Steam page shows 3 announcements coming

[irishScott]

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.

Uh, my understanding is the streaming is OS Agnostic. All you need is steam. Would be near worthless if they required SteamOS on both ends.

 

[fixbsod]

Well for all the claiming of PC master race (which hey let's be honest, a PC is still able to grunt out way more power compared to any smartphone / console / phablet) the truth is that there has been less and less development on the PC. This is happening with or without any move from Steam. Games have been dumbed down to all heck (cough Bioshock Infinite) to support their console bretheren. I do want to note that I am glad to see the next gen consoles utilize more than 4 cores as this will likely expedite multi-core efficiency gains on PCs as well.

Now to focus on Steam -- I think it's a bit premature to determine how this will impact PC gaming. I don't think it was Steam's desire to jump into the console market, I feel Steam was much more concerned with Microsoft strong-arming them into agreements / licensing fees so they adapted and have their own os/box to fall back onto. This gives Steam an escape hatch should MS really try and push them into something they don't want. Perhaps it should be called the escapebox ? It's probably important to note, that Gabe Newell is a former Microsoft employee (tho you prolly all know that).

I will say that I am generally very favorable of Steam, tho not a 'fanboy' (got no problem calling those collectible cards as dumb dumb dumb), so I am hoping this is not a way of calling it quits on the PC and then moving to console.

There will always be companies (even if just one) that will want to push the envelope as far as it can go. You saw this back in the day with Origin -- anyone remember the RIDICULOUS system requirements for a brand new Ultima or Wing Commander game ?? And you see it to some extent today with Crysis or even the Metro series. Some companies will be fine to take the same old game from yesteryear, and just make a 2014, 2015, 2016 version with very little changed. How many more Call of Duties can the market take? I don't think many more. There have been 5 GTA games since 1997, but 9 CODs since 2003.

I will say that the indie market is more available than ever before with Steam Greenlight, XBLA or similar and Kickstarter.

But will the PC ever retake the crown and become the king of games like it was in the 80s-90s ? I doubt it. The market has changed, new platforms including mobile / phone, higher peforming consoles, and the desire of profits over awesome experiences has led to appealing to the widest audience as possible -- aka casuals and dumbed downed console ports. Pay 2 Win also seems to be another crap move.

Make sure to vote with your wallet.

edit: And fingers still crossed for HL3 announcement.

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.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Hmm:



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:



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

Well obviously they are going to say that. They would hardly come out and say "we are going to screw over PC gamers". But apparently they will have a game engine, an OS, and dedicated hardware. Certainly everything they need to lock down the platform, or at least come out with Steambox exclusives. And what could we do about it? Boycott them? Hardly, since we could not play the vast majority of our games.

 

[tential]

Well obviously they are going to say that. They would hardly come out and say "we are going to screw over PC gamers". But apparently they will have a game engine, an OS, and dedicated hardware. Certainly everything they need to lock down the platform, or at least come out with Steambox exclusives. And what could we do about it? Boycott them? Hardly, since we could not play the vast majority of our games.

Name a precedent for this happening.

Don't worry I'll wait.

Tired of these baseless posts. They don't even make logical sense in anyway shape or form either which makes it even worse. I don't even want to get into the details of how (and no offense to you) utterly stupid this notion is, but it seriously needs to stop. Tired of seeing these style posts every 2-3 posts.
The ONLY person who will decide "I'm going to make steambox exclusives" is developers themselves. That's no different than console exclusives, Windows exclusives, Apple exclusives, android exclusives, etc.
Steam has zero power to go and say "Hey, I know you have a game built only for windows, but we're locking our platform to SteamOS now so you can't play this game ever again!" It makes zero business sense, ugh not wasting another keyboard stroke on even explaining this, please, just stop.

 

[destrekor]

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.

What am I missing?

I have a gaming PC in one room, and in my living room I have an HTPC connected to my receiver/TV.

Is there something I can do, without unreasonable investment, to do what Steam says they are going to implement? (that being streaming)


I think at least the service/features will benefit me greatly, because I'd love to have my full gaming rig in the other room power a game that is, at least superficially, controlled locally with a gamepad on a lesser machine.

I can't dual-boot that HTPC, so the OS offers me nothing, if that's the route you are implying. Only Windows Media Center can handle DRM-protected content recorded from a CableCARD stream, iirc. And I won't sacrifice recording to reboot into a different OS just to do something else. If it can't happen while also potentially recording, then it just won't happen.
That's what's even more intriguing about the streaming option - if I can either run the OS as a VM for streaming, or if I can stream using the Steam client I have on the HTPC (I'm playing around with Big Picture, seeing just what I can actually get out of the HTPC as I have it configured), I'd definitely utilize it.

