Yeah what's going to convince console owners to buy a steambox? Especially when its launching months after the PS4 and Xbox with much less of a marketing push, and quite possibly less games.
But from what I've read console owners STILL won't be interested in PCs no matter what they run, since people still have to think about the hardware.
they won't have to with Steam Machines because there will be a baseline spec that Steam Machine games will be expected to run on.
Except that you can also set up your own storefront or have people buy the app and sideload it through the web browser, or have them install origin, or... The openness works very strongly against the baseline.
what you are describing is in no way mutually exclusive. They're establishing a baseline hardware spec. Presumably, by market penetration and "follow the leader" mentality, those specs will be enforced. This happens over and over again - the lowest common denominator is honored, because it grants the biggest market potential. How many games were built with PS2 specs in mind despite releasing on the Xbox, for example? How many games can run on ancient iphones, despite newer models being much more powerful? What percentage of applications targetted the lowest spec Amiga 500 over, say, the A1200?
Whatever valve eventually builds and releases (either through themselves or through vendors) that is the lowest spec will be the spec everything needs to meet or beat. Presumably, those specs will be in-line with the Xbox One and PS4 to facilitate cross platform compatibility.
Origin could work through steam, EA chooses not to let it. I wrote a long series of posts about this the other day. Competing store fronts don't endanger a baseline spec. Infact, the ability to bypass valve and create your own storefront and sell apps without valve seeing a dime is a big part of their push to developers. Ubisoft, for example, might see the steam machine as a platform they should target, because they can sell games directly through their Ubisoft store for the console, paying no licensing fees, and keeping 100% of the sales.
Another thought. If there is a baseline all games have to adhere to, why the fuck do you get a dual Titan SLI Octo-core 32GB monster with an SSD? And, should the baseline actually be enforced and the market gets flooded with 300-400 dollar "PCs" what reason to PC game developers have to push things beyond the baseline at all?
Because games scale today. The same way Call of Duty Ghosts runs in 720p on the Xbox one and 1080p on the PS4. There will be a base spec for these steammachines. Developers will look at the spec and understand, "ok, I need to get my game running and playable under these specs." What is playable and running is up for question. Say a game runs in 720p with no AA at the baseline spec. Obviously, someone who wants a higher resolution and better AA can just pop in a better video card.
It's not about letting people run games they couldn't run before, it's about letting people run games they already could run in the past better. IF THEY WANT. The goal is to have games running just fine on the base spec, with everything else being "icing on the cake." Much like how PC gaming works right now, except instead of floating "minimum requirements" per game, all games would adhere to a hard set standard that they could be assured most people have.
0
Options
syndalisGetting ClassyOn the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Productsregular
Yeah what's going to convince console owners to buy a steambox? Especially when its launching months after the PS4 and Xbox with much less of a marketing push, and quite possibly less games.
well, lots more games. There are almost 300 games for steamOS right now.
There is just a stunning lack of modern AAA games from not-valve on it.
Also, absolutely no major licensed sports games... one of the biggest console draws full stop.
And none of the console space exclusives (thus far) that you only can play if you have a console, like Metal Gear or Final Fantasy.
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
But from what I've read console owners STILL won't be interested in PCs no matter what they run, since people still have to think about the hardware.
they won't have to with Steam Machines because there will be a baseline spec that Steam Machine games will be expected to run on.
But that still doesn't change the fact that there will be dozens of different hardware configurations with video cards with names like cats on keyboards that will require them to do research on what they need to make Battlefield run the best. Meanwhile with consoles you just plop in a disk and it works.
Yes it does. For the reasons I pointed out in my last post, and also because valve has addressed these concerns. Massive, peer-reviewed, crowd-sourced configurations will be automatically provided to end users as an invisible function of the operating system, that the end user won't have to worry about. Not savvy enough to tweak the settings for your box to make the game run as best as possible? SteamOS will scower user-submitted configurations, identifying your hardware and cross examining it with data mined about performance to set up an optimal experience. It's like what Nvidia is trying to do with the GeForce experience, but built into the OS.
Similarly, the OS itself will actually identify bottlenecks and suggest specific hardware to buy should you want to improve the experience. No research needs to be done by the person.
Console owners already are interested in PCs. Their boxes are proprietary, fragmented, closed PCs. They won't even see these steam machines as PCs. This isn't an attempt to get "console gamers" to stop being "console gamers" and start gaming with keyboards and mice. It's an attempt to extend PC gaming into a form that can be consumed by console gamers.
Walmart sells digital games for a platform which cannot be readily consumed by the market they're intended for. Steam Machines makes walmart's digital distribution more palatable.
They're PCs because they'll still have to think about the hardware rather than just plop in a game and go.
I know you're enthusiastic about this, but really, there's zero incentive here for console gamers to go to PCs.
Walmart's digital games can be readily consumed by the market they're intended for. Just type in the code in your console and go. Steam Machines offer them no real advantage there.
I thought you claimed to be up to date with steam machines? Why are you STILL making this claim after I've educated you about it several times now?
I'm all for them trying this experiment out I guess, as a console gamer I just don't see any appeal or value proposition in it for me personally. I'll just play my little Humble Bundle games I buy for a buck on my laptop and leave the heavy lifting for my PS4 or XBO.
If I WAS hypothetically in the market for a gaming PC anytime in the next 5 years (doubtful), it better damn well have Excel and Word and Skype and all the other regular Windows shit that the rest of my family needs on top of being able to run the latest and greatest games. Maybe you can in fact do that with a "Steam Machine" (I have literally zero knowledge or experience with Linux), but from the sounds of it it feels like more bullshit than I would ever want to deal with.
On the one hand, buzz on this has been pretty quiet, which I suspect is built mostly on people wondering how this will be better/different than a PC that already runs Steam just fine.
On the other, people hate Windows 8 and I'm sure more than a few wouldn't mind trying a gaming PC sans Windows.
It's not.
I know you know this... but I have run into so many that think it is going to be. I have spent a fair bit of time talking to people in other forums who are convinced that "steam boxes" are going to sit on the shelf for 400-500 bucks and compete successfully against ps4/xboxes with just as seamless and effort-free a setup as a home console... and that isn't the message valve is selling.
Those people are correct.
I do not see iBuyPower's freeman sitting with a huge display at best buy, dude. I don't see the cross-promotional market muscle needed to grow it out beyond people like you and us who are aware there are companies besides dell, hp and apple making computers. Also, retailers are going to be loathe to push a platform that has absolutely zero chance of creating additional sales for them. Even the xbox at its craziest drm level had you buying discs to install at home.
Home consoles exist because they have major corporate money invested in making it work and widely available. If valve was designing and shipping a platform and was spending their huge pile of steam money to getting a toehold in that space... maybe.
But as it stands, its a myriad of small to mid size players fragmenting the market right out of the gate, and valve just letting the free market sort itself out.
You know there are major, unannounced vendors at the moment? They'll be unveiled at CES.
Expect machines from Mitsubishi, Toshiba, Samsung, etc.
Which again, leads me to worry about their vision for a set top gaming box.
20 different vendors with many more different configurations with potentially different UXes based on vendors (I have never in the history of Samsung see them leave the interface the fuck alone when they make something).
And then there will be steam machines that cannot play new retail games except at the lowest settings but can stream them from your gaming PC, and steam boxes with titans in them, and...
an xbox is an xbox and a PS4 is a PS4, and these things play every game thrown at them exactly the same. The existence of the surface and the surface pro tanked an otherwise good product line because people had a hard time differentiating the two unless they were invested in understanding the tech... Valve is aiming square at the enthusiasts and not the larger consumer market that Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo have secured... which is fine! But this is not a console killer, this is a PC gaming alternative.
No, valve is pretty explicitly aiming at the console market.
So, it's exactly the same as an already-existing PC that runs steam, but the initiative is aimed at the console market.
Er.
Yes?
...on the surface that doesn't sound like a recipe for success.
And yes, I've read quite a bit about the initiative, what's going on, how it works, etc. But there's zilch about it that will convince console people to suddenly get PCs. At least that's my reaction (I mostly only use PCs for indies I can't get elsewhere), and I'm someone who has actually taken the time to wade through the technobabble. How is Valve going to convince people it's worth getting when the average person will tune out after two sentences? What's the elevator pitch?
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.
