Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

The PA Report - The Xbox One is a confusing mess of hardware and UI that sings once you learn the vo

13»

Posts

  • PoomerPoomer ColoradoRegistered User regular
    edited November 2013
    @Casey Reece
    Casey I really do enjoy reading your posts. They remind me of a pending revolutionary drama. You are right and you are a little wrong.

    Casey Reece wrote: “You, me, all of us don't have any seat at the table any more.”

    Not true, as you say in your post it is “the price is right” as the free market. Hence our seat at the table is our money. If you really don’t like what they are doing, organize a boycott of their product. If you can’t find like minds and organize, then what you’re concerned about doesn’t matter to our zeitgeist.

    Poomer on
  • Casey ReeceCasey Reece Registered User regular
    edited November 2013
    @Gungan: "I hardly hate everything. I only hate things that are exploitative and/or poor quality."

    Fine, fine. You hate 90% of the industry, not 100% of it.

    @Siddown: "Like I said to @gungan, too many people apply their morals only when it fits their narrative about who they like and hate (. . .) Valve's rules are much stricter, yet they get a complete pass."

    Alright buddy, I'm going to warn you, after this one you're gonna have to . . . sit down!!! (Sorry, I always wanted to).

    I saw the comments you were making to Gungan before (quite interesting), and while I think you make a fabulous point (and I see where you're coming from), I believe it's still much more complicated (lacking a better word) than you describe.

    I'll keep my example brief. With Steam - I don't like Steam one day - it's off my PC. My PC is not owned by VALVe - they have no say what goes on it, how I run it, or what I do with it. Where this gets really important is . . . if VALVe pisses enough people off with a certain decision - they might just decide to stop using the service. But then, then! Enough people do this - another rival business starts up (let's call it Origin - for the sake of humour) - and suddenly VALVe is like, "Woah Boy!"

    Going back to my table analogy - you still have a seat there. In case of zombie attack, the competition club is right near on by.

    But with the X-Bone - it's just a Microsoft device. It may have the components of a PC - but when I turn that "PC" on - it allows me zero of the freedoms of said device. I can't decide one day that my X-Bone games just aren't doing it for the machine - time to go grab some Sony games for it. Unless I have thousands of dollars to throw around - that's not going to happen. And I don't think the vast majority of Americans (as they like to call themselves sometimes, the "99%") have that kind of disposable income either.

    So, what is buying this kind of device do? Well, the price tag alone means that anyone that's grabbing it - is definitely down for a commitment. Meaning that the differences between:

    a) Open hardware platform, completely customizable, competition available,

    and,

    b) Closed hardware platform, no customisation, and no competition available,

    Are incredibly vast. Especially when you feel tied into it. All titles that appear on this "plat-form" have a different feeling than titles on other platforms. Is it just an accident that tons of the very first games people are purchasing on this thing all come with a sticker, "Half done - pay more later"?

    It may be hard to "feel" now - seeing as we don't actually own this machine yet. But I assure you, if you collect all the "WTF?!?" moments you're going to have when you see how your games are priced/segregated/microtransactionized throughout the life of the system, you're going to have a pretty full bucket of grief. Accompanied by an almost empty wallet.

    The difference between that and the "traditional" console experience, even similar services on different platforms, is super vast.

    @Poomer: "Casey I really do enjoy reading your posts. They remind me of a pending revolutionary drama. You are right and you are a little wrong."

    Thanks Poomer. Glad you enjoy them. Believe you me, I'm smiling when I write these posts, so I'm happy it has a likewise effect on yourself."

    @Poomer: "Not true, as you say in your post it is “the price is right” as the free market. Hence our seat at the table is our money. If you really don’t like what they are doing, organize a boycott of their product. If you can’t find like minds and organize, then what you’re concerned about doesn’t matter to our zeitgeist."

    Better get yourself a folding chair Poomer . . .

    'Cause you're about to take a seat next to Siddown!!! (Sorry again)

    While what you say certainly makes sense, it approaches the situation from an entirely two-dimensional angle.

    Want to know why we expect to pay $60 for a video game? Because that's the ways it's always been. If they raise the price to even so much as $65, without throwing in a whole bunch of bonus bullshit, sales must immediately decrease dramatically because . . . well, no one's doing it.

