Really, it's not too hard to figure out. A Steambox is for
-Offering new options for people who want to PC game in the living room;
-Providing a "way out" should Microsoft decide to build a walled garden, ala Apple
There's some added benefits of increased performance and open development leading to better customizability; but that's more stuff only advanced user care about.
It's sort of a weird story, but even if it's just a co-marketing deal Apple made with them, it shows a real change in the company. Steve Jobs was super opposed to making gaming a focus, wasn't he? Apple is behaving like a grown up manufacturer, competing for timed exclusives like MS and Sony.
What is this I don't even.
0
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
Ha, usually we don't get those bits of news so up front. It's very refreshing, yes.
Isn't that what my PC is? Now I can put a different OS on it and not do any work on it?
Where does this fill a hole in the consumer market?
To me a Steambox tends to be a living room specific PC hooked up to the TV that also doubles as a home media streamer and a way to play stuff like Castle Crashers and Divekick with your buddies/kids/whatever.
Most people just use an Xbox 360-1, PS3-4 or Wii +/-U for this.
And those systems currently have the market set up so that there are some major titles worth heading to them instead of a PC for.
Without a groundbreaking, so far unannounced strategy, the Steambox is not going to have significant enough market differentiation to justify it for anything but the most specific users, and many of those users already run a "steambox" homebrew.
I don't see what new piece of the market it's going to carve out.
Guys like me that have two of their three current gen consoles collecting dust because we don't find anything coming out on consoles to be all that interesting and the third device being used entirely as a media streaming box?
The Steambox doesn't have to appeal to everyone everywhere. Most people will just get a Xstation-U4 or whatever and call it a day. For PC-Centric households, however, a Steambox is an all in one replacement for what a console or handbuild can do in the living room. If a Steambox ends up being cheaper than a handbuild it becomes an attractive option.
Valve still has a couple more announcements lined up so who knows, maybe it turns out the Steambox also doubles as a robo-maid and personal hovercraft!
Isn't that what my PC is? Now I can put a different OS on it and not do any work on it?
Where does this fill a hole in the consumer market?
To me a Steambox tends to be a living room specific PC hooked up to the TV that also doubles as a home media streamer and a way to play stuff like Castle Crashers and Divekick with your buddies/kids/whatever.
Most people just use an Xbox 360-1, PS3-4 or Wii +/-U for this.
And those systems currently have the market set up so that there are some major titles worth heading to them instead of a PC for.
Without a groundbreaking, so far unannounced strategy, the Steambox is not going to have significant enough market differentiation to justify it for anything but the most specific users, and many of those users already run a "steambox" homebrew.
I don't see what new piece of the market it's going to carve out.
Guys like me that have two of their three current gen consoles collecting dust because we don't find anything coming out on consoles to be all that interesting and the third device being used entirely as a media streaming box?
The Steambox doesn't have to appeal to everyone everywhere. Most people will just get a Xstation-U4 or whatever and call it a day. For PC-Centric households, however, a Steambox is an all in one replacement for what a console or handbuild can do in the living room. If a Steambox ends up being cheaper than a handbuild it becomes an attractive option.
Or guys like me that have consoles AND a gaming PC, and would really like to let his Wife and Kids play Fez or Rayman on the TV without him having to go log into his PC, flip the Video and Audio output, and hand them a controller? I mean, if I can have a lightweight box set up that I can use not just to stream Windows games to, but add in the family features (so my kids can't play something rated M) and grant them access to my Steam library when I'm not around to set it up for them and man, this is exactly what I was looking for.
0
fearsomepirateI ate a pickle once.Registered Userregular
I did get a laugh from Notch posting about Valve saving the world with this, considering he doesn't sell anything on the service. I love minecraft, and and I like notch, but if doesn't even use the service how can I take his opinion that seriously?
..because the more people who use SteamOS is more people using Linux instead of windows.
Yeah, and more people buying current-gen consoles means more people using PowerPC instead of x86. And more people buying Apple laptops means more people using BSD instead of Windows. The question is, "So what?"
SteamOS is being made as a direct response to "walled garden" distribution services.
I thought Steam was a "walled garden" distribution service. It sounds to me like Newell just doesn't like competing with Microsoft, Google, or Apple on their platforms, so he's hoping to launch a fourth platform and make it succeed based primarily on games instead of apps.
And since he's more or less pushing this as a new game console, he'd better get a hell of a first-party line-up if he wants to succeed.
fearsomepirate on
Nobody makes me bleed my own blood...nobody.
PSN ID: fearsomepirate
I thought Steam was a "walled garden" distribution service. It sounds to me like Newell just doesn't like competing with Microsoft, Google, or Apple on their platforms, so he's hoping to launch a fourth platform and make it succeed based primarily on games instead of apps.
Walled gardens are incompatible with each other.
Someday MS could say "sorry Steam, your app must be Microsoft certified to be in compliance with all of our regulations to be delivered through our store. To become certified, we require that all digital services provide a certain amount of user data to us. Additionally, your app is free, but we consider the games to be in-app purchases and will be taking a cursory cut of the profits."
Or, you know, whatever.
SteamOS is being made as a direct response to the possibility that the platform it's made for could become a walled garden, and enforce undesirable things upon them if they want to continue operating as they have been.
fearsomepirateI ate a pickle once.Registered Userregular
I was going to add to that post, but this forum moves fast, so let me put it another way:
I and an awful lot of other people don't see how this is supposed to appeal beyond a fairly small subset of hobbyist gamers. Anything that involves doing anything with a home network is automatically severely restricted in its appeal. Most people wouldn't even have passwords on their routers if it wasn't for manufacturers finally putting them on by default, let alone set up closet media hubs streaming all over the house. Likewise anything involving multiple gaming PCs. Likewise any platform requiring the user to do anything more than punch a giant "OK" button every so often to maintain.
