My main point, which is the Steam Machine market is a confusing mass of hardware that will do zilch to attract the console crowd, still stands.
It was never a point made clearly. It's an opinion you hold. The reasons you came to this opinion don't hold to scrutiny, and you're apparently not backing off.
Your original point was something about depreciating value and the inability to keep step at a reasonable price point, forcing constant upgrades. The very example you used proves otherwise.
No, my point was that consoles don't iterate yearly. PCs, and by extension, Steam Machines, will. I made that point very clearly.
That's not really a point to make. You're saying this as though it assumes something. Steam machines iterate... so?
So they're still the same mass of ever-evolving hardware that PCs are, which won't tempt console customers.
TSR, it's extremly goosy to equate "not wanting to have to spend a lot of time comparing things when there's a more convenient option" with "stupidity." I don't game much on PCs (besides low-powered indies) because I don't want to have to mess around with the hardware. I'm a busy guys, I'd rather spend my time plopping in a game and playing. So am I stupid?
So then this alienware setup is perfect for you. What's the problem? Just buy whatever current model of alienware steam machine is available and you won't have to think about anything.
I never said you were stupid. I said you're acting like the average consumer is stupid.
No, I'm acting like the average console customer who doesn't mess with PCs for the same reason I do -- convenience. The Alienware setup is not perfect for me, because it doesn't offer me the peace of mind that I can continue to plop disks in through the life of it and have them run at decent settings without having to futz around with the hardware. Or the peace of mind that one of the dozens of other Steam Machines could be better and cheaper. Plus, I don't want to adjust the resolution at all. I just want to play. That doesn't make me, or any of the other hundred million or so dedicated console players, stupid.
Anyone thinking "Alienware Steam machines cost as much as consoles, but you have to buy one every year!!!" is really missing the point. The yearly refresh makes it so that any time anyone buys an Alienware Steam machine, they're getting a build that's no more than a year outdated, for about the price they'd pay for a console that is potentially one or two (or three or four?) years out of date.
It's a perspective problem. If Alienware releases a new box every year then the consumers will feel like they need to buy one every year. They'll see a new model roll out and all they'll understand is that the number on the box is higher and that means theirs is out of date so they need to update. Like you said, this machines aren't for us and that is the inherent problem. These are being built for people that make their purchasing decisions based on the colour of the box and which one has the bigger numbers. They aren't smart about their purchases and I can guarantee there's gonna be bitching if people are always thinking their machine is out of date. It's the exact reason consumers flock to consoles. They buy it once and they don't have to touch it again for years. All Alienware is doing is reinforcing the image of PCs as arcane boxes that constantly need to be updated.
This isn't true at all.
Why do consumers flock to iPhone then? Apple's releases are exactly the same system that alienware promotes, new model every year(give or take some months). Do we have hard numbers on how much of the flock trade in and pay 600 cash for a new model off contract each(or every other, on contract) release? It may seem like alot but I'm willing to bet its an echo chamber effect.
TSR, while I agree with your comment, I still say the average consumer is really stupid. It's literally an industry with a strategy based on tricking the consumer into buying a game before they can read a review on it and find out if it will actually be good.
The source link doesn't actually load at work for me, so if someone could confirm this is right and or correct I'd appreciate it. Just haven't seen anyone mention it and it deserves a mention.
double edit: seems like they just merged the changes made by the guy who did the 'yeolesteam' build. I couldn't get that working properly on my laptop with optimus, but I'll give it another shot.
So glad that you're here to talk about this TSR. Every time people bring up the whole "You HAVE to upgrade a PC every two years, whereas a console is great forever! (minus red rings, or yellow lights)" I want to argue. I just don't have the energy anymore.
There was a point in the early 2000's and prior when such a sentiment might have been slightly more true - upgrade cycles were much shorter and competing tech standards could render older hardware obsolete (the original nvidia cards run like 6 games with 3D acceleration). That's where these myths were born.
But this stuff really hasn't been true for the last 5-10 years now. Pretty much, if you buy a mid-high tier gaming PC, it's going to last you some time. Occasionally you'll get into periods where the upgrade cycle will cut off specific points in time - a gaming machine from 2006 wouldn't be able to run most of the stuff from today, but mainly because video cards with the correct directX support or adequate numbers of shader units comparable to consoles didn't exist at the time in the mass market. But advance just one year to 2007, and suddenly nearly every video card within that tier would offer compatibility for 6-7 years. Today, the average mid-high tier gaming PC will meet or beat a modern console in tech, at least to an acceptable degree. The trend of gaming PC components having shelf lives of months instead of years is dead.
My main point, which is the Steam Machine market is a confusing mass of hardware that will do zilch to attract the console crowd, still stands.
It was never a point made clearly. It's an opinion you hold. The reasons you came to this opinion don't hold to scrutiny, and you're apparently not backing off.
Your original point was something about depreciating value and the inability to keep step at a reasonable price point, forcing constant upgrades. The very example you used proves otherwise.
No, my point was that consoles don't iterate yearly. PCs, and by extension, Steam Machines, will. I made that point very clearly.
That's not really a point to make. You're saying this as though it assumes something. Steam machines iterate... so?
So they're still the same mass of ever-evolving hardware that PCs are, which won't tempt console customers.
Why? People accept this model for a variety of consumer electronics. Why are video games so different?
This is ignoring, of course, that the choice between the two competing game machines themselves represents the same sort of hardware spec competition you're claiming people don't want to navigate.
No, I'm acting like the average console customer who doesn't mess with PCs for the same reason I do -- convenience. The Alienware setup is not perfect for me, because it doesn't offer me the peace of mind that I can continue to plop disks in through the life of it and have them run at decent settings without having to futz around with the hardware. Or the peace of mind that one of the dozens of other Steam Machines could be better and cheaper. Plus, I don't want to adjust the resolution at all. I just want to play. That doesn't make me, or any of the other hundred million or so dedicated console players, stupid.
I'll simply say that you have a lot of preconceived notions about PC gaming that don't gel to reality. You're aware that most PC games will detect and set the optimal specs at boot up, correct?
console gamers also have a very weird and fuzzy definition of running "decently." For the console space, merely running at all seems adequate, but in the PC sector, anything less than tip top performance is apparently unacceptable.
The source link doesn't actually load at work for me, so if someone could confirm this is right and or correct I'd appreciate it. Just haven't seen anyone mention it and it deserves a mention.
double edit: seems like they just merged the changes made by the guy who did the 'yeolesteam' build. I couldn't get that working properly on my laptop with optimus, but I'll give it another shot.
The alternative "dual boot" method is to install windows to a USB key and enable boot from USB. That's not quite as simple as just configuring GRUB to prompt with a boot menu, but it makes selecting your OS as easy as popping in a USB drive.
So glad that you're here to talk about this TSR. Every time people bring up the whole "You HAVE to upgrade a PC every two years, whereas a console is great forever! (minus red rings, or yellow lights)" I want to argue. I just don't have the energy anymore.
For the record, I'm not making that argument because I know better. I build my own PCs and occasionally build them for other people. All I'm saying is that un-savvy consumers still make that argument. Hell, we see it all the time when people talk about preferring consoles over PCs. "PCs are too much of a hassle, they always need to be upgraded, blah blah blah." Same ole argument over and over.
I never said you were stupid. I said you're acting like the average consumer is stupid.
There's stupid and then there's not being a smart shopper and there are a lot of not smart shoppers out there. Anyone with retail experience can tell you that first hand. Hell, go cruise reviews on Amazon and look at how often the bad reviews are due entirely to bad decisions and not knowing what they're buying.
Lumping all the different forms of tech together is insanely disingenuous and an inherently bad argument because of how very different each case is. You act like people aren't dumb enough to go nuts over hardware iterations and yet we see blockbuster lines whenever a new phone comes out even when the actual differences to last year's model are negligible. On the other hand, of course people aren't going to go nuts over every new TV because they look at what they have versus the new floor model in the store and go "well...what's the difference?" (and rightfully so in this specific case). Of course people aren't going to want to get a new 360 or whatever just because of a new HDMI port because the box still says the same damn thing on it. "XBOX 360." HOWEVER, they will have questions when they see the picture on the box change. I should know, I worked retail for two years (the Ketchikan Wal-Mart specifically) and while technically I was a warehouse guy, I frequently ended up in Electronics because I was one of the only guys in the store that actually knew about the products.