Okay. So why would all these companies make their media boxes/cable boxes/TVs/toasters Steam Machines when they sell fine without giving money to Valve?
They sell fine? Desktop PC sales are slumping. The only traditional PC market that is booming is the gaming PC market. This is an entry point for many of these traditional desktop manufacturers to enter without needing to lay the groundwork for any console-style infrastructure. they don't need to get development partners, valve has already done that. They don't need to develop a storefront API, valve has already done that (and will let them create their own storefront using their API completely divorced from valve for free).
Syndalis, above, said that no retailer would want to sell these boxes because they don't have follow-up sales to go along with these boxes. That shows a big misunderstanding about what SteamOS will do for digital distribution. Walmart has an incentive to sell these boxes, because each and every one of them would be able to buy digital games from Walmart. This will be an avenue into to-the-screen digital distribution for a number of traditional players.
PC sales are slumping, granted. But from what I've read console owners STILL won't be interested in PCs no matter what they run.
Back to the point, I was talking about the media boxes/cable boxes/TVs/toasters you said was the reason Steam OS will be come a massive success, because everyone will start using them for some reason.
Walmart already sells digital games for every other platform. That's not really much of an incentive.
Console owners already are interested in PCs. Their boxes are proprietary, fragmented, closed PCs. They won't even see these steam machines as PCs. This isn't an attempt to get "console gamers" to stop being "console gamers" and start gaming with keyboards and mice. It's an attempt to extend PC gaming into a form that can be consumed by console gamers.
If consoles are already "proprietary, fragmented, closed PCs", then "extend PC gaming to console gamers" is a nonsensical sentiment. Linux gaming is a tiny fragment of PC gaming, which is itself fragmented from console gaming. So what point are you making here? So what if Steamboxes are perceived as consoles instead of computers? "It's a console that doesn't support most of the console games you like, and also doesn't support most of the PC games that weird friend of yours likes" is not a strong pitch. If you are tired of fragmentation and want to get the largest number of games possible on a single machine, a Steambox is among your worst options because Linux has a much smaller piece of the pie than Playstation, Xbox, or Windows.
Well, to begin with, there are more games on Linux than there are on the Playstation 4 or Xbox One at the moment.
but your entire argument is rooted in the belief that the release of the steam machines won't signal a shift in development. "Currently game makers don't target linux, so they won't tomorrow!"
Before last year, there wasn't a single announced PS4 game. It's reasonable to expect support to follow a successful platform. Valve is waiting till CES to announce their partners. I guarantee you they will have a number of big developers ready to work on SteamOS.
+1
Options
syndalisGetting ClassyOn the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Productsregular
But from what I've read console owners STILL won't be interested in PCs no matter what they run, since people still have to think about the hardware.
they won't have to with Steam Machines because there will be a baseline spec that Steam Machine games will be expected to run on.
But that still doesn't change the fact that there will be dozens of different hardware configurations with video cards with names like cats on keyboards that will require them to do research on what they need to make Battlefield run the best. Meanwhile with consoles you just plop in a disk and it works.
Yes it does. For the reasons I pointed out in my last post, and also because valve has addressed these concerns. Massive, peer-reviewed, crowd-sourced configurations will be automatically provided to end users as an invisible function of the operating system, that the end user won't have to worry about. Not savvy enough to tweak the settings for your box to make the game run as best as possible? SteamOS will scower user-submitted configurations, identifying your hardware and cross examining it with data mined about performance to set up an optimal experience. It's like what Nvidia is trying to do with the GeForce experience, but built into the OS.
Similarly, the OS itself will actually identify bottlenecks and suggest specific hardware to buy should you want to improve the experience. No research needs to be done by the person.
Console owners already are interested in PCs. Their boxes are proprietary, fragmented, closed PCs. They won't even see these steam machines as PCs. This isn't an attempt to get "console gamers" to stop being "console gamers" and start gaming with keyboards and mice. It's an attempt to extend PC gaming into a form that can be consumed by console gamers.
Walmart sells digital games for a platform which cannot be readily consumed by the market they're intended for. Steam Machines makes walmart's digital distribution more palatable.
They're PCs because they'll still have to think about the hardware rather than just plop in a game and go.
I know you're enthusiastic about this, but really, there's zero incentive here for console gamers to go to PCs.
Walmart's digital games can be readily consumed by the market they're intended for. Just type in the code in your console and go. Steam Machines offer them no real advantage there.
I thought you claimed to be up to date with steam machines? Why are you STILL making this claim after I've educated you about it several times now?
So Crytek wants to release Crysis 5: Cry Harder on Mac/Win/SOS. The game needs 2-3x more muscle than the baseline configuration, but can be "tricked" into running on locked platforms like the xbo/ps4.
How does Steam / Valve handle this?
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
Yeah what's going to convince console owners to buy a steambox? Especially when its launching months after the PS4 and Xbox with much less of a marketing push, and quite possibly less games.
What all does it offer them that consoles do not?
I'm about to leave work, so I'm rushing to get this in, but let me be clear - the benefit of the steam machine is primarily on the development side, and those benefits will trickle down to the consumer eventually. SteamOS will get support, because, as a development platform, it offers a much better incentive for the developer because of it's lack of licensing fees, freely available SDK, and the outrageous publishing situations it offers that consoles can't match (publishing through valve for $0.30 on the dollar, or publishing yourself with the ability to keep all profits).
This already translates into crazy sales not possible on consoles in the current steam ecosystem. SteamOS and steam machines will be able to offer sales that no console can match.
But from what I've read console owners STILL won't be interested in PCs no matter what they run, since people still have to think about the hardware.
they won't have to with Steam Machines because there will be a baseline spec that Steam Machine games will be expected to run on.
But that still doesn't change the fact that there will be dozens of different hardware configurations with video cards with names like cats on keyboards that will require them to do research on what they need to make Battlefield run the best. Meanwhile with consoles you just plop in a disk and it works.
Yes it does. For the reasons I pointed out in my last post, and also because valve has addressed these concerns. Massive, peer-reviewed, crowd-sourced configurations will be automatically provided to end users as an invisible function of the operating system, that the end user won't have to worry about. Not savvy enough to tweak the settings for your box to make the game run as best as possible? SteamOS will scower user-submitted configurations, identifying your hardware and cross examining it with data mined about performance to set up an optimal experience. It's like what Nvidia is trying to do with the GeForce experience, but built into the OS.
Similarly, the OS itself will actually identify bottlenecks and suggest specific hardware to buy should you want to improve the experience. No research needs to be done by the person.
Console owners already are interested in PCs. Their boxes are proprietary, fragmented, closed PCs. They won't even see these steam machines as PCs. This isn't an attempt to get "console gamers" to stop being "console gamers" and start gaming with keyboards and mice. It's an attempt to extend PC gaming into a form that can be consumed by console gamers.
Walmart sells digital games for a platform which cannot be readily consumed by the market they're intended for. Steam Machines makes walmart's digital distribution more palatable.
They're PCs because they'll still have to think about the hardware rather than just plop in a game and go.
I know you're enthusiastic about this, but really, there's zero incentive here for console gamers to go to PCs.
Walmart's digital games can be readily consumed by the market they're intended for. Just type in the code in your console and go. Steam Machines offer them no real advantage there.
I thought you claimed to be up to date with steam machines? Why are you STILL making this claim after I've educated you about it several times now?
So Crytek wants to release Crysis 5: Cry Harder on Mac/Win/SOS. The game needs 2-3x more muscle than the baseline configuration, but can be "tricked" into running on locked platforms like the xbo/ps4.
How does Steam / Valve handle this?
any 'trick' they can do on a PS4 or Xbox one they can do on a PC with a similar baseline spec.
0
Options
syndalisGetting ClassyOn the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Productsregular
But from what I've read console owners STILL won't be interested in PCs no matter what they run, since people still have to think about the hardware.
they won't have to with Steam Machines because there will be a baseline spec that Steam Machine games will be expected to run on.
But that still doesn't change the fact that there will be dozens of different hardware configurations with video cards with names like cats on keyboards that will require them to do research on what they need to make Battlefield run the best. Meanwhile with consoles you just plop in a disk and it works.