PC gamers---at least the kind playing Battlefield instead of Farmville---are already a niche. And Steambox sounds like it's going for a niche of the niche. If it's going to be a transformative product, it has to go for the kinds of people who already find the PC scene to be too inconvenient/costly/etc to be involved in. And a lot of us don't see how it's going to do that.
Nobody makes me bleed my own blood...nobody.
PSN ID: fearsomepirate
SteamOS is being made as a direct response to "walled garden" distribution services.
I thought Steam was a "walled garden" distribution service.
You don't understand the term, then.
Apple's App Store is a walled garden (a "guarden," if you will), because Apple is the sole controller of anything and everything that gets put onto your device. If you want to release an iOS app, you have to go through Apple to do it, and Apple may or may not let you do so - and if they do, they will take a portion of your money.
Steam is not a walled garden because anyone, anywhere, can release a PC game. Steam is just part of a regular ol' garden - if you want to, you can go through them, but you are by no means required to do so (GOG, Blizzard, Gamers Gate, etc., all say, "Hi!").
Newell fears that the Windows 8 app store is MS laying down the first bricks in the wall around the PC garden.
I thought Steam was a "walled garden" distribution service. It sounds to me like Newell just doesn't like competing with Microsoft, Google, or Apple on their platforms, so he's hoping to launch a fourth platform and make it succeed based primarily on games instead of apps.
Walled gardens are incompatible with each other.
Someday MS could say "sorry Steam, your app must be Microsoft certified to be in compliance with all of our regulations to be delivered through our store. To become certified, we require that all digital services provide a certain amount of user data to us. Additionally, your app is free, but we consider the games to be in-app purchases and will be taking a cursory cut of the profits."
Or, you know, whatever.
Why couldn't Valve ever say, "Sorry, Mister Developer, your game must be Valve certified to be in compliance with all our regulations to be delivered through Steam. To become certified, we will require that your game provide a certain amount of user data to us. Additionally, your game is free-to-play, but we consider its DLC to be in-game purchases and will be taking a cursory cut of the profits"? Is there something in the way Steam is designed that prevents Valve from having that level of control over their own platform?
fearsomepirate on
Nobody makes me bleed my own blood...nobody.
PSN ID: fearsomepirate
I thought Steam was a "walled garden" distribution service. It sounds to me like Newell just doesn't like competing with Microsoft, Google, or Apple on their platforms, so he's hoping to launch a fourth platform and make it succeed based primarily on games instead of apps.
Walled gardens are incompatible with each other.
Someday MS could say "sorry Steam, your app must be Microsoft certified to be in compliance with all of our regulations to be delivered through our store. To become certified, we require that all digital services provide a certain amount of user data to us. Additionally, your app is free, but we consider the games to be in-app purchases and will be taking a cursory cut of the profits."
Or, you know, whatever.
Why couldn't Valve ever say, "Sorry, Mister Developer, your game must be Valve certified to be in compliance with all our regulations to be delivered through Steam. To become certified, we will require that your game provide a certain amount of user data to us. Additionally, your game is free-to-play, but we consider its DLC to be in-game purchases and will be taking a cursory cut of the profits"? Is there something in the way Steam is designed that prevents Valve from having that level of control over their own platform?
Well that might be true if the only way to install apps on SteamOS is through steam. Which I doubt.
At the very least, such a system would make it hard to get support from linux devs.
(Please do not gift. My game bank is already full.)
Support from linux devs? Isn't the point that they could program it themselves? Or do you mean the devs that they're trying to convince to make linux ports, as opposed to only windows versions?
Support from linux devs? Isn't the point that they could program it themselves? Or do you mean the devs that they're trying to convince to make linux ports, as opposed to only windows versions?
I mean the type of people that would be writing device drivers. Or that they could try and hire to make patches for the kernel.
After all the reason Valve isn't rolling their own OS is so they don't have to hire an entire OS division.
(Please do not gift. My game bank is already full.)
I thought Steam was a "walled garden" distribution service. It sounds to me like Newell just doesn't like competing with Microsoft, Google, or Apple on their platforms, so he's hoping to launch a fourth platform and make it succeed based primarily on games instead of apps.
Walled gardens are incompatible with each other.
Someday MS could say "sorry Steam, your app must be Microsoft certified to be in compliance with all of our regulations to be delivered through our store. To become certified, we require that all digital services provide a certain amount of user data to us. Additionally, your app is free, but we consider the games to be in-app purchases and will be taking a cursory cut of the profits."
Or, you know, whatever.
Why couldn't Valve ever say, "Sorry, Mister Developer, your game must be Valve certified to be in compliance with all our regulations to be delivered through Steam. To become certified, we will require that your game provide a certain amount of user data to us. Additionally, your game is free-to-play, but we consider its DLC to be in-game purchases and will be taking a cursory cut of the profits"? Is there something in the way Steam is designed that prevents Valve from having that level of control over their own platform?
I'm saying that this doesn't matter. Whatever you think about Steam's distribution model, call it a garden or not, the way they do business is beholden to MS deciding not to screw them over. This is them changing that.
You're saying they don't want to compete with other companies on their platforms, and I'm saying no, that's not really the most important thing here.
Take your own example. A game comes out and has in-game purchases. It gets released on Steam. Steam changes their TOS and says "sorry, we're taking a cut of your profits from the in-game purchases." In response, the developer pulls the game from Steam and releases elsewhere.