Alienware's model is just inherently dumb. If they call them different things with each release then it's guaranteed to cause consumer confusion or flat out drive them off back to regular consoles because of the perception that these things are a bigger hassle than consoles. If they keep the branding exactly the same then there will still be problems as you end up with all sorts of different models in the field and people wondering why one is working better than the other. Remember, PCs already have a perceived general perception of being fiddly and requiring constant upgrades. Yearly model updates just play into this. This has nothing to do with being stupid. This is consumer behavior 101.
Side note: Have you ever fielded a call that opened up with the customer saying they just bought a new PC from the store earlier that day and were wondering what they should do because they, and I quote, "deleted the entire internet" and then had to explain to that customer that, in fact, the internet was still there and all they did was delete a shortcut? Cause I have.
Why do consumers flock to iPhone then? Apple's releases are exactly the same system that alienware promotes, new model every year(give or take some months). Do we have hard numbers on how much of the flock trade in and pay 600 cash for a new model off contract each(or every other, on contract) release? It may seem like alot but I'm willing to bet its an echo chamber effect.
In a word? Status. My number is higher than yours therefore I'm more affluent. The iPhone was one of the first big smartphones and achieved early market dominance. The smartphone is now very ingrained in our day to day lives and much like having a gigantic fucking TV for no reason, having the latest model of phone is an easy way for people to feel better about themselves.
I think one of the things being missed here is that this is not at all like a console generation. If I buy a steam machine now each interation of the machine doesn't make my current machine obsolete. It's not like things that run on next years tech suddenly stop working on the next machine.
Very unlike the backwards compatibility problems with the current crop of consoles.
Mostly just huntin' monsters.
XBL:Phenyhelm - 3DS:Phenyhelm
The number of people who line up annually for new phones is an insignifantly small portion of the cell phone market. You're comparing launches of, what, 2-5 million users vs a market of literally a billion smartphone users today. Those are outliers.
This model of constantly iterating models isn't inherently dumb. It's a winner. It's what android and iOS have ridden to the top.
I fail to see what your annecdote about customer support has to do with this box, really. Do you think steam BPM will allow the average customer enough flexibility to completely boink his system? To even access the linux desktop, you have to delve into menus to enable developer access (just like android), and even then the normal user privileges in a typical SteamOS install are super limited. I couldn't even apt-get install from steamOS out of the box because I had no idea the root password without digging through valve's developer board.
Honestly, I think this will all come down to how much of an effort Valve does to educate people.
Like, is Valve going to make a prime-time spot to show off some games and have a Steam Machine logo at the end? Are they going to explain why box A is different from box B-H? Or are they just going to leave that up to the manufacturers (who will probably stick to the same advertising channels as always).
Because even if you inform the public that Steam Machines exist and there's some games on it they want, you're still going to have the issue of walking into a best buy and seeing 13 different Steam Machines.
At least with the Xbox, people could just compare the two boxes side-by-side. 13 boxes though? That's going to take a hell of an effort to get people to narrow down their purchase to what they feel is right for them, because they're probably not going to know which one is right for them on their own. Especially if the differences aren't "bigger hard drive/ wireless controllers".
I don't think anyone is so loosey-goosey with their money to just go "Fuck it, I'l get.... THAT one."
cloudeagle, don't forget that BI on 360 is being rendered at 720p (1280x720) which is 44% of the resolution of 1080p (1920x1080) and 40% of the resolution of 1920x1200. The Steam Boxes always have the option of doing the same thing, running newer games at lower resolutions in order to be more performant.
cloudeagle, don't forget that BI on 360 is being rendered at 720p (1280x720) which is 44% of the resolution of 1080p (1920x1080) and 40% of the resolution of 1920x1200. The Steam Boxes always have the option of doing the same thing, running newer games at lower resolutions in order to be more performant.
I think this is kind of key. Games auto pick resolution settings.
I dont think the consumer is as stupid as being made out by some. Yes you have that guy. And you will remember that guy. But how many smart ones sent through the store and you never noticed. You dont have to interact with them, they dont ask questions.
I hear bad time in retail tainting your view whoever mentiined that.
I fail to see what your annecdote about customer support has to do with this box, really.
Just reinforcing my retail experience because it's not like most of us know each other that well.
Because even if you inform the public that Steam Machines exist and there's some games on it they want, you're still going to have the issue of walking into a best buy and seeing 13 different Steam Machines.
At least with the Xbox, people could just compare the two boxes side-by-side. 13 boxes though? That's going to take a hell of an effort to get people to narrow down their purchase to what they feel is right for them, because they're probably not going to know which one is right for them on their own. Especially if the differences aren't "bigger hard drive/ wireless controllers".
Bingo. Branding, education, marketing 101. PCs have an inherent stigma attached to them and have had it no matter how much easier and cheaper PC gaming has gotten. Alienware is fucking up because this stigma still exists. Down the line once SteamOS is more established and PC gaming stops being viewed as a rich nerd guy's game then yes, a yearly model is a totally good idea. Right now? Oh hell no. This is all in direct competition with consoles and right now the primary job of all these guys making Steam boxes should be to shatter the image of PCs requiring more effort than consoles. Yearly releases this early in the game only serve to play into the commonly held stereotype of PCs needing constant upgrades even though we all know that's not true and hasn't been for years. You said it yourself Sonic, they are not us.
I don't think anyone is so loosey-goosey with their money to just go "Fuck it, I'l get.... THAT one."
cloudeagle, don't forget that BI on 360 is being rendered at 720p (1280x720) which is 44% of the resolution of 1080p (1920x1080) and 40% of the resolution of 1920x1200. The Steam Boxes always have the option of doing the same thing, running newer games at lower resolutions in order to be more performant.
I think this is kind of key. Games auto pick resolution settings.
Huh... you know, I think Steam is in a unique position to have good data on how games run on what hardware. Assuming enough people opt-in to provide performance metrics, and that the Steam Boxes are connected to the internet, they can download the "best" settings for any given game and hardware.
My main point, which is the Steam Machine market is a confusing mass of hardware that will do zilch to attract the console crowd, still stands.
It was never a point made clearly. It's an opinion you hold. The reasons you came to this opinion don't hold to scrutiny, and you're apparently not backing off.
Your original point was something about depreciating value and the inability to keep step at a reasonable price point, forcing constant upgrades. The very example you used proves otherwise.
No, my point was that consoles don't iterate yearly. PCs, and by extension, Steam Machines, will. I made that point very clearly.
That's not really a point to make. You're saying this as though it assumes something. Steam machines iterate... so?
So they're still the same mass of ever-evolving hardware that PCs are, which won't tempt console customers.
Why? People accept this model for a variety of consumer electronics. Why are video games so different?
This is ignoring, of course, that the choice between the two competing game machines themselves represents the same sort of hardware spec competition you're claiming people don't want to navigate.
Let me answer that question with another question. Why, then, are consoles so popular and PC gaming is still the minority? What's keeping people on consoles? What will cause these people to suddenly migrate to Steam Machines?
No, I'm acting like the average console customer who doesn't mess with PCs for the same reason I do -- convenience. The Alienware setup is not perfect for me, because it doesn't offer me the peace of mind that I can continue to plop disks in through the life of it and have them run at decent settings without having to futz around with the hardware. Or the peace of mind that one of the dozens of other Steam Machines could be better and cheaper. Plus, I don't want to adjust the resolution at all. I just want to play. That doesn't make me, or any of the other hundred million or so dedicated console players, stupid.
I'll simply say that you have a lot of preconceived notions about PC gaming that don't gel to reality. You're aware that most PC games will detect and set the optimal specs at boot up, correct?
console gamers also have a very weird and fuzzy definition of running "decently." For the console space, merely running at all seems adequate, but in the PC sector, anything less than tip top performance is apparently unacceptable.
And you've hit on why console gaming remains popular. People care about convenience more than performance. They just want to plop in games and play. They don't care what numbers are in their resolution.
Also, claiming console games don't run "decently" is a weirdly elitist attitude to take.
My main point, which is the Steam Machine market is a confusing mass of hardware that will do zilch to attract the console crowd, still stands.
It was never a point made clearly. It's an opinion you hold. The reasons you came to this opinion don't hold to scrutiny, and you're apparently not backing off.
