The more interesting page is honestly probably the page after it, where you see that ActiBlizzard's revenue comes overwhelmingly from NA/EU. They obviously have a huge opportunity to capitalize on mostly untapped Asian markets, which TSR is absolutely right about being PC-dominant.
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.
Ok, so you are running steam os right? Steam os evaluates which steam machine you have, and auto downgrades the settings. This is all seamless, and a "dumb" end user will not know the differance. I fail to see how this is different than how the consoles are doing it. Steam machines are in the steam universe, it isn't like a PC in that sense.
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.
I think your not thinking about something. For steam games, on steam boxes, you buy in the steam store. Native to the Steam OS. So, not saying they do this, but it wouldn't be hard for them to scan your hardware, and never show you games that can't run on your machine. Just saying, It is Steam in steam, on steam for steam. It isn't a PC.
The XBox One is on PC teach now, but is it a PC? Don't think of a Steam box as a PC, it is a Steam box, for Steam. If you want to hack it, you are not the "dumb" user anyway.
Isn't the Alienware machine the perfect analogue to a console? If I'm looking at the right thing, it's:
At the same price point
Is not modifiable
It seems to be the very definition of plug-and-play.
The yearly iteration part of it is a bit odd, but if they're smart, they'll keep the branding and case the same, and just increment the internals. Maybe change the name every 5-7 years to make it clear the new version is an update to the 'original', along the lines of console generations.
I dunno... as a console gamer first, their rendition of a Steam Machine makes the most sense to me and my needs. I just want something I can plug into the back of my TV. The Alienware seems to fit the bill.
PSN/XBL/Nintendo/Origin/Steam: Nightslyr 3DS: 1607-1682-2948 Switch: SW-3515-0057-3813 FF XIV: Q'vehn Tia
That out of the way, here's a relevant opinion: Personally I don't see this in terms of a "Consoles vs. PCs" war... I think that's a pretty shortsighted perspective. The bigger picture, as it presents itself to me at least, is the upcoming conflict between open and closed platforms.
Xbox and PlayStation are both "walled gardens," much like Apple's online app store. They are closed platforms. The platform owners (Sony, MS, Apple) get to decide what software gets released on their storefronts, and what content they don't like. They're gatekeepers, and it's hugely profitable for them. They get to charge license fees from devs for title releases, subscriptions from their user base, all the while retaining control over their market. Microsoft too are trying to go the same way recently, or at least some of their decisions about Win8 strongly hint at it.
Of course it can be insinuated that Valve is as much a gatekeeper with Steam, but the introduction of Greenlight (its flaws notwithstanding) and their recent comments (that they'd like to completely step back from their editorial role in maintaining the Steam storefront, that the only one who decides whether a game appears on Steam should be the developer, if I remember correctly) indicates that they're both conscious of this role, as well as discontent with it. Consider also their talk about User Generated Content/Value: Valve are pushing for an open platform because it encourages creativity, and (from their economic perspective) creativity means more value for their customers.
This isn't a console war - to me these are the opening moves in an upcoming systemic conflict. To use a somewhat dramatic analogy, open platforms are like democracy. Closed platforms are like despotism. Open platforms are about empowering people to be creative, to make fun or awesome or beautiful stuff, and room for rapid and free innovation. Closed platforms are about hierarchical control, passive consumerism, and profit. Grossly generalizing, I know... but to me, that's the gist of it. Pushing Linux for gaming is a really good thing, if Windows starts developing tendencies of turning into a walled garden. Openness is the PC's greatest strength. Looking at Valve's internal structure might give you a hint as to which side of this divide they come down, if you have any doubts ;-)
Anyway, that's why I really hope Valve keeps going with this stuff, and I wish them the greatest success.
That out of the way, here's a relevant opinion: Personally I don't see this in terms of a "Consoles vs. PCs" war... I think that's a pretty shortsighted perspective. The bigger picture, as it presents itself to me at least, is the upcoming conflict between open and closed platforms.
I have to agree with this. That is why above I said you need to think of it as a steam box, not a pc. I don't think the Steam box is supposed to be a word processor, spreadsheet. Steam has internet browsing, but i don't think it is aimed at using it to facebook. So there is one, if I load a game, load the in game browser, and use it to play facebook games, am I doing it wrong? Can I even do that? I don't have a facebook account, so I can't try.
So I guess my point, is think it less of PC vs Console, and more Concole vs Console, or as you said open vs closed.
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.
Your frequent claims that console games aren't "decent" because they don't run as fast as PCs. That's a very weird definition of decent.
More specifically, I'm not denying PC games run better, I'm saying the general market doesn't care. See the Activision numbers. For most console users, it's "decent" at the very least.
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, like, you're going to still ignore this?
Um, yes. A game with "PS3" on the box will work on any PS3. That's a fact.
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?"
Congratulations! You found exactly one DS game that doesn't work on the 3DS, due to the big obvious peripheral. Somehow that doesn't invalidate the other 99.7 percent of DS games that do. Call me when you find more.
Besides, you're talking about backwards compatibility. I'm talking about compatibility with the systems that allegedly run them. I'm not comparing PCs with PC Jrs.
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"?
And you have no source indicating that somehow console owners will be extremely tempted by Steam Machines, yet you keep insisting it.
Again, the Steam Machine could do interesting things for PCs. But it's not going to cause console owners to suddenly move over to them.
Again, the Steam Machine could do interesting things for PCs. But it's not going to cause console owners to suddenly move over to them.
Huh? I would ABSOLUTELY jump ship if the following happened:
A $500-$600 Steam Machine had comparable-to-better hardware than it's Sony and Microsoft counterparts
Steam Machines are as plug-and-play as they're aiming to be
I don't really play 1st party titles, and I'd love to not need to pay $50-$60 a year for Live or PSN. I'm not sure how Steam handles multiplayer, but if it gets something like Live in terms of parties and whatnot, I'd jump ship in a heartbeat.
If things move in the direction I hope they will, I'll buy a Steam Machine once this generation is done and the platform is stable.
PSN/XBL/Nintendo/Origin/Steam: Nightslyr 3DS: 1607-1682-2948 Switch: SW-3515-0057-3813 FF XIV: Q'vehn Tia
I'm really interested in the controller, and am dying to try one out. I can't do KBAM games very well because of my hands, so the Steam Controller could be an accessibility gateway.
PSN/XBL/Nintendo/Origin/Steam: Nightslyr 3DS: 1607-1682-2948 Switch: SW-3515-0057-3813 FF XIV: Q'vehn Tia
I haven't looked into the eula stuff. Does anyone know if there is any mention of what happens to your steam library if valve goes away? As much as I love the backwards compatibility of steam, it is kind of putting all your eggs in one basket.
I haven't looked into the eula stuff. Does anyone know if there is any mention of what happens to your steam library if valve goes away? As much as I love the backwards compatibility of steam, it is kind of putting all your eggs in one basket.
Gabe has said they'll make a way to keep your shit if Steam goes under, but there's nothing written in writing.
Though the sheer amount of shit that has to go wrong for Valve to scuttle Steam is so great, I'd be more worried about who's going to own Valve after Gabe is no longer with us, and what their plans for the service are. And I'm not expecting to worry about that for a long while yet.
Valve literally had enough money to build a multi-million dollar hardware studio and then when it decided on what direction to go, let the employees who felt strongly about a certain peice of tech KEEP THE RIGHTS to that tech and go off and do their own thing. It'd be super hard to bring down Valve at this point in time. Like, global catastrophe bad.
I haven't looked into the eula stuff. Does anyone know if there is any mention of what happens to your steam library if valve goes away? As much as I love the backwards compatibility of steam, it is kind of putting all your eggs in one basket.
Gabe has said they'll make a way to keep your shit if Steam goes under, but there's nothing written in writing.
Though the sheer amount of shit that has to go wrong for Valve to scuttle Steam is so great, I'd be more worried about who's going to own Valve after Gabe is no longer with us, and what their plans for the service are. And I'm not expecting to worry about that for a long while yet.
Valve literally had enough money to build a multi-million dollar hardware studio and then when it decided on what direction to go, let the employees who felt strongly about a certain peice of tech KEEP THE RIGHTS to that tech and go off and do their own thing. It'd be super hard to bring down Valve at this point in time. Like, global catastrophe bad.