Yes it does. For the reasons I pointed out in my last post, and also because valve has addressed these concerns. Massive, peer-reviewed, crowd-sourced configurations will be automatically provided to end users as an invisible function of the operating system, that the end user won't have to worry about. Not savvy enough to tweak the settings for your box to make the game run as best as possible? SteamOS will scower user-submitted configurations, identifying your hardware and cross examining it with data mined about performance to set up an optimal experience. It's like what Nvidia is trying to do with the GeForce experience, but built into the OS.
Similarly, the OS itself will actually identify bottlenecks and suggest specific hardware to buy should you want to improve the experience. No research needs to be done by the person.
Console owners already are interested in PCs. Their boxes are proprietary, fragmented, closed PCs. They won't even see these steam machines as PCs. This isn't an attempt to get "console gamers" to stop being "console gamers" and start gaming with keyboards and mice. It's an attempt to extend PC gaming into a form that can be consumed by console gamers.
Walmart sells digital games for a platform which cannot be readily consumed by the market they're intended for. Steam Machines makes walmart's digital distribution more palatable.
They're PCs because they'll still have to think about the hardware rather than just plop in a game and go.
I know you're enthusiastic about this, but really, there's zero incentive here for console gamers to go to PCs.
Walmart's digital games can be readily consumed by the market they're intended for. Just type in the code in your console and go. Steam Machines offer them no real advantage there.
I thought you claimed to be up to date with steam machines? Why are you STILL making this claim after I've educated you about it several times now?
So Crytek wants to release Crysis 5: Cry Harder on Mac/Win/SOS. The game needs 2-3x more muscle than the baseline configuration, but can be "tricked" into running on locked platforms like the xbo/ps4.
How does Steam / Valve handle this?
any 'trick' they can do on a PS4 or Xbox one they can do on a PC with a similar baseline spec.
So when GTAV comes out for PC in a few months it will run on 512 megs of ram combined between GPU and system, with mid-spec PC parts from 2005?
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
But from what I've read console owners STILL won't be interested in PCs no matter what they run, since people still have to think about the hardware.
they won't have to with Steam Machines because there will be a baseline spec that Steam Machine games will be expected to run on.
But that still doesn't change the fact that there will be dozens of different hardware configurations with video cards with names like cats on keyboards that will require them to do research on what they need to make Battlefield run the best. Meanwhile with consoles you just plop in a disk and it works.
Yes it does. For the reasons I pointed out in my last post, and also because valve has addressed these concerns. Massive, peer-reviewed, crowd-sourced configurations will be automatically provided to end users as an invisible function of the operating system, that the end user won't have to worry about. Not savvy enough to tweak the settings for your box to make the game run as best as possible? SteamOS will scower user-submitted configurations, identifying your hardware and cross examining it with data mined about performance to set up an optimal experience. It's like what Nvidia is trying to do with the GeForce experience, but built into the OS.
Similarly, the OS itself will actually identify bottlenecks and suggest specific hardware to buy should you want to improve the experience. No research needs to be done by the person.
Console owners already are interested in PCs. Their boxes are proprietary, fragmented, closed PCs. They won't even see these steam machines as PCs. This isn't an attempt to get "console gamers" to stop being "console gamers" and start gaming with keyboards and mice. It's an attempt to extend PC gaming into a form that can be consumed by console gamers.
Walmart sells digital games for a platform which cannot be readily consumed by the market they're intended for. Steam Machines makes walmart's digital distribution more palatable.
They're PCs because they'll still have to think about the hardware rather than just plop in a game and go.
I know you're enthusiastic about this, but really, there's zero incentive here for console gamers to go to PCs.
Walmart's digital games can be readily consumed by the market they're intended for. Just type in the code in your console and go. Steam Machines offer them no real advantage there.
I thought you claimed to be up to date with steam machines? Why are you STILL making this claim after I've educated you about it several times now?
So Crytek wants to release Crysis 5: Cry Harder on Mac/Win/SOS. The game needs 2-3x more muscle than the baseline configuration, but can be "tricked" into running on locked platforms like the xbo/ps4.
How does Steam / Valve handle this?
any 'trick' they can do on a PS4 or Xbox one they can do on a PC with a similar baseline spec.
So when GTAV comes out for PC in a few months it will run on 512 megs of ram combined between GPU and system, with mid-spec PC parts from 2005?
The op has an entire fifth of it dedicated to the subject of porting abd why this problem doesn't exist anymore. You should read it.
On the one hand, buzz on this has been pretty quiet, which I suspect is built mostly on people wondering how this will be better/different than a PC that already runs Steam just fine.
On the other, people hate Windows 8 and I'm sure more than a few wouldn't mind trying a gaming PC sans Windows.
It's not.
I know you know this... but I have run into so many that think it is going to be. I have spent a fair bit of time talking to people in other forums who are convinced that "steam boxes" are going to sit on the shelf for 400-500 bucks and compete successfully against ps4/xboxes with just as seamless and effort-free a setup as a home console... and that isn't the message valve is selling.
Those people are correct.
I do not see iBuyPower's freeman sitting with a huge display at best buy, dude. I don't see the cross-promotional market muscle needed to grow it out beyond people like you and us who are aware there are companies besides dell, hp and apple making computers. Also, retailers are going to be loathe to push a platform that has absolutely zero chance of creating additional sales for them. Even the xbox at its craziest drm level had you buying discs to install at home.
Home consoles exist because they have major corporate money invested in making it work and widely available. If valve was designing and shipping a platform and was spending their huge pile of steam money to getting a toehold in that space... maybe.
But as it stands, its a myriad of small to mid size players fragmenting the market right out of the gate, and valve just letting the free market sort itself out.
You know there are major, unannounced vendors at the moment? They'll be unveiled at CES.
Expect machines from Mitsubishi, Toshiba, Samsung, etc.
Which again, leads me to worry about their vision for a set top gaming box.
20 different vendors with many more different configurations with potentially different UXes based on vendors (I have never in the history of Samsung see them leave the interface the fuck alone when they make something).
And then there will be steam machines that cannot play new retail games except at the lowest settings but can stream them from your gaming PC, and steam boxes with titans in them, and...
an xbox is an xbox and a PS4 is a PS4, and these things play every game thrown at them exactly the same. The existence of the surface and the surface pro tanked an otherwise good product line because people had a hard time differentiating the two unless they were invested in understanding the tech... Valve is aiming square at the enthusiasts and not the larger consumer market that Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo have secured... which is fine! But this is not a console killer, this is a PC gaming alternative.
No, valve is pretty explicitly aiming at the console market.
So, it's exactly the same as an already-existing PC that runs steam, but the initiative is aimed at the console market.
Er.
Yes?
...on the surface that doesn't sound like a recipe for success.
And yes, I've read quite a bit about the initiative, what's going on, how it works, etc. But there's zilch about it that will convince console people to suddenly get PCs. At least that's my reaction (I mostly only use PCs for indies I can't get elsewhere), and I'm someone who has actually taken the time to wade through the technobabble. How is Valve going to convince people it's worth getting when the average person will tune out after two sentences? What's the elevator pitch?
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.
Okay. So why would all these companies make their media boxes/cable boxes/TVs/toasters Steam Machines when they sell fine without giving money to Valve?
They sell fine? Desktop PC sales are slumping. The only traditional PC market that is booming is the gaming PC market. This is an entry point for many of these traditional desktop manufacturers to enter without needing to lay the groundwork for any console-style infrastructure. they don't need to get development partners, valve has already done that. They don't need to develop a storefront API, valve has already done that (and will let them create their own storefront using their API completely divorced from valve for free).
Syndalis, above, said that no retailer would want to sell these boxes because they don't have follow-up sales to go along with these boxes. That shows a big misunderstanding about what SteamOS will do for digital distribution. Walmart has an incentive to sell these boxes, because each and every one of them would be able to buy digital games from Walmart. This will be an avenue into to-the-screen digital distribution for a number of traditional players.
PC sales are slumping, granted. But from what I've read console owners STILL won't be interested in PCs no matter what they run.
Back to the point, I was talking about the media boxes/cable boxes/TVs/toasters you said was the reason Steam OS will be come a massive success, because everyone will start using them for some reason.
Walmart already sells digital games for every other platform. That's not really much of an incentive.
Console owners already are interested in PCs. Their boxes are proprietary, fragmented, closed PCs. They won't even see these steam machines as PCs. This isn't an attempt to get "console gamers" to stop being "console gamers" and start gaming with keyboards and mice. It's an attempt to extend PC gaming into a form that can be consumed by console gamers.