Your original point was something about depreciating value and the inability to keep step at a reasonable price point, forcing constant upgrades. The very example you used proves otherwise.
No, my point was that consoles don't iterate yearly. PCs, and by extension, Steam Machines, will. I made that point very clearly.
That's not really a point to make. You're saying this as though it assumes something. Steam machines iterate... so?
So they're still the same mass of ever-evolving hardware that PCs are, which won't tempt console customers.
Why? People accept this model for a variety of consumer electronics. Why are video games so different?
This is ignoring, of course, that the choice between the two competing game machines themselves represents the same sort of hardware spec competition you're claiming people don't want to navigate.
Let me answer that question with another question. Why, then, are consoles so popular and PC gaming is still the minority? What's keeping people on consoles? What will cause these people to suddenly migrate to Steam Machines?
It's not. PC gaming vastly eclipses console gaming as a whole. From the very onset, your entire argument is based off of an untrue premise:
What is more accurate to say is that, for certain genres, consoles have traditionally had larger user bases than they have on the PC market. There are a litany of reasons why this is so, but it's ignorant to A) assume said factors will always be in play, that steamOS itself isn't an initiative to overcome these factors. Pretending the entire argument revolves around customers being scared stiff at the mere presence of some options (but not other options) is flat out false.
Further more, the traditional publisher model is failing around the entire entertainment industry at large. I don't know if you've been noticing, but the traditional gate keeping publisher model isn't doing so hot for the recording industry as well, and the mpaa has been fighting a losing battle for ages. These steam machines represent a new era of self publishing. The console market isn't some inherently correct economy.
And you've hit on why console gaming remains popular. People care about convenience more than performance. They just want to plop in games and play. They don't care what numbers are in their resolution.
Also, claiming console games don't run "decently" is a weirdly elitist attitude to take.
Skyrim runs in single digits on the PS3. Modern consoles take anywhere from 10 minutes to an hour to install games. There are constant updates and patches, DRM issue, the works. Console gaming isn't "plug and play." You're not reflecting the reality of the experience anymore.
And, no matter what metric you use, a mid-high tier PC from the equivalent time period runs better. If you believe console games run decently, then, by default, nearly all PC games run decently.
One thing that strikes me in this discussion is that it's pretty US-centric. Here in Germany, being a person who plays video games means being a PC gamer. I wish there were proper statistics of PC owners who use their PCs for gaming to back up that observation, but sales stats only exist for consoles. So sadly all I can offer as proof is my subjective experience.
One thing that strikes me in this discussion is that it's pretty US-centric. Here in Germany, being a person who plays video games means being a PC gamer. I wish there were proper statistics of PC owners who use their PCs for gaming to back up that observation, but sales stats only exist for consoles. So sadly all I can offer as proof is my subjective experience.
Edit: Oh hey, TSR has global stats, at least.
I've actually been considering the global market all along. China is overwhelmingly a pc centric country for a variety of reasons, not least of which being that console gaming was an illegal niche until a few weeks ago. China itself alone represents an industry all to the pc that is comparable to the entire console gaming sphere in the us. As in, sony and Microsoft and Nintendo combined.
Edit: also, valve has the stats you desire and are working to make them readily available to developers so they can read the market better.
My main point, which is the Steam Machine market is a confusing mass of hardware that will do zilch to attract the console crowd, still stands.
It was never a point made clearly. It's an opinion you hold. The reasons you came to this opinion don't hold to scrutiny, and you're apparently not backing off.
Your original point was something about depreciating value and the inability to keep step at a reasonable price point, forcing constant upgrades. The very example you used proves otherwise.
No, my point was that consoles don't iterate yearly. PCs, and by extension, Steam Machines, will. I made that point very clearly.
That's not really a point to make. You're saying this as though it assumes something. Steam machines iterate... so?
So they're still the same mass of ever-evolving hardware that PCs are, which won't tempt console customers.
Why? People accept this model for a variety of consumer electronics. Why are video games so different?
This is ignoring, of course, that the choice between the two competing game machines themselves represents the same sort of hardware spec competition you're claiming people don't want to navigate.
Let me answer that question with another question. Why, then, are consoles so popular and PC gaming is still the minority? What's keeping people on consoles? What will cause these people to suddenly migrate to Steam Machines?
It's not. PC gaming vastly eclipses console gaming as a whole. From the very onset, your entire argument is based off of an untrue premise:
What is more accurate to say is that, for certain genres, consoles have traditionally had larger user bases than they have on the PC market. There are a litany of reasons why this is so, but it's ignorant to A) assume said factors will always be in play, that steamOS itself isn't an initiative to overcome these factors. Pretending the entire argument revolves around customers being scared stiff at the mere presence of some options (but not other options) is flat out false.
Further more, the traditional publisher model is failing around the entire entertainment industry at large. I don't know if you've been noticing, but the traditional gate keeping publisher model isn't doing so hot for the recording industry as well, and the mpaa has been fighting a losing battle for ages. These steam machines represent a new era of self publishing. The console market isn't some inherently correct economy.
Okay then, what percentage of that PC market is Steam? What percentage of it is Facebook, Flash and other gaming? We've been talking about a direct comparison of Steam Machines and consoles, so that would be a much more valuable metric.
And you've hit on why console gaming remains popular. People care about convenience more than performance. They just want to plop in games and play. They don't care what numbers are in their resolution.
Also, claiming console games don't run "decently" is a weirdly elitist attitude to take.
Skyrim runs in single digits on the PS3. Modern consoles take anywhere from 10 minutes to an hour to install games. There are constant updates and patches, DRM issue, the works. Console gaming isn't "plug and play." You're not reflecting the reality of the experience anymore.
And, no matter what metric you use, a mid-high tier PC from the equivalent time period runs better. If you believe console games run decently, then, by default, nearly all PC games run decently.
...unless your PC isn't powerful enough to run them at all.
Skyrim on the PS3 is an outlier, and an example you've trotted out before. Pretty much all non-crappy console games run at a solid 30 FPS. However, with PCs, god knows what a game will run at. Again, it's a matter of convenience.
Even with patches and installation, console gamers still don't have to worry about hardware. They can just buy a game and play.* With Steam Machines, they'll have to worry about it a lot just to pick out which one to buy.
*Yes, I know you're going to bring up games that require a peripheral to play, but not only are they a tiny minority, but that peripheral requirement is clearly labeled on the box.
To quantify my last post a bit more, a breakdown of markets respective to location:
what's crazy about the PC market is that there is a hidden, untapped market within the market. A noticeably large number of players in china, according to valve's own metrics, have hardware that is much more capable than is being used. In china, the dominant OS is windows XP - something like 99% of users over there still are on XP. This locks them out to a number of direct X 10 and direct x 11 features which, according to valve's hardware scans, many many people have hardware for. Under the steamOS initative and using technologies they've created like VOGL, it'll be possible to tap this hidden market and enable more demanding games to reach these players without them having to navigate to another operating system, because openGL can access those hardware features even from XP.
...unless your PC isn't powerful enough to run them at all.
Skyrim on the PS3 is an outlier, and an example you've trotted out before. Pretty much all non-crappy console games run at a solid 30 FPS. However, with PCs, god knows what a game will run at. Again, it's a matter of convenience.
Even with patches and installation, console gamers still don't have to worry about hardware. They can just buy a game and play.* With Steam Machines, they'll have to worry about it a lot just to pick out which one to buy.
cloudeagle, don't forget that BI on 360 is being rendered at 720p (1280x720) which is 44% of the resolution of 1080p (1920x1080) and 40% of the resolution of 1920x1200. The Steam Boxes always have the option of doing the same thing, running newer games at lower resolutions in order to be more performant.
Consoles run games at low resolutions. Computers can run games at low resolutions, too.
My main point, which is the Steam Machine market is a confusing mass of hardware that will do zilch to attract the console crowd, still stands.
It was never a point made clearly. It's an opinion you hold. The reasons you came to this opinion don't hold to scrutiny, and you're apparently not backing off.
Your original point was something about depreciating value and the inability to keep step at a reasonable price point, forcing constant upgrades. The very example you used proves otherwise.
No, my point was that consoles don't iterate yearly. PCs, and by extension, Steam Machines, will. I made that point very clearly.
