Steam page shows 3 announcements coming

[BD2003]

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.

What makes you so sure of that? If the game supports mantle on an AMD card, running on a stripped down, free OS....that's going to be price and performance competitive with the consoles.

 

[BD2003]

The point everyone who "doesn't get it" seems to be missing is that all the facets of steam OS aren't happening in isolation.

It's not just a $99 box or a $600 box. It's a platform that supports $99 boxes, $399 boxes...as cheap or expensive as you want.

It's a custom OS built from Linux, but steam boxes still support windows and windows games....because it's still steam.

It's not all about streaming, nor is it all about huge expensive boxes in your living room. It's whatever you want it to be. Stream it if you want, from windows or SteamOS. Or put the big box under your TV. It's up to you.

It's still an open platform that supports open APIs like OpenGL in Linux and DX11 in windows for broad compatibility, but AMDs mantle API can bring console-level optimization to it. And that's going to see huge support, because it's just a derivative of the same optimizations they're making for the consoles.

They've got every based covered. They're not aiming at a tiny little market of only people that want to PC game in their living room, or only rich people who can afford $600+ consoles, or only poor people who can't spend more than $99 on a console. It's offering something to everyone, and the flexibility of the platform is a huge selling point to consumers, publishers, hardware manufacturers...everyone. This is an all out assault on the entire gaming market from top to bottom, and the conditions are just right for them to attempt it.

 

[Nintendesert]

I'm looking forward to you building a $99 dollar box with PC components that does more than play Free Cell.

 

[irishScott]

I'm looking forward to you building a $99 dollar box with PC components that does more than play Free Cell.

Given that the $99 box is a pure streamer...

No offense to the naysayers, but you seem to not be reading the announcements.

 

[Skel]

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.



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.

You keep saying Valve's reasons for doing this, and no one is disputing those.. just why the end consumers should really care..

Also I'll conceed the "It's not a console thing" but could you define what you consider a console? Please don't use "PCs are more powerful" because the console plays the damn game so it's not that huge of a point.

The point everyone who "doesn't get it" seems to be missing is that all the facets of steam OS aren't happening in isolation.

It's not just a $99 box or a $600 box. It's a platform that supports $99 boxes, $399 boxes...as cheap or expensive as you want.

It's a custom OS built from Linux, but steam boxes still support windows and windows games....because it's still steam.

It's not all about streaming, nor is it all about huge expensive boxes in your living room. It's whatever you want it to be. Stream it if you want, from windows or SteamOS. Or put the big box under your TV. It's up to you.

It's still an open platform that supports open APIs like OpenGL in Linux and DX11 in windows for broad compatibility, but AMDs mantle API can bring console-level optimization to it. And that's going to see huge support, because it's just a derivative of the same optimizations they're making for the consoles.

They've got every based covered. They're not aiming at a tiny little market of only people that want to PC game in their living room, or only rich people who can afford $600+ consoles, or only poor people who can't spend more than $99 on a console. It's offering something to everyone, and the flexibility of the platform is a huge selling point to consumers, publishers, hardware manufacturers...everyone. This is an all out assault on the entire gaming market from top to bottom, and the conditions are just right for them to attempt it.

This is where Valve is doing no one favors with the lack of details. It's almost like Valve doesn't really have a clue what they want/need to do. I can kind of see what you're saying here, but there's too much unknown for me, and it's very possible I'm missing things. I love Linux and love choices even more, but the moment I need to put money into something, even if it's a $99 piece of HW it better do a lot more than I currently have. I shouldn't need to buy multiple pieces to do the job of what I already have. I was under the impression that the SteamOS wasn't able to play DX games. I understand there's some streaming aspect involved, much like Sony's point of being able to stream your game to another user over the internet. Is that how they're going to support DX games?

 

[BD2003]

You keep saying Valve's reasons for doing this, and no one is disputing those.. just why the end consumers should really care..

Also I'll conceed the "It's not a console thing" but could you define what you consider a console? Please don't use "PCs are more powerful" because the console plays the damn game so it's not that huge of a point.