If consoles are already "proprietary, fragmented, closed PCs", then "extend PC gaming to console gamers" is a nonsensical sentiment. Linux gaming is a tiny fragment of PC gaming, which is itself fragmented from console gaming. So what point are you making here? So what if Steamboxes are perceived as consoles instead of computers? "It's a console that doesn't support most of the console games you like, and also doesn't support most of the PC games that weird friend of yours likes" is not a strong pitch. If you are tired of fragmentation and want to get the largest number of games possible on a single machine, a Steambox is among your worst options because Linux has a much smaller piece of the pie than Playstation, Xbox, or Windows.
Well, to begin with, there are more games on Linux than there are on the Playstation 4 or Xbox One at the moment.
but your entire argument is rooted in the belief that the release of the steam machines won't signal a shift in development. "Currently game makers don't target linux, so they won't tomorrow!"
Before last year, there wasn't a single announced PS4 game. It's reasonable to expect support to follow a successful platform. Valve is waiting till CES to announce their partners. I guarantee you they will have a number of big developers ready to work on SteamOS.
There are more games on the WiiU or Vita than there are on the Playstation 4 or Xbox One.
People aren't buying the new consoles because of what they have now. They're buying them because of what they'll have in the future. I don't know when Battlefield 5 or Call of Duty 17 or God of Castlevania May Cry: Revelations: Origins: Legacy will come out, but I know that if I buy a PS4, there is a 100% chance that I will be able to play them when they come out. No such confidence exists for Linux gaming. Very, very few people will be willing to bet $500 that this is the Year of the Linux sight unseen. If very few Steam machines sell out of the gate--which is a near certainty, because they're selling off of what Linux support is now and not what it might possibly hypothetically be in a decade maybe, and what Linux support is now is "crap"--then there's even less reason to believe that 100% of major publishers and developers will consider it worthwhile to jump on the Linux train.
On the one hand, buzz on this has been pretty quiet, which I suspect is built mostly on people wondering how this will be better/different than a PC that already runs Steam just fine.
On the other, people hate Windows 8 and I'm sure more than a few wouldn't mind trying a gaming PC sans Windows.
It's not.
I know you know this... but I have run into so many that think it is going to be. I have spent a fair bit of time talking to people in other forums who are convinced that "steam boxes" are going to sit on the shelf for 400-500 bucks and compete successfully against ps4/xboxes with just as seamless and effort-free a setup as a home console... and that isn't the message valve is selling.
Those people are correct.
I do not see iBuyPower's freeman sitting with a huge display at best buy, dude. I don't see the cross-promotional market muscle needed to grow it out beyond people like you and us who are aware there are companies besides dell, hp and apple making computers. Also, retailers are going to be loathe to push a platform that has absolutely zero chance of creating additional sales for them. Even the xbox at its craziest drm level had you buying discs to install at home.
Home consoles exist because they have major corporate money invested in making it work and widely available. If valve was designing and shipping a platform and was spending their huge pile of steam money to getting a toehold in that space... maybe.
But as it stands, its a myriad of small to mid size players fragmenting the market right out of the gate, and valve just letting the free market sort itself out.
You know there are major, unannounced vendors at the moment? They'll be unveiled at CES.
Expect machines from Mitsubishi, Toshiba, Samsung, etc.
Which again, leads me to worry about their vision for a set top gaming box.
20 different vendors with many more different configurations with potentially different UXes based on vendors (I have never in the history of Samsung see them leave the interface the fuck alone when they make something).
And then there will be steam machines that cannot play new retail games except at the lowest settings but can stream them from your gaming PC, and steam boxes with titans in them, and...
an xbox is an xbox and a PS4 is a PS4, and these things play every game thrown at them exactly the same. The existence of the surface and the surface pro tanked an otherwise good product line because people had a hard time differentiating the two unless they were invested in understanding the tech... Valve is aiming square at the enthusiasts and not the larger consumer market that Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo have secured... which is fine! But this is not a console killer, this is a PC gaming alternative.
No, valve is pretty explicitly aiming at the console market.
So, it's exactly the same as an already-existing PC that runs steam, but the initiative is aimed at the console market.
Er.
Yes?
...on the surface that doesn't sound like a recipe for success.
And yes, I've read quite a bit about the initiative, what's going on, how it works, etc. But there's zilch about it that will convince console people to suddenly get PCs. At least that's my reaction (I mostly only use PCs for indies I can't get elsewhere), and I'm someone who has actually taken the time to wade through the technobabble. How is Valve going to convince people it's worth getting when the average person will tune out after two sentences? What's the elevator pitch?
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.
Okay. So why would all these companies make their media boxes/cable boxes/TVs/toasters Steam Machines when they sell fine without giving money to Valve?
They sell fine? Desktop PC sales are slumping. The only traditional PC market that is booming is the gaming PC market. This is an entry point for many of these traditional desktop manufacturers to enter without needing to lay the groundwork for any console-style infrastructure. they don't need to get development partners, valve has already done that. They don't need to develop a storefront API, valve has already done that (and will let them create their own storefront using their API completely divorced from valve for free).
Syndalis, above, said that no retailer would want to sell these boxes because they don't have follow-up sales to go along with these boxes. That shows a big misunderstanding about what SteamOS will do for digital distribution. Walmart has an incentive to sell these boxes, because each and every one of them would be able to buy digital games from Walmart. This will be an avenue into to-the-screen digital distribution for a number of traditional players.
PC sales are slumping, granted. But from what I've read console owners STILL won't be interested in PCs no matter what they run.
Back to the point, I was talking about the media boxes/cable boxes/TVs/toasters you said was the reason Steam OS will be come a massive success, because everyone will start using them for some reason.
Walmart already sells digital games for every other platform. That's not really much of an incentive.
Console owners already are interested in PCs. Their boxes are proprietary, fragmented, closed PCs. They won't even see these steam machines as PCs. This isn't an attempt to get "console gamers" to stop being "console gamers" and start gaming with keyboards and mice. It's an attempt to extend PC gaming into a form that can be consumed by console gamers.
If consoles are already "proprietary, fragmented, closed PCs", then "extend PC gaming to console gamers" is a nonsensical sentiment. Linux gaming is a tiny fragment of PC gaming, which is itself fragmented from console gaming. So what point are you making here? So what if Steamboxes are perceived as consoles instead of computers? "It's a console that doesn't support most of the console games you like, and also doesn't support most of the PC games that weird friend of yours likes" is not a strong pitch. If you are tired of fragmentation and want to get the largest number of games possible on a single machine, a Steambox is among your worst options because Linux has a much smaller piece of the pie than Playstation, Xbox, or Windows.
Well, to begin with, there are more games on Linux than there are on the Playstation 4 or Xbox One at the moment.
but your entire argument is rooted in the belief that the release of the steam machines won't signal a shift in development. "Currently game makers don't target linux, so they won't tomorrow!"
Before last year, there wasn't a single announced PS4 game. It's reasonable to expect support to follow a successful platform. Valve is waiting till CES to announce their partners. I guarantee you they will have a number of big developers ready to work on SteamOS.
There are more games on the WiiU or Vita than there are on the Playstation 4 or Xbox One.
People aren't buying the new consoles because of what they have now. They're buying them because of what they'll have in the future. I don't know when Battlefield 5 or Call of Duty 17 or God of Castlevania May Cry: Revelations: Origins: Legacy will come out, but I know that if I buy a PS4, there is a 100% chance that I will be able to play them when they come out. No such confidence exists for Linux gaming. Very, very few people will be willing to bet $500 that this is the Year of the Linux sight unseen. If very few Steam machines sell out of the gate--which is a near certainty, because they're selling off of what Linux support is now and not what it might possibly hypothetically be in a decade maybe, and what Linux support is now is "crap"--then there's even less reason to believe that 100% of major publishers and developers will consider it worthwhile to jump on the Linux train.
You're still not getting it. You're suggesting in your post, for example, that there isn't a 100% certainty that battlefield 5 will release for the pc.
"I doubt this will succeed" isn't an argument. It's an opinion.
On the one hand, buzz on this has been pretty quiet, which I suspect is built mostly on people wondering how this will be better/different than a PC that already runs Steam just fine.