That's not really a point to make. You're saying this as though it assumes something. Steam machines iterate... so?
So they're still the same mass of ever-evolving hardware that PCs are, which won't tempt console customers.
Why? People accept this model for a variety of consumer electronics. Why are video games so different?
This is ignoring, of course, that the choice between the two competing game machines themselves represents the same sort of hardware spec competition you're claiming people don't want to navigate.
Let me answer that question with another question. Why, then, are consoles so popular and PC gaming is still the minority? What's keeping people on consoles? What will cause these people to suddenly migrate to Steam Machines?
It's not. PC gaming vastly eclipses console gaming as a whole. From the very onset, your entire argument is based off of an untrue premise:
What is more accurate to say is that, for certain genres, consoles have traditionally had larger user bases than they have on the PC market. There are a litany of reasons why this is so, but it's ignorant to A) assume said factors will always be in play, that steamOS itself isn't an initiative to overcome these factors. Pretending the entire argument revolves around customers being scared stiff at the mere presence of some options (but not other options) is flat out false.
Further more, the traditional publisher model is failing around the entire entertainment industry at large. I don't know if you've been noticing, but the traditional gate keeping publisher model isn't doing so hot for the recording industry as well, and the mpaa has been fighting a losing battle for ages. These steam machines represent a new era of self publishing. The console market isn't some inherently correct economy.
Okay then, what percentage of that PC market is Steam? What percentage of it is Facebook, Flash and other gaming? We've been talking about a direct comparison of Steam Machines and consoles, so that would be a much more valuable metric.
Why would this matter at all? PC is the platform. Again, moving goal posts.
...unless your PC isn't powerful enough to run them at all.
Skyrim on the PS3 is an outlier, and an example you've trotted out before. Pretty much all non-crappy console games run at a solid 30 FPS. However, with PCs, god knows what a game will run at. Again, it's a matter of convenience.
No, skyrim isn't an outlier, the vast majority of games available on both PC and consoles will perform better on PC. Sonic All stars racing transformed? 720p at 30 fps consoles, 1080p at 60 fps PC. Tomb Raider? 720p 30 fps on console, 1440p+ at 60 fps PC. Sleeping dogs? Not even a comparison, in addition to running in 3D at higher framerates, it also boasts larger textures and higher detailed character models. Even the average unoptimized game like Call of Duty will run at a higher resolution and higher frame rate.
Also, you're making the same arguments you've made in this thread before. The one that I went into detail about not but a day ago to explain how steam will make this clear to you. At this point, for weeks now, all you've been doing is throwing your hands in the air and screaming "convenience." PC gaming is pretty convenient. Steam makes it more convenient. Console gaming isn't as convenient as you pretend it is.
Even with patches and installation, console gamers still don't have to worry about hardware. They can just buy a game and play.* With Steam Machines, they'll have to worry about it a lot just to pick out which one to buy.
*Yes, I know you're going to bring up games that require a peripheral to play, but not only are they a tiny minority, but that peripheral requirement is clearly labeled on the box.
Oh? So I can play DSi games on my phat DS? My PS3 can play PS2 games, my buddies cannot. TLOU is referred to as a "phat-killer" because of its propensity to send phat PS3s to their death. A number of Xbox 360 games actually required a harddrive. Do I need to point to the number of people who have been confused by the Wii and WiiU? You find these quibbles and choices to be acceptable because you are intimately familiar with this hobby. I had to try to explain the difference between the Wii and the WiiU to my brother in law for an hour before finally telling him to just flat-out not get the Wii.
+5
AkimboEGMr. FancypantsWears very fine pants indeedRegistered Userregular
Okay then, what percentage of that PC market is Steam? What percentage of it is Facebook, Flash and other gaming? We've been talking about a direct comparison of Steam Machines and consoles, so that would be a much more valuable metric.
Why would this matter at all? PC is the platform. Again, moving goal posts.
Gonna have to disagree on this one.
It matters because currently these are two very different disciplines that only share a name and (the hardware side of) a platform.
I'm not trying to say social gaming isn't valid, or that social games aren't games. I'm saying they're currently not what gaming PCs are bought for.
Give me a kiss to build a dream on; And my imagination will thrive upon that kiss; Sweetheart, I ask no more than this; A kiss to build a dream on
Okay then, what percentage of that PC market is Steam? What percentage of it is Facebook, Flash and other gaming? We've been talking about a direct comparison of Steam Machines and consoles, so that would be a much more valuable metric.
Why would this matter at all? PC is the platform. Again, moving goal posts.
Gonna have to disagree on this one.
It matters because currently these are two very different disciplines that only share a name and (the hardware side of) a platform.
I'm not trying to say social gaming isn't valid, or that social games aren't games. I'm saying they're currently not what gaming PCs are bought for.
Under that logic, WoW isn't PC gaming. Starcraft 2 isn't PC gaming. Diablo 3 isn't PC gaming. They're not on steam, after all.
Wait. What's this about The Last of Us? I have a phat PS3 and JUST got the game two minutes ago from Gamefly.
It puts a good deal of stress on the PS3, and there have been a number of anecdotes of it "killing" old, phat models; nothing proven, but it's not hard to believe the excessive heat generated from the workload on the CPU/GPU popping some of the solder points, just like any other PS3 YLOD.
Wait. What's this about The Last of Us? I have a phat PS3 and JUST got the game two minutes ago from Gamefly.
It puts a good deal of stress on the PS3, and there have been a number of anecdotes of it "killing" old, phat models; nothing proven, but it's not hard to believe the excessive heat generated from the workload on the CPU/GPU popping some of the solder points, just like any other PS3 YLOD.
I have a big old original PS3, and it runs perfectly fine, if only in 720p. Enjoy the game though, it's got incredibly awesome storytelling!
Okay then, what percentage of that PC market is Steam? What percentage of it is Facebook, Flash and other gaming? We've been talking about a direct comparison of Steam Machines and consoles, so that would be a much more valuable metric.
Why would this matter at all? PC is the platform. Again, moving goal posts.
Gonna have to disagree on this one.
It matters because currently these are two very different disciplines that only share a name and (the hardware side of) a platform.
I'm not trying to say social gaming isn't valid, or that social games aren't games. I'm saying they're currently not what gaming PCs are bought for.
Under that logic, WoW isn't PC gaming. Starcraft 2 isn't PC gaming. Diablo 3 isn't PC gaming. They're not on steam, after all.
Dude, stop being so obtuse. Those are single-platform games. Multiplatform games sell way more copies on consoles than PC. At least they go on Steam Sale.
Okay then, what percentage of that PC market is Steam? What percentage of it is Facebook, Flash and other gaming? We've been talking about a direct comparison of Steam Machines and consoles, so that would be a much more valuable metric.
Why would this matter at all? PC is the platform. Again, moving goal posts.
Gonna have to disagree on this one.
It matters because currently these are two very different disciplines that only share a name and (the hardware side of) a platform.
I'm not trying to say social gaming isn't valid, or that social games aren't games. I'm saying they're currently not what gaming PCs are bought for.
Under that logic, WoW isn't PC gaming. Starcraft 2 isn't PC gaming. Diablo 3 isn't PC gaming. They're not on steam, after all.
Dude, stop being so obtuse. Those are single-platform games. Multiplatform games sell way more copies on consoles than PC. At least they go on Steam Sale.
Okay then, what percentage of that PC market is Steam? What percentage of it is Facebook, Flash and other gaming? We've been talking about a direct comparison of Steam Machines and consoles, so that would be a much more valuable metric.
Why would this matter at all? PC is the platform. Again, moving goal posts.
Gonna have to disagree on this one.
It matters because currently these are two very different disciplines that only share a name and (the hardware side of) a platform.
I'm not trying to say social gaming isn't valid, or that social games aren't games. I'm saying they're currently not what gaming PCs are bought for.
Under that logic, WoW isn't PC gaming. Starcraft 2 isn't PC gaming. Diablo 3 isn't PC gaming. They're not on steam, after all.
Dude, stop being so obtuse. Those are single-platform games. Multiplatform games sell way more copies on consoles than PC. At least they go on Steam Sale.
Okay then, what percentage of that PC market is Steam? What percentage of it is Facebook, Flash and other gaming? We've been talking about a direct comparison of Steam Machines and consoles, so that would be a much more valuable metric.
