve essentially trying to make PC gaming into what amounts to be an upgradeable console? Custom OS, pre-fab machines, what looks to be an official SteamOS controller. I wouldn't be surprised if they tier name their Steam Machines as well and start claiming that a game will run best on "Steam Machine Ultra" but just OK on "Steam Machine Gold", kind of like what Microsoft tried to do with their Windows Experience Index numbers.

 

[slpdLoad]

Daft Punk - Steam Machine

 

[Nintendesert]

So those of you who claim "PC master race", what do you think about Valve essentially trying to make PC gaming into what amounts to be an upgradeable console? Custom OS, pre-fab machines, what looks to be an official SteamOS controller. I wouldn't be surprised if they tier name their Steam Machines as well and start claiming that a game will run best on "Steam Machine Ultra" but just OK on "Steam Machine Gold", kind of like what Microsoft tried to do with their Windows Experience Index numbers.

Read through the thread, you'll see what some of us think. It's not pretty either. Go back to playing on your low res 30fps stutterfest! I have GPU nirvana to experience. :biggrin:

 

[BD2003]

Wouldn't upgrading it later down the line be prohibitively expensive? To get anything more than minor improvements you'd probably want to upgrade the CPU, GPU, and MoBo all together, which is likely to cost as much as buying a brand new console.

I like the idea, but I'm not sure how they're going to get the performance of a gaming PC into a console priced package. Everybody else sells consoles at a loss and makes up for it in game sales, but Valve isn't the one actually selling these systems so I don't know how they're going to be able to keep costs down.

It's my understanding that the next gen consoles aren't being sold at a significant loss. And that'll morph into a healthy profit before too long. So the equation for SteamOS hardware manufacturers isn't all that different. Also keep in mind they don't need to pay for R&D on the OS itself.

I can see them coming out with low end boxes that barely make any money at all, and trying to profit on support, customized upgrades, and the higher end boxes. But they don't necessarily need to match X1/PS4 pricing anyway. If they're selling a premium product, they can price it accordingly. Not everything has to be a race to the bottom! It doesn't need to sell as many consoles as Microsoft or Sony to be worthwhile.

 

[Red Storm]

So those of you who claim "PC master race", what do you think about Valve essentially trying to make PC gaming into what amounts to be an upgradeable console? Custom OS, pre-fab machines, what looks to be an official SteamOS controller. I wouldn't be surprised if they tier name their Steam Machines as well and start claiming that a game will run best on "Steam Machine Ultra" but just OK on "Steam Machine Gold", kind of like what Microsoft tried to do with their Windows Experience Index numbers.

Hmm:

Can I hack this box? Run another OS? Change the hardware? Install my own software? Use it to build a robot?

Sure.

I didn't know you could do those things with consoles.

It's still a PC.

For all the naysayers who have done nothing but complain and complain, please take this line:

I’m pretty happy with my PC Gaming setup, do I have to buy a new piece of hardware now?

No. Everything that we’ve been doing on Steam for the last 10 years will continue to move forward.

And go on continuing to enjoy the way you currently game.

 

[ImpulsE69]

It's my understanding that the next gen consoles aren't being sold at a significant loss. And that'll morph into a healthy profit before too long. So the equation for SteamOS hardware manufacturers isn't all that different. Also keep in mind they don't need to pay for R&D on the OS itself.

I can see them coming out with low end boxes that barely make any money at all, and trying to profit on support, customized upgrades, and the higher end boxes. But they don't necessarily need to match X1/PS4 pricing anyway. If they're selling a premium product, they can price it accordingly. Not everything has to be a race to the bottom! It doesn't need to sell as many consoles as Microsoft or Sony to be worthwhile.

I kind of agree with some of this. Steam isn't exactly as unknown as many in this thread would have you believe. They have millions of active customers. Sure maybe there are more millions of consoles out there, but how many have been collecting dust for years? Just because they bought em, doesn't mean they are buying games for them. (as is seen in the dismal sales numbers aside from 1 or 2 games).

They don't need to outsell consoles, it's not where they are heading.

 

[sweenish]

Hmm:



I didn't know you could do those things with consoles.

It's still a PC.

Since there's always an exception, Ouya.