To add, it's no more "one basket" than the 360. If Valve and Steam die, it's going to be because the PC gaming market in general has died. The 360 market dies whenever Microsoft announces it's done making 360's since you can't play anything from that console on the Xbone. That water's a little murkier wrt Sony, at least until full details about their streaming service come forth.
You don't think being able to do everything consoles do, but better, is tempting enough?
Considering there's a large number of them with a confusing array of hardware, and the very cheapest one is the same price or $100 more expensive than the two brand-new consoles with games guaranteed to work at the same level for at least five years, It's going to be a tough sell.
Besides, in the world of consoles the machine with the most power has never won. (That's likely to not be the case this generation since the Wii U stumbled out the gate with loads of problems, lack of power being the least of them.) If people still overwhelmingly preferred Call of Duty on the platforms with six-year-old hardware, it's unlikely they'll suddenly see a huge difference in hardware that's less than a year newer.
I'm not saying it's because Steam OS is going to suck, it's just the way the markets are set up.
The one difference is that if I own a 360, assuming it hasn't RROD'd, I can still play any games that I own a physical copy of. For example, I can still play my PS2 and all the games I have even though they don't make PS2s anymore - not that I do but I don't like the idea of things that I have paid for being taken away. To be fair, this is more a concern of digital distribution where you own a licence as opposed to a physical copy so consoles are not exempt from my concerns (and don't get me started on Always Online DRM).
@Undead Scottsman - I'm glad to hear that. That's pretty reassuring and entirely reasonable, unlike what I hear about places like Amazon. I really don't like the idea of losing my whole library down the road
You don't think being able to do everything consoles do, but better, is tempting enough?
Considering there's a large number of them with a confusing array of hardware, and the very cheapest one is the same price or $100 more expensive than the two brand-new consoles with games guaranteed to work at the same level for at least five years, It's going to be a tough sell.
Besides, in the world of consoles the machine with the most power has never won. (That's likely to not be the case this generation since the Wii U stumbled out the gate with loads of problems, lack of power being the least of them.) If people still overwhelmingly preferred Call of Duty on the platforms with six-year-old hardware, it's unlikely they'll suddenly see a huge difference in hardware that's less than a year newer.
I'm not saying it's because Steam OS is going to suck, it's just the way the markets are set up.
@cloudeagle I did not say that quote. Please don't miss quote me. you are looking for @jdarksun
The one difference is that if I own a 360, assuming it hasn't RROD'd, I can still play any games that I own a physical copy of. For example, I can still play my PS2 and all the games I have even though they don't make PS2s anymore - not that I do but I don't like the idea of things that I have paid for being taken away. To be fair, this is more a concern of digital distribution where you own a licence as opposed to a physical copy so consoles are not exempt from my concerns (and don't get me started on Always Online DRM).
@Undead Scottsman - I'm glad to hear that. That's pretty reassuring and entirely reasonable, unlike what I hear about places like Amazon. I really don't like the idea of losing my whole library down the road
I think this is a valid concern. It is a concern with the xbox one. Do you think that sony and MS are not going to keep trying to lock up the games? I think the thing that makes steam ok for me, and the fact that I "rent" games, is I pay so little for the rental fee. When I am only paying $5 for a game, knowing it might go away is easy to so ok. This is me, YMMV. Paying 60 bucks, yeah I don't want to loose it. You can call me crazy, and you may disagree, but I feel the price point for games on steam is ok for the obvious downside. I think a lot agree, but I have no proof.
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.
This isn't the PC gaming thread, though. This is the SteamOS thread. The worldwide success of Facebook games and Blizzard games and Asian MMOs don't translate into guaranteed success for SteamOS because few, if any, of those games will run on SteamOS. Because SteamOS is Linux and even if Valve's new API gains traction it isn't going to do a whole lot for the back catalog. People who already game on PCs are discouraged from converting to SteamOS because a lot of popular PC games aren't supported, and those unsupported games aren't going to do anything to attract console gamers to convert to SteamOS either.
SteamOS represents a rift in compatibility the likes of which PC gaming has pretty much never seen. It's naive to assume that the PC gaming industry's inertia is going to transfer straight into SteamOS. It's entirely possible that SteamOS will flop and Valve's revenue figures won't go up at all but PC gaming in general remains healthy. SteamOS is not the sole, inevitable evolution of the PC platform. It's a far-flung branch with a sharply divergent strategy and an ambiguous market whose future is by no measurement a certainty.
Uh, Valve's revenue is pretty intrinsically tied to the health of PC Gaming.
Their entire SteamOS initiative could tank and they'd likely not even feel it financially. Hell, they'd probably still wind up making more money just because of their steady growth.
Zxerolfor the smaller pieces, my shovel wouldn't doso i took off my boot and used my shoeRegistered Userregular
Well, it may be a problem if it's Flash based. Flash player binaries aren't distributed by default, besides the fact that Flash on Linux is fucking ass.
Are most of them Flash, or HTML5, or what? I haven't played any Facebook games but I would've thought they'd try to make them playable on iPods and iPads, which don't do Flash very well from what I've heard.
0
syndalisGetting ClassyOn the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Productsregular
Are most of them Flash, or HTML5, or what? I haven't played any Facebook games but I would've thought they'd try to make them playable on iPods and iPads, which don't do Flash very well from what I've heard.
lots are flash, but they tend to also make iOS native versions for the really popular ones to bypass that.
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
You don't think being able to do everything consoles do, but better, is tempting enough?
Considering there's a large number of them with a confusing array of hardware, and the very cheapest one is the same price or $100 more expensive than the two brand-new consoles with games guaranteed to work at the same level for at least five years, It's going to be a tough sell.
Besides, in the world of consoles the machine with the most power has never won. (That's likely to not be the case this generation since the Wii U stumbled out the gate with loads of problems, lack of power being the least of them.) If people still overwhelmingly preferred Call of Duty on the platforms with six-year-old hardware, it's unlikely they'll suddenly see a huge difference in hardware that's less than a year newer.
I'm not saying it's because Steam OS is going to suck, it's just the way the markets are set up.
You keep bringing up "guaranteed to work for five years" about consoles like that's not true for PC games.
Why?
The specs for the XB1 and PS4 suck. You can build a better box for $500 that doesn't have built-in partitioned memory.
If you think that either of those systems are going to provide five years of entertainment (or whatever), then you have to accept that the Steam Boxes will as well.
Further, Steam OS is going to have more games than either platform.
More games. Better hardware. Backwards compatability. There's literally no downside.
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.
Your frequent claims that console games aren't "decent" because they don't run as fast as PCs. That's a very weird definition of decent.
Protip: I'm using your vocabulary when I say "decent." Mainly because you proposed that games on PCs don't run "decently" when, by every measurable criteria, they run better than they do on a comparable console, which you described as "decent." Or, to make it clearer - I'm pointing out your double standard.
[More specifically, I'm not denying PC games run better, I'm saying the general market doesn't care. See the Activision numbers. For most console users, it's "decent" at the very least.
Well then it's a mighty good thing my values proposition doesn't hinge on performance, huh?
Congratulations! You found exactly one DS game that doesn't work on the 3DS, due to the big obvious peripheral. Somehow that doesn't invalidate the other 99.7 percent of DS games that do. Call me when you find more.
Besides, you're talking about backwards compatibility.
While, true, that game won't run on a 3DS and its backwards compatibility isn't 100%, you apparently missed the fact that I posted a NINTENDO DS, not a 3DS. That is an example of a DS game that won't run on a the vast majority of DSes released.
I'm talking about compatibility with the systems that allegedly run them. I'm not comparing PCs with PC Jrs.
And you assert somehow that these modern steam machines, the weakest of which are roughly on par with an Xbox one, will somehow not be able to keep pace because...? Is this the same place you got your intell on Bioshock Infinite not running on a 7 year old PC?
Your original quote was better, you shouldn't have edited it. I'll still respond to it, though:
"You're ignoring the 99.99% of the games that do run on these old systems. Every game with PS3 on the spine will run on a PS3, something something PC gaming something?"
As though the arguments your making about compatibility issues apply to the vast majority of PC games. How many PC games are there currently that demand bleeding edge specs? The very example you used has a min specs requirement that would have been a modest PC back in 2007. Even subsequent crysis games have had dialed back specs. There are no games demanding an i7 with a titan.
Further, to address your specific PS3 claim, how do I play this game with "PS3" on my PS3:
Your "It will play!" gurantee looks less and less solid with every example I post. I mean, the claim currently stands at, "If you ignore all the games which do not offer universal compatibility, then the system has universal compatibility!" which isn't a claim to put your weight behind.