Why would this matter at all? PC is the platform. Again, moving goal posts.
No, including Facebook games and Flash games is moving the goal posts. I'd rather see an apples to apples analysis, not one that's padded out with all kinds of things not on Steam OS or consoles.
But if you'd like to include all PC games, then fine -- PC gaming is still in the minority, because we'd then have to include all the gaming on smartphones and tablets.
Skyrim on the PS3 is an outlier, and an example you've trotted out before. Pretty much all non-crappy console games run at a solid 30 FPS. However, with PCs, god knows what a game will run at. Again, it's a matter of convenience.
No, skyrim isn't an outlier, the vast majority of games available on both PC and consoles will perform better on PC. Sonic All stars racing transformed? 720p at 30 fps consoles, 1080p at 60 fps PC. Tomb Raider? 720p 30 fps on console, 1440p+ at 60 fps PC. Sleeping dogs? Not even a comparison, in addition to running in 3D at higher framerates, it also boasts larger textures and higher detailed character models. Even the average unoptimized game like Call of Duty will run at a higher resolution and higher frame rate.
No, Skyrim on PS3 is an outlier, because it runs crappily. Most console games run well. Yes, they may not run with as many shinies as PC equivalents, but you know what? Console gamers don't care. They're happy to run the games at 720p. That's the nature of the console market. They don't lust after 60FPS. Now, by your admission, PC gamers have more of a boner for specs -- which is yet another reason Steam Machines aren't inherently attractive to the console market.
Even with patches and installation, console gamers still don't have to worry about hardware. They can just buy a game and play.* With Steam Machines, they'll have to worry about it a lot just to pick out which one to buy.
*Yes, I know you're going to bring up games that require a peripheral to play, but not only are they a tiny minority, but that peripheral requirement is clearly labeled on the box.
Oh? So I can play DSi games on my phat DS? My PS3 can play PS2 games, my buddies cannot. TLOU is referred to as a "phat-killer" because of its propensity to send phat PS3s to their death. A number of Xbox 360 games actually required a harddrive. Do I need to point to the number of people who have been confused by the Wii and WiiU? You find these quibbles and choices to be acceptable because you are intimately familiar with this hobby. I had to try to explain the difference between the Wii and the WiiU to my brother in law for an hour before finally telling him to just flat-out not get the Wii.
You're splitting hairs. A game in a box marked "PS3" will work in a PS3. A game marked for "PC" gives you zero indication of whether it will work in your box. It's really that simple.
Also, you're making the same arguments you've made in this thread before. The one that I went into detail about not but a day ago to explain how steam will make this clear to you. At this point, for weeks now, all you've been doing is throwing your hands in the air and screaming "convenience." PC gaming is pretty convenient. Steam makes it more convenient. Console gaming isn't as convenient as you pretend it is.
And you're making the same arguments you've made before. All this time, you're downplaying just how big a factor convenience is, and is the reason most people play AAA games on consoles rather than PCs and continue to do so, long after the PC games get ever-larger numbers attached to their specs. Console games are "good enough" for a giant portion of the market.
Look, TSR. I get it. You're extremely excited about Steam Machines. And that's okay! It's a very interesting experiment. I'm very curious to see where it goes. But I think you're getting a little carried away in your excitement. While Steam Machines could bring interesting new developments in PC gaming, it's probably more than a little optimistic to believe that this is something that will excite everyone simply because you're excited. I mean, I'm a Ratchet and Clank fan, but I accept that the audience for people who want a platform/shooter with goofy cartoon aliens is, relatively speaking, limited. Yet that doesn't change my personal enjoyment of the games.
I'm happy to agree to disagree on this and let the thread get back to the OS details, but you're going to have to accept that intelligent, well-reasoned people are able to disagree on this particular matter.
Okay then, what percentage of that PC market is Steam? What percentage of it is Facebook, Flash and other gaming? We've been talking about a direct comparison of Steam Machines and consoles, so that would be a much more valuable metric.
Why would this matter at all? PC is the platform. Again, moving goal posts.
Gonna have to disagree on this one.
It matters because currently these are two very different disciplines that only share a name and (the hardware side of) a platform.
I'm not trying to say social gaming isn't valid, or that social games aren't games. I'm saying they're currently not what gaming PCs are bought for.
Under that logic, WoW isn't PC gaming. Starcraft 2 isn't PC gaming. Diablo 3 isn't PC gaming. They're not on steam, after all.
Dude, stop being so obtuse. Those are single-platform games. Multiplatform games sell way more copies on consoles than PC. At least they go on Steam Sale.
I'd be willing to bet that the main reasons people pick consoles over pc's for gaming are
1. Couches
2. convenience of setup
3. OS issues (ie, windows)
in that order.
The thing that's great about steamboxes are that they eliminate all of these. It keeps the convenience for people who just want to buy a box and plug it in, but also keeps the expandability for those who want to build a monster box. It means that now your games are running on an OS which is both a full operating system, but also is designed FOR gaming, and at least theoretically, will continue to evolve in that direction.
I'd also bet that the biggest hurdle for steam box acceptance now will be
1. Convincing casual consumers to go all digital, and all online (and similarly, broadband availability)
2. not getting any console exclusives, and also relatedly, poor ports
Okay then, what percentage of that PC market is Steam? What percentage of it is Facebook, Flash and other gaming? We've been talking about a direct comparison of Steam Machines and consoles, so that would be a much more valuable metric.
Why would this matter at all? PC is the platform. Again, moving goal posts.
No, including Facebook games and Flash games is moving the goal posts. I'd rather see an apples to apples analysis, not one that's padded out with all kinds of things not on Steam OS or consoles.
But if you'd like to include all PC games, then fine -- PC gaming is still in the minority, because we'd then have to include all the gaming on smartphones and tablets.
You mean the markets I listed that add up to 19% of total gaming revenue? PC gaming's 38% revenue is less than that?
No, Skyrim on PS3 is an outlier, because it runs crappily. Most console games run well. Yes, they may not run with as many shinies as PC equivalents, but you know what? Console gamers don't care. They're happy to run the games at 720p. That's the nature of the console market. They don't lust after 60FPS. Now, by your admission, PC gamers have more of a boner for specs -- which is yet another reason Steam Machines aren't inherently attractive to the console market.
You're fine to believe that the average PC port isn't normally a qualitatively better experience than the same game on a console. You're just objectively wrong. Further more, what you're classifying as "fine" for consoles, you're claiming is "crappy" for PCs. You're not using a standard criteria for your analysis.
Please point out my admittance of some sort of boner for specs.
You're splitting hairs. A game in a box marked "PS3" will work in a PS3. A game marked for "PC" gives you zero indication of whether it will work in your box. It's really that simple.
So TSR... has valve "dropped" the Baseline specs for the better tier that was supposed to act as the hard line for console-like PC development for the next handful of years?
I was expecting something like that from CES or Steam Dev Days, but its been very absent.
What they're doing is a floating base spec based off of analytical readings of their user base. Basically, their software tracks the available hardware configurations of users and they are going to offer this information to developers when they choose to develop for steam. More than that, their OS will crowdsource real-world statistics about how games run and will present that to users with icons to let them know what performance they can expect. Stuff like "with this configuration, you can hit 60 fps at 720p with everything at high, 30 fps at 720p with everything at ultra, 60 fps at 1080p with everything at medium, etc. Users can filter by what they define as playable and set min specs to display, and if they want to play a game a certain way, steamOS will suggest specific upgrades at pricing guages. I.e. "if you want to hit 1080p at 60 fps with everything at ultra, you need to buy this video card for $XXX or this video card for $YYY" and so forth.
Developers intend to target roughly xbox one specs for their games, as most of the builds for steam machines seem to indicate roughly that level of hardware as a minimum, but are encouraged to look at the analytics gathered to determine when they can advance their base specs.
How do I play this:
on this:
Isn't it funny how your blanket statements don't hold to scrutiny, and suddenly then it's "splitting hairs?"
blah blah blah you're just excited
You know, at this point, I'd say I'm coming off looking informed, not excited. Within the context of today, has a single one of your assertions stemmed from a legitimate, backed by source claim? Or is it all rooted in "feelings" and "gut"?