Did they do this because they didn't want to compete with Steam, or because they didn't want Steam strongarming them because they were beholden to the platform?
I was going to add to that post, but this forum moves fast, so let me put it another way:
I and an awful lot of other people don't see how this is supposed to appeal beyond a fairly small subset of hobbyist gamers. Anything that involves doing anything with a home network is automatically severely restricted in its appeal. Most people wouldn't even have passwords on their routers if it wasn't for manufacturers finally putting them on by default, let alone set up closet media hubs streaming all over the house. Likewise anything involving multiple gaming PCs. Likewise any platform requiring the user to do anything more than punch a giant "OK" button every so often to maintain.
PC gamers---at least the kind playing Battlefield instead of Farmville---are already a niche. And Steambox sounds like it's going for a niche of the niche. If it's going to be a transformative product, it has to go for the kinds of people who already find the PC scene to be too inconvenient/costly/etc to be involved in. And a lot of us don't see how it's going to do that.
No one said it was going to do that. It's not a "transformative product". It's a step in the direction Valve wants to try out; PC Gaming without Windows. IF this catches on, even with just a niche of a niche, you might see some more native Linux ports. If you see more Native Linux Ports, that adds value to owning a SteamBox alone, without a Gaming PC to stream content from. More Linux Software also means more gutsy PC vendors selling Linux laptops/desktops. It's a snowball effect; IF it catches on, it's a step towards making Linux a more main-stream OS and viable desktop competitor to Windows.
Will it work? Not necessarily. If it works, will it happen quickly? No.
It's just a baby step. A cool step, but a small step all the same.
I thought Steam was a "walled garden" distribution service. It sounds to me like Newell just doesn't like competing with Microsoft, Google, or Apple on their platforms, so he's hoping to launch a fourth platform and make it succeed based primarily on games instead of apps.
Walled gardens are incompatible with each other.
Someday MS could say "sorry Steam, your app must be Microsoft certified to be in compliance with all of our regulations to be delivered through our store. To become certified, we require that all digital services provide a certain amount of user data to us. Additionally, your app is free, but we consider the games to be in-app purchases and will be taking a cursory cut of the profits."
Or, you know, whatever.
Why couldn't Valve ever say, "Sorry, Mister Developer, your game must be Valve certified to be in compliance with all our regulations to be delivered through Steam. To become certified, we will require that your game provide a certain amount of user data to us. Additionally, your game is free-to-play, but we consider its DLC to be in-game purchases and will be taking a cursory cut of the profits"? Is there something in the way Steam is designed that prevents Valve from having that level of control over their own platform?
I'm saying that this doesn't matter. Whatever you think about Steam's distribution model, call it a garden or not, the way they do business is beholden to MS deciding not to screw them over. This is them changing that.
You're saying they don't want to compete with other companies on their platforms, and I'm saying no, that's not really the most important thing here.
Take your own example. A game comes out and has in-game purchases. It gets released on Steam. Steam changes their TOS and says "sorry, we're taking a cut of your profits from the in-game purchases." In response, the developer pulls the game from Steam and releases elsewhere.
Did they do this because they didn't want to compete with Steam, or because they didn't want Steam strongarming them because they were beholden to the platform?
Yeah. And it's not because they didn't want to compete with Steam, quite the opposite. They started competing with Steam. They made a new platform so they wouldn't be stuck playing by their rules.
I thought Steam was a "walled garden" distribution service. It sounds to me like Newell just doesn't like competing with Microsoft, Google, or Apple on their platforms, so he's hoping to launch a fourth platform and make it succeed based primarily on games instead of apps.
Walled gardens are incompatible with each other.
Someday MS could say "sorry Steam, your app must be Microsoft certified to be in compliance with all of our regulations to be delivered through our store. To become certified, we require that all digital services provide a certain amount of user data to us. Additionally, your app is free, but we consider the games to be in-app purchases and will be taking a cursory cut of the profits."
Or, you know, whatever.
Why couldn't Valve ever say, "Sorry, Mister Developer, your game must be Valve certified to be in compliance with all our regulations to be delivered through Steam. To become certified, we will require that your game provide a certain amount of user data to us. Additionally, your game is free-to-play, but we consider its DLC to be in-game purchases and will be taking a cursory cut of the profits"? Is there something in the way Steam is designed that prevents Valve from having that level of control over their own platform?
It's only a walled garden if, you know, it has walls.
PC gaming is not a walled garden because you don't have to go through Valve to release on the PC.
I did get a laugh from Notch posting about Valve saving the world with this, considering he doesn't sell anything on the service. I love minecraft, and and I like notch, but if doesn't even use the service how can I take his opinion that seriously?
..because the more people who use SteamOS is more people using Linux instead of windows.
Yeah, and more people buying current-gen consoles means more people using PowerPC instead of x86. And more people buying Apple laptops means more people using BSD instead of Windows. The question is, "So what?"
I misread the question.I thought it was "Why is Notch happy about this even though he doesn't use Steam to distribute his game."
SteamOS is being made as a direct response to "walled garden" distribution services.
I thought Steam was a "walled garden" distribution service. It sounds to me like Newell just doesn't like competing with Microsoft, Google, or Apple on their platforms, so he's hoping to launch a fourth platform and make it succeed based primarily on games instead of apps.
And since he's more or less pushing this as a new game console, he'd better get a hell of a first-party line-up if he wants to succeed.
"Walled Garden" means the only way to get content is through Steam, which if SteamOS is as open as Valve describes on that page, will not be the case.
In theory you can take SteamOS and use whatever compatible games or applications you want, whether they came from Steam or not. Valve could go always decide not to do that, but they'll have a hard time drumming up support if all they're offering is the fact they're not Microsoft.