And you have no source indicating that somehow console owners will be extremely tempted by Steam Machines, yet you keep insisting it.
Again, the Steam Machine could do interesting things for PCs. But it's not going to cause console owners to suddenly move over to them.
First of all, there is a difference between a prediction of what will happen in the future based off of factors I'm evaluating, and making claims about the current make up of the market which are quantifiably incorrect. Did you seriously just try to claim that, because steam machines, an unreleased line of hardware, hasn't conquered the gaming landscape, that your claims that a 7 year old PC wouldn't be able to run bioshock infinite or that PC gaming is a global minority were alright to post?
Second, you've pretty consistently built up strawmen arguments, and you're doing it again. So now the metric of success is mass migration from console to PC? Your original claim had to do with values arguments and whether or not these machines would keep pace. Have you forgotten this entire line of argument stemmed from your supposed confusion about iterating hardware? I can't believe that, a day into this discussion, you've turned an announcment about alienware doing 1 configuration a year into:
Considering there's a large number of them with a confusing array of hardware
You aren't consistent in any of your arguments. But more to the point, my argument was never contingent on a mass exodus to PC gaming. In fact, I said this, to you, a month ago when you presented this very same argument:
What have Sony and microsoft pulled off this past month? Sold 1 million units? Anybody who thinks the steam platform won't match that is the one who is delusional. And completely uninformed about the platform, since they're apparently expecting an actual console launch, and will likely be there day 1 when there are no sales reports of 1 million units sold in 24 hours or whatever pointing to it as proof of failure.
How many units did "android" sell in its first day? When was it's first day, period?
They won't need to convince people to get one. They're not selling people on the machine. It will achieve ubiquity as vendors pick it up. It will come built into TVs, it will come bundled in settop boxes.
There isn't going to be a moment when someone is going to decide, "I'm going to get a gaming pc!" It'll just happen, without them even knowing it. They'll think they're picking up a media box, or subscribing to a cable subscription with a settop box, or buying a new shiny TV, or whatever. There isn't going to be a mindshift.
These are literally, word for word the exact same arguments you brought up a month ago. Except this time you sprinkled in some claims which could be proven incorrect. No, the proposition hasn't changed since then. Repeating your refrain hasn't changed reality.
More games. Better hardware. Backwards compatability. There's literally no downside.
It also ignores the biggest factor to SteamOS's longterm viability - the ecosystem is much healthier for game makers. It offers a lower risk venture with higher rewards at a minimal investment.
TheSonicRetard on
+4
CuvisTheConquerorThey always say "yee haw" but they never ask "haw yee?" Registered Userregular
I haven't looked into the eula stuff. Does anyone know if there is any mention of what happens to your steam library if valve goes away? As much as I love the backwards compatibility of steam, it is kind of putting all your eggs in one basket.
Gabe has said they'll make a way to keep your shit if Steam goes under, but there's nothing written in writing.
Though the sheer amount of shit that has to go wrong for Valve to scuttle Steam is so great, I'd be more worried about who's going to own Valve after Gabe is no longer with us, and what their plans for the service are. And I'm not expecting to worry about that for a long while yet.
Valve literally had enough money to build a multi-million dollar hardware studio and then when it decided on what direction to go, let the employees who felt strongly about a certain peice of tech KEEP THE RIGHTS to that tech and go off and do their own thing. It'd be super hard to bring down Valve at this point in time. Like, global catastrophe bad.
Not to mention, if things do go that bad, you can always recover your purchases from... err... other sources.
You don't think being able to do everything consoles do, but better, is tempting enough?
Considering there's a large number of them with a confusing array of hardware, and the very cheapest one is the same price or $100 more expensive than the two brand-new consoles with games guaranteed to work at the same level for at least five years, It's going to be a tough sell.
Besides, in the world of consoles the machine with the most power has never won. (That's likely to not be the case this generation since the Wii U stumbled out the gate with loads of problems, lack of power being the least of them.) If people still overwhelmingly preferred Call of Duty on the platforms with six-year-old hardware, it's unlikely they'll suddenly see a huge difference in hardware that's less than a year newer.
I'm not saying it's because Steam OS is going to suck, it's just the way the markets are set up.
You keep bringing up "guaranteed to work for five years" about consoles like that's not true for PC games.
Why?
The specs for the XB1 and PS4 suck. You can build a better box for $500 that doesn't have built-in partitioned memory.
If you think that either of those systems are going to provide five years of entertainment (or whatever), then you have to accept that the Steam Boxes will as well.
Further, Steam OS is going to have more games than either platform.
More games. Better hardware. Backwards compatability. There's literally no downside.
Other than having to wade through the dozens of models to figure out which one is best for you.
I know, it sounds trivial, but convenience is a big thing in pretty much every market, not just video games.
Switch: 3947-4890-9293
0
CuvisTheConquerorThey always say "yee haw" but they never ask "haw yee?" Registered Userregular
You don't think being able to do everything consoles do, but better, is tempting enough?
Considering there's a large number of them with a confusing array of hardware, and the very cheapest one is the same price or $100 more expensive than the two brand-new consoles with games guaranteed to work at the same level for at least five years, It's going to be a tough sell.
Besides, in the world of consoles the machine with the most power has never won. (That's likely to not be the case this generation since the Wii U stumbled out the gate with loads of problems, lack of power being the least of them.) If people still overwhelmingly preferred Call of Duty on the platforms with six-year-old hardware, it's unlikely they'll suddenly see a huge difference in hardware that's less than a year newer.
I'm not saying it's because Steam OS is going to suck, it's just the way the markets are set up.
You keep bringing up "guaranteed to work for five years" about consoles like that's not true for PC games.
Why?
The specs for the XB1 and PS4 suck. You can build a better box for $500 that doesn't have built-in partitioned memory.
If you think that either of those systems are going to provide five years of entertainment (or whatever), then you have to accept that the Steam Boxes will as well.
Further, Steam OS is going to have more games than either platform.
More games. Better hardware. Backwards compatability. There's literally no downside.
Other than having to wade through the dozens of models to figure out which one is best for you.
I know, it sounds trivial, but convenience is a big thing in pretty much every market, not just video games.
That hasn't stopped Android from turning a market dominated by iOS into a market dominated by... well, Android.
You don't think being able to do everything consoles do, but better, is tempting enough?
Considering there's a large number of them with a confusing array of hardware, and the very cheapest one is the same price or $100 more expensive than the two brand-new consoles with games guaranteed to work at the same level for at least five years, It's going to be a tough sell.
Besides, in the world of consoles the machine with the most power has never won. (That's likely to not be the case this generation since the Wii U stumbled out the gate with loads of problems, lack of power being the least of them.) If people still overwhelmingly preferred Call of Duty on the platforms with six-year-old hardware, it's unlikely they'll suddenly see a huge difference in hardware that's less than a year newer.
I'm not saying it's because Steam OS is going to suck, it's just the way the markets are set up.
You keep bringing up "guaranteed to work for five years" about consoles like that's not true for PC games.
Why?
The specs for the XB1 and PS4 suck. You can build a better box for $500 that doesn't have built-in partitioned memory.
If you think that either of those systems are going to provide five years of entertainment (or whatever), then you have to accept that the Steam Boxes will as well.
Further, Steam OS is going to have more games than either platform.
More games. Better hardware. Backwards compatability. There's literally no downside.
Other than having to wade through the dozens of models to figure out which one is best for you.
I know, it sounds trivial, but convenience is a big thing in pretty much every market, not just video games.
There are 13 announced models. And all will run the same games.
You don't think being able to do everything consoles do, but better, is tempting enough?
Considering there's a large number of them with a confusing array of hardware, and the very cheapest one is the same price or $100 more expensive than the two brand-new consoles with games guaranteed to work at the same level for at least five years, It's going to be a tough sell.
Besides, in the world of consoles the machine with the most power has never won. (That's likely to not be the case this generation since the Wii U stumbled out the gate with loads of problems, lack of power being the least of them.) If people still overwhelmingly preferred Call of Duty on the platforms with six-year-old hardware, it's unlikely they'll suddenly see a huge difference in hardware that's less than a year newer.
I'm not saying it's because Steam OS is going to suck, it's just the way the markets are set up.
You keep bringing up "guaranteed to work for five years" about consoles like that's not true for PC games.
Why?
The specs for the XB1 and PS4 suck. You can build a better box for $500 that doesn't have built-in partitioned memory.