    So, Microsoft's approach to breaking this "unbeatable sixty dollar barrier" is to side-step it entirely. Introduce new ways for us to purchase games - make it interesting and even give us a deal at the beginning (albeit, this hasn't really been happening). Once we're used to paying $80 (or way, way more) for a traditional $60 experience - they'll pat themselves on the back for slaying the dragon that saved their customers money - and then they'll proceed to take advantage of the new paradigm/perception they've helped create and foster - and begin taking even more.

    The price of going to a movie has quintupled over the past twenty years. I suppose it's fair to assume games have to make the same jump as well. But not . . . not like this.

    Not having the feeling of ever actually owning the thing. Always knowing there's something more to get. I remember when I used to sit down with a game like . . . oh, Animal Crossing, and just spend hours going through wallpapers and wardrobes. It would really suck if that same experience came with a $15 price-tag at the end of it. But it's the "way forward." Not making better games. Making better nickel-guzzlers. Thing being, they need (and want, want, want) so many nickels, that you'll be hard-pressed to go very far in most of these experiences before having that fourth wall torn down and Microsoft standing there on the other side of it with their hand stretched out.

    As much as the battle for this week is about the launch of the console, and as much as the battle for the launch of the console is for the life of the console, the life of the console is just there for the life of the next one. Microsoft knows this. And is counting on it that you don't.

    Casey Reece on
  • tazsultazsul Registered User regular
    @Casey Reece "Once we're used to paying $80 (or way, way more)"

    Are you referring to the SNES era? When a new game actually did cost $70-80, in fricken early 90's dollars too! Games are still WAY cheaper then they were then. Price is still down when you account for inflation. I know economics is hard.

  • GunganGungan Registered User regular
    edited November 2013
    Valve's new library sharing is much more "draconian" than Microsoft's ever was, it requires 24/7 online to participate in, MS only required once every 24 hours check in. In a completely rational sense, Valve's rules are much stricter, yet they get a complete pass.

    Now now. Microsoft never illustrated how the sharing will work. You're speculating. It could really have been that rumored free trial prompt to buy after an hour "thing", or worse. The only thing they said is that to share you and everyone participating must be an XBLive Gold Member, and first party titles would be shareable, nothing else. Yes, Steam's sharing thing is draconian, but you're not being subjected to additional restrictions if you pass on that one feature. Sharing with Xbone required you to give up all ownership benefits of physical media.

    Gungan on
  • SiddownSiddown Registered User regular
    @Gungan,

    You know very well that the only once source printed the "trial" story, and it was never substantiated by any one else. There might have been a catch, we never got to find out. Doesn't change what actually happened though, people flipped over the once a day check in, flipped out like crazy. Yet, four months later Valve announced a very strict library sharing...nothing.

    Well, not nothing, a few "well that seems restrictive, oh well" comments.

    @Casey Reece,

    Very good points about Steam v. XBone, yet those are not the points I've heard anyone else raise. Instead it's "PC v. Console". But under the current system, you definitely do own anything you purchase because there is no check-in, whereas Steam still has the 30 day check in. So Steam, for now, is more restrictive than Microsoft. Again, where's the outrage? None.

    It's back to the consistency of arguments. I'm cool with all points of view, people just need to stick to them

  • GunganGungan Registered User regular
    edited November 2013
    Yes, that's why I called it a rumor. I can also think of worse ways to implement it that could have easily happened too. The Steam sharing has literally only one use case, but you still cannot say MS's way would have been any better.

    People weren't full on raging against Steam's version because, like I keep having to repeat, it is entirely optional and doesn't add any usage restrictions if you opt out of it. It's a non-feature that you can safely ignore. Not the case for the Xbone sharing plan.

    Gungan on
  • SiddownSiddown Registered User regular
    edited November 2013
    @gungan,

    Again, feel free to keep splitting those hairs to justify the fact you believe completely the opposite about two separate systems based purely on the name slapped on the box. I might not agree with @casey_reece's take on all this, but he's consistent in his beliefs so it's something that can at least be discussed.

    Siddown on
  • GunganGungan Registered User regular
    edited November 2013
    Again, if I believed in either system, I would actually use them. I don't see how I'm splitting hairs about anything I've said. You believe that whether a feature is optional or not doesn't matter, when it very clearly does.

    Gungan on
  • Casey ReeceCasey Reece Registered User regular
    @Tazsul: "Are you referring to the SNES era? When a new game actually did cost $70-80, in fricken early 90's dollars too! Games are still WAY cheaper then they were then. Price is still down when you account for inflation. I know economics is hard."