Heh, I just remembered Gabe Newell is one of the Microsoft Millionaires. How the times change
Microsoft are amazingly good at making absurdly stupid decisions: See the original plans for the xbone.
Honestly, I am pretty confused what the point of Valve doing this is unless they know something we don't. Who really wants a steamOS?
Well they gotta have something to put on their Steambox. They're not getting a copy of Windows for every unit sold and they can't just toss basic Linux on there without making it user friendly the way they want.
I was going to add to that post, but this forum moves fast, so let me put it another way:
I and an awful lot of other people don't see how this is supposed to appeal beyond a fairly small subset of hobbyist gamers. Anything that involves doing anything with a home network is automatically severely restricted in its appeal. Most people wouldn't even have passwords on their routers if it wasn't for manufacturers finally putting them on by default, let alone set up closet media hubs streaming all over the house. Likewise anything involving multiple gaming PCs. Likewise any platform requiring the user to do anything more than punch a giant "OK" button every so often to maintain.
PC gamers---at least the kind playing Battlefield instead of Farmville---are already a niche. And Steambox sounds like it's going for a niche of the niche. If it's going to be a transformative product, it has to go for the kinds of people who already find the PC scene to be too inconvenient/costly/etc to be involved in. And a lot of us don't see how it's going to do that.
No one said it was going to do that. It's not a "transformative product". It's a step in the direction Valve wants to try out; PC Gaming without Windows. IF this catches on, even with just a niche of a niche, you might see some more native Linux ports. If you see more Native Linux Ports, that adds value to owning a SteamBox alone, without a Gaming PC to stream content from. More Linux Software also means more gutsy PC vendors selling Linux laptops/desktops. It's a snowball effect; IF it catches on, it's a step towards making Linux a more main-stream OS and viable desktop competitor to Windows.
Will it work? Not necessarily. If it works, will it happen quickly? No.
It's just a baby step. A cool step, but a small step all the same.
It's funny how much this sounds like the early days of Steam itself. Back then nobody knew wtf Valve had up their sleeve with Steam. It was just a thingy they were using to replace WON and was kind of an annoyance that was bundled in with their Source games. People thought it was a waste of time and wouldn't go anywhere back then and now look where we are. Steam is the dominant force in PC gaming and has redefined digital distribution.
Having been on Steam since it was first put out (my Steam ID is something nuts like 0:0:9682) I look at SteamOS and the Steambox and can't help but grin a little and wonder what those crazy sonsofbitches at Valve have planned. People take for granted what Steam is now but it started out almost hilariously small and went through a lot of transformative baby steps. SteamOS and the Steambox is also starting small but to quote Ray Arnold: "Hold on to your butts."
This is your indication that they are considering moving in that direction. It does not mean they will; but they have designed and implemented their own clone of the iTunes Store.
Microsoft are amazingly good at making absurdly stupid decisions: See the original plans for the xbone.
Honestly, I am pretty confused what the point of Valve doing this is unless they know something we don't. Who really wants a steamOS?
Valve does. That seems to be the extent of it so far. I don't think either developers or consumers have a compelling reason to care, except for a handful of people that might buy a super-cheap Steambox purely for streaming purposes (which doesn't accomplish Valve's ultimate strategic goals by itself). I hope, for their sake, one of their next two announcements addresses that, because if Valve is assuming that millions of people are already chomping at the bit to throw off the shackles of oppression and bet everything on an OS with extremely limited support they're probably going to end up confused and disappointed. I can't imagine what they could possibly offer to make me consider giving up the entire Windows gaming library, though.
Lots of people are worried about Microsoft's direction, but not many are going to turn their backs on like three decades' worth of games on the spot just in case things get worse in Windows 10 or 11. Hell, half of the reason Steam is so well-liked is that you can buy relatively old games for a pittance. Put Steam on a Linux OS that's incompatible with old games and everything falls apart right out of the gate.
Wyvern on
Switch: SW-2431-2728-9604 || 3DS: 0817-4948-1650
0
fearsomepirateI ate a pickle once.Registered Userregular
I thought Steam was a "walled garden" distribution service. It sounds to me like Newell just doesn't like competing with Microsoft, Google, or Apple on their platforms, so he's hoping to launch a fourth platform and make it succeed based primarily on games instead of apps.
Walled gardens are incompatible with each other.
Someday MS could say "sorry Steam, your app must be Microsoft certified to be in compliance with all of our regulations to be delivered through our store. To become certified, we require that all digital services provide a certain amount of user data to us. Additionally, your app is free, but we consider the games to be in-app purchases and will be taking a cursory cut of the profits."
Or, you know, whatever.
Why couldn't Valve ever say, "Sorry, Mister Developer, your game must be Valve certified to be in compliance with all our regulations to be delivered through Steam. To become certified, we will require that your game provide a certain amount of user data to us. Additionally, your game is free-to-play, but we consider its DLC to be in-game purchases and will be taking a cursory cut of the profits"? Is there something in the way Steam is designed that prevents Valve from having that level of control over their own platform?
I'm saying that this doesn't matter. Whatever you think about Steam's distribution model, call it a garden or not, the way they do business is beholden to MS deciding not to screw them over. This is them changing that.
You're saying they don't want to compete with other companies on their platforms, and I'm saying no, that's not really the most important thing here.
Take your own example. A game comes out and has in-game purchases. It gets released on Steam. Steam changes their TOS and says "sorry, we're taking a cut of your profits from the in-game purchases." In response, the developer pulls the game from Steam and releases elsewhere.