On the other, people hate Windows 8 and I'm sure more than a few wouldn't mind trying a gaming PC sans Windows.
It's not.
I know you know this... but I have run into so many that think it is going to be. I have spent a fair bit of time talking to people in other forums who are convinced that "steam boxes" are going to sit on the shelf for 400-500 bucks and compete successfully against ps4/xboxes with just as seamless and effort-free a setup as a home console... and that isn't the message valve is selling.
Those people are correct.
I do not see iBuyPower's freeman sitting with a huge display at best buy, dude. I don't see the cross-promotional market muscle needed to grow it out beyond people like you and us who are aware there are companies besides dell, hp and apple making computers. Also, retailers are going to be loathe to push a platform that has absolutely zero chance of creating additional sales for them. Even the xbox at its craziest drm level had you buying discs to install at home.
Home consoles exist because they have major corporate money invested in making it work and widely available. If valve was designing and shipping a platform and was spending their huge pile of steam money to getting a toehold in that space... maybe.
But as it stands, its a myriad of small to mid size players fragmenting the market right out of the gate, and valve just letting the free market sort itself out.
You know there are major, unannounced vendors at the moment? They'll be unveiled at CES.
Expect machines from Mitsubishi, Toshiba, Samsung, etc.
Which again, leads me to worry about their vision for a set top gaming box.
20 different vendors with many more different configurations with potentially different UXes based on vendors (I have never in the history of Samsung see them leave the interface the fuck alone when they make something).
And then there will be steam machines that cannot play new retail games except at the lowest settings but can stream them from your gaming PC, and steam boxes with titans in them, and...
an xbox is an xbox and a PS4 is a PS4, and these things play every game thrown at them exactly the same. The existence of the surface and the surface pro tanked an otherwise good product line because people had a hard time differentiating the two unless they were invested in understanding the tech... Valve is aiming square at the enthusiasts and not the larger consumer market that Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo have secured... which is fine! But this is not a console killer, this is a PC gaming alternative.
No, valve is pretty explicitly aiming at the console market.
So, it's exactly the same as an already-existing PC that runs steam, but the initiative is aimed at the console market.
Er.
Yes?
...on the surface that doesn't sound like a recipe for success.
And yes, I've read quite a bit about the initiative, what's going on, how it works, etc. But there's zilch about it that will convince console people to suddenly get PCs. At least that's my reaction (I mostly only use PCs for indies I can't get elsewhere), and I'm someone who has actually taken the time to wade through the technobabble. How is Valve going to convince people it's worth getting when the average person will tune out after two sentences? What's the elevator pitch?
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.
Okay. So why would all these companies make their media boxes/cable boxes/TVs/toasters Steam Machines when they sell fine without giving money to Valve?
They sell fine? Desktop PC sales are slumping. The only traditional PC market that is booming is the gaming PC market. This is an entry point for many of these traditional desktop manufacturers to enter without needing to lay the groundwork for any console-style infrastructure. they don't need to get development partners, valve has already done that. They don't need to develop a storefront API, valve has already done that (and will let them create their own storefront using their API completely divorced from valve for free).
Syndalis, above, said that no retailer would want to sell these boxes because they don't have follow-up sales to go along with these boxes. That shows a big misunderstanding about what SteamOS will do for digital distribution. Walmart has an incentive to sell these boxes, because each and every one of them would be able to buy digital games from Walmart. This will be an avenue into to-the-screen digital distribution for a number of traditional players.
PC sales are slumping, granted. But from what I've read console owners STILL won't be interested in PCs no matter what they run.
Back to the point, I was talking about the media boxes/cable boxes/TVs/toasters you said was the reason Steam OS will be come a massive success, because everyone will start using them for some reason.
Walmart already sells digital games for every other platform. That's not really much of an incentive.
Console owners already are interested in PCs. Their boxes are proprietary, fragmented, closed PCs. They won't even see these steam machines as PCs. This isn't an attempt to get "console gamers" to stop being "console gamers" and start gaming with keyboards and mice. It's an attempt to extend PC gaming into a form that can be consumed by console gamers.
If consoles are already "proprietary, fragmented, closed PCs", then "extend PC gaming to console gamers" is a nonsensical sentiment. Linux gaming is a tiny fragment of PC gaming, which is itself fragmented from console gaming. So what point are you making here? So what if Steamboxes are perceived as consoles instead of computers? "It's a console that doesn't support most of the console games you like, and also doesn't support most of the PC games that weird friend of yours likes" is not a strong pitch. If you are tired of fragmentation and want to get the largest number of games possible on a single machine, a Steambox is among your worst options because Linux has a much smaller piece of the pie than Playstation, Xbox, or Windows.
Well, to begin with, there are more games on Linux than there are on the Playstation 4 or Xbox One at the moment.
but your entire argument is rooted in the belief that the release of the steam machines won't signal a shift in development. "Currently game makers don't target linux, so they won't tomorrow!"
Before last year, there wasn't a single announced PS4 game. It's reasonable to expect support to follow a successful platform. Valve is waiting till CES to announce their partners. I guarantee you they will have a number of big developers ready to work on SteamOS.
There are more games on the WiiU or Vita than there are on the Playstation 4 or Xbox One.
People aren't buying the new consoles because of what they have now. They're buying them because of what they'll have in the future. I don't know when Battlefield 5 or Call of Duty 17 or God of Castlevania May Cry: Revelations: Origins: Legacy will come out, but I know that if I buy a PS4, there is a 100% chance that I will be able to play them when they come out. No such confidence exists for Linux gaming. Very, very few people will be willing to bet $500 that this is the Year of the Linux sight unseen. If very few Steam machines sell out of the gate--which is a near certainty, because they're selling off of what Linux support is now and not what it might possibly hypothetically be in a decade maybe, and what Linux support is now is "crap"--then there's even less reason to believe that 100% of major publishers and developers will consider it worthwhile to jump on the Linux train.
You're still not getting it. You're suggesting in your post, for example, that there isn't a 100% certainty that battlefield 5 will release for the pc.
"I doubt this will succeed" isn't an argument. It's an opinion.
But so is "this will be a raging success, I just know it!"
On the one hand, buzz on this has been pretty quiet, which I suspect is built mostly on people wondering how this will be better/different than a PC that already runs Steam just fine.
On the other, people hate Windows 8 and I'm sure more than a few wouldn't mind trying a gaming PC sans Windows.
It's not.
I know you know this... but I have run into so many that think it is going to be. I have spent a fair bit of time talking to people in other forums who are convinced that "steam boxes" are going to sit on the shelf for 400-500 bucks and compete successfully against ps4/xboxes with just as seamless and effort-free a setup as a home console... and that isn't the message valve is selling.
Those people are correct.
I do not see iBuyPower's freeman sitting with a huge display at best buy, dude. I don't see the cross-promotional market muscle needed to grow it out beyond people like you and us who are aware there are companies besides dell, hp and apple making computers. Also, retailers are going to be loathe to push a platform that has absolutely zero chance of creating additional sales for them. Even the xbox at its craziest drm level had you buying discs to install at home.
Home consoles exist because they have major corporate money invested in making it work and widely available. If valve was designing and shipping a platform and was spending their huge pile of steam money to getting a toehold in that space... maybe.
But as it stands, its a myriad of small to mid size players fragmenting the market right out of the gate, and valve just letting the free market sort itself out.
You know there are major, unannounced vendors at the moment? They'll be unveiled at CES.
Expect machines from Mitsubishi, Toshiba, Samsung, etc.
Which again, leads me to worry about their vision for a set top gaming box.
20 different vendors with many more different configurations with potentially different UXes based on vendors (I have never in the history of Samsung see them leave the interface the fuck alone when they make something).
And then there will be steam machines that cannot play new retail games except at the lowest settings but can stream them from your gaming PC, and steam boxes with titans in them, and...
an xbox is an xbox and a PS4 is a PS4, and these things play every game thrown at them exactly the same. The existence of the surface and the surface pro tanked an otherwise good product line because people had a hard time differentiating the two unless they were invested in understanding the tech... Valve is aiming square at the enthusiasts and not the larger consumer market that Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo have secured... which is fine! But this is not a console killer, this is a PC gaming alternative.
No, valve is pretty explicitly aiming at the console market.
So, it's exactly the same as an already-existing PC that runs steam, but the initiative is aimed at the console market.
Er.