If you think that either of those systems are going to provide five years of entertainment (or whatever), then you have to accept that the Steam Boxes will as well.
Further, Steam OS is going to have more games than either platform.
More games. Better hardware. Backwards compatability. There's literally no downside.
Other than having to wade through the dozens of models to figure out which one is best for you.
I know, it sounds trivial, but convenience is a big thing in pretty much every market, not just video games.
Steam Machines: The Hardware
Rather than releasing one box, with specs that only they decide, Valve is allowing anybody to piece together their own hardware, provided they fall under an acceptable range of power comparable to what they envision.
All of the Steam Machines will meet a certain minimum threshold. Picking between them is going to be no more difficult than saying "XB1 or PS4?", except in this case, every Steam Machine will be able to play every game. You don't have to worry about "exclusives" bullshit. It's simply a matter of price/performance, or aesthetics if that's the sort of thing that excites you.
I walk into Best Buy and head to the phone section. What do I see? A guide listing all the phones, including a spreadsheet of screen size, hardware, battery life, that sort of thing.
Once Steam Machines take off, we'll see the same sort of thing. The Android comparison is very apt.
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.
Your frequent claims that console games aren't "decent" because they don't run as fast as PCs. That's a very weird definition of decent.
Protip: I'm using your vocabulary when I say "decent." Mainly because you proposed that games on PCs don't run "decently" when, by every measurable criteria, they run better than they do on a comparable console, which you described as "decent." Or, to make it clearer - I'm pointing out your double standard.
PC games run decently. They also run fantastically. They also run poorly. It all depends on how much power you have, and it's up to the customer to keep up.
More specifically, I'm not denying PC games run better, I'm saying the general market doesn't care. See the Activision numbers. For most console users, it's "decent" at the very least.
Well then it's a mighty good thing my values proposition doesn't hinge on performance, huh?
But what other value proposition is there that would specifically target console buyers, who value convenience highly? Having a couple dozen Steam Machines at launch is less than convenient.
Congratulations! You found exactly one DS game that doesn't work on the 3DS, due to the big obvious peripheral. Somehow that doesn't invalidate the other 99.7 percent of DS games that do. Call me when you find more.
Besides, you're talking about backwards compatibility.
While, true, that game won't run on a 3DS and its backwards compatibility isn't 100%, you apparently missed the fact that I posted a NINTENDO DS, not a 3DS. That is an example of a DS game that won't run on a the vast majority of DSes released.
I'm talking about compatibility with the systems that allegedly run them. I'm not comparing PCs with PC Jrs.
And you assert somehow that these modern steam machines, the weakest of which are roughly on par with an Xbox one, will somehow not be able to keep pace because...? Is this the same place you got your intell on Bioshock Infinite not running on a 7 year old PC?
Your original quote was better, you shouldn't have edited it. I'll still respond to it, though:
"You're ignoring the 99.99% of the games that do run on these old systems. Every game with PS3 on the spine will run on a PS3, something something PC gaming something?"
As though the arguments your making about compatibility issues apply to the vast majority of PC games. How many PC games are there currently that demand bleeding edge specs? The very example you used has a min specs requirement that would have been a modest PC back in 2007. Even subsequent crysis games have had dialed back specs. There are no games demanding an i7 with a titan.
Further, to address your specific PS3 claim, how do I play this game with "PS3" on my PS3:
Your "It will play!" gurantee looks less and less solid with every example I post. I mean, the claim currently stands at, "If you ignore all the games which do not offer universal compatibility, then the system has universal compatibility!" which isn't a claim to put your weight behind.
Your "consoles do too have hardware problems!" Become less and less solid when you can only come up with one example per system. The overwhelming majority of games still run just fine with zero problems and zero requirements to think about hardware.
And you have no source indicating that somehow console owners will be extremely tempted by Steam Machines, yet you keep insisting it.
Again, the Steam Machine could do interesting things for PCs. But it's not going to cause console owners to suddenly move over to them.
First of all, there is a difference between a prediction of what will happen in the future based off of factors I'm evaluating, and making claims about the current make up of the market which are quantifiably incorrect. Did you seriously just try to claim that, because steam machines, an unreleased line of hardware, hasn't conquered the gaming landscape, that your claims that a 7 year old PC wouldn't be able to run bioshock infinite or that PC gaming is a global minority were alright to post?
Yep. Especially when that computer doesn't run Bioshock Infinite decently. Oh sure it runs, but it runs at a low framerate. Getting Bioshock Infinite for a 360 or PS3 will give you better performance.
Second, you've pretty consistently built up strawmen arguments, and you're doing it again. So now the metric of success is mass migration from console to PC? Your original claim had to do with values arguments and whether or not these machines would keep pace. Have you forgotten this entire line of argument stemmed from your supposed confusion about iterating hardware? I can't believe that, a day into this discussion, you've turned an announcment about alienware doing 1 configuration a year into:
Considering there's a large number of them with a confusing array of hardware
You aren't consistent in any of your arguments. But more to the point, my argument was never contingent on a mass exodus to PC gaming. In fact, I said this, to you, a month ago when you presented this very same argument:
What have Sony and microsoft pulled off this past month? Sold 1 million units? Anybody who thinks the steam platform won't match that is the one who is delusional. And completely uninformed about the platform, since they're apparently expecting an actual console launch, and will likely be there day 1 when there are no sales reports of 1 million units sold in 24 hours or whatever pointing to it as proof of failure.
How many units did "android" sell in its first day? When was it's first day, period?
They won't need to convince people to get one. They're not selling people on the machine. It will achieve ubiquity as vendors pick it up. It will come built into TVs, it will come bundled in settop boxes.
There isn't going to be a moment when someone is going to decide, "I'm going to get a gaming pc!" It'll just happen, without them even knowing it. They'll think they're picking up a media box, or subscribing to a cable subscription with a settop box, or buying a new shiny TV, or whatever. There isn't going to be a mindshift.
These are literally, word for word the exact same arguments you brought up a month ago. Except this time you sprinkled in some claims which could be proven incorrect. No, the proposition hasn't changed since then. Repeating your refrain hasn't changed reality.
No, my argument has always been "Steam Machines won't convince console owners to switch over, as you claim." Full stop. You've claimed that repeatedly in this thread.
Interesting that you bring up Android, since Android has the exact same problem Steam Machines have -- too many models. There's loads of great ones out there, but the only one that makes money is, literally, Samsung. Why? Because people throw up their hands and go "fuck it."
Now, the reason Android was able to succeed is because it launched at a time when smartphones were still hitting the mainstream, and there was plenty of room for growth. Steam Machines are coming when the games market is very mature and unlikely to grow by leaps and bounds, at least not in the AAA space Steam Machines are targeting. So, when customers see all those Steam Machines, it's unlikely their "fuck it" response will cause them to lunge for, say, Alienware, because the PS4 and 360 are right there.
Also, TSR? Could we skip over the horrifically complicated quote trees? I'll be buggered if I'm wading back through that last one and fixing it.
But what other value proposition is there that would specifically target console buyers, who value convenience highly? Having a couple dozen Steam Machines at launch is less than convenient.
Cost. Games cost less, can go on sale in frequencies not possible on consoles due to the fundamental difference in revenue philosophies (consoles monetize the development of games, a pre-tax when selling games essentially while PCs monetize the distribution of games, leading to a substantially smaller overhead - talking the difference of tens of millions of dollars for the average game development), have free online, are home to the more radical forms of alternative revenue sourcing that just cannot come to consoles, etc.
Virtual Reality. Steam Machines (and PC in general) is the only platform to offer any sort of VR support at this very moment. And, while Sony may introduce a VR headset with the PS4, it won't be anywhere near what you can get on the PC.
onsoles do too have hardware problems!" Become less and less solid when you can only come up with one example per system. The overwhelming majority of games still run just fine with zero problems and zero requirements to think about hardware.
I'm not coming up with "one example per system." I'm simply not flooding the topic with lists of specific poor ports or incompatible games. Even amongst the Xbox 360 and PS3, consumers have to question how a game will run. Bayonetta ran fine on the 360, it ran much worse on the PS3. Dead Red Redemption ran fine on the 360, ran like shit on the PS3. Yet FFXIII ran marvelously on the PS3, and ran at a poor resolution on the 360. And so forth and so forth. None of those games even have PC ports, yet among them, there is still variance of quality. Your argument hinges on customers hating to think, and that every game system offers universal compatibility and that nobody ever has to rationalize for a moment the performance of their game. That's unequivocally untrue. It's just that every example I post, you think doesn't matter, or is an outlier, mainly because you understand these differences and think that they are fundamentally acceptable. Take an average person who doesn't follow this stuff, and it's alien to them.