This is where Valve is doing no one favors with the lack of details. It's almost like Valve doesn't really have a clue what they want/need to do. I can kind of see what you're saying here, but there's too much unknown for me, and it's very possible I'm missing things. I love Linux and love choices even more, but the moment I need to put money into something, even if it's a $99 piece of HW it better do a lot more than I currently have. I shouldn't need to buy multiple pieces to do the job of what I already have. I was under the impression that the SteamOS wasn't able to play DX games. I understand there's some streaming aspect involved, much like Sony's point of being able to stream your game to another user over the internet. Is that how they're going to support DX games?

They'll support DX games by streaming from another windows based PC, typically to a cheap microconsole, but full blown steam boxes will prob support it as well. Or you could just dual boot SteamOS on your existing PC, or on a steambox...because it's still a PC.

I bet SteamOS is going to look strikingly if not exactly like steam big picture. People will have time to get used to the interface while support for SteamOS builds, and eventually might find they spend so much time in it, that they might as well skip windows and boot straight into SteamOS. Just like the original steam, it's going to sneak up on people.

Also kind of like chrome. Used to think chromeOS was a joke, but I spent the majority of my non-game time on my PC in that browser. Chromebooks are now flying off the shelves, and I'm seriously considering one. Sure, it's going to be more limited than windows, which can also run chrome. But it's cheaper and gets the job done better in a lot of ways. Had I not had years of experience with chrome on windows, I'd never have considered it.

So it's not like SteamOS is coming out of the blue, people are already quite familiar with steam, and they're doing an excellent job building bridges to get people away from windows. Some people might start with a cheap steambox just to stream from windows. Some might dual boot on their main rig, or even just use big picture on windows. They're making it easy to get that first taste.

 

[smackababy]

You keep saying Valve's reasons for doing this, and no one is disputing those.. just why the end consumers should really care..

Also I'll conceed the "It's not a console thing" but could you define what you consider a console? Please don't use "PCs are more powerful" because the console plays the damn game so it's not that huge of a point.



This is where Valve is doing no one favors with the lack of details. It's almost like Valve doesn't really have a clue what they want/need to do. I can kind of see what you're saying here, but there's too much unknown for me, and it's very possible I'm missing things. I love Linux and love choices even more, but the moment I need to put money into something, even if it's a $99 piece of HW it better do a lot more than I currently have. I shouldn't need to buy multiple pieces to do the job of what I already have. I was under the impression that the SteamOS wasn't able to play DX games. I understand there's some streaming aspect involved, much like Sony's point of being able to stream your game to another user over the internet. Is that how they're going to support DX games?

Their continued support of DX games comes from them continuing to offer Steam on Windows and have a way to stream you Windows (DX) games from your gaming PC to the SteamBox, which can be hooked up to your TV. Plus, the better SteamBoxes are going to have OpenGL games (and possibly Mantle), so you get all of the Linux library (which has little support right now).

The problem is, none of this really benefits a even small percent of consumers. You can buy extra hardware to use your PC rig on the TV, or buy more expensive hardware (that may or may not cost as much as a console) to play Linux native games on your TV, with the option in the future to stream Windows games should you acquire a gaming PC.

 

[Red Storm]

You keep saying Valve's reasons for doing this, and no one is disputing those.. just why the end consumers should really care..

Also I'll conceed the "It's not a console thing" but could you define what you consider a console? Please don't use "PCs are more powerful" because the console plays the damn game so it's not that huge of a point.



This is where Valve is doing no one favors with the lack of details. It's almost like Valve doesn't really have a clue what they want/need to do. I can kind of see what you're saying here, but there's too much unknown for me, and it's very possible I'm missing things. I love Linux and love choices even more, but the moment I need to put money into something, even if it's a $99 piece of HW it better do a lot more than I currently have. I shouldn't need to buy multiple pieces to do the job of what I already have. I was under the impression that the SteamOS wasn't able to play DX games. I understand there's some streaming aspect involved, much like Sony's point of being able to stream your game to another user over the internet. Is that how they're going to support DX games?

A console is a closed hardware platform. PCs are "open" hardware platforms.