Yes?
...on the surface that doesn't sound like a recipe for success.
And yes, I've read quite a bit about the initiative, what's going on, how it works, etc. But there's zilch about it that will convince console people to suddenly get PCs. At least that's my reaction (I mostly only use PCs for indies I can't get elsewhere), and I'm someone who has actually taken the time to wade through the technobabble. How is Valve going to convince people it's worth getting when the average person will tune out after two sentences? What's the elevator pitch?
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.
Okay. So why would all these companies make their media boxes/cable boxes/TVs/toasters Steam Machines when they sell fine without giving money to Valve?
They sell fine? Desktop PC sales are slumping. The only traditional PC market that is booming is the gaming PC market. This is an entry point for many of these traditional desktop manufacturers to enter without needing to lay the groundwork for any console-style infrastructure. they don't need to get development partners, valve has already done that. They don't need to develop a storefront API, valve has already done that (and will let them create their own storefront using their API completely divorced from valve for free).
Syndalis, above, said that no retailer would want to sell these boxes because they don't have follow-up sales to go along with these boxes. That shows a big misunderstanding about what SteamOS will do for digital distribution. Walmart has an incentive to sell these boxes, because each and every one of them would be able to buy digital games from Walmart. This will be an avenue into to-the-screen digital distribution for a number of traditional players.
PC sales are slumping, granted. But from what I've read console owners STILL won't be interested in PCs no matter what they run.
Back to the point, I was talking about the media boxes/cable boxes/TVs/toasters you said was the reason Steam OS will be come a massive success, because everyone will start using them for some reason.
Walmart already sells digital games for every other platform. That's not really much of an incentive.
Console owners already are interested in PCs. Their boxes are proprietary, fragmented, closed PCs. They won't even see these steam machines as PCs. This isn't an attempt to get "console gamers" to stop being "console gamers" and start gaming with keyboards and mice. It's an attempt to extend PC gaming into a form that can be consumed by console gamers.
If consoles are already "proprietary, fragmented, closed PCs", then "extend PC gaming to console gamers" is a nonsensical sentiment. Linux gaming is a tiny fragment of PC gaming, which is itself fragmented from console gaming. So what point are you making here? So what if Steamboxes are perceived as consoles instead of computers? "It's a console that doesn't support most of the console games you like, and also doesn't support most of the PC games that weird friend of yours likes" is not a strong pitch. If you are tired of fragmentation and want to get the largest number of games possible on a single machine, a Steambox is among your worst options because Linux has a much smaller piece of the pie than Playstation, Xbox, or Windows.
Well, to begin with, there are more games on Linux than there are on the Playstation 4 or Xbox One at the moment.
but your entire argument is rooted in the belief that the release of the steam machines won't signal a shift in development. "Currently game makers don't target linux, so they won't tomorrow!"
Before last year, there wasn't a single announced PS4 game. It's reasonable to expect support to follow a successful platform. Valve is waiting till CES to announce their partners. I guarantee you they will have a number of big developers ready to work on SteamOS.
There are more games on the WiiU or Vita than there are on the Playstation 4 or Xbox One.
People aren't buying the new consoles because of what they have now. They're buying them because of what they'll have in the future. I don't know when Battlefield 5 or Call of Duty 17 or God of Castlevania May Cry: Revelations: Origins: Legacy will come out, but I know that if I buy a PS4, there is a 100% chance that I will be able to play them when they come out. No such confidence exists for Linux gaming. Very, very few people will be willing to bet $500 that this is the Year of the Linux sight unseen. If very few Steam machines sell out of the gate--which is a near certainty, because they're selling off of what Linux support is now and not what it might possibly hypothetically be in a decade maybe, and what Linux support is now is "crap"--then there's even less reason to believe that 100% of major publishers and developers will consider it worthwhile to jump on the Linux train.
You're still not getting it. You're suggesting in your post, for example, that there isn't a 100% certainty that battlefield 5 will release for the pc.
"I doubt this will succeed" isn't an argument. It's an opinion.
No, I'm assuming there isn't a 100% chance that Battlefield 5 will release for the PC with Linux support. If it releases for the PC with only Windows support like all the others then Steamboxes cannot run it natively and the vast majority of the console market will scoff at the idea of buying a Steambox as a direct result. Why buy a console that might not be able to play the biggest and most popular games?
That goes double when you consider that Battlefield is an EA game, and EA no longer sells through Steam, and the entire SteamOS platform is essentially a power play by Valve to popularize a platform that they dominate by default. EA could create a Linux-compliant Origin storefront...or they could not bother and cripple their competition for literally negative effort.
"Valve's push for widespread Linux support is guaranteed to succeed" is also an opinion. In the absence of incontrovertible evidence either way, cautious consumers will choose to stick with what they already know will work, and that ain't Linux.
On the one hand, buzz on this has been pretty quiet, which I suspect is built mostly on people wondering how this will be better/different than a PC that already runs Steam just fine.
On the other, people hate Windows 8 and I'm sure more than a few wouldn't mind trying a gaming PC sans Windows.
It's not.
I know you know this... but I have run into so many that think it is going to be. I have spent a fair bit of time talking to people in other forums who are convinced that "steam boxes" are going to sit on the shelf for 400-500 bucks and compete successfully against ps4/xboxes with just as seamless and effort-free a setup as a home console... and that isn't the message valve is selling.
Those people are correct.
I do not see iBuyPower's freeman sitting with a huge display at best buy, dude. I don't see the cross-promotional market muscle needed to grow it out beyond people like you and us who are aware there are companies besides dell, hp and apple making computers. Also, retailers are going to be loathe to push a platform that has absolutely zero chance of creating additional sales for them. Even the xbox at its craziest drm level had you buying discs to install at home.
Home consoles exist because they have major corporate money invested in making it work and widely available. If valve was designing and shipping a platform and was spending their huge pile of steam money to getting a toehold in that space... maybe.
But as it stands, its a myriad of small to mid size players fragmenting the market right out of the gate, and valve just letting the free market sort itself out.
You know there are major, unannounced vendors at the moment? They'll be unveiled at CES.
Expect machines from Mitsubishi, Toshiba, Samsung, etc.
Which again, leads me to worry about their vision for a set top gaming box.
20 different vendors with many more different configurations with potentially different UXes based on vendors (I have never in the history of Samsung see them leave the interface the fuck alone when they make something).
And then there will be steam machines that cannot play new retail games except at the lowest settings but can stream them from your gaming PC, and steam boxes with titans in them, and...
an xbox is an xbox and a PS4 is a PS4, and these things play every game thrown at them exactly the same. The existence of the surface and the surface pro tanked an otherwise good product line because people had a hard time differentiating the two unless they were invested in understanding the tech... Valve is aiming square at the enthusiasts and not the larger consumer market that Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo have secured... which is fine! But this is not a console killer, this is a PC gaming alternative.
No, valve is pretty explicitly aiming at the console market.
So, it's exactly the same as an already-existing PC that runs steam, but the initiative is aimed at the console market.
Er.
Yes?
...on the surface that doesn't sound like a recipe for success.
And yes, I've read quite a bit about the initiative, what's going on, how it works, etc. But there's zilch about it that will convince console people to suddenly get PCs. At least that's my reaction (I mostly only use PCs for indies I can't get elsewhere), and I'm someone who has actually taken the time to wade through the technobabble. How is Valve going to convince people it's worth getting when the average person will tune out after two sentences? What's the elevator pitch?
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.
Okay. So why would all these companies make their media boxes/cable boxes/TVs/toasters Steam Machines when they sell fine without giving money to Valve?
They sell fine? Desktop PC sales are slumping. The only traditional PC market that is booming is the gaming PC market. This is an entry point for many of these traditional desktop manufacturers to enter without needing to lay the groundwork for any console-style infrastructure. they don't need to get development partners, valve has already done that. They don't need to develop a storefront API, valve has already done that (and will let them create their own storefront using their API completely divorced from valve for free).
Syndalis, above, said that no retailer would want to sell these boxes because they don't have follow-up sales to go along with these boxes. That shows a big misunderstanding about what SteamOS will do for digital distribution. Walmart has an incentive to sell these boxes, because each and every one of them would be able to buy digital games from Walmart. This will be an avenue into to-the-screen digital distribution for a number of traditional players.