Or, to put it a better way, you're convinced that the layer of compatibility that consoles offer is somehow perfect, that they offer juuuust the right amount of choice such that nobody would ever be confused, and any more option is too much. I'd say familiarity with their ecosystem has clouded your judgement.
Yep. Especially when that computer doesn't run Bioshock Infinite decently. Oh sure it runs, but it runs at a low framerate. Getting Bioshock Infinite for a 360 or PS3 will give you better performance.
...I posted a video of bioshock running on a PC from 2007 at a higher framerate, at a higher resolution on a modest (~$500) build.
Interesting that you bring up Android, since Android has the exact same problem Steam Machines have -- too many models. There's loads of great ones out there, but the only one that makes money is, literally, Samsung. Why? Because people throw up their hands and go "fuck it."
That's no even close to true. Are you posting from your "feelings" again?
Now, the reason Android was able to succeed is because it launched at a time when smartphones were still hitting the mainstream, and there was plenty of room for growth. Steam Machines are coming when the games market is very mature and unlikely to grow by leaps and bounds, at least not in the AAA space Steam Machines are targeting. So, when customers see all those Steam Machines, it's unlikely their "fuck it" response will cause them to lunge for, say, Alienware, because the PS4 and 360 are right there.
You should actually look up android's growth distribution before spinning fairy tales.
But what other value proposition is there that would specifically target console buyers, who value convenience highly? Having a couple dozen Steam Machines at launch is less than convenient.
Cost. Games cost less, can go on sale in frequencies not possible on consoles due to the fundamental difference in revenue philosophies (consoles monetize the development of games, a pre-tax when selling games essentially while PCs monetize the distribution of games, leading to a substantially smaller overhead - talking the difference of tens of millions of dollars for the average game development), have free online, are home to the more radical forms of alternative revenue sourcing that just cannot come to consoles, etc.
Virtual Reality. Steam Machines (and PC in general) is the only platform to offer any sort of VR support at this very moment. And, while Sony may introduce a VR headset with the PS4, it won't be anywhere near what you can get on the PC.
Honestly? Thank you. I'm not being sarcastic. I really was looking for some kind of hook for these things, and I appreciate you coming up with these examples.
Though I would have to disagree with cost. While Valve's sales are awesome, Sony and Microsoft are both waking up to the fact that sales can juice systems, and are now offering them on a weekly basis. Combine that and the thriving used market, and there's plenty of options for the cheap gamer. Not to say PC games can't have better sales (they often do) but it's going to be a tough fight for Valve to publicize that to the point that console gamers are swayed enough to dive into new territory.
Virtual Reality is another wrinkle. It's a cool new twist on the technology that has plenty of fascinating applications, and I'm excited for it. But will the market as a whole? I have no clue. It's very hard to predict how the market will react to brand new technologies with no easy comparisons. People were skeptical about the iPad, but it took off. People were skeptical about glasses-free 3D being a selling point in the 3DS, and they were right. VR could go either way. Though it's not helpful for Steam Machines that it'll come a year or two after launch.
onsoles do too have hardware problems!" Become less and less solid when you can only come up with one example per system. The overwhelming majority of games still run just fine with zero problems and zero requirements to think about hardware.
I'm not coming up with "one example per system." I'm simply not flooding the topic with lists of specific poor ports or incompatible games. Even amongst the Xbox 360 and PS3, consumers have to question how a game will run. Bayonetta ran fine on the 360, it ran much worse on the PS3. Dead Red Redemption ran fine on the 360, ran like shit on the PS3. Yet FFXIII ran marvelously on the PS3, and ran at a poor resolution on the 360. And so forth and so forth. None of those games even have PC ports, yet among them, there is still variance of quality. Your argument hinges on customers hating to think, and that every game system offers universal compatibility and that nobody ever has to rationalize for a moment the performance of their game. That's unequivocally untrue. It's just that every example I post, you think doesn't matter, or is an outlier, mainly because you understand these differences and think that they are fundamentally acceptable. Take an average person who doesn't follow this stuff, and it's alien to them.
Or, to put it a better way, you're convinced that the layer of compatibility that consoles offer is somehow perfect, that they offer juuuust the right amount of choice such that nobody would ever be confused, and any more option is too much. I'd say familiarity with their ecosystem has clouded your judgement.
And you're convinced that people are easily swayed by better performance. If that were the case, then why is the vast majority of Activision's revenues coming from consoles, in a year when PCs had six years more advanced technology? It's because of convenience. The few examples (and honestly, it's few examples) of games that run better on one system than the other doesn't really matter, because the crappy versions still sold.
Again: if it's got PS3 on the box, it'll run on a PS3 at least decently. PC gamers don't have that kind of guarantee. But it's the nature of the beast, and PC gamers don't mind that risk with the tradeoff of potentially better performance on other things.
Yep. Especially when that computer doesn't run Bioshock Infinite decently. Oh sure it runs, but it runs at a low framerate. Getting Bioshock Infinite for a 360 or PS3 will give you better performance.
...I posted a video of bioshock running on a PC from 2007 at a higher framerate, at a higher resolution on a modest (~$500) build.
Is there a side by side comparison? I'm still a little skeptical.
Interesting that you bring up Android, since Android has the exact same problem Steam Machines have -- too many models. There's loads of great ones out there, but the only one that makes money is, literally, Samsung. Why? Because people throw up their hands and go "fuck it."
That's no even close to true. Are you posting from your "feelings" again?
Now, the reason Android was able to succeed is because it launched at a time when smartphones were still hitting the mainstream, and there was plenty of room for growth. Steam Machines are coming when the games market is very mature and unlikely to grow by leaps and bounds, at least not in the AAA space Steam Machines are targeting. So, when customers see all those Steam Machines, it's unlikely their "fuck it" response will cause them to lunge for, say, Alienware, because the PS4 and 360 are right there.
You should actually look up android's growth distribution before spinning fairy tales.
Though I would have to disagree with cost. While Valve's sales are awesome, Sony and Microsoft are both waking up to the fact that sales can juice systems, and are now offering them on a weekly basis. Combine that and the thriving used market, and there's plenty of options for the cheap gamer. Not to say PC games can't have better sales (they often do) but it's going to be a tough fight for Valve to publicize that to the point that console gamers are swayed enough to dive into new territory.
Console manufacturers literally cannot match the sales points that PCs can. It is, in the most literal sense, impossible. It varies depending on developers and publisher agreement, but on average, a developer house sees between $5 to $15 for every $60 sale after licensing fees, retail fees, publishing fees, and marketing fees are taken out. The console ecosystem is precisely the reason why $60 is a price point for new games. Anything less, and developers would literally be losing money on games sold.
None of those factors exist in PC development. There are numerous examples I could post from, but I saw one breakdown from a developer who explained that he saw $7 for every $60 sold at retail (and online, XBL and PSN are no different from brick and morter retail in this equation). When he sold the same exact game on Steam for $11, he made 70 cents more than he made from that $60 sale at retail. And, because he sold it at a much cheaper price point, he got volume sales, not just the same rate. And his volume sales acted as advertising for other platforms as well.
Without sounding too cold, I don't think you're familiar enough with the cost side of this equation to really make an argument against this. I mean that literally - I don't think you understand the factors going in. Go to gamasutra and read their diary entries on steam development to get an understanding of why consoles will never be able to match sale prices of Steam.
Virtual Reality is another wrinkle. It's a cool new twist on the technology that has plenty of fascinating applications, and I'm excited for it. But will the market as a whole? I have no clue. It's very hard to predict how the market will react to brand new technologies with no easy comparisons. People were skeptical about the iPad, but it took off. People were skeptical about glasses-free 3D being a selling point in the 3DS, and they were right. VR could go either way. Though it's not helpful for Steam Machines that it'll come a year or two after launch.
I demoed Oculus rift at the sea tac airport for about 30 minutes while waiting for my friends to come pick me up. I had a crowd of hundreds gathered wanting to try it out before security made us disburse. This thing will have insane mass market viability.
Also, it's not a "new twist" on technology. It's literally new technology. It's not a peripheral, it's an entirely new medium.
And you're convinced that people are easily swayed by better performance.