 

[smackababy]

I kind of agree with some of this. Steam isn't exactly as unknown as many in this thread would have you believe. They have millions of active customers. Sure maybe there are more millions of consoles out there, but how many have been collecting dust for years? Just because they bought em, doesn't mean they are buying games for them. (as is seen in the dismal sales numbers aside from 1 or 2 games).

They don't need to outsell consoles, it's not where they are heading.

The problem is, if they aren't selling in volume, they aren't making any money. The hardware itself won't cost less than buying the equivalent hardware and building it yourself (they would be taking a loss) and the software isn't free to develop. They would have to hope the money they make from licensing (30% is a lot in the console world) and distribution of games makes up for it.

I really don't see this going anywhere. Console gamers aren't going to want it and PC gamers should be smart enough to know the whole "oh you can upgrade it" thing isn't true. CPU? Well, in a few years, we'll have a new mainstream socket so will it continue to have support? New GPU? I'd imagine it will just be a chip and not a whole board, and will it be interchangeable at all? Will the power supply even be able to take a more powerful card, if it uses a traditional card at all? What about thermal output?

This just doesn't make sense and is looking like another OUYA.

 

[werepossum]

It's my understanding that the next gen consoles aren't being sold at a significant loss. And that'll morph into a healthy profit before too long. So the equation for SteamOS hardware manufacturers isn't all that different. Also keep in mind they don't need to pay for R&D on the OS itself.

I can see them coming out with low end boxes that barely make any money at all, and trying to profit on support, customized upgrades, and the higher end boxes. But they don't necessarily need to match X1/PS4 pricing anyway. If they're selling a premium product, they can price it accordingly. Not everything has to be a race to the bottom! It doesn't need to sell as many consoles as Microsoft or Sony to be worthwhile.

I would think they would need to come in significantly cheaper to get much market share, although if they are aiming for PC gamers, they may have enough of a market anyway. I can certainly seem my wife wanting to play her games on the TV. Me, not so much. And if the developers are already into PC and Linux gaming, the extra programming and support costs might not be that much worse than licensing costs. I think perhaps I've given Gabe too little credit by assuming he has an uphill battle to get developers on board when, considering it, he probably already has them on board. Except maybe for big competitors like EA which compete (or want to compete) on distribution as well as on content.

Developers can assume that no one is buying extra hardware to stream games to a SD TV, so the resolution is known as 1080p. Sound too is easily detectable or at least settable. Those two pieces make it possible for developers (with Valve's guidance) to establish groups of "good", "better" and "best" for any particular hardware configuration, either across the board or by setting performance targets. From there, add auto-detection and the game can set the level of performance accordingly for each SteamBox even if they are upgradable. You might not get the very best performance your hardware is capable of providing, but you'd know that you could load a game and it would be playable without any fiddling required, which is the essence of a console and a very good thing. This could work.

Console market looks pretty crowded at the moment though, and a SteamBox would be competing with three brand new designs. Barring some excellent home theater application, I don't see how this competes other than on cheap game costs, in which case I don't see why developers would jump on board and stay on board.

 

[smackababy]

I would think they would need to come in significantly cheaper to get much market share, although if they are aiming for PC gamers, they may have enough of a market anyway. I can certainly seem my wife wanting to play her games on the TV. Me, not so much. And if the developers are already into PC and Linux gaming, the extra programming and support costs might not be that much worse than licensing costs. I think perhaps I've given Gabe too little credit by assuming he has an uphill battle to get developers on board when, considering it, he probably already has them on board. Except maybe for big competitors like EA which compete (or want to compete) on distribution as well as on content.

Developers can assume that no one is buying extra hardware to stream games to a SD TV, so the resolution is known as 1080p. Sound too is easily detectable or at least settable. Those two pieces make it possible for developers (with Valve's guidance) to establish groups of "good", "better" and "best" for any particular hardware configuration, either across the board or by setting performance targets. From there, add auto-detection and the game can set the level of performance accordingly for each SteamBox even if they are upgradable. You might not get the very best performance your hardware is capable of providing, but you'd know that you could load a game and it would be playable without any fiddling required, which is the essence of a console and a very good thing. This could work.

Console market looks pretty crowded at the moment though, and a SteamBox would be competing with three brand new designs. Barring some excellent home theater application, I don't see how this competes other than on cheap game costs, in which case I don't see why developers would jump on board and stay on board.