PC sales are slumping, granted. But from what I've read console owners STILL won't be interested in PCs no matter what they run.
Back to the point, I was talking about the media boxes/cable boxes/TVs/toasters you said was the reason Steam OS will be come a massive success, because everyone will start using them for some reason.
Walmart already sells digital games for every other platform. That's not really much of an incentive.
Console owners already are interested in PCs. Their boxes are proprietary, fragmented, closed PCs. They won't even see these steam machines as PCs. This isn't an attempt to get "console gamers" to stop being "console gamers" and start gaming with keyboards and mice. It's an attempt to extend PC gaming into a form that can be consumed by console gamers.
If consoles are already "proprietary, fragmented, closed PCs", then "extend PC gaming to console gamers" is a nonsensical sentiment. Linux gaming is a tiny fragment of PC gaming, which is itself fragmented from console gaming. So what point are you making here? So what if Steamboxes are perceived as consoles instead of computers? "It's a console that doesn't support most of the console games you like, and also doesn't support most of the PC games that weird friend of yours likes" is not a strong pitch. If you are tired of fragmentation and want to get the largest number of games possible on a single machine, a Steambox is among your worst options because Linux has a much smaller piece of the pie than Playstation, Xbox, or Windows.
Well, to begin with, there are more games on Linux than there are on the Playstation 4 or Xbox One at the moment.
but your entire argument is rooted in the belief that the release of the steam machines won't signal a shift in development. "Currently game makers don't target linux, so they won't tomorrow!"
Before last year, there wasn't a single announced PS4 game. It's reasonable to expect support to follow a successful platform. Valve is waiting till CES to announce their partners. I guarantee you they will have a number of big developers ready to work on SteamOS.
There are more games on the WiiU or Vita than there are on the Playstation 4 or Xbox One.
People aren't buying the new consoles because of what they have now. They're buying them because of what they'll have in the future. I don't know when Battlefield 5 or Call of Duty 17 or God of Castlevania May Cry: Revelations: Origins: Legacy will come out, but I know that if I buy a PS4, there is a 100% chance that I will be able to play them when they come out. No such confidence exists for Linux gaming. Very, very few people will be willing to bet $500 that this is the Year of the Linux sight unseen. If very few Steam machines sell out of the gate--which is a near certainty, because they're selling off of what Linux support is now and not what it might possibly hypothetically be in a decade maybe, and what Linux support is now is "crap"--then there's even less reason to believe that 100% of major publishers and developers will consider it worthwhile to jump on the Linux train.
You're still not getting it. You're suggesting in your post, for example, that there isn't a 100% certainty that battlefield 5 will release for the pc.
"I doubt this will succeed" isn't an argument. It's an opinion.
But so is "this will be a raging success, I just know it!"
What I'm discussing are valves stated intentions. When I say "they'll become ubiquitous and become embedded in tvs," that's not my prediction. That's what valve has said their goal is. When I say "the problems facing configuration, fragmentation, and hardware setups are not a problem" I'm saying that because valve is saying "here is our solution to these problems."
When user x on this forum is saying "naw, these boxes can't do this" or "naw, that problem still exists," they're not arguing, they're not discussing the platforms goals or what has been done to achieve those goals. They're expressing doubt, like a talking point. If this were, say, the xbox one thread, and someone just kept going on about how Microsoft was going to go with always online drm, after their reversal, stemming solely from their skepticism, and used that as a knock against the platform, they'd be outright ignored. "Don't buy an xbone dude, Microsoft is going to go back to always online."
I recognize the same posters here. They're reusing the same arguments over and over again, no matter how many times they get addressed in this and other topics. It's fud at this point.
But "Valve stated that this is their goal, therefore they will succeed" is an argument?
Nintendo designed the WiiU with the goal and expectation of getting "unprecedented support" from EA. Therefore it must have happened?
You can't handwave away consumer doubt like it's a non-issue; consumer doubt about the viability of Linux as a gaming platform is a major obstacle to SteamOS's adoption.
On the one hand, buzz on this has been pretty quiet, which I suspect is built mostly on people wondering how this will be better/different than a PC that already runs Steam just fine.
On the other, people hate Windows 8 and I'm sure more than a few wouldn't mind trying a gaming PC sans Windows.
It's not.
I know you know this... but I have run into so many that think it is going to be. I have spent a fair bit of time talking to people in other forums who are convinced that "steam boxes" are going to sit on the shelf for 400-500 bucks and compete successfully against ps4/xboxes with just as seamless and effort-free a setup as a home console... and that isn't the message valve is selling.
Those people are correct.
I do not see iBuyPower's freeman sitting with a huge display at best buy, dude. I don't see the cross-promotional market muscle needed to grow it out beyond people like you and us who are aware there are companies besides dell, hp and apple making computers. Also, retailers are going to be loathe to push a platform that has absolutely zero chance of creating additional sales for them. Even the xbox at its craziest drm level had you buying discs to install at home.
Home consoles exist because they have major corporate money invested in making it work and widely available. If valve was designing and shipping a platform and was spending their huge pile of steam money to getting a toehold in that space... maybe.
But as it stands, its a myriad of small to mid size players fragmenting the market right out of the gate, and valve just letting the free market sort itself out.
You know there are major, unannounced vendors at the moment? They'll be unveiled at CES.
Expect machines from Mitsubishi, Toshiba, Samsung, etc.
Which again, leads me to worry about their vision for a set top gaming box.
20 different vendors with many more different configurations with potentially different UXes based on vendors (I have never in the history of Samsung see them leave the interface the fuck alone when they make something).
And then there will be steam machines that cannot play new retail games except at the lowest settings but can stream them from your gaming PC, and steam boxes with titans in them, and...
an xbox is an xbox and a PS4 is a PS4, and these things play every game thrown at them exactly the same. The existence of the surface and the surface pro tanked an otherwise good product line because people had a hard time differentiating the two unless they were invested in understanding the tech... Valve is aiming square at the enthusiasts and not the larger consumer market that Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo have secured... which is fine! But this is not a console killer, this is a PC gaming alternative.
No, valve is pretty explicitly aiming at the console market.
So, it's exactly the same as an already-existing PC that runs steam, but the initiative is aimed at the console market.
Er.
Yes?
...on the surface that doesn't sound like a recipe for success.
And yes, I've read quite a bit about the initiative, what's going on, how it works, etc. But there's zilch about it that will convince console people to suddenly get PCs. At least that's my reaction (I mostly only use PCs for indies I can't get elsewhere), and I'm someone who has actually taken the time to wade through the technobabble. How is Valve going to convince people it's worth getting when the average person will tune out after two sentences? What's the elevator pitch?
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.
Okay. So why would all these companies make their media boxes/cable boxes/TVs/toasters Steam Machines when they sell fine without giving money to Valve?
They sell fine? Desktop PC sales are slumping. The only traditional PC market that is booming is the gaming PC market. This is an entry point for many of these traditional desktop manufacturers to enter without needing to lay the groundwork for any console-style infrastructure. they don't need to get development partners, valve has already done that. They don't need to develop a storefront API, valve has already done that (and will let them create their own storefront using their API completely divorced from valve for free).
Syndalis, above, said that no retailer would want to sell these boxes because they don't have follow-up sales to go along with these boxes. That shows a big misunderstanding about what SteamOS will do for digital distribution. Walmart has an incentive to sell these boxes, because each and every one of them would be able to buy digital games from Walmart. This will be an avenue into to-the-screen digital distribution for a number of traditional players.
PC sales are slumping, granted. But from what I've read console owners STILL won't be interested in PCs no matter what they run.
Back to the point, I was talking about the media boxes/cable boxes/TVs/toasters you said was the reason Steam OS will be come a massive success, because everyone will start using them for some reason.
Walmart already sells digital games for every other platform. That's not really much of an incentive.
Console owners already are interested in PCs. Their boxes are proprietary, fragmented, closed PCs. They won't even see these steam machines as PCs. This isn't an attempt to get "console gamers" to stop being "console gamers" and start gaming with keyboards and mice. It's an attempt to extend PC gaming into a form that can be consumed by console gamers.