Did they do this because they didn't want to compete with Steam, or because they didn't want Steam strongarming them because they were beholden to the platform?
So Valve is worried that some future version of Windows is going to be a console-style OS where no software can be distributed for it without the express permission and approval of Microsoft? There is literally no chance of that happening. That would utterly destroy Microsoft's business on the corporate side, which is an enormous chunk of change for them. MS does some dumb things, but they're not going to destroy their core business over PC games.
If that's what Newell is worried about, he's literally off his rocker. A far more plausible explanation is that he's entirely aware that Steam is in a similar position Netscape was in back when MS rolled out IE. Valve's key product is about to be put at a major competitive disadvantage when Microsoft leverages its dominance in the home OS space to roll out a competing product, and he doesn't want Steam to end up where Netscape, WordPerfect, and a variety of of other applications no one remembers are now. The survival of his product and therefore his company depend on being able to stand out, which requires a platform where the platform maker itself isn't competing against you...or a product that is so incredibly superior to the default that people are willing to go out of their way to get yours.
Those would be "Walled-In Plants" not a "Walled Garden" as far as I understand the metaphor. "Walled Garden" refers to the platform; not individual programs.
Can we come up with a new term for this? I'm getting sick of saying "Walled Garden."
I thought Steam was a "walled garden" distribution service. It sounds to me like Newell just doesn't like competing with Microsoft, Google, or Apple on their platforms, so he's hoping to launch a fourth platform and make it succeed based primarily on games instead of apps.
Walled gardens are incompatible with each other.
Someday MS could say "sorry Steam, your app must be Microsoft certified to be in compliance with all of our regulations to be delivered through our store. To become certified, we require that all digital services provide a certain amount of user data to us. Additionally, your app is free, but we consider the games to be in-app purchases and will be taking a cursory cut of the profits."
Or, you know, whatever.
Why couldn't Valve ever say, "Sorry, Mister Developer, your game must be Valve certified to be in compliance with all our regulations to be delivered through Steam. To become certified, we will require that your game provide a certain amount of user data to us. Additionally, your game is free-to-play, but we consider its DLC to be in-game purchases and will be taking a cursory cut of the profits"? Is there something in the way Steam is designed that prevents Valve from having that level of control over their own platform?
I'm saying that this doesn't matter. Whatever you think about Steam's distribution model, call it a garden or not, the way they do business is beholden to MS deciding not to screw them over. This is them changing that.
You're saying they don't want to compete with other companies on their platforms, and I'm saying no, that's not really the most important thing here.
Take your own example. A game comes out and has in-game purchases. It gets released on Steam. Steam changes their TOS and says "sorry, we're taking a cut of your profits from the in-game purchases." In response, the developer pulls the game from Steam and releases elsewhere.
Did they do this because they didn't want to compete with Steam, or because they didn't want Steam strongarming them because they were beholden to the platform?
All those games use Steam as DRM, but the core game works on any PC. I'm pretty sure it'll still work if they remove the Steam authentication, and sell it through another vendor.
It's only a walled garden if, you know, it has walls.
PC gaming is not a walled garden because you don't have to go through Valve to release on the PC.
Well let's be fair, if MS made a walled garden OS, you could continue releasing "on the PC" for prior open OSs like Win 7 or Linux.
All this FUD about MS making Win8 a walled garden is extraordinarily confusing to me
There's exactly zero indication that they're even considering moving in that direction
It would be the most absurdly stupid thing they could possibly do and they know it
I mean, it depends on how comfortable you are putting your business in the path of Microsoft's platform decisions, lately.
If Metro had taken off like crazy, they may very well have started moving in that direction. We know now that Steam is probably safe for a while, but would Valve have been sure of that back when the project started?
+1
fearsomepirateI ate a pickle once.Registered Userregular
I thought Steam was a "walled garden" distribution service. It sounds to me like Newell just doesn't like competing with Microsoft, Google, or Apple on their platforms, so he's hoping to launch a fourth platform and make it succeed based primarily on games instead of apps.
Walled gardens are incompatible with each other.
Someday MS could say "sorry Steam, your app must be Microsoft certified to be in compliance with all of our regulations to be delivered through our store. To become certified, we require that all digital services provide a certain amount of user data to us. Additionally, your app is free, but we consider the games to be in-app purchases and will be taking a cursory cut of the profits."
Or, you know, whatever.
Why couldn't Valve ever say, "Sorry, Mister Developer, your game must be Valve certified to be in compliance with all our regulations to be delivered through Steam. To become certified, we will require that your game provide a certain amount of user data to us. Additionally, your game is free-to-play, but we consider its DLC to be in-game purchases and will be taking a cursory cut of the profits"? Is there something in the way Steam is designed that prevents Valve from having that level of control over their own platform?
I'm saying that this doesn't matter. Whatever you think about Steam's distribution model, call it a garden or not, the way they do business is beholden to MS deciding not to screw them over. This is them changing that.
You're saying they don't want to compete with other companies on their platforms, and I'm saying no, that's not really the most important thing here.
Take your own example. A game comes out and has in-game purchases. It gets released on Steam. Steam changes their TOS and says "sorry, we're taking a cut of your profits from the in-game purchases." In response, the developer pulls the game from Steam and releases elsewhere.
Did they do this because they didn't want to compete with Steam, or because they didn't want Steam strongarming them because they were beholden to the platform?
All those games use Steam as DRM, but the core game works on any PC. I'm pretty sure it'll still work if they remove the Steam authentication, and sell it through another vendor.
I bought Just Cause 2 through PSN. I can play it on any PS3. It's also distributed through Xbox Live and Steam. If PSN and Xbox Live are "walled gardens," so is Steam.