If you're going to keep putting words in my mouth, I'm going to flat out stop responding to you.
Is there a side by side comparison? I'm still a little skeptical.
You're skeptical that the 360 version of bioshock infinite doesn't run at a resolution greater than 729p at a framerate higher than 30 fps?
Bioshock infinite runs at an average of 30 fps, with framerate dips, at 1152x720. The Core 2 Duo 8800GT video I posted earlier says it's averaging 45 fps, with the lowest benchmarked framerate coming in at 30 fps, at 1440x900.
...yeah, that's not saying anything close to what you're saying. That's saying that Samsung takes 95% of the profits from android sales, because they're the largest android manufacturer. Which is radically different than saying nobody else makes a profit. The very article you site claims, for example, that HTC posts a net profit (as in, after operating income, aka pure profit) of $100,000,000 from their android line. Making $100 million in net profits is not "not making any profit."
Also, about the cost argument, I didn't even begin to touch on mods, which valve presented as a major money making portion of their business. As a steam gamer, it is possible, for example, to have received left 4 dead 2 or portal 2, completely free, and have access to literally hundreds of thousands of mods. not just cosmetic mods, full mods. Like mods that turn L4D2 into Resident evil 4, complete with level layouts. All free. Valve said, at SDD, that tracking portal 2's hammer mods alone, that they estimated a person could play nothing but mods, all day, averaging 5 minutes per unique level mod, with no bathroom breaks, for over a decade straight.
All free content. And their content actually makes players money, even if they don't delve deep into the economy model. You don't have to participate in the market to make money. You literally make money by playing Team Fortress 2, without any work on your part. The more you play, the more you make. You play, without ever touching the market menu, and suddenly you'll just start getting pop up message offers for cash trades on items you didn't even know you had. It's not uncommon, in fact it's very common. People routinely make $20-$100 simply by playing these games. And it all ties back into the mod community. In 2013 alone, player generated revenue of these types of content exceeded $10 million. As in, $10 million was paid out to mod makers or simply people playing games with these mods available, that valve didn't necessarily see a dime of.
Console gaming absolutely cannot match this value proposition. Such a model is literally impossible on the playstation 4 or Xbox One. These systems are built into Steam, and eventually SteamOS, at an API level.
+3
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
You know, I wonder what the sales of some games would be if the Playstation, XBox and PC could all play the exact same version of any game released.
It would be nuts, is what it would be.
When it comes down to it, Valve's intention is not to recreate the console space on PC, but to change the entire development approach of game makers. The idea isn't to compete with consoles directly, it's to provide games with a distinctly un-console like experience. When I say un-console like, I mean, lack of restrictions.
Imagine if, so long as your hardware was current, any game you bought would work. No question. Doesn't matter who made it. Imagine that box you bought also worked for any kind of productivity software you had. Imagine it could be a traditional PC if you wish, or just a mysterious box that just worked.
Honestly, I don't even get this argument. Is the contention going to be that SteamOS and Steam Machines are going to fail because they provide consumers with choice? Or that they won't make a dent in the console market whatsoever?
If it's the former, well, that really doesn't matter. This is sunk cost for Valve. They aren't making hardware and the SteamOS is free to download. If nobody buys a Steam Machine, it's not a financial problem for Valve. It just means Steam keeps doing what it's doing. If it's the latter, then so what? Who cares? I don't care if Steam Machines doesn't take off. I'm finished with consoles, and people that say the opposite, that their finished with PCs as a gaming platform, are irrelevant to the question, just as I am.
Posts
I think your not thinking about something. For steam games, on steam boxes, you buy in the steam store. Native to the Steam OS. So, not saying they do this, but it wouldn't be hard for them to scan your hardware, and never show you games that can't run on your machine. Just saying, It is Steam in steam, on steam for steam. It isn't a PC.
The XBox One is on PC teach now, but is it a PC? Don't think of a Steam box as a PC, it is a Steam box, for Steam. If you want to hack it, you are not the "dumb" user anyway.
2cp.
At 6% of users, it's obvious that Valve also has a mountain to climb to have really made it in Asia. I'd love to see their survey figures by region.
At the same price point
Is not modifiable
It seems to be the very definition of plug-and-play.
The yearly iteration part of it is a bit odd, but if they're smart, they'll keep the branding and case the same, and just increment the internals. Maybe change the name every 5-7 years to make it clear the new version is an update to the 'original', along the lines of console generations.
I dunno... as a console gamer first, their rendition of a Steam Machine makes the most sense to me and my needs. I just want something I can plug into the back of my TV. The Alienware seems to fit the bill.
Switch: SW-3515-0057-3813 FF XIV: Q'vehn Tia
*giggle*
(Sorry.)
That out of the way, here's a relevant opinion: Personally I don't see this in terms of a "Consoles vs. PCs" war... I think that's a pretty shortsighted perspective. The bigger picture, as it presents itself to me at least, is the upcoming conflict between open and closed platforms.
Xbox and PlayStation are both "walled gardens," much like Apple's online app store. They are closed platforms. The platform owners (Sony, MS, Apple) get to decide what software gets released on their storefronts, and what content they don't like. They're gatekeepers, and it's hugely profitable for them. They get to charge license fees from devs for title releases, subscriptions from their user base, all the while retaining control over their market. Microsoft too are trying to go the same way recently, or at least some of their decisions about Win8 strongly hint at it.
Of course it can be insinuated that Valve is as much a gatekeeper with Steam, but the introduction of Greenlight (its flaws notwithstanding) and their recent comments (that they'd like to completely step back from their editorial role in maintaining the Steam storefront, that the only one who decides whether a game appears on Steam should be the developer, if I remember correctly) indicates that they're both conscious of this role, as well as discontent with it. Consider also their talk about User Generated Content/Value: Valve are pushing for an open platform because it encourages creativity, and (from their economic perspective) creativity means more value for their customers.
This isn't a console war - to me these are the opening moves in an upcoming systemic conflict. To use a somewhat dramatic analogy, open platforms are like democracy. Closed platforms are like despotism. Open platforms are about empowering people to be creative, to make fun or awesome or beautiful stuff, and room for rapid and free innovation. Closed platforms are about hierarchical control, passive consumerism, and profit. Grossly generalizing, I know... but to me, that's the gist of it. Pushing Linux for gaming is a really good thing, if Windows starts developing tendencies of turning into a walled garden. Openness is the PC's greatest strength. Looking at Valve's internal structure might give you a hint as to which side of this divide they come down, if you have any doubts ;-)
Anyway, that's why I really hope Valve keeps going with this stuff, and I wish them the greatest success.
Unreal Engine 4 Developers Community.
I'm working on a cute little video game! Here's a link for you.
I have to agree with this. That is why above I said you need to think of it as a steam box, not a pc. I don't think the Steam box is supposed to be a word processor, spreadsheet. Steam has internet browsing, but i don't think it is aimed at using it to facebook. So there is one, if I load a game, load the in game browser, and use it to play facebook games, am I doing it wrong? Can I even do that? I don't have a facebook account, so I can't try.
So I guess my point, is think it less of PC vs Console, and more Concole vs Console, or as you said open vs closed.
Your frequent claims that console games aren't "decent" because they don't run as fast as PCs. That's a very weird definition of decent.
More specifically, I'm not denying PC games run better, I'm saying the general market doesn't care. See the Activision numbers. For most console users, it's "decent" at the very least.
Um, yes. A game with "PS3" on the box will work on any PS3. That's a fact.
Congratulations! You found exactly one DS game that doesn't work on the 3DS, due to the big obvious peripheral. Somehow that doesn't invalidate the other 99.7 percent of DS games that do. Call me when you find more.
Besides, you're talking about backwards compatibility. I'm talking about compatibility with the systems that allegedly run them. I'm not comparing PCs with PC Jrs.
And you have no source indicating that somehow console owners will be extremely tempted by Steam Machines, yet you keep insisting it.
Again, the Steam Machine could do interesting things for PCs. But it's not going to cause console owners to suddenly move over to them.
Penny Arcade Rockstar Social Club / This is why I despise cyclists
Huh? I would ABSOLUTELY jump ship if the following happened:
A $500-$600 Steam Machine had comparable-to-better hardware than it's Sony and Microsoft counterparts
Steam Machines are as plug-and-play as they're aiming to be
I don't really play 1st party titles, and I'd love to not need to pay $50-$60 a year for Live or PSN. I'm not sure how Steam handles multiplayer, but if it gets something like Live in terms of parties and whatnot, I'd jump ship in a heartbeat.