    I know games are priced differently in different regions. I know that every region's prices are up to everything from import laws to what they can get away with. I live in Canada, which I assume shares a pretty similar pricing structure to the States, and up here - the price for a new game has never exceeded $59.99 pre-tax. I'm guessing that if they can afford to keep the price the same for twenty years here - a major market and territory - it's "somewhat safe to assume" that it's remained the same in others.

    I always believed gaming's real strength didn't lie in upping the price on individual titles (which, I would imagine, would decrease interest in the hobby), but in allowing it to appeal to a larger and larger audience. Many may forget - those that grew up with the NES - are adults now. Many of them are still playing games. That's the adult population. Playing games now. As are all the kids still being born. One could argue that we've already reached the stage where video-gaming has left its teenage years, if the obvious immaturity wasn't still so rife within it.

    Selling more games should be the answer. And more games are being sold. Than ever before. But more games are also being made - than ever before. And for the first time in a long time - you're starting to see some real competition occur - breaching even the most steadfast forts of the oldest of walled gardens. Everyone is starting to feel the pinch of competition now, regardless of what device or platform they publish for. Thing is - competition is a healthy, industry-nurturing necessity. Having been locked away from the real world inside their gardens, the laziness that has been allowed to accumulate because of the assured success and sales has warped their very perception of those old fogeys on their thrones of power. The idea of creating new, fresh, and interesting experiences that levy technology and the creative spirit in exhilarating firsts (i.e: Nintendo's Wii - the Oculus Rift) is far more challenging than revisiting tired old trends and somehow . . . spicing them up by adding more charges through game-play interfering dollar requests?

    The inference always seems to be that we should be happy that Microsoft is there to present us with their console. I'm of the opposite stance. Microsoft should be happy that we're buying it. And they're not. Because they're not offering one thing of value that doesn't have an adjacent sticker-tag on it. To the point where basic functionality - services you can access through any other medium - have these price-tags on them. I remember the original NES - I got two games in one cart (Super Mario Bros./Duck Hunt), the Nintendo zapper, and -TWO- controllers - all with the machine. No one's ever topped that value again. Nintendo was happy I was there, and they weren't afraid to show it to me. Saying that we should somehow happy that we get to pay more for less baffles me to no end.

    @Siddown: "Very good points about Steam v. XBone, yet those are not the points I've heard anyone else raise. Instead it's "PC v. Console". But under the current system, you definitely do own anything you purchase because there is no check-in, whereas Steam still has the 30 day check in. So Steam, for now, is more restrictive than Microsoft. Again, where's the outrage? None.

    It's back to the consistency of arguments. I'm cool with all points of view, people just need to stick to them."

    Believe you me, I had several more points to make, I just wanted to keep it somewhat truncated.

    People trust VALVe more than they trust Microsoft? Really? No surprise there. On the one hand, you have a company whose introduction into the industry was through a genre-defining PC-gaming masterpiece. Which they then topped with their sequel. Which was where Steam really got introduced for the first time. Solid introduction? Check! Match this against Microsoft's E3 message bungle (they themselves didn't even know what they could or couldn't say) - and the impression right out the gate was that Microsoft didn't want to tell us something. Something smelt fishy - and Microsoft's complete inability to address the problem - only made the smell get worse. Solid introduction? Fail!

    Next are past experiences with software. With Steam - people's opinions, if not strictly adhered to, were usually listened to. Yes - if the service goes offline - we'll give you downloads of the games. Was the service the most liberal in consumer rights - no. But, they were the first ones ever to do this. They were treading into the pitch black dark with every step. Precaution was warranted. The service has remained steady, reliable, and efficient to this day. With the added caveat of the Steam sales, which gets countless numbers of great titles to people who would really enjoy them, saving them a ton of money in the process. Good history with the software? Check! Match this against Microsoft's approach with the 360 dashboard. First, an unintuitive, semi-functional device that did it's absolute best to hide any and all independent games, even those exclusive to the platform. Then, introduce a redesign that replaces 80% of your featured content with advertisements. Want to access anything you own? Sorry. You can't. Watch some ads instead. Good history with the software? Fail!

    Really Siddown - I could go on, and on, and on (as I usually do). I appreciate entirely what you're saying, but all things considered, given all the realities tied into this beast, I don't think @Gungan has the level of discrepancy in his opinions that you proclaim.