From how I understand the "walled garden" metaphor, it's a platform and means of distribution where the producer has control over what goes out and what comes in. As far as I know, no game can run on Steam without going through Valve, no game bought through Steam can escape the context of the Steam application, and full use of the Steam application requires you to have an account that can be restricted by Valve. It wouldn't be a "walled garden" if, like GOG, the games you bought through it were completely free of Steam once bought.
If that's not how you understand the metaphor, okay. But that's how I've been using it.
fearsomepirate on
Nobody makes me bleed my own blood...nobody.
PSN ID: fearsomepirate
Steam isn't a platform; Windows/Mac/Linux-based pc's are platform. If you don't want to publish through Steam, you can use other methods to get onto the platform. Steam is a service. When you're forced to use a service in order to publish on the platform, that's a walled garden.
Steam isn't a platform; Windows/Mac/Linux-based pc's are platform. If you don't want to publish through Steam, you can use other methods to get onto the platform. Steam is a service. When you're forced to use a service in order to publish on the platform, that's a walled garden.
I think this is the point that's up for interpretation. Steam is certainly not a hardware platform, nor is it an operating system, but it is a software distribution platform, and things purchased on Steam are typically locked to the delivery application (Steam client must be running, account must be activated and logged in).
So, it's sort of a walled garden if you look at it strictly from the confines of the Steam application and the goods it distributes and manages. It's not a walled garden from the perspective of just being an application on a PC, where there is typically competition in the form of other distribution methods for the same or competing software products.
Either way, being a "walled garden" is not an inherent "evil" or anything like that; closed systems tend to lean toward reducing user and producer benefits over time in favor of distributor benefits, but that's a property of human greed, not the concept itself. Valve's concern is that their primary installation platform, Windows, may be moving in a direction that would directly impact their business model, and are making moves to limit any potential revenue loss that might come from that shift by opening new platforms and revenue opportunities.
I thought Steam was a "walled garden" distribution service. It sounds to me like Newell just doesn't like competing with Microsoft, Google, or Apple on their platforms, so he's hoping to launch a fourth platform and make it succeed based primarily on games instead of apps.
Walled gardens are incompatible with each other.
Someday MS could say "sorry Steam, your app must be Microsoft certified to be in compliance with all of our regulations to be delivered through our store. To become certified, we require that all digital services provide a certain amount of user data to us. Additionally, your app is free, but we consider the games to be in-app purchases and will be taking a cursory cut of the profits."
Or, you know, whatever.
Why couldn't Valve ever say, "Sorry, Mister Developer, your game must be Valve certified to be in compliance with all our regulations to be delivered through Steam. To become certified, we will require that your game provide a certain amount of user data to us. Additionally, your game is free-to-play, but we consider its DLC to be in-game purchases and will be taking a cursory cut of the profits"? Is there something in the way Steam is designed that prevents Valve from having that level of control over their own platform?
I'm saying that this doesn't matter. Whatever you think about Steam's distribution model, call it a garden or not, the way they do business is beholden to MS deciding not to screw them over. This is them changing that.
You're saying they don't want to compete with other companies on their platforms, and I'm saying no, that's not really the most important thing here.
Take your own example. A game comes out and has in-game purchases. It gets released on Steam. Steam changes their TOS and says "sorry, we're taking a cut of your profits from the in-game purchases." In response, the developer pulls the game from Steam and releases elsewhere.
Did they do this because they didn't want to compete with Steam, or because they didn't want Steam strongarming them because they were beholden to the platform?
All those games use Steam as DRM, but the core game works on any PC. I'm pretty sure it'll still work if they remove the Steam authentication, and sell it through another vendor.
I bought Just Cause 2 through PSN. I can play it on any PS3. It's also distributed through Xbox Live and Steam. If PSN and Xbox Live are "walled gardens," so is Steam.
From how I understand the "walled garden" metaphor, it's a platform and means of distribution where the producer has control over what goes out and what comes in. As far as I know, no game can run on Steam without going through Valve, no game bought through Steam can escape the context of the Steam application, and full use of the Steam application requires you to have an account that can be restricted by Valve. It wouldn't be a "walled garden" if, like GOG, the games you bought through it were completely free of Steam once bought.
If that's not how you understand the metaphor, okay. But that's how I've been using it.
Well you're using it wrong. Steam is a choice, you don't run anything on steam either, you run it on the pc. If someone tries to protect their games using steam that's something entirely different than how playstation network works. There is no choice with a ps3, you go through sony. You don't have to go through steam to release a game on the pc. The absurd worry is that microsoft will turn windows into xboxlive or psn.
Valve doesn't want to kick back portions of their money to anyone, so they make their own thing to protect their store. I don't know if you're trying to get people to understand that they're making their own enclosed space to escape a closed space, but yes, that's what they're doing, because they're a business and they like money. Is it bad? I don't know, don't use it if you don't like it and see if it fails.
Posts
-Offering new options for people who want to PC game in the living room;
-Providing a "way out" should Microsoft decide to build a walled garden, ala Apple
There's some added benefits of increased performance and open development leading to better customizability; but that's more stuff only advanced user care about.
Guys like me that have two of their three current gen consoles collecting dust because we don't find anything coming out on consoles to be all that interesting and the third device being used entirely as a media streaming box?
The Steambox doesn't have to appeal to everyone everywhere. Most people will just get a Xstation-U4 or whatever and call it a day. For PC-Centric households, however, a Steambox is an all in one replacement for what a console or handbuild can do in the living room. If a Steambox ends up being cheaper than a handbuild it becomes an attractive option.