If things move in the direction I hope they will, I'll buy a Steam Machine once this generation is done and the platform is stable.
Switch: SW-3515-0057-3813 FF XIV: Q'vehn Tia
Switch: SW-3515-0057-3813 FF XIV: Q'vehn Tia
SteamID: edgruberman GOG Galaxy: EdGruberman
Gabe has said they'll make a way to keep your shit if Steam goes under, but there's nothing written in writing.
Though the sheer amount of shit that has to go wrong for Valve to scuttle Steam is so great, I'd be more worried about who's going to own Valve after Gabe is no longer with us, and what their plans for the service are. And I'm not expecting to worry about that for a long while yet.
Valve literally had enough money to build a multi-million dollar hardware studio and then when it decided on what direction to go, let the employees who felt strongly about a certain peice of tech KEEP THE RIGHTS to that tech and go off and do their own thing. It'd be super hard to bring down Valve at this point in time. Like, global catastrophe bad.
To add, it's no more "one basket" than the 360. If Valve and Steam die, it's going to be because the PC gaming market in general has died. The 360 market dies whenever Microsoft announces it's done making 360's since you can't play anything from that console on the Xbone. That water's a little murkier wrt Sony, at least until full details about their streaming service come forth.
Considering there's a large number of them with a confusing array of hardware, and the very cheapest one is the same price or $100 more expensive than the two brand-new consoles with games guaranteed to work at the same level for at least five years, It's going to be a tough sell.
Besides, in the world of consoles the machine with the most power has never won. (That's likely to not be the case this generation since the Wii U stumbled out the gate with loads of problems, lack of power being the least of them.) If people still overwhelmingly preferred Call of Duty on the platforms with six-year-old hardware, it's unlikely they'll suddenly see a huge difference in hardware that's less than a year newer.
I'm not saying it's because Steam OS is going to suck, it's just the way the markets are set up.
@Undead Scottsman - I'm glad to hear that. That's pretty reassuring and entirely reasonable, unlike what I hear about places like Amazon. I really don't like the idea of losing my whole library down the road
SteamID: edgruberman GOG Galaxy: EdGruberman
@cloudeagle I did not say that quote. Please don't miss quote me. you are looking for @jdarksun
I think this is a valid concern. It is a concern with the xbox one. Do you think that sony and MS are not going to keep trying to lock up the games? I think the thing that makes steam ok for me, and the fact that I "rent" games, is I pay so little for the rental fee. When I am only paying $5 for a game, knowing it might go away is easy to so ok. This is me, YMMV. Paying 60 bucks, yeah I don't want to loose it. You can call me crazy, and you may disagree, but I feel the price point for games on steam is ok for the obvious downside. I think a lot agree, but I have no proof.
This isn't the PC gaming thread, though. This is the SteamOS thread. The worldwide success of Facebook games and Blizzard games and Asian MMOs don't translate into guaranteed success for SteamOS because few, if any, of those games will run on SteamOS. Because SteamOS is Linux and even if Valve's new API gains traction it isn't going to do a whole lot for the back catalog. People who already game on PCs are discouraged from converting to SteamOS because a lot of popular PC games aren't supported, and those unsupported games aren't going to do anything to attract console gamers to convert to SteamOS either.
SteamOS represents a rift in compatibility the likes of which PC gaming has pretty much never seen. It's naive to assume that the PC gaming industry's inertia is going to transfer straight into SteamOS. It's entirely possible that SteamOS will flop and Valve's revenue figures won't go up at all but PC gaming in general remains healthy. SteamOS is not the sole, inevitable evolution of the PC platform. It's a far-flung branch with a sharply divergent strategy and an ambiguous market whose future is by no measurement a certainty.
Their entire SteamOS initiative could tank and they'd likely not even feel it financially. Hell, they'd probably still wind up making more money just because of their steady growth.
lots are flash, but they tend to also make iOS native versions for the really popular ones to bypass that.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
Why?
The specs for the XB1 and PS4 suck. You can build a better box for $500 that doesn't have built-in partitioned memory.
If you think that either of those systems are going to provide five years of entertainment (or whatever), then you have to accept that the Steam Boxes will as well.
Further, Steam OS is going to have more games than either platform.
More games. Better hardware. Backwards compatability. There's literally no downside.
Penny Arcade Rockstar Social Club / This is why I despise cyclists
Protip: I'm using your vocabulary when I say "decent." Mainly because you proposed that games on PCs don't run "decently" when, by every measurable criteria, they run better than they do on a comparable console, which you described as "decent." Or, to make it clearer - I'm pointing out your double standard.
Well then it's a mighty good thing my values proposition doesn't hinge on performance, huh?
While, true, that game won't run on a 3DS and its backwards compatibility isn't 100%, you apparently missed the fact that I posted a NINTENDO DS, not a 3DS. That is an example of a DS game that won't run on a the vast majority of DSes released.
And you assert somehow that these modern steam machines, the weakest of which are roughly on par with an Xbox one, will somehow not be able to keep pace because...? Is this the same place you got your intell on Bioshock Infinite not running on a 7 year old PC?
Your original quote was better, you shouldn't have edited it. I'll still respond to it, though:
"You're ignoring the 99.99% of the games that do run on these old systems. Every game with PS3 on the spine will run on a PS3, something something PC gaming something?"
As though the arguments your making about compatibility issues apply to the vast majority of PC games. How many PC games are there currently that demand bleeding edge specs? The very example you used has a min specs requirement that would have been a modest PC back in 2007. Even subsequent crysis games have had dialed back specs. There are no games demanding an i7 with a titan.
Further, to address your specific PS3 claim, how do I play this game with "PS3" on my PS3:
Your "It will play!" gurantee looks less and less solid with every example I post. I mean, the claim currently stands at, "If you ignore all the games which do not offer universal compatibility, then the system has universal compatibility!" which isn't a claim to put your weight behind.
First of all, there is a difference between a prediction of what will happen in the future based off of factors I'm evaluating, and making claims about the current make up of the market which are quantifiably incorrect. Did you seriously just try to claim that, because steam machines, an unreleased line of hardware, hasn't conquered the gaming landscape, that your claims that a 7 year old PC wouldn't be able to run bioshock infinite or that PC gaming is a global minority were alright to post?
Second, you've pretty consistently built up strawmen arguments, and you're doing it again. So now the metric of success is mass migration from console to PC? Your original claim had to do with values arguments and whether or not these machines would keep pace. Have you forgotten this entire line of argument stemmed from your supposed confusion about iterating hardware? I can't believe that, a day into this discussion, you've turned an announcment about alienware doing 1 configuration a year into:
You aren't consistent in any of your arguments. But more to the point, my argument was never contingent on a mass exodus to PC gaming. In fact, I said this, to you, a month ago when you presented this very same argument:
These are literally, word for word the exact same arguments you brought up a month ago. Except this time you sprinkled in some claims which could be proven incorrect. No, the proposition hasn't changed since then. Repeating your refrain hasn't changed reality.
It also ignores the biggest factor to SteamOS's longterm viability - the ecosystem is much healthier for game makers. It offers a lower risk venture with higher rewards at a minimal investment.
Not to mention, if things do go that bad, you can always recover your purchases from... err... other sources.
Other than having to wade through the dozens of models to figure out which one is best for you.
I know, it sounds trivial, but convenience is a big thing in pretty much every market, not just video games.
That hasn't stopped Android from turning a market dominated by iOS into a market dominated by... well, Android.
A lot of people like choices.
There are 13 announced models. And all will run the same games.
Meanwhile I have 32 consoles connected to my TV.
All of the Steam Machines will meet a certain minimum threshold. Picking between them is going to be no more difficult than saying "XB1 or PS4?", except in this case, every Steam Machine will be able to play every game. You don't have to worry about "exclusives" bullshit. It's simply a matter of price/performance, or aesthetics if that's the sort of thing that excites you.
I walk into Best Buy and head to the phone section. What do I see? A guide listing all the phones, including a spreadsheet of screen size, hardware, battery life, that sort of thing.
Once Steam Machines take off, we'll see the same sort of thing. The Android comparison is very apt.
Penny Arcade Rockstar Social Club / This is why I despise cyclists
PC games run decently. They also run fantastically. They also run poorly. It all depends on how much power you have, and it's up to the customer to keep up.