  • TubeTube Administrator, ClubPA admin
    It's not really an erosion of rights. It requires a user to buy in. If it were an erosion of rights, it would be a change at the government level. Saying "do you want this? if so this will happen" is different from "this will happen".

  • TheMadSpinTheMadSpin Registered User regular
    edited November 2013
    Signsofrain just went all-out in an attempt to correct someone's writing. I've enjoyed most of this discussion, but there was an arrogance to the post that urged me to respond. I know Ben needs no help defending himself, but to let it slide feels like not defending a trademark or patent--it weakens what many of us slave over. Not just the written word--but the vulnerability of expression.

    There's a great risk that goes along with writing of any kind. It's the ability, and the courage to, as Kyle Kinane says about comedy, "Stand alone in the corner and defend your opinions to strangers." It's very difficult to create new ideas and present them, it's not nearly as difficult to cherry pick the mistakes of the brave and then feel smug about it. Frankly, there ought to be a way to use Kinect to slap someone for being too proud of the lazy and simple "work" of cynicism.

    I apologize to everyone that I let myself be dragged into a non-Xbox discussion, and I've tagged this edit with something light-hearted and on-topic, but if we can call people on every piece of BS one of us spouts about the next-gen, then we ought to get the technology of human interaction right as well--and the technology of written communication if possible. Disclaimer over, gentle admonishment on:

    Look, Signsofrain, I understand what you think you're doing (unless it's flat out trolling and not actually being active and earnest). You probably have an English degree (or minor) and you took a comp class or two (hopefully not one that I taught), and you want to show everyone that you deserve a job.

    I get it. I've got my petty English Lit degree. I'm finishing my MA in writing. I still can't get a job doing anything but teaching people how to avoid passive voice,or occasionally use a comma more judiciously (and passive voice is actually great some of the time--so you have to be careful).

    You probably think: I can do this better, why don't I have a job talking about games?

    But, there are a few problems, aside from the fact that your corrections were wrong (ok, you were kinda right about an OS System--but it's such a petty complaint that it's not really about the writing, it's just about acting--while not quite being--superior).

    1. Mr. Alan is the guy who takes the pictures. Mr. Kuchera is the guy who writes the words.

    2. Mr. Kuchera is a decade plus industry veteran and he's got the respect of a lot of people. I actually started reading the PA Report because I was a fan of Ben's work at Ars Technica. He, like the both of us, went to school to learn to say words good.

    I'm as bitter and frustrated as the next person, but Ben is the boss here, so dissing the boss, especially when the boss is connected to a world that's indelibly small, is a bad plan (I know, because I once said something snarky to the very kind S. Prell and I got called out on it immediately). I also know because, as an on-again off-again game industry professional, I can tell you that everyone knows someone, and that person is hiring. If you make an ass of yourself to one person in the industry, it gets around.

    I feel that you also lose the thread of what makes good writing in the first place, and that's the imperfection of voice. It's not always important that everyone write with a stilted and ham handed style. You seem to infer that the average reader is incapable of sussing out basic ideas without having each story beat rehashed like painful anime dialogue. That's not the case.

    It would be easy to pick apart the ways in which you trade imperfections you don't like with imperfections that you do like--but that's not really the point. The point is more the tone with which you handled your complaints, and the fact that they were mostly baseless.

    If you want to get hired somewhere, try to shake off the bitter sense that you're not getting what you've worked for, and go work harder. I had a professor tell me once: "I used to think that after I got my PhD the world owed me something, but the only thing I've earned by finishing my PhD is this collection of poems."

    No one ever became a professional writer by showing someone just how little respect he has for a ten year vet. Especially when he couldn't even get his name right.

    Then again, maybe this is Ben posting as some schizophrenic alter ego just to see if he can rile someone up. I'd actually prefer that.


    On another note--I went with the PS4 as my first dip into the next-gen, but I'm curious about the XBox One as a technological curiosity (the same reason I sort of enjoyed my first Kinect, but never used it for gaming).

    I've been looking around my house figuring out which media and electronic nonsense I'm willing to part with in some sort of massive, one-sided trade in with my local Movie Trading Company. I don't care about the exclusive titles Microsoft has in store (ok, maybe Dead Rising 3), but I love the idea of a 1080p camera that can follow me around the room.

    Sure, I'll have to wear pants at home more often, but that seems like a small price to pay for the future.