The streaming is their solution for playing Windows games on a Steam OS machine for the present. From what I understand it's purpose is to bridge the present (Mostly Windows native games) to the future (a lot more SteamOS native games).

 

[M0oG0oGaiPan]

 

[Red Storm]

lol

 

[Nintendesert]

Given that the $99 box is a pure streamer...

No offense to the naysayers, but you seem to not be reading the announcements.

And what's it streaming from?



Because right now I have a $5 streamer. A 20' long HDMI cable.

 

[Skel]

A console is a closed hardware platform. PCs are "open" hardware platforms.

The streaming is their solution for playing Windows games on a Steam OS machine for the present. From what I understand it's purpose is to bridge the present (Mostly Windows native games) to the future (a lot more SteamOS native games).

I can see that as a difference in the two. Thanks for clarifying it. I'm still not sure my mind sees it that way, but I can see and agree with the argument.

The issue with streaming the games is like smackababy says.. The cost to get into this is going to be a uphill battle. If anything they're making consoles look more attractive as gaming machines.

Odd question.. who's supposed to support the performance on the streaming? Do Devs need to now code to maintain a threshold on streaming? Is there an op-out ability on streaming?

 

[irishScott]

And what's it streaming from?



Because right now I have a $5 streamer. A 20' long HDMI cable.

From your gaming PC, presuming you have one with steam installed.

And that's great that a cable works for you, but my gaming PC is in my basement. Would take about 100' of cable and it wouldn't look all that nice, having to cross walkways and such. (never mind possible signal degradation) If a $99 Steam Box can effectively stream games to my living room where I could play the multiplayer games with my friends on my TV I don't have any consoles) then it's something I'd probably buy myself for Christmas.

 

[smackababy]

I can see that as a difference in the two. Thanks for clarifying it. I'm still not sure my mind sees it that way, but I can see and agree with the argument.

The issue with streaming the games is like smackababy says.. The cost to get into this is going to be a uphill battle. If anything they're making consoles look more attractive as gaming machines.

Odd question.. who's supposed to support the performance on the streaming? Do Devs need to now code to maintain a threshold on streaming? Is there an op-out ability on streaming?

I believe they will have some solution for streaming handled entirely by Valve. Like, the gaming PC will run as normal, but rather than display the image on the screen, it will instead send that information where to draw what over the network to the SteamBox, who will then draw on it's screen. Input's will be sent to the streaming PC via the SteamBox as well. Now, how all that will happen with minimal lag, is beyond me.

 

[Red Storm]

I don't see much issues with latency for LAN streaming. OnLive tried to sell over the internet streaming but the latency was there. It wasn't very bad lag, but you could definitely see it. LAN streaming should be way better in this regard.

 

[smackababy]

I don't see much issues with latency for LAN streaming. OnLive tried to sell over the internet streaming but the latency was there. It wasn't very bad lag, but you could definitely see it. LAN streaming should be way better in this regard.

OnLive also had awful compression from what I understand. They had to degrade the quality to a degree a lot of people were unhappy about.

 

[fixbsod]

Well isn't 1080p HDMI something in the range of 3-5 GBps where as most people will have either 1 GBps or 100 MBps LAN speeds?? I noted this earlier but don't think anyone responded -- what is the point of the streaming from a powerful PC if it has to be downcoded / compressed to go over LAN. And this is just for 1080p, 1440p is going to consume even more bandwidth? How bout 2k? 4k? And while most people's CURRENT tvs are 1080p there are 4k's coming out and even being advertised for on tv. Since this is a future tech it would be important to keep up. I would think a compressed stream where the orig is 2k or higher res would be obv butchered.

I mean I GUESS that the compressed 1080p stream may still be BETTER than what your HTPC could put out by its own but by how much? And if you have to shell out some change for all this than what is the point? Again long HDMI cables and wireless controller ftw all day long.

I don't see much issues with latency for LAN streaming. OnLive tried to sell over the internet streaming but the latency was there. It wasn't very bad lag, but you could definitely see it. LAN streaming should be way better in this regard.