EA Financials for Q2FY14, page 14. Sums of platform net revenue from Q2FY13 to Q2FY14 by platform:
Xbox 360 $1283M
Playstation 3 $1212M
Wii $54M
Playstation 2 $14M
Mobile $458M
Playstation Handhelds $68M
Nintendo Handhelds $40M
PC $1224M
Totaled up, consoles are a much larger market, but PC gaming as a whole represents a similarly sized market to PS3 in the same time period. If you look at the trends this also shows a 28% YOY change in PC revenue, while all the console revenues are shrinking. Don't look too much into that, though, as this financial report is obviously just before the new consoles came out which appear to be poised to make a ton of money for the AAA segment.
As far as EA and Linux goes, I am not aware of any pushes by EA but DICE appears to be keen on it.
Dehumanized on
0
AkimboEGMr. FancypantsWears very fine pants indeedRegistered Userregular
Okay then, what percentage of that PC market is Steam? What percentage of it is Facebook, Flash and other gaming? We've been talking about a direct comparison of Steam Machines and consoles, so that would be a much more valuable metric.
Why would this matter at all? PC is the platform. Again, moving goal posts.
Gonna have to disagree on this one.
It matters because currently these are two very different disciplines that only share a name and (the hardware side of) a platform.
I'm not trying to say social gaming isn't valid, or that social games aren't games. I'm saying they're currently not what gaming PCs are bought for.
Under that logic, WoW isn't PC gaming. Starcraft 2 isn't PC gaming. Diablo 3 isn't PC gaming. They're not on steam, after all.
I don't know if you're doing this on purpose or not, but you're coming off very aggressive, TSR. There's really no need for that.
Anyway, I never made a Steam vs. non-Steam argument. Steam isn't the entirety of PC gaming. I was merely trying to say that Facebook-esque social gaming is not what most people will be buying a new gaming PC for, so if the like is included in those sales figures, maybe they aren't the best indication of potential Steam Machines market share.
Give me a kiss to build a dream on; And my imagination will thrive upon that kiss; Sweetheart, I ask no more than this; A kiss to build a dream on
EA Financials for Q2FY14, page 14. Sums of platform net revenue from Q2FY13 to Q2FY14 by platform:
Xbox 360 $1283M
Playstation 3 $1212M
Wii $54M
Playstation 2 $14M
Mobile $458M
Playstation Handhelds $68M
Nintendo Handhelds $40M
PC $1224M
Totaled up, consoles are a much larger market, but PC gaming as a whole represents a similarly sized market to PS3 in the same time period. If you look at the trends this also shows a 28% YOY change in PC revenue, while all the console revenues are shrinking. Don't look too much into that, though, as this financial report is obviously just before the new consoles came out which appear to be poised to make a ton of money for the AAA segment.
As far as EA and Linux goes, I am not aware of any pushes by EA but DICE appears to be keen on it.
Ea also doesn't publish on the largest storefront in all of pc gaming, to remember.
Edit: there were also ea devs at sdd, during the first day devoted to Linux development. Granted, they were there on assignment, but they're listening to the arguments.
Online Subscriptions $714M
PC $274M
Playstation 3 $727M
Xbox 360 $849M
Wii/WiiU $58M
Other $300M
The obvious elephant in the room is Online Subscriptions. Presumably the lion's share of that is Warcraft subscription money, but it also lumps in stuff like CoD Elite. The much smaller elephant in the room is "Other", which primarily represents sales of Skylanders toys and accessories.
Okay then, what percentage of that PC market is Steam? What percentage of it is Facebook, Flash and other gaming? We've been talking about a direct comparison of Steam Machines and consoles, so that would be a much more valuable metric.
Why would this matter at all? PC is the platform. Again, moving goal posts.
Gonna have to disagree on this one.
It matters because currently these are two very different disciplines that only share a name and (the hardware side of) a platform.
I'm not trying to say social gaming isn't valid, or that social games aren't games. I'm saying they're currently not what gaming PCs are bought for.
Under that logic, WoW isn't PC gaming. Starcraft 2 isn't PC gaming. Diablo 3 isn't PC gaming. They're not on steam, after all.
I don't know if you're doing this on purpose or not, but you're coming off very aggressive, TSR. There's really no need for that.
Anyway, I never made a Steam vs. non-Steam argument. Steam isn't the entirety of PC gaming. I was merely trying to say that Facebook-esque social gaming is not what most people will be buying a new gaming PC for, so if the like is included in those sales figures, maybe they aren't the best indication of potential Steam Machines market share.
I broke down the numbers in the same post. Valve makes their analytics available online. 75% of their 75 million active users have a video card that supports direct x 10 or better. Those are ostentatiously gaming pcs, not old ladies checking Facebook. Plus, that Facebook market is shrinking while the dedicated gaming pc market is doing the opposite.
Posts
So they're still the same mass of ever-evolving hardware that PCs are, which won't tempt console customers.
No, I'm acting like the average console customer who doesn't mess with PCs for the same reason I do -- convenience. The Alienware setup is not perfect for me, because it doesn't offer me the peace of mind that I can continue to plop disks in through the life of it and have them run at decent settings without having to futz around with the hardware. Or the peace of mind that one of the dozens of other Steam Machines could be better and cheaper. Plus, I don't want to adjust the resolution at all. I just want to play. That doesn't make me, or any of the other hundred million or so dedicated console players, stupid.
This isn't true at all.
Why do consumers flock to iPhone then? Apple's releases are exactly the same system that alienware promotes, new model every year(give or take some months). Do we have hard numbers on how much of the flock trade in and pay 600 cash for a new model off contract each(or every other, on contract) release? It may seem like alot but I'm willing to bet its an echo chamber effect.
TSR, while I agree with your comment, I still say the average consumer is really stupid. It's literally an industry with a strategy based on tricking the consumer into buying a game before they can read a review on it and find out if it will actually be good.
Edit: So in other news, valve announced they have put out a steamos version thats compatible with dual boot and non uefi(so bios now) systems.
news: http://www.pcper.com/news/General-Tech/SteamOS-Beta-Non-UEFI-Support-Other-Untested-Features?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
source: http://steamcommunity.com/groups/steamuniverse/discussions/1/648817378243644036/
The source link doesn't actually load at work for me, so if someone could confirm this is right and or correct I'd appreciate it. Just haven't seen anyone mention it and it deserves a mention.
double edit: seems like they just merged the changes made by the guy who did the 'yeolesteam' build. I couldn't get that working properly on my laptop with optimus, but I'll give it another shot.
There was a point in the early 2000's and prior when such a sentiment might have been slightly more true - upgrade cycles were much shorter and competing tech standards could render older hardware obsolete (the original nvidia cards run like 6 games with 3D acceleration). That's where these myths were born.
But this stuff really hasn't been true for the last 5-10 years now. Pretty much, if you buy a mid-high tier gaming PC, it's going to last you some time. Occasionally you'll get into periods where the upgrade cycle will cut off specific points in time - a gaming machine from 2006 wouldn't be able to run most of the stuff from today, but mainly because video cards with the correct directX support or adequate numbers of shader units comparable to consoles didn't exist at the time in the mass market. But advance just one year to 2007, and suddenly nearly every video card within that tier would offer compatibility for 6-7 years. Today, the average mid-high tier gaming PC will meet or beat a modern console in tech, at least to an acceptable degree. The trend of gaming PC components having shelf lives of months instead of years is dead.
Why? People accept this model for a variety of consumer electronics. Why are video games so different?
This is ignoring, of course, that the choice between the two competing game machines themselves represents the same sort of hardware spec competition you're claiming people don't want to navigate.
I'll simply say that you have a lot of preconceived notions about PC gaming that don't gel to reality. You're aware that most PC games will detect and set the optimal specs at boot up, correct?
console gamers also have a very weird and fuzzy definition of running "decently." For the console space, merely running at all seems adequate, but in the PC sector, anything less than tip top performance is apparently unacceptable.
The alternative "dual boot" method is to install windows to a USB key and enable boot from USB. That's not quite as simple as just configuring GRUB to prompt with a boot menu, but it makes selecting your OS as easy as popping in a USB drive.
For the record, I'm not making that argument because I know better. I build my own PCs and occasionally build them for other people. All I'm saying is that un-savvy consumers still make that argument. Hell, we see it all the time when people talk about preferring consoles over PCs. "PCs are too much of a hassle, they always need to be upgraded, blah blah blah." Same ole argument over and over.