    TheMadSpin on
  • SiddownSiddown Registered User regular
    I appreciate entirely what you're saying, but all things considered, given all the realities tied into this beast, I don't think @Gungan has the level of discrepancy in his opinions that you proclaim.

    I'll have to disagree. First, he says expectation of checking in differ between PC and Console, well what about the Steam Box? What if I buy a Steam Box built by a manufacturer which is for all intents and purpose, a console? This is Valve's dream, they've said as much. So a customer who goes to say, Target, and buys a Steam Box and hooks it up to their TV is now being subjected to force checkins and it will not be optional because Steam OS is the operating system.

    I'm sure @gungan will split some hairs and come back with logic like "they could buy a keyboard and root it because it's linux", but come on now, that doesn't apply to regular customers. Sorry, at that point the Steam Box is a Console.

    Secondly, his second argument is that he views his $10 purchases as rentals, which is just silly. He's changing the definition of what he is buying to justify why it's okay for Valve to do what he calls "draconian" by Microsoft. I bought Arkham City on XBox for $10, so does that count? Journey was on sale on PSN for $10, what about that? Either it's a purchase or it's not, his $10 Steam purchases are not rentals despite that he wants to think of them that way.

    The hardest part of taking a moral stand is when someone you like goes against it, or when someone you hate follows it. What a lot of people tend to do is change their view point for that particular person/entity and then try to find minor, semantic differences to justify it. In this case, @gungan is using semantics to tweak the argument to somehow justify that Valve is just as "bad" as Microsoft. It's subconscious, so I can't really blame him, people do this in the real world all the time.

    That is why I mentioned the politician cheating on his wife. How many times do we see it where a candidate in party A cheats on his spouse, and party B calls for their head...but when someone from party B gets caught, party B flips their view point and tries to argue that the affair didn't effect their job. In this case, Valve is cheating on their wife just like Microsoft is. Again, I'm not saying that's right or wrong, all I'm saying is you can't argue that it's okay for one to do it and not the other.
    People trust VALVe more than they trust Microsoft? Really? No surprise there

    You're starting to lose your conviction here. The fact that MS and Valve are different companies should have nothing to do with your view point on this issue. The fact that you don't like the 360 UI is irrelevant, and you are being much to kind to the UI of Steam which is horrible too, a different kind of horrible, but it's still horrible.

    If you're morals changed based on who you apply them too, you lose all credibility with me.

  • GunganGungan Registered User regular
    edited November 2013
    I call sub $10 purchases rentals even though they are not strictly rentals because the price is low enough that if and when the service should screw me over and I lose those titles I won't feel it as much as losing full retail price titles. You should have understood that subtext, it's obvious and pretty prevalent amongst people who rarely dabble with Steam.

    Where did you read that the Steam box will have forced check in any more frequently than it does now? No such statement exists, and you continue to ignore the fact that a Steam box, while being able to be considered a console, by current information lacks the capacity to use physical media (unless you build one yourself). It's a different piece of kit that behaves differently from a traditional console, and it is entirely unreasonable to expect it to behave like a traditional console. I even said earlier that the Xbone could be judged by different standards if it too lacked a bluray drive but you glossed over that as well.

    Steam boxes are also open platforms. You don't have to buy your digital downloads from Steam either; any Linux game will run natively on the Steam box (ignoring the sparse Linux support for the time being). You only have one outlet for digital purchases on the Xbox. You really cannot ignore that there are some significant differences between the systems when formulating an argument because if you do that you're just putting your fingers in your ears and yelling LALALALALALALALALA #ModernRepublicans.

    I'm not even considering brand loyalty in my beliefs, only the way in which a feature is implemented. Specifically, does this feature have a net positive or neutral effect on all users or not?

    Gungan on
  • SiddownSiddown Registered User regular
    edited November 2013
    Gungan wrote:
    Where did you read that the Steam box will have forced check in any more frequently than it does now?

    I never said it did.
    [Steam Box]'s a different piece of kit that behaves differently from a traditional console, and it is entirely unreasonable to expect it to behave like a traditional console. I even said earlier that the Xbone could be judged by different standards if it too lacked a bluray drive but you glossed over that as well.

    Sorry, no. Companies are going to be putting out steam boxes that are meant 100% to be hooked up to your TV to be just like a console. Just because you know that it's linux, doesn't mean other customers will. Here's a quote directly from Valve:

    "Thousands of games, millions of users. Everything you love about Steam. Available soon as a free operating system designed for the TV and the living room."