 

[irishScott]

Well isn't 1080p HDMI something in the range of 3-5 GBps where as most people will have either 1 GBps or 100 MBps LAN speeds?? I noted this earlier but don't think anyone responded -- what is the point of the streaming from a powerful PC if it has to be downcoded / compressed to go over LAN. And this is just for 1080p, 1440p is going to consume even more bandwidth? How bout 2k? 4k? And while most people's CURRENT tvs are 1080p there are 4k's coming out and even being advertised for on tv. Since this is a future tech it would be important to keep up. I would think a compressed stream where the orig is 2k or higher res would be obv butchered.

I mean I GUESS that the compressed 1080p stream may still be BETTER than what your HTPC could put out by its own but by how much? And if you have to shell out some change for all this than what is the point? Again long HDMI cables and wireless controller ftw all day long.

Remains to be seen, but I'm pretty sure the streaming hardware will be provided with the Steam Box. A USB dongle of some sort probably.

 

[BD2003]

I doubt the streaming will suffice for video quality perfectionists...but SteamOS will work just as well over an HDMI cable.

 

[Nintendesert]

From your gaming PC, presuming you have one with steam installed.

And that's great that a cable works for you, but my gaming PC is in my basement. Would take about 100' of cable and it wouldn't look all that nice, having to cross walkways and such. (never mind possible signal degradation) If a $99 Steam Box can effectively stream games to my living room where I could play the multiplayer games with my friends on my TV I don't have any consoles) then it's something I'd probably buy myself for Christmas.

That should be another topic on why builders don't include conduit to run Ethernet and other cabling...

So you expect to stream from your PC via your wifi LAN? I'm not sure what quality we are expecting here.

Forget even Gigabit fixbsod.

 

[smackababy]

Well isn't 1080p HDMI something in the range of 3-5 GBps where as most people will have either 1 GBps or 100 MBps LAN speeds?? I noted this earlier but don't think anyone responded -- what is the point of the streaming from a powerful PC if it has to be downcoded / compressed to go over LAN. And this is just for 1080p, 1440p is going to consume even more bandwidth? How bout 2k? 4k? And while most people's CURRENT tvs are 1080p there are 4k's coming out and even being advertised for on tv. Since this is a future tech it would be important to keep up. I would think a compressed stream where the orig is 2k or higher res would be obv butchered.

I mean I GUESS that the compressed 1080p stream may still be BETTER than what your HTPC could put out by its own but by how much? And if you have to shell out some change for all this than what is the point? Again long HDMI cables and wireless controller ftw all day long.

I am sure there is going to be some sort of compression going on, but exactly how much and to what extent remains to be seen.

 

[irishScott]

That should be another topic on why builders don't include conduit to run Ethernet and other cabling...

So you expect to stream from your PC via your wifi LAN? I'm not sure what quality we are expecting here.

Forget even Gigabit fixbsod.

I'm thinking some included hardware solution from Valve. Wireless HDMI has been viable for a while now, and a quick google search shows transmitters and receivers as cheap as $30. Being (effectively) an OEM at this point Valve could likely get discounts on such things.

In any case we'll know for sure when those Beta boxes ship. I just have a hard time believing that a company like Valve hasn't VERY carefully thought through every step of a move like this. First time for everything, but I don't see them making the blunder of shipping a heavily streaming-based gaming solution where the streaming didn't work as gamers expect it to.

 

[smackababy]

I wish I had the same faith in Valve you do. I am sure they VERY carefully thought through every step of their move to release episodic content to increase the speed and quality of releases for the Half Life series, but we all saw how that turned out. >_>

 

[tential]

Given that the $99 box is a pure streamer...

No offense to the naysayers, but you seem to not be reading the announcements.

People nitpick. I swear it's just to be annoying/troll.

 

[Nintendesert]

People nitpick. I swear it's just to be annoying/troll.

Right. Anyone not agreeing with you is a troll. Anyways.



Irish, we'll see how it plays out for sure. With all the craziness going on in the GPU market now and the potential for major changes there who knows how this plays out now too. Interesting times for gaming.