The problem is, they have to now make an additional version for Linux (if they are using Direct X) and the additional versions for the SteamBox types. Making it enjoyable on Good, Better, Best and testing that those settings work perfectly. That is extra development time and cost for a possibly negligible segment of the market. If this takes off and Valve sells 20 million, perhaps developers will get on board. Otherwise, it isn't worth the additional investment.

 

[ImpulsE69]

The problem is, they have to now make an additional version for Linux (if they are using Direct X) and the additional versions for the SteamBox types. Making it enjoyable on Good, Better, Best and testing that those settings work perfectly. That is extra development time and cost for a possibly negligible segment of the market. If this takes off and Valve sells 20 million, perhaps developers will get on board. Otherwise, it isn't worth the additional investment.

Ya, agreed there. Many devs barely port anything now and when they do they put minimal effort in, I can't see them making a point to port yet another version that has even less people to sell to...but who knows.

 

[smackababy]

Ya, agreed there. Many devs barely port anything now and when they do they put minimal effort in, I can't see them making a point to port yet another version that has even less people to sell to...but who knows.

There are some devs that are pretty good about Mac support (Blizzard being the biggest IIRC). So, the jump from Mac to Linux isn't a huge one. Back in the day if a game was on Mac OS, someone would eventually hack it to work in Linux, but that day has long since passed.

Anyone developing for Open GL right now shouldn't have a huge leap to make their game available on Linux, but how many developers is that? Not very many.

 

[irishScott]

The problem is, if they aren't selling in volume, they aren't making any money. The hardware itself won't cost less than buying the equivalent hardware and building it yourself (they would be taking a loss) and the software isn't free to develop. They would have to hope the money they make from licensing (30% is a lot in the console world) and distribution of games makes up for it.

I really don't see this going anywhere. Console gamers aren't going to want it and PC gamers should be smart enough to know the whole "oh you can upgrade it" thing isn't true. CPU? Well, in a few years, we'll have a new mainstream socket so will it continue to have support? New GPU? I'd imagine it will just be a chip and not a whole board, and will it be interchangeable at all? Will the power supply even be able to take a more powerful card, if it uses a traditional card at all? What about thermal output?

This just doesn't make sense and is looking like another OUYA.

From the Q&A:

Of course, it’s also completely upgradable and open.

Assuming that means what it says, I presume it will be as upgradable as physical constraints allow. Remember they're releasing a specification in addition to an actual product. Implementations of said specification may well vary in upgradability.

 

[irishScott]

There are some devs that are pretty good about Mac support (Blizzard being the biggest IIRC). So, the jump from Mac to Linux isn't a huge one. Back in the day if a game was on Mac OS, someone would eventually hack it to work in Linux, but that day has long since passed.

Anyone developing for Open GL right now shouldn't have a huge leap to make their game available on Linux, but how many developers is that? Not very many.

Yeah, the main question is how effective their streaming is going to be, the whole concept kinda rides on that. If streaming is effective enough then developers can do whatever they like and it won't really matter. If it flops or isn't effective for FPS, the Steam Box is probably screwed.

 

[smackababy]

From the Q&A:


Assuming that means what it says, I presume it will be as upgradable as physical constraints allow. Remember they're releasing a specification in addition to an actual product. Implementations of said specification may well vary in upgradability.

So, if it uses a discrete graphics card, it won't be terribly small in form factor and will connect possibly via PCI x16 (hopefully), but that doesn't mean all cards will work. How many PSU connectors will it have? Will they be 6 or 8 pin? What will the PSU be able to output?

Are they going to require some sort of special upgrade parts to be made ALA MS' HDD upgrades on the Xbox 360?

 

[smackababy]

Yeah, the main question is how effective their streaming is going to be, the whole concept kinda rides on that. If streaming is effective enough then developers can do whatever they like and it won't really matter. If it flops or isn't effective for FPS, the Steam Box is probably screwed.

I agree to a point. The streaming will be beneficial to a set of users who already have gaming PCs, don't have HTPCs, and don't want to swap it between the TV and the desk. This idea would be far better if they included a Windows Steam Stream client as well. OS agnostic streaming would be a far better feature for consumers than something like a requiring a dedicated box to run their dedicated OS to stream from somewhere.