    That's the definition of a console.

    Check out Engadget's deep dive from November 4th where they went into the hardware and OS. They basically say it's a Console (hell, look at the picture, the thing is a console). It also talks about how because SteamOS runs off core Linux and not a distro, you can't actually do anything with it. This pretty much says it all:

    SteamOS is not the replacement for Windows 8 you've been waiting for. Beyond basics like browsing the web, there's little in the way of standard OS functions. While Valve reps showed off slides of the box's vanity shots using a Windows PC, I asked how I'd view such shots from within SteamOS -- the answer is that there's no real way to do so, as there's no file browsing system or image viewing application. While these limitations may not affect the vast majority of Steam Machine buyers (who are essentially buying a game console), it certainly impacts folks who are looking at Steam Machines as a replacement for their standard PC. Make no mistake: Steam Machines are PCs posing as game consoles, which comes with both positives and negatives.

    You do this quite often, you confuse yourself for the general public. They are going to market these things as a console alternative that is going to come with game pads, for all intents and purposes, it's a console. The Steam OS is going to be the XBox 360/PSN UI, and it'll be the only thing customers will see.
    You don't have to buy your digital downloads from Steam either; any Linux game will run natively on the Steam box (ignoring the sparse Linux support for the time being)

    How are computer illiterate people who buy a box they connect to their TV going to know where they can get other games when the entire UI and OS is built to use Steam? These boxes won't contain DvD drives either. Plus how can you just discount the lack of Linux support? It's kind of important, when the only place you can even buy games that run on the system is the store built into the OS.

    You say I'm ignoring the differences, while you completely ignore all the similarities, and the similarities vastly outnumber the differences.
    I'm not even considering brand loyalty in my beliefs, only the way in which a feature is implemented. Specifically, does this feature have a net positive or neutral effect on all users or not?

    So Steam doing it is a net positive, someone else doing the exact same thing is a net negative? Amazing logic there.

    Siddown on
  • GunganGungan Registered User regular
    edited November 2013
    Engadget's article is new information to me (and probably most people who don't visit that site), and it's disappointing for sure. The fact that it has no OS functions is quite lame. However, we have yet to see if games sold on GoG or Greenmangaming will run on SteamOS (like any other OS), so there may at least be an option to buy from somewhere other than Steam.
    How are computer illiterate people who buy a box they connect to their TV going to know where they can get other games when the entire UI and OS is built to use Steam?

    Not to sound elitist or something, but buying something without knowing how it works is entirely the users' fault.
    So Steam doing it is a net positive, someone else doing the exact same thing is a net negative? Amazing logic there.

    The sharing feature Steam introduced is a net neutral, MS's sharing feature is a net negative.

    That being said, if it launches as described in that article, it will be a commercial failure for sure. The people who use Steam heavily now have already invested in the PC to run games, and people who haven't done that don't want a digital only console (as evidenced by the Xbone E3 announcement). Steam on Windows will simply be far superior to owning a Steam box.

    If the source code is open like they promised, we may see people mod the crap out of it into something useable, so that will be a net positive for SteamOS, but until that comes to pass it's not very good, but net neutral for PC gamers/net negative for people who buy a Steam box.

    Gungan on
  • SiddownSiddown Registered User regular
    @Gungan,

    The comments in that Engadget piece are interesting, as most people there have come to the same conclusion you have. Why would anyone get this? It is perplexing what Valve is thinking here,I just hope it plays out better than it appears it is going to. I guess we'll know more in the first few months of '14.
    Not to sound elitist or something, but buying something without knowing how it works is entirely the users' fault.

    In most cases I agree, but this is a bit different. Steam is integrated right into SteamOS, and as you can see from that article, all you can do now is some basic web browsing, couple that with the fact that games have to be written to work on Valve's particular flavor of Linux, so there is no guarantee that even if you find a game that works on Ubuntu it's even going to install on SteamOS.

    So you have a system with a store built in, the only has basic web browsing, and only runs games that have been tweaked to run on it's OS....I'm sorry, how are people supposed to find games for a SteamBox if not through Steam itself? The barriers to entry to buy games through another means are numerous, and probably impossible to overcome. The SteamBox might as well just be called the SteamConsole at this point.

13»
Sign In or Register to comment.