But what other value proposition is there that would specifically target console buyers, who value convenience highly? Having a couple dozen Steam Machines at launch is less than convenient.
While, true, that game won't run on a 3DS and its backwards compatibility isn't 100%, you apparently missed the fact that I posted a NINTENDO DS, not a 3DS. That is an example of a DS game that won't run on a the vast majority of DSes released.
Your "consoles do too have hardware problems!" Become less and less solid when you can only come up with one example per system. The overwhelming majority of games still run just fine with zero problems and zero requirements to think about hardware.
Also, TSR? Could we skip over the horrifically complicated quote trees? I'll be buggered if I'm wading back through that last one and fixing it.
Cost. Games cost less, can go on sale in frequencies not possible on consoles due to the fundamental difference in revenue philosophies (consoles monetize the development of games, a pre-tax when selling games essentially while PCs monetize the distribution of games, leading to a substantially smaller overhead - talking the difference of tens of millions of dollars for the average game development), have free online, are home to the more radical forms of alternative revenue sourcing that just cannot come to consoles, etc.
Virtual Reality. Steam Machines (and PC in general) is the only platform to offer any sort of VR support at this very moment. And, while Sony may introduce a VR headset with the PS4, it won't be anywhere near what you can get on the PC.
I'm not coming up with "one example per system." I'm simply not flooding the topic with lists of specific poor ports or incompatible games. Even amongst the Xbox 360 and PS3, consumers have to question how a game will run. Bayonetta ran fine on the 360, it ran much worse on the PS3. Dead Red Redemption ran fine on the 360, ran like shit on the PS3. Yet FFXIII ran marvelously on the PS3, and ran at a poor resolution on the 360. And so forth and so forth. None of those games even have PC ports, yet among them, there is still variance of quality. Your argument hinges on customers hating to think, and that every game system offers universal compatibility and that nobody ever has to rationalize for a moment the performance of their game. That's unequivocally untrue. It's just that every example I post, you think doesn't matter, or is an outlier, mainly because you understand these differences and think that they are fundamentally acceptable. Take an average person who doesn't follow this stuff, and it's alien to them.
Or, to put it a better way, you're convinced that the layer of compatibility that consoles offer is somehow perfect, that they offer juuuust the right amount of choice such that nobody would ever be confused, and any more option is too much. I'd say familiarity with their ecosystem has clouded your judgement.
...I posted a video of bioshock running on a PC from 2007 at a higher framerate, at a higher resolution on a modest (~$500) build.
That's no even close to true. Are you posting from your "feelings" again?
You should actually look up android's growth distribution before spinning fairy tales.
Honestly? Thank you. I'm not being sarcastic. I really was looking for some kind of hook for these things, and I appreciate you coming up with these examples.
Though I would have to disagree with cost. While Valve's sales are awesome, Sony and Microsoft are both waking up to the fact that sales can juice systems, and are now offering them on a weekly basis. Combine that and the thriving used market, and there's plenty of options for the cheap gamer. Not to say PC games can't have better sales (they often do) but it's going to be a tough fight for Valve to publicize that to the point that console gamers are swayed enough to dive into new territory.
Virtual Reality is another wrinkle. It's a cool new twist on the technology that has plenty of fascinating applications, and I'm excited for it. But will the market as a whole? I have no clue. It's very hard to predict how the market will react to brand new technologies with no easy comparisons. People were skeptical about the iPad, but it took off. People were skeptical about glasses-free 3D being a selling point in the 3DS, and they were right. VR could go either way. Though it's not helpful for Steam Machines that it'll come a year or two after launch.
And you're convinced that people are easily swayed by better performance. If that were the case, then why is the vast majority of Activision's revenues coming from consoles, in a year when PCs had six years more advanced technology? It's because of convenience. The few examples (and honestly, it's few examples) of games that run better on one system than the other doesn't really matter, because the crappy versions still sold.
Again: if it's got PS3 on the box, it'll run on a PS3 at least decently. PC gamers don't have that kind of guarantee. But it's the nature of the beast, and PC gamers don't mind that risk with the tradeoff of potentially better performance on other things.
Is there a side by side comparison? I'm still a little skeptical.
Nope. Business news.
http://www.businessinsider.com/apple-and-samsung-take-109-of-the-smartphone-industries-profits-2013-11
The actual sales figures are fairy tales?
Console manufacturers literally cannot match the sales points that PCs can. It is, in the most literal sense, impossible. It varies depending on developers and publisher agreement, but on average, a developer house sees between $5 to $15 for every $60 sale after licensing fees, retail fees, publishing fees, and marketing fees are taken out. The console ecosystem is precisely the reason why $60 is a price point for new games. Anything less, and developers would literally be losing money on games sold.
None of those factors exist in PC development. There are numerous examples I could post from, but I saw one breakdown from a developer who explained that he saw $7 for every $60 sold at retail (and online, XBL and PSN are no different from brick and morter retail in this equation). When he sold the same exact game on Steam for $11, he made 70 cents more than he made from that $60 sale at retail. And, because he sold it at a much cheaper price point, he got volume sales, not just the same rate. And his volume sales acted as advertising for other platforms as well.
Without sounding too cold, I don't think you're familiar enough with the cost side of this equation to really make an argument against this. I mean that literally - I don't think you understand the factors going in. Go to gamasutra and read their diary entries on steam development to get an understanding of why consoles will never be able to match sale prices of Steam.
I demoed Oculus rift at the sea tac airport for about 30 minutes while waiting for my friends to come pick me up. I had a crowd of hundreds gathered wanting to try it out before security made us disburse. This thing will have insane mass market viability.
Also, it's not a "new twist" on technology. It's literally new technology. It's not a peripheral, it's an entirely new medium.
If you're going to keep putting words in my mouth, I'm going to flat out stop responding to you.
You're skeptical that the 360 version of bioshock infinite doesn't run at a resolution greater than 729p at a framerate higher than 30 fps?
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-bioshock-infinite-face-off
Bioshock infinite runs at an average of 30 fps, with framerate dips, at 1152x720. The Core 2 Duo 8800GT video I posted earlier says it's averaging 45 fps, with the lowest benchmarked framerate coming in at 30 fps, at 1440x900.
...yeah, that's not saying anything close to what you're saying. That's saying that Samsung takes 95% of the profits from android sales, because they're the largest android manufacturer. Which is radically different than saying nobody else makes a profit. The very article you site claims, for example, that HTC posts a net profit (as in, after operating income, aka pure profit) of $100,000,000 from their android line. Making $100 million in net profits is not "not making any profit."
Your yarn about adoption certainly is.
All free content. And their content actually makes players money, even if they don't delve deep into the economy model. You don't have to participate in the market to make money. You literally make money by playing Team Fortress 2, without any work on your part. The more you play, the more you make. You play, without ever touching the market menu, and suddenly you'll just start getting pop up message offers for cash trades on items you didn't even know you had. It's not uncommon, in fact it's very common. People routinely make $20-$100 simply by playing these games. And it all ties back into the mod community. In 2013 alone, player generated revenue of these types of content exceeded $10 million. As in, $10 million was paid out to mod makers or simply people playing games with these mods available, that valve didn't necessarily see a dime of.
Console gaming absolutely cannot match this value proposition. Such a model is literally impossible on the playstation 4 or Xbox One. These systems are built into Steam, and eventually SteamOS, at an API level.
It would be nuts, is what it would be.
When it comes down to it, Valve's intention is not to recreate the console space on PC, but to change the entire development approach of game makers. The idea isn't to compete with consoles directly, it's to provide games with a distinctly un-console like experience. When I say un-console like, I mean, lack of restrictions.
Imagine if, so long as your hardware was current, any game you bought would work. No question. Doesn't matter who made it. Imagine that box you bought also worked for any kind of productivity software you had. Imagine it could be a traditional PC if you wish, or just a mysterious box that just worked.
Honestly, I don't even get this argument. Is the contention going to be that SteamOS and Steam Machines are going to fail because they provide consumers with choice? Or that they won't make a dent in the console market whatsoever?
If it's the former, well, that really doesn't matter. This is sunk cost for Valve. They aren't making hardware and the SteamOS is free to download. If nobody buys a Steam Machine, it's not a financial problem for Valve. It just means Steam keeps doing what it's doing. If it's the latter, then so what? Who cares? I don't care if Steam Machines doesn't take off. I'm finished with consoles, and people that say the opposite, that their finished with PCs as a gaming platform, are irrelevant to the question, just as I am.