I sure as hell am not moving my gaming rig just to hook it up to the TV. There's no where to really put it, for one, and with a bottom intake fan, I'm not sitting it on the floor.
And that ignores the whole lazy thing. I mean, I'm a fit person and all, but... I setup computing to be as lazy as possible. I want efficient and streamlined operations. Physically moving and connecting and disconnecting all the time? Hell no. I do that from time to time to LAN play with buddies, and it's annoying enough for the rare occasion.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Name a precedent for this happening.

Don't worry I'll wait.

Tired of these baseless posts. They don't even make logical sense in anyway shape or form either which makes it even worse. I don't even want to get into the details of how (and no offense to you) utterly stupid this notion is, but it seriously needs to stop. Tired of seeing these style posts every 2-3 posts.
The ONLY person who will decide "I'm going to make steambox exclusives" is developers themselves. That's no different than console exclusives, Windows exclusives, Apple exclusives, android exclusives, etc.
Steam has zero power to go and say "Hey, I know you have a game built only for windows, but we're locking our platform to SteamOS now so you can't play this game ever again!" It makes zero business sense, ugh not wasting another keyboard stroke on even explaining this, please, just stop.

Both console makers do it now. So did Microsoft when they put out one of the halo games that would only run on Vista. So does apple with apps that run only on IoS. Actually pretty much every company with exclusive hardware does it.

 

[blackened23]

Name a precedent for this happening.

Don't worry I'll wait.

Tired of these baseless posts. They don't even make logical sense in anyway shape or form either which makes it even worse. I don't even want to get into the details of how (and no offense to you) utterly stupid this notion is, but it seriously needs to stop. Tired of seeing these style posts every 2-3 posts.
The ONLY person who will decide "I'm going to make steambox exclusives" is developers themselves. That's no different than console exclusives, Windows exclusives, Apple exclusives, android exclusives, etc.
Steam has zero power to go and say "Hey, I know you have a game built only for windows, but we're locking our platform to SteamOS now so you can't play this game ever again!" It makes zero business sense, ugh not wasting another keyboard stroke on even explaining this, please, just stop.

It all goes back to the fact that Valve is a business and they are in the business of making money. While it would be great for Valve to be a charitable organization, if they have a chance to leverage their platform to make more money, they will do so. This is called capitalism. There are no organizations which are in the business of making money that don't think about ways of leveraging their brand to grow in size and earn more revenue. Microsoft has apparently decided to offer all PC games on the Windows store in the future with the shut down of GFWL. That is obviously bad for Steam and Valve, so I can see why they would want to create their own alternative to prevent this.

That said, the major hurdle for them in leveraging their brand for exclusives would be with other developers - that will be a tough task since the majority of gamers are using windows platforms. So it's a non issue really.

Basically, it will be good for the Steam Box *if* they can convince developers to switch. Otherwise, I expect status quo windows gaming to remain.

 

[Revolution 11]

snip snip snip

PC gaming is actually experiencing a little renaissance lately. Look at the emergence of new funding models like Kickstarter, the popularity of indie games on the PC, and several impressive PC-mostly games like Star Citizen.

Some of this is because of the long outdated console cycle but these trends are good in the long term if they hold up.

 

[tential]

It all goes back to the fact that Valve is a business and they are in the business of making money. While it would be great for Valve to be a charitable organization, if they have a chance to leverage their platform to make more money, they will do so. This is called capitalism. There are no organizations which are in the business of making money that don't think about ways of leveraging their brand to grow in size and earn more revenue. Microsoft has apparently decided to offer all PC games on the Windows store in the future with the shut down of GFWL. That is obviously bad for Steam and Valve, so I can see why they would want to create their own alternative to prevent this.

That said, the major hurdle for them in leveraging their brand for exclusives would be with other developers - that will be a tough task since the majority of gamers are using windows platforms. So it's a non issue really.

Basically, it will be good for the Steam Box *if* they can convince developers to switch. Otherwise, I expect status quo windows gaming to remain.

I don't think you can convince developers to switch. You CANT actually. You have to convince developers to develop for windows AND steamOS(Linux)

The major problem is the chicken/egg problem. I don't want to buy Steambox because there aren't that many games, but no one will develop tons of games for linux unless lots of people own linux.

The Doom/Gloom things all over this forum are getting a little tiresome though.