Valve still has a couple more announcements lined up so who knows, maybe it turns out the Steambox also doubles as a robo-maid and personal hovercraft!
Or guys like me that have consoles AND a gaming PC, and would really like to let his Wife and Kids play Fez or Rayman on the TV without him having to go log into his PC, flip the Video and Audio output, and hand them a controller? I mean, if I can have a lightweight box set up that I can use not just to stream Windows games to, but add in the family features (so my kids can't play something rated M) and grant them access to my Steam library when I'm not around to set it up for them and man, this is exactly what I was looking for.
And since he's more or less pushing this as a new game console, he'd better get a hell of a first-party line-up if he wants to succeed.
PSN ID: fearsomepirate
Walled gardens are incompatible with each other.
Someday MS could say "sorry Steam, your app must be Microsoft certified to be in compliance with all of our regulations to be delivered through our store. To become certified, we require that all digital services provide a certain amount of user data to us. Additionally, your app is free, but we consider the games to be in-app purchases and will be taking a cursory cut of the profits."
Or, you know, whatever.
SteamOS is being made as a direct response to the possibility that the platform it's made for could become a walled garden, and enforce undesirable things upon them if they want to continue operating as they have been.
I and an awful lot of other people don't see how this is supposed to appeal beyond a fairly small subset of hobbyist gamers. Anything that involves doing anything with a home network is automatically severely restricted in its appeal. Most people wouldn't even have passwords on their routers if it wasn't for manufacturers finally putting them on by default, let alone set up closet media hubs streaming all over the house. Likewise anything involving multiple gaming PCs. Likewise any platform requiring the user to do anything more than punch a giant "OK" button every so often to maintain.
PC gamers---at least the kind playing Battlefield instead of Farmville---are already a niche. And Steambox sounds like it's going for a niche of the niche. If it's going to be a transformative product, it has to go for the kinds of people who already find the PC scene to be too inconvenient/costly/etc to be involved in. And a lot of us don't see how it's going to do that.
PSN ID: fearsomepirate
You don't understand the term, then.
Apple's App Store is a walled garden (a "guarden," if you will), because Apple is the sole controller of anything and everything that gets put onto your device. If you want to release an iOS app, you have to go through Apple to do it, and Apple may or may not let you do so - and if they do, they will take a portion of your money.
Steam is not a walled garden because anyone, anywhere, can release a PC game. Steam is just part of a regular ol' garden - if you want to, you can go through them, but you are by no means required to do so (GOG, Blizzard, Gamers Gate, etc., all say, "Hi!").
Newell fears that the Windows 8 app store is MS laying down the first bricks in the wall around the PC garden.
Steam: Elvenshae // PSN: Elvenshae // WotC: Elvenshae
Wilds of Aladrion: [https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/comment/43159014/#Comment_43159014]Ellandryn[/url]
PSN ID: fearsomepirate
Well that might be true if the only way to install apps on SteamOS is through steam. Which I doubt.
At the very least, such a system would make it hard to get support from linux devs.
(Please do not gift. My game bank is already full.)
I mean the type of people that would be writing device drivers. Or that they could try and hire to make patches for the kernel.
After all the reason Valve isn't rolling their own OS is so they don't have to hire an entire OS division.
(Please do not gift. My game bank is already full.)
I'm saying that this doesn't matter. Whatever you think about Steam's distribution model, call it a garden or not, the way they do business is beholden to MS deciding not to screw them over. This is them changing that.
You're saying they don't want to compete with other companies on their platforms, and I'm saying no, that's not really the most important thing here.
Take your own example. A game comes out and has in-game purchases. It gets released on Steam. Steam changes their TOS and says "sorry, we're taking a cut of your profits from the in-game purchases." In response, the developer pulls the game from Steam and releases elsewhere.
Did they do this because they didn't want to compete with Steam, or because they didn't want Steam strongarming them because they were beholden to the platform?
No one said it was going to do that. It's not a "transformative product". It's a step in the direction Valve wants to try out; PC Gaming without Windows. IF this catches on, even with just a niche of a niche, you might see some more native Linux ports. If you see more Native Linux Ports, that adds value to owning a SteamBox alone, without a Gaming PC to stream content from. More Linux Software also means more gutsy PC vendors selling Linux laptops/desktops. It's a snowball effect; IF it catches on, it's a step towards making Linux a more main-stream OS and viable desktop competitor to Windows.
Will it work? Not necessarily. If it works, will it happen quickly? No.
It's just a baby step. A cool step, but a small step all the same.
Yeah. And it's not because they didn't want to compete with Steam, quite the opposite. They started competing with Steam. They made a new platform so they wouldn't be stuck playing by their rules.
It's only a walled garden if, you know, it has walls.
PC gaming is not a walled garden because you don't have to go through Valve to release on the PC.
Steam: Elvenshae // PSN: Elvenshae // WotC: Elvenshae
Wilds of Aladrion: [https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/comment/43159014/#Comment_43159014]Ellandryn[/url]
Well let's be fair, if MS made a walled garden OS, you could continue releasing "on the PC" for prior open OSs like Win 7 or Linux.
Steam: Elvenshae // PSN: Elvenshae // WotC: Elvenshae
Wilds of Aladrion: [https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/comment/43159014/#Comment_43159014]Ellandryn[/url]
"Walled Garden" means the only way to get content is through Steam, which if SteamOS is as open as Valve describes on that page, will not be the case.
In theory you can take SteamOS and use whatever compatible games or applications you want, whether they came from Steam or not. Valve could go always decide not to do that, but they'll have a hard time drumming up support if all they're offering is the fact they're not Microsoft.
