Well, he says “Even basic input..." "Even" being the key word. As in being just an example of a small thing that could be improved upon. Therefore, I think their aim is more than just input devices.
I hope they are successful in whatever they are doing and hope that it is indeed something good. I'm not a Valve fanboy but they have proved in my opinion that they are in a 'for gamers' position rather than a 'for profit'. (obviously, just to clarify, they need profit, but they aren't throwing their consumers around and trying to tell us what we want like some publishers are) If for instance, all future Valve games were made for the use of an optional piece of hardware and it is fun I would go for it. If it were EA doing this I'd probably just tell them to suck it. The reason being that EA would probably support their new hardware for 1 or 2 games then support would vanish. Valve would most likely push through and make it not a waste of my money.
Being Valve, I think the only console-like thing they'd develop is a more closed-package PC-based package.
NOT in the original Xbox flare, but in a mini-ITX rig equivalent to a middle-class laptop in a box. Some kind of purpose-built and HTPC-ish console made for both streaming, the main effort, a Steam-sourced digital delivery system, obviously meant to feel at home on a big-screen TV as well as perhaps capable of a KB/M desktop situation.
Games "created" for it would work just as well on a PC, because the coding would be the exact same. Any "Steam-console Originals" would be available on the PC, though it's likely their may be multiple versions with more textures and features on the desktop, and a more optimized version, without the ability to change video settings, on the "Steam-console" version.
That's my take, and the only route Valve should ever consider if they wish to make a move on the living room. Steam-console game versions would be easy to accomplish without changing basically anything but a few UI elements, basically setting a locked-in graphical configuration, removing access to config files and locking out that part of any Settings menus. And, as a good effort, a purchase (through Steam, obviously) of any version would include access to the other, and it would be "multi-platform multiplayer" out of the box. Unless any game designers wished to block different peripherals in multiplayer, as in, if they want to play with "PC" players online, they might need to use a KB/M. I've seen that as a reason (however valid it may or may not be) as to why some games don't have multi-platform MP while others do have such.
If they were to make such a move, and followed my line of logic, I think they'd have an opportunity for strong success.
And hell, I wouldn't mind seeing more entirely new ideas for input peripherals. No matter how radical a mouse or one-handed WASD keyboard looks, they are still mice and keyboards. Controllers may change the position of a few buttons or analog sticks, but aside from ergonomic differences, they are still very similar. If they have truly new ideas they might like to try out, I'm game.
Already that OcularVR headset sounds very much like something I'd be interested in trying, though, outside of viewpoints, it's not really an "input" device.
But the true resolution that will likely use, even with the addition of 3D, my SLI gaming system will power through much higher fidelity options with that than it can with my 5760x1080 surround setup. And it would be a TREAT to have that in a racing game... then again, it might be awkward not being able to see my actual wheel and shifter. :hmm:
I digress...
What I'd really want to know though, if Valve does pursue a PC-based Steam console, would they be looking for profit margins at all? Or would they take a loss on the console, and go the "peripherals and game sales will save the day" route?
If they don't take a decent loss, I cannot imagine them challenging consoles in the graphics realm. And hell, will it be Windows x86-based? If not, then I might not imagine seeing a pure compatibility with game ports - or should I say, it would require actual porting versus minor config tweaks. Could they get the game to run with the Windows stack of kernel and APIs but severely strip down Windows itself or emulate it in such a way that they can avoid resource competition? That factor being removed is the only reason console games can look better than the hardware would suggest, if comparing it to PC hardware.
And if they don't go the proper console route, and can't work in some kind of resource-saving magic, and don't take a massive loss on the console, they won't be able to compete, graphically, with next-gen consoles without being, at minimum, a few hundred dollars more expensive than whatever they launch at.
If they make a proper console that requires game ports (unless it is absolutely minimal code altering, perhaps only changing up some API calls... I'm no coder, don't attack this part of my logic
), I can't see it really succeeding.
I cannot see the marketplace supporting FOUR consoles. "Xbox 720", PS4, WiiU, AND a Steam console? Developers aren't going to be happy with such an effort, and multi-console homes are likely the only reason the market will even support three and provide healthy margins for all.
Facebook
Twitter