 

[irishScott]

I don't think you can convince developers to switch. You CANT actually. You have to convince developers to develop for windows AND steamOS(Linux)

The major problem is the chicken/egg problem. I don't want to buy Steambox because there aren't that many games, but no one will develop tons of games for linux unless lots of people own linux.

The Doom/Gloom things all over this forum are getting a little tiresome though.

Valve would seem to be relying on streaming to solve the chicken-egg problem and essentially make the box OS agnostic. Remains to be seen how well it works, but if it works well enough for the average PC gamer they might really have something.

 

[PrincessFrosty]

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.

More specifically, why would they spend money and resources to make a port for gamers which already have alternatives in the console or PC space, if you can convince a developer/publisher that you're expanding your userbase by targeting more platforms then there's a possible financial case to be made for doing so.

However the overwhelming number of SteamOS users will be people coming from pre existing Console or PC spaces. No developer is going to waste time building a linux port to pull in 5 million SteamOS users when they lose 4 million console users and 1 million windows users, that doesn't make any sense.

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.

It better be damn near perfect otherwise people are just going to run cables, I honestly don't get it, it's really not hard to run a HDMI cable through your house to your TV, this is the most over-engineered, complex and convoluted system of getting a PC output on a TV.

PC gaming is actually experiencing a little renaissance lately. Look at the emergence of new funding models like Kickstarter, the popularity of indie games on the PC, and several impressive PC-mostly games like Star Citizen.

I'm really starting to enjoy it, I've backed loads of kickstarters and I'm all over the humble bundles, some of the best games I've played in the last 5 years. I believe they're permanent trends caused by removing all barriers to entry for game development (namely money). Steam offers royalty based publishing, most major game engines now have royalty based licencing and if you need some cash to get started kickstarter offers publisher-less funding.

Best thing to happen to PC gaming in the last 7 years, the deeply corrosive console influence is now starting to lose it's grip as PC gamers are getting some truly great games that aren't developed for 14 year old kids with ADD and a chest-high-walls complex.

I love playing games like Fez and Receiver and laughing to myself when I realise these little indy game are actually better and far more deeply satisfying than CoD.

 

[Stringjam]

AMD's news about releasing a new open-platform low-level API.


http://www.techspot.com/news/54134-...y-mantle-api-to-optimize-gpu-performance.html

 

[Red Storm]

Both console makers do it now. So did Microsoft when they put out one of the halo games that would only run on Vista. So does apple with apps that run only on IoS. Actually pretty much every company with exclusive hardware does it.

Where is the exclusive hardware here? There isn't any.

 

[irishScott]

It better be damn near perfect otherwise people are just going to run cables, I honestly don't get it, it's really not hard to run a HDMI cable through your house to your TV, this is the most over-engineered, complex and convoluted system of getting a PC output on a TV.

It's actually not that easy when your gaming rig is on the other side of the house, and some of us value aesthetics; and desire them without breaking into dry-wall to install permanent in-wall cables. And for your average gamer it doesn't have to be anywhere near "perfect", most simply won't care so long as it's "good enough".

The Steam Box is not designed to convert hardcore, competitive players away from their PCs, it's designed to bring console gamers into PC gaming, as incentive by the MUCH cheaper cost of PC games via steam sales vs console.

 

[smackababy]

Uh, my understanding is the streaming is OS Agnostic. All you need is steam. Would be near worthless if they required SteamOS on both ends.

I don't see anywhere where it says I can stream Windows to Windows, without having Steam OS.

It's actually not that easy when your gaming rig is on the other side of the house, and some of us value aesthetics; and desire them without breaking into dry-wall to install permanent in-wall cables. And for your average gamer it doesn't have to be anywhere near "perfect", most simply won't care so long as it's "good enough".

The Steam Box is not designed to convert hardcore, competitive players away from their PCs, it's designed to bring console gamers into PC gaming, as incentive by the MUCH cheaper cost of PC games via steam sales vs console.

So, I have the potential to get cheap games in Steam sales (which may or may not contain games I actually want to play) for the investment of a SteamBox and a gaming PC? And that is going to sway console gamers how exactly?

 

[destrekor]

It better be damn near perfect otherwise people are just going to run cables, I honestly don't get it, it's really not hard to run a HDMI cable through your house to your TV, this is the most over-engineered, complex and convoluted system of getting a PC output on a TV.

I don't understand what is so difficult to understand about this concept.
Not everyone wants to run additional cabling all over the house/apartment.

I've got enough cables and wires running all over the place, the method I'm using to at least attempt to cover them up just cannot fit any more.