Heh, I just remembered Gabe Newell is one of the Microsoft Millionaires. How the times change
It isn't even technically a truck; the US government classified it as eight tanks.
All this FUD about MS making Win8 a walled garden is extraordinarily confusing to me
There's exactly zero indication that they're even considering moving in that direction
It would be the most absurdly stupid thing they could possibly do and they know it
Honestly, I am pretty confused what the point of Valve doing this is unless they know something we don't. Who really wants a steamOS?
Well they gotta have something to put on their Steambox. They're not getting a copy of Windows for every unit sold and they can't just toss basic Linux on there without making it user friendly the way they want.
It's funny how much this sounds like the early days of Steam itself. Back then nobody knew wtf Valve had up their sleeve with Steam. It was just a thingy they were using to replace WON and was kind of an annoyance that was bundled in with their Source games. People thought it was a waste of time and wouldn't go anywhere back then and now look where we are. Steam is the dominant force in PC gaming and has redefined digital distribution.
Having been on Steam since it was first put out (my Steam ID is something nuts like 0:0:9682) I look at SteamOS and the Steambox and can't help but grin a little and wonder what those crazy sonsofbitches at Valve have planned. People take for granted what Steam is now but it started out almost hilariously small and went through a lot of transformative baby steps. SteamOS and the Steambox is also starting small but to quote Ray Arnold: "Hold on to your butts."
http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-8/windows-store
This is your indication that they are considering moving in that direction. It does not mean they will; but they have designed and implemented their own clone of the iTunes Store.
Indications are > 0.
Valve does. That seems to be the extent of it so far. I don't think either developers or consumers have a compelling reason to care, except for a handful of people that might buy a super-cheap Steambox purely for streaming purposes (which doesn't accomplish Valve's ultimate strategic goals by itself). I hope, for their sake, one of their next two announcements addresses that, because if Valve is assuming that millions of people are already chomping at the bit to throw off the shackles of oppression and bet everything on an OS with extremely limited support they're probably going to end up confused and disappointed. I can't imagine what they could possibly offer to make me consider giving up the entire Windows gaming library, though.
Lots of people are worried about Microsoft's direction, but not many are going to turn their backs on like three decades' worth of games on the spot just in case things get worse in Windows 10 or 11. Hell, half of the reason Steam is so well-liked is that you can buy relatively old games for a pittance. Put Steam on a Linux OS that's incompatible with old games and everything falls apart right out of the gate.
If that's what Newell is worried about, he's literally off his rocker. A far more plausible explanation is that he's entirely aware that Steam is in a similar position Netscape was in back when MS rolled out IE. Valve's key product is about to be put at a major competitive disadvantage when Microsoft leverages its dominance in the home OS space to roll out a competing product, and he doesn't want Steam to end up where Netscape, WordPerfect, and a variety of of other applications no one remembers are now. The survival of his product and therefore his company depend on being able to stand out, which requires a platform where the platform maker itself isn't competing against you...or a product that is so incredibly superior to the default that people are willing to go out of their way to get yours. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_games_using_Steam_authentication
PSN ID: fearsomepirate
Those would be "Walled-In Plants" not a "Walled Garden" as far as I understand the metaphor. "Walled Garden" refers to the platform; not individual programs.
Can we come up with a new term for this? I'm getting sick of saying "Walled Garden."
All those games use Steam as DRM, but the core game works on any PC. I'm pretty sure it'll still work if they remove the Steam authentication, and sell it through another vendor.
PSN: jrrl_absent
If Metro had taken off like crazy, they may very well have started moving in that direction. We know now that Steam is probably safe for a while, but would Valve have been sure of that back when the project started?
From how I understand the "walled garden" metaphor, it's a platform and means of distribution where the producer has control over what goes out and what comes in. As far as I know, no game can run on Steam without going through Valve, no game bought through Steam can escape the context of the Steam application, and full use of the Steam application requires you to have an account that can be restricted by Valve. It wouldn't be a "walled garden" if, like GOG, the games you bought through it were completely free of Steam once bought.
If that's not how you understand the metaphor, okay. But that's how I've been using it.
PSN ID: fearsomepirate
Yay, moneyhats!
Steam, Warframe: Megajoule
I think this is the point that's up for interpretation. Steam is certainly not a hardware platform, nor is it an operating system, but it is a software distribution platform, and things purchased on Steam are typically locked to the delivery application (Steam client must be running, account must be activated and logged in).
So, it's sort of a walled garden if you look at it strictly from the confines of the Steam application and the goods it distributes and manages. It's not a walled garden from the perspective of just being an application on a PC, where there is typically competition in the form of other distribution methods for the same or competing software products.
Either way, being a "walled garden" is not an inherent "evil" or anything like that; closed systems tend to lean toward reducing user and producer benefits over time in favor of distributor benefits, but that's a property of human greed, not the concept itself. Valve's concern is that their primary installation platform, Windows, may be moving in a direction that would directly impact their business model, and are making moves to limit any potential revenue loss that might come from that shift by opening new platforms and revenue opportunities.
Well you're using it wrong. Steam is a choice, you don't run anything on steam either, you run it on the pc. If someone tries to protect their games using steam that's something entirely different than how playstation network works. There is no choice with a ps3, you go through sony. You don't have to go through steam to release a game on the pc. The absurd worry is that microsoft will turn windows into xboxlive or psn.
Valve doesn't want to kick back portions of their money to anyone, so they make their own thing to protect their store. I don't know if you're trying to get people to understand that they're making their own enclosed space to escape a closed space, but yes, that's what they're doing, because they're a business and they like money. Is it bad? I don't know, don't use it if you don't like it and see if it fails.