There's stupid and then there's not being a smart shopper and there are a lot of not smart shoppers out there. Anyone with retail experience can tell you that first hand. Hell, go cruise reviews on Amazon and look at how often the bad reviews are due entirely to bad decisions and not knowing what they're buying.
Lumping all the different forms of tech together is insanely disingenuous and an inherently bad argument because of how very different each case is. You act like people aren't dumb enough to go nuts over hardware iterations and yet we see blockbuster lines whenever a new phone comes out even when the actual differences to last year's model are negligible. On the other hand, of course people aren't going to go nuts over every new TV because they look at what they have versus the new floor model in the store and go "well...what's the difference?" (and rightfully so in this specific case). Of course people aren't going to want to get a new 360 or whatever just because of a new HDMI port because the box still says the same damn thing on it. "XBOX 360." HOWEVER, they will have questions when they see the picture on the box change. I should know, I worked retail for two years (the Ketchikan Wal-Mart specifically) and while technically I was a warehouse guy, I frequently ended up in Electronics because I was one of the only guys in the store that actually knew about the products.
Alienware's model is just inherently dumb. If they call them different things with each release then it's guaranteed to cause consumer confusion or flat out drive them off back to regular consoles because of the perception that these things are a bigger hassle than consoles. If they keep the branding exactly the same then there will still be problems as you end up with all sorts of different models in the field and people wondering why one is working better than the other. Remember, PCs already have a perceived general perception of being fiddly and requiring constant upgrades. Yearly model updates just play into this. This has nothing to do with being stupid. This is consumer behavior 101.
Side note: Have you ever fielded a call that opened up with the customer saying they just bought a new PC from the store earlier that day and were wondering what they should do because they, and I quote, "deleted the entire internet" and then had to explain to that customer that, in fact, the internet was still there and all they did was delete a shortcut? Cause I have.
In a word? Status. My number is higher than yours therefore I'm more affluent. The iPhone was one of the first big smartphones and achieved early market dominance. The smartphone is now very ingrained in our day to day lives and much like having a gigantic fucking TV for no reason, having the latest model of phone is an easy way for people to feel better about themselves.
Very unlike the backwards compatibility problems with the current crop of consoles.
XBL:Phenyhelm - 3DS:Phenyhelm
This model of constantly iterating models isn't inherently dumb. It's a winner. It's what android and iOS have ridden to the top.
I fail to see what your annecdote about customer support has to do with this box, really. Do you think steam BPM will allow the average customer enough flexibility to completely boink his system? To even access the linux desktop, you have to delve into menus to enable developer access (just like android), and even then the normal user privileges in a typical SteamOS install are super limited. I couldn't even apt-get install from steamOS out of the box because I had no idea the root password without digging through valve's developer board.
Like, is Valve going to make a prime-time spot to show off some games and have a Steam Machine logo at the end? Are they going to explain why box A is different from box B-H? Or are they just going to leave that up to the manufacturers (who will probably stick to the same advertising channels as always).
Because even if you inform the public that Steam Machines exist and there's some games on it they want, you're still going to have the issue of walking into a best buy and seeing 13 different Steam Machines.
At least with the Xbox, people could just compare the two boxes side-by-side. 13 boxes though? That's going to take a hell of an effort to get people to narrow down their purchase to what they feel is right for them, because they're probably not going to know which one is right for them on their own. Especially if the differences aren't "bigger hard drive/ wireless controllers".
I don't think anyone is so loosey-goosey with their money to just go "Fuck it, I'l get.... THAT one."
If they were, they'd probably already own a PC.
Penny Arcade Rockstar Social Club / This is why I despise cyclists
I think this is kind of key. Games auto pick resolution settings.
I dont think the consumer is as stupid as being made out by some. Yes you have that guy. And you will remember that guy. But how many smart ones sent through the store and you never noticed. You dont have to interact with them, they dont ask questions.
I hear bad time in retail tainting your view whoever mentiined that.
Just reinforcing my retail experience because it's not like most of us know each other that well.
Bingo. Branding, education, marketing 101. PCs have an inherent stigma attached to them and have had it no matter how much easier and cheaper PC gaming has gotten. Alienware is fucking up because this stigma still exists. Down the line once SteamOS is more established and PC gaming stops being viewed as a rich nerd guy's game then yes, a yearly model is a totally good idea. Right now? Oh hell no. This is all in direct competition with consoles and right now the primary job of all these guys making Steam boxes should be to shatter the image of PCs requiring more effort than consoles. Yearly releases this early in the game only serve to play into the commonly held stereotype of PCs needing constant upgrades even though we all know that's not true and hasn't been for years. You said it yourself Sonic, they are not us.
You'd be surprised. >_>
I know, but I know better than to assume everyone else is on the same page.
Penny Arcade Rockstar Social Club / This is why I despise cyclists
Let me answer that question with another question. Why, then, are consoles so popular and PC gaming is still the minority? What's keeping people on consoles? What will cause these people to suddenly migrate to Steam Machines?
And you've hit on why console gaming remains popular. People care about convenience more than performance. They just want to plop in games and play. They don't care what numbers are in their resolution.
Also, claiming console games don't run "decently" is a weirdly elitist attitude to take.
It's not. PC gaming vastly eclipses console gaming as a whole. From the very onset, your entire argument is based off of an untrue premise:
Console gaming represents a global minority and accounts for only 40% of the gaming industry
What is more accurate to say is that, for certain genres, consoles have traditionally had larger user bases than they have on the PC market. There are a litany of reasons why this is so, but it's ignorant to A) assume said factors will always be in play,
Further more, the traditional publisher model is failing around the entire entertainment industry at large. I don't know if you've been noticing, but the traditional gate keeping publisher model isn't doing so hot for the recording industry as well, and the mpaa has been fighting a losing battle for ages. These steam machines represent a new era of self publishing. The console market isn't some inherently correct economy.
Skyrim runs in single digits on the PS3. Modern consoles take anywhere from 10 minutes to an hour to install games. There are constant updates and patches, DRM issue, the works. Console gaming isn't "plug and play." You're not reflecting the reality of the experience anymore.
And, no matter what metric you use, a mid-high tier PC from the equivalent time period runs better. If you believe console games run decently, then, by default, nearly all PC games run decently.
Edit: Oh hey, TSR has global stats, at least.
Unreal Engine 4 Developers Community.
I'm working on a cute little video game! Here's a link for you.
I've actually been considering the global market all along. China is overwhelmingly a pc centric country for a variety of reasons, not least of which being that console gaming was an illegal niche until a few weeks ago. China itself alone represents an industry all to the pc that is comparable to the entire console gaming sphere in the us. As in, sony and Microsoft and Nintendo combined.
Edit: also, valve has the stats you desire and are working to make them readily available to developers so they can read the market better.
Okay then, what percentage of that PC market is Steam? What percentage of it is Facebook, Flash and other gaming? We've been talking about a direct comparison of Steam Machines and consoles, so that would be a much more valuable metric.
...unless your PC isn't powerful enough to run them at all.
Skyrim on the PS3 is an outlier, and an example you've trotted out before. Pretty much all non-crappy console games run at a solid 30 FPS. However, with PCs, god knows what a game will run at. Again, it's a matter of convenience.
Even with patches and installation, console gamers still don't have to worry about hardware. They can just buy a game and play.* With Steam Machines, they'll have to worry about it a lot just to pick out which one to buy.
*Yes, I know you're going to bring up games that require a peripheral to play, but not only are they a tiny minority, but that peripheral requirement is clearly labeled on the box.
what's crazy about the PC market is that there is a hidden, untapped market within the market. A noticeably large number of players in china, according to valve's own metrics, have hardware that is much more capable than is being used. In china, the dominant OS is windows XP - something like 99% of users over there still are on XP. This locks them out to a number of direct X 10 and direct x 11 features which, according to valve's hardware scans, many many people have hardware for. Under the steamOS initative and using technologies they've created like VOGL, it'll be possible to tap this hidden market and enable more demanding games to reach these players without them having to navigate to another operating system, because openGL can access those hardware features even from XP.
Penny Arcade Rockstar Social Club / This is why I despise cyclists
Why would this matter at all? PC is the platform. Again, moving goal posts.