That, and overly lengthy HDMI runs are bad news, and if too long without repeaters (and even with them), there's the likelihood of introducing hand-shake issues from time to time.
Also, that still leaves open the issue of controls. Now you have to use lengthy USB extension cables, which also tends to introduce issues. Depending on your devices it may or may not matter, but there is significant voltage drop with lengthy USB runs.

Some people may have just the right setup to make it feasible without significant issues, because they have the right house/apartment layout and distances between devices/rooms.

Others, for various reasons, it just doesn't work for everyone.


Additionally, what about different display configurations. If I leave my desktop connected on my computer desk, it's driving 3 displays. I will have to dig into menus if I want to force it to utilize SLI and drive only the HDMI monitor forever away.
Oh, well I was hoping to get away with only using a gamepad... but now I've got to deal with driver/control panel settings.

I want to make it work straight from the living room, but I'd have to run to the computer, make some changes, go back to the living room and then switch inputs, etc.

My goal is to get everything in my living room functioning from my Harmony remote.
I already have a plan of doing a dual setup between MCE and XBMC and using Xbox 360 controllers. I'll use Advanced Launcher (or something... I have only done some light reading) to get emulator launching available from the remote, and also add Steam with it set to launch in big picture mode on the HTPC.
If I have to run SteamOS to stream from my main rig, I hopefully will be able to configure an auto-launch of a VM from within XBMC.

It's going to be tricky to get that all setup, but the end result should be a smooth and hassle-free user interaction process to do just about anything in the living room.

 

[ImpulsE69]

I guess I must be missing a big piece here. Everyone keeps talking about streaming and going after console gamers but to me streaming means your gaming PC is doing the work and that data is being transferred to another device then to the PC.

At that point...where is the benefit to a console gamer? I see none. Console gamers (in the sense that most are referring to) don't have some powerful gaming PC sitting in a corner collecting dust. They have a laptop and/or low end old PC. Obviously there are many variations of this, but the overall point is...you aren't going to convert anyone because it will end up costing way more in the end.

Console gamers aren't console gamers because they can sit in front of their tv. That is just a benefit by design.

I see the SteamBox as simply an extension / option to existing PC gamers. Whether or not they play consoles is irrelevant.

 

[blackened23]

It's actually not that easy when your gaming rig is on the other side of the house, and some of us value aesthetics; and desire them without breaking into dry-wall to install permanent in-wall cables. And for your average gamer it doesn't have to be anywhere near "perfect", most simply won't care so long as it's "good enough".

The Steam Box is not designed to convert hardcore, competitive players away from their PCs, it's designed to bring console gamers into PC gaming, as incentive by the MUCH cheaper cost of PC games via steam sales vs console.

Oh please. The only way to sway console gamers is by giving them a different machine that is price competitive - if steam box is price competitive with next-gen consoles at a 400$ mark, I can certainly guarantee that it will perform like garbage. A 400$ PC does not deliver a compelling gaming experience, period.

The steam box, IMO, will be substantially more expensive than consoles as THAT is the only way to create a more compelling game experience.

 

[smackababy]

Oh please. The only way to sway console gamers is by giving them a different machine that is price competitive - if steam box is price competitive with next-gen consoles at a 400$ mark, I can certainly guarantee that it will perform like garbage. A 400$ PC does not deliver a compelling gaming experience, period.

The steam box, IMO, will be substantially more expensive than consoles as THAT is the only way to create a more compelling game experience.

If they rely on the streaming side of things, it could easily be cheaper, but require a gaming rig to back it up (which overall will be more expensive).

If their target market is PC gamers who want to play games on their TV, but can't (for some reason) move their gaming PC to the living room, then is will sell to just that sect of gamers (and it is very small).

If their target market is console gamers, this product makes no sense and they will fail.

 

[Red Storm]

If they rely on the streaming side of things, it could easily be cheaper, but require a gaming rig to back it up (which overall will be more expensive).

If their target market is PC gamers who want to play games on their TV, but can't (for some reason) move their gaming PC to the living room, then is will sell to just that sect of gamers (and it is very small).

If their target market is console gamers, this product makes no sense and they will fail.

Sigh, they aren't targeting just one market. Steam OS is Valve's insurance policy against a future of locked in OS level app markets (this is the most important reason for Valve), it's also an attempt to reach out to more casual gamers who don't want or need a gaming desktop. It's also for any gamer that plays games with a controller, which is not at all limited to consoles.

 

[smackababy]

Sigh, they aren't targeting just one market. Steam OS is Valve's insurance policy against a future of locked in OS level app markets (this is the most important reason for Valve), it's also an attempt to reach out to more casual gamers who don't want or need a gaming desktop. It's also for any gamer that plays games with a controller, which is not at all limited to consoles.

Except the product they've announced doesn't benefit casual gamers (it will be more expensive or lacking behind console's in raw power), doesn't benefit a Windows locked OS (since it has virtually no support, and no incentive to get support other than Valve saying it is the future), and doesn't benefit anyone without a gaming desktop who doesn't want to play on their TV or can connect their PC directly to the TV.

If they release a $99 SteamBox, it will be the OUYA all over again. Sure, it can play Angry Birds on the TV, who nobody wants to do that.

If they target a more powerful (can play real games) SteamBox, it will be most costly than the next gen consoles if they are targeting anywhere close to that performance. Nobody except Steam fanboys are going to pay $600 for a Steam console vs $400 for a PS4, that will have more support than the SteamBox.

This move, as it is announced so far, benefits nobody and doesn't help Steam in the event Windows 8.2 allows no side loading of apps (which is really MS' bread and butter, so the idea they won't allow it is rather stupid). MS makes most of their money in the enterprise, and that isn't a market that will buy from the MS app store.

 

[Skel]

I guess I must be missing a big piece here. Everyone keeps talking about streaming and going after console gamers but to me streaming means your gaming PC is doing the work and that data is being transferred to another device then to the PC.

At that point...where is the benefit to a console gamer? I see none. Console gamers (in the sense that most are referring to) don't have some powerful gaming PC sitting in a corner collecting dust. They have a laptop and/or low end old PC. Obviously there are many variations of this, but the overall point is...you aren't going to convert anyone because it will end up costing way more in the end.

Console gamers aren't console gamers because they can sit in front of their tv. That is just a benefit by design.

I see the SteamBox as simply an extension / option to existing PC gamers. Whether or not they play consoles is irrelevant.

The moment you put it in the living room you're competing against the consoles. When you add a game pad and play it on your TV you're pretty much a console. We can play with words about how it's different than a console but at the end of the day it's the console users you need to win over to make any gaming device in the living room a success.

Sigh, they aren't targeting just one market. Steam OS is Valve's insurance policy against a future of locked in OS level app markets (this is the most important reason for Valve), it's also an attempt to reach out to more casual gamers who don't want or need a gaming desktop. It's also for any gamer that plays games with a controller, which is not at all limited to consoles.

It's a really shitty insurance policy if they can't sell it.

 

[M0oG0oGaiPan]

i'm sure you could boot into steamos on a hacked console. best of both worlds.

 

[Red Storm]

Except the product they've announced doesn't benefit casual gamers (it will be more expensive or lacking behind console's in raw power), doesn't benefit a Windows locked OS (since it has virtually no support, and no incentive to get support other than Valve saying it is the future), and doesn't benefit anyone without a gaming desktop who doesn't want to play on their TV or can connect their PC directly to the TV.

If they release a $99 SteamBox, it will be the OUYA all over again. Sure, it can play Angry Birds on the TV, who nobody wants to do that.

If they target a more powerful (can play real games) SteamBox, it will be most costly than the next gen consoles if they are targeting anywhere close to that performance. Nobody except Steam fanboys are going to pay $600 for a Steam console vs $400 for a PS4, that will have more support than the SteamBox.

This move, as it is announced so far, benefits nobody and doesn't help Steam in the event Windows 8.2 allows no side loading of apps (which is really MS' bread and butter, so the idea they won't allow it is rather stupid). MS makes most of their money in the enterprise, and that isn't a market that will buy from the MS app store.

So it's either $99 or $600?

This isn't about Windows 8.2, it's about the future and not tying your multi-billion dollar business to another corporation's whims. But you continue to ignore that.

The moment you put it in the living room you're competing against the consoles. When you add a game pad and play it on your TV you're pretty much a console. We can play with words about how it's different than a console but at the end of the day it's the console users you need to win over to make any gaming device in the living room a success.

PC gamers play games with a controller. I know this is hard for some here to accept, but it happens and it's a lot more common than it used to be. Being in the living room doesn't make it a console.

 

[smackababy]

So it's either $99 or $600?

This isn't about Windows 8.2, it's about the future and not tying your multi-billion dollar business to another corporation's whims. But you continue to ignore that.

Nobody is ignoring that. It makes sense to try and go away from Windows. Doing that with this product isn't that. This product makes no sense for consumers or Valve.

Their entire business isn't tied to Windows. It is tied to developers letting them distribute their games for a 30% cut. Once someone comes up with a cheaper and better way for that, Valve fails.

If EA had any sense, they'd let other developers put their games on Origin and charge less than Valve for it.