Valve's metrics displayed at Steam Dev Days put the number of capable gaming PCs that have connected to their servers at about 60 million users. Considering their 75 million user active base, the overwhelming number of PC gamers have gaming hardware. Furthermore, while desktop sales slump, the sale of PC gaming rigs has risen inversely to the point where they are booming and represent the majority of dedicated PC sales going forward meaning that PC gaming is gaining momentum.
No, skyrim isn't an outlier, the vast majority of games available on both PC and consoles will perform better on PC. Sonic All stars racing transformed? 720p at 30 fps consoles, 1080p at 60 fps PC. Tomb Raider? 720p 30 fps on console, 1440p+ at 60 fps PC. Sleeping dogs? Not even a comparison, in addition to running in 3D at higher framerates, it also boasts larger textures and higher detailed character models. Even the average unoptimized game like Call of Duty will run at a higher resolution and higher frame rate.
Also, you're making the same arguments you've made in this thread before. The one that I went into detail about not but a day ago to explain how steam will make this clear to you. At this point, for weeks now, all you've been doing is throwing your hands in the air and screaming "convenience." PC gaming is pretty convenient. Steam makes it more convenient. Console gaming isn't as convenient as you pretend it is.
Oh? So I can play DSi games on my phat DS? My PS3 can play PS2 games, my buddies cannot. TLOU is referred to as a "phat-killer" because of its propensity to send phat PS3s to their death. A number of Xbox 360 games actually required a harddrive. Do I need to point to the number of people who have been confused by the Wii and WiiU? You find these quibbles and choices to be acceptable because you are intimately familiar with this hobby. I had to try to explain the difference between the Wii and the WiiU to my brother in law for an hour before finally telling him to just flat-out not get the Wii.
It matters because currently these are two very different disciplines that only share a name and (the hardware side of) a platform.
I'm not trying to say social gaming isn't valid, or that social games aren't games. I'm saying they're currently not what gaming PCs are bought for.
Under that logic, WoW isn't PC gaming. Starcraft 2 isn't PC gaming. Diablo 3 isn't PC gaming. They're not on steam, after all.
It puts a good deal of stress on the PS3, and there have been a number of anecdotes of it "killing" old, phat models; nothing proven, but it's not hard to believe the excessive heat generated from the workload on the CPU/GPU popping some of the solder points, just like any other PS3 YLOD.
I have a big old original PS3, and it runs perfectly fine, if only in 720p. Enjoy the game though, it's got incredibly awesome storytelling!
</offtopic>
Unreal Engine 4 Developers Community.
I'm working on a cute little video game! Here's a link for you.
Dude, stop being so obtuse. Those are single-platform games. Multiplatform games sell way more copies on consoles than PC. At least they go on Steam Sale.
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
Do you have data to back up that claim?
Unreal Engine 4 Developers Community.
I'm working on a cute little video game! Here's a link for you.
Isn't Diablo 3 out on consoles?
No, including Facebook games and Flash games is moving the goal posts. I'd rather see an apples to apples analysis, not one that's padded out with all kinds of things not on Steam OS or consoles.
But if you'd like to include all PC games, then fine -- PC gaming is still in the minority, because we'd then have to include all the gaming on smartphones and tablets.
No, Skyrim on PS3 is an outlier, because it runs crappily. Most console games run well. Yes, they may not run with as many shinies as PC equivalents, but you know what? Console gamers don't care. They're happy to run the games at 720p. That's the nature of the console market. They don't lust after 60FPS. Now, by your admission, PC gamers have more of a boner for specs -- which is yet another reason Steam Machines aren't inherently attractive to the console market.
You're splitting hairs. A game in a box marked "PS3" will work in a PS3. A game marked for "PC" gives you zero indication of whether it will work in your box. It's really that simple.
And you're making the same arguments you've made before. All this time, you're downplaying just how big a factor convenience is, and is the reason most people play AAA games on consoles rather than PCs and continue to do so, long after the PC games get ever-larger numbers attached to their specs. Console games are "good enough" for a giant portion of the market.
Look, TSR. I get it. You're extremely excited about Steam Machines. And that's okay! It's a very interesting experiment. I'm very curious to see where it goes. But I think you're getting a little carried away in your excitement. While Steam Machines could bring interesting new developments in PC gaming, it's probably more than a little optimistic to believe that this is something that will excite everyone simply because you're excited. I mean, I'm a Ratchet and Clank fan, but I accept that the audience for people who want a platform/shooter with goofy cartoon aliens is, relatively speaking, limited. Yet that doesn't change my personal enjoyment of the games.
I'm happy to agree to disagree on this and let the thread get back to the OS details, but you're going to have to accept that intelligent, well-reasoned people are able to disagree on this particular matter.
Cite your sales figures.
1. Couches
2. convenience of setup
3. OS issues (ie, windows)
in that order.
The thing that's great about steamboxes are that they eliminate all of these. It keeps the convenience for people who just want to buy a box and plug it in, but also keeps the expandability for those who want to build a monster box. It means that now your games are running on an OS which is both a full operating system, but also is designed FOR gaming, and at least theoretically, will continue to evolve in that direction.
I'd also bet that the biggest hurdle for steam box acceptance now will be
1. Convincing casual consumers to go all digital, and all online (and similarly, broadband availability)
2. not getting any console exclusives, and also relatedly, poor ports
You mean the markets I listed that add up to 19% of total gaming revenue? PC gaming's 38% revenue is less than that?
You're fine to believe that the average PC port isn't normally a qualitatively better experience than the same game on a console. You're just objectively wrong. Further more, what you're classifying as "fine" for consoles, you're claiming is "crappy" for PCs. You're not using a standard criteria for your analysis.
Please point out my admittance of some sort of boner for specs.
So, like, you're going to still ignore this?
How do I play this:
on this:
Isn't it funny how your blanket statements don't hold to scrutiny, and suddenly then it's "splitting hairs?"
You know, at this point, I'd say I'm coming off looking informed, not excited. Within the context of today, has a single one of your assertions stemmed from a legitimate, backed by source claim? Or is it all rooted in "feelings" and "gut"?
EA Financials for Q2FY14, page 14. Sums of platform net revenue from Q2FY13 to Q2FY14 by platform:
Xbox 360 $1283M
Playstation 3 $1212M
Wii $54M
Playstation 2 $14M
Mobile $458M
Playstation Handhelds $68M
Nintendo Handhelds $40M
PC $1224M
Totaled up, consoles are a much larger market, but PC gaming as a whole represents a similarly sized market to PS3 in the same time period. If you look at the trends this also shows a 28% YOY change in PC revenue, while all the console revenues are shrinking. Don't look too much into that, though, as this financial report is obviously just before the new consoles came out which appear to be poised to make a ton of money for the AAA segment.
As far as EA and Linux goes, I am not aware of any pushes by EA but DICE appears to be keen on it.
Anyway, I never made a Steam vs. non-Steam argument. Steam isn't the entirety of PC gaming. I was merely trying to say that Facebook-esque social gaming is not what most people will be buying a new gaming PC for, so if the like is included in those sales figures, maybe they aren't the best indication of potential Steam Machines market share.
Ea also doesn't publish on the largest storefront in all of pc gaming, to remember.
Edit: there were also ea devs at sdd, during the first day devoted to Linux development. Granted, they were there on assignment, but they're listening to the arguments.
http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/ACTI/2913919996x0x704154/aea0172e-98c1-42d4-b5f5-b92cb86d3211/ATVI_Q3_press_release_with_tables.pdf
Page 7, GAAP Net Revenues by Segment/Platform Mix
Online Subscriptions $714M
PC $274M
Playstation 3 $727M
Xbox 360 $849M
Wii/WiiU $58M
Other $300M
The obvious elephant in the room is Online Subscriptions. Presumably the lion's share of that is Warcraft subscription money, but it also lumps in stuff like CoD Elite. The much smaller elephant in the room is "Other", which primarily represents sales of Skylanders toys and accessories.
I broke down the numbers in the same post. Valve makes their analytics available online. 75% of their 75 million active users have a video card that supports direct x 10 or better. Those are ostentatiously gaming pcs, not old ladies checking Facebook. Plus, that Facebook market is shrinking while the dedicated gaming pc market is doing the opposite.
http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey
They have loads more that aren't public yet, too.