If consoles are already "proprietary, fragmented, closed PCs", then "extend PC gaming to console gamers" is a nonsensical sentiment. Linux gaming is a tiny fragment of PC gaming, which is itself fragmented from console gaming. So what point are you making here? So what if Steamboxes are perceived as consoles instead of computers? "It's a console that doesn't support most of the console games you like, and also doesn't support most of the PC games that weird friend of yours likes" is not a strong pitch. If you are tired of fragmentation and want to get the largest number of games possible on a single machine, a Steambox is among your worst options because Linux has a much smaller piece of the pie than Playstation, Xbox, or Windows.
Well, to begin with, there are more games on Linux than there are on the Playstation 4 or Xbox One at the moment.
but your entire argument is rooted in the belief that the release of the steam machines won't signal a shift in development. "Currently game makers don't target linux, so they won't tomorrow!"
Before last year, there wasn't a single announced PS4 game. It's reasonable to expect support to follow a successful platform. Valve is waiting till CES to announce their partners. I guarantee you they will have a number of big developers ready to work on SteamOS.
There are more games on the WiiU or Vita than there are on the Playstation 4 or Xbox One.
People aren't buying the new consoles because of what they have now. They're buying them because of what they'll have in the future. I don't know when Battlefield 5 or Call of Duty 17 or God of Castlevania May Cry: Revelations: Origins: Legacy will come out, but I know that if I buy a PS4, there is a 100% chance that I will be able to play them when they come out. No such confidence exists for Linux gaming. Very, very few people will be willing to bet $500 that this is the Year of the Linux sight unseen. If very few Steam machines sell out of the gate--which is a near certainty, because they're selling off of what Linux support is now and not what it might possibly hypothetically be in a decade maybe, and what Linux support is now is "crap"--then there's even less reason to believe that 100% of major publishers and developers will consider it worthwhile to jump on the Linux train.
You're still not getting it. You're suggesting in your post, for example, that there isn't a 100% certainty that battlefield 5 will release for the pc.
"I doubt this will succeed" isn't an argument. It's an opinion.
No, I'm assuming there isn't a 100% chance that Battlefield 5 will release for the PC with Linux support. If it releases for the PC with only Windows support like all the others then Steamboxes cannot run it natively and the vast majority of the console market will scoff at the idea of buying a Steambox as a direct result. Why buy a console that might not be able to play the biggest and most popular games?
That goes double when you consider that Battlefield is an EA game, and EA no longer sells through Steam, and the entire SteamOS platform is essentially a power play by Valve to popularize a platform that they dominate by default. EA could create a Linux-compliant Origin storefront...or they could not bother and cripple their competition for literally negative effort.
"Valve's push for widespread Linux support is guaranteed to succeed" is also an opinion. In the absence of incontrovertible evidence either way, cautious consumers will choose to stick with what they already know will work, and that ain't Linux.
. Steam mschines aren't linux-only. Steam isn't Linux. Steam is now an all encompassing platform. Steam OS, gameworks api, etc... these are tools meant to unify the platform. Going forward, assuming a game runs on some version of steam, it will likely run on all versions specifically because the tools already used to make these games are getting cross-platform equivalents.
0
Options
syndalisGetting ClassyOn the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Productsregular
I want to be clear that I am steadfastly on the side of SteamOS succeeding. Getting PC games to go fully cross platform would be the greatest thing to happen for PC gaming in ages. I just do not share your enthusiasm that steam is going to crush the console games market by becoming this ubiquitous juggernaut that runs on fairly powerful gaming rigs hidden in your television sets and cable boxes.
That shit seems pie in the sky, and seems far removed from SteamOS and SteamPlay/SteamWorks and all the other neat initiatives that will create a platform-agnostic gaming environment. I honestly don't see this growing the PC gaming market much at all, but rather reshaping it into something more palatable for people who dislike the direction Microsoft is taking their home OS.
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
The folks who run the storefront saying they want this to happen and the folks making games saying that it is going to happen are two different things. You're okay with just the first, I want more of the second.
But "Valve stated that this is their goal, therefore they will succeed" is an argument?
Nintendo designed the WiiU with the goal and expectation of getting "unprecedented support" from EA. Therefore it must have happened?
You can't handwave away consumer doubt like it's a non-issue; consumer doubt about the viability of Linux as a gaming platform is a major obstacle to SteamOS's adoption.
The argument isn't "this will succeed" the argument is "this is their goal."
Frankly, talks about performance is outright silly because these boxes haven't even been unveiled yet.
As stated in the op, this topic is intended to be a place to discuss valves plans, not attempt to defend the platform from every person who thinks to chime in with their own "a-ha but what about product x!" quip.
And I can certainly handwave fud. If the conversation is rooted entirely in skepticism that ignores the core argument. If someone presents an argument about solutions to long-standing linux problems, "but it's Linux" isn't a refute.
The folks who run the storefront saying they want this to happen and the folks making games saying that it is going to happen are two different things. You're okay with just the first, I want more of the second.
The folks who run the storefront saying they want this to happen and the folks making games saying that it is going to happen are two different things. You're okay with just the first, I want more of the second.
This benefits those who make games the most.
Does it also benefit those who sell licenses to release games on their proprietary devices?
The folks who run the storefront saying they want this to happen and the folks making games saying that it is going to happen are two different things. You're okay with just the first, I want more of the second.
This benefits those who make games the most.
Does it also benefit those who sell licenses to release games on their proprietary devices?
Do developers care if their games put money in microsofts pockets? Especially at the expense of their own profits?
Sony or Microsoft could choose not to support whatever API Steam releases on their consoles, could they not?
They likely will not support the GameWorks API. So? Both companies already use proprietary APIs.
EDIT: And to be certain, you do know what a wrapper is, right? Because Sony's proprietary API wraps directX already, and the version of directX microsoft uses for the Xbox One can wrap OpenGL. Presumably, GameWorks will wrap either of those, and then there is also the case of Mantle, which EA is committed to, which is already cross-platform.
Err.. The APIs aren't meant for competitors consoles as far as I know.
The idea is if you port a game to windows PC, Valve has an SDK and API's and IDK what else's that will make it a easy to support a dual release on Linux/Windows.
Sony or Microsoft could choose not to support whatever API Steam releases on their consoles, could they not?
They likely will not support the GameWorks API. So? Both companies already use proprietary APIs.
If Sony and Microsoft do not support GameWorks, then GameWorks is not some magical, universal tool that resolves the fragmentation of gaming across all platforms. It's an additional thing you need to support alongside the two console-exclusive tools, in exactly the same way that the traditional Windows tools are. Which means the main benefit of using GameWorks instead of the current standard is that you get to release your games on SteamOS in addition to Windows (for those who choose to do PC releases at all). If SteamOS doesn't set the world on fire, then it might be a waste of time to throw away years of expertise on your old tools in a transition to GameWorks. To speak nothing of EA, which might eschew GameWorks as a purely strategic maneuver.
Err.. The APIs aren't meant for competitors consoles as far as I know.
The idea is if you port a game to windows PC, Valve has an SDK and API's and IDK what else's that will make it a easy to support a dual release on Linux/Windows.
I don't know how much Wyvern knows about development, so I don't want to assume one way or another, but this sort of touches onto the reason to begin with that DirectX overtook OpenGL and Glide.
DirectX is near ubiquitous in the PC space not just because it's from microsoft, but because it offered a shitload more to game development than OpenGL, which really only handles graphics. Microsoft's DirectX platform, by contras, offered a suite of development tools, and could handle everything from input to audio to visuals and more. GameWorks by Valve and Mantle by AMD are the first two real competitors to DirectX in a long while. Unlike, say, OpenGL, they're aiming to offer a complete video game development setup.
The lack of such an API for various linux distros is also a major reason why so many developers don't target linux. The so-called fragmentation people talk about? It's already here. You might use OpenGL for graphics, sure, but then you might use the KDE API to handle your input, which means anything using Gnome is likely SOL, or you might use Compiz for your graphics, which isn't compatible with every linux suite or so forth. There is no single solution on Linux yet that works across a variety of distros that lets a developer say, "ok, here's all the tools you need to make a game. Here's access to the GPU, a handler for input, and a sound event handler. Enjoy."
Sony or Microsoft could choose not to support whatever API Steam releases on their consoles, could they not?
They likely will not support the GameWorks API. So? Both companies already use proprietary APIs.
If Sony and Microsoft do not support GameWorks, then GameWorks is not some magical, universal tool that resolves the fragmentation of gaming across all platforms. It's an additional thing you need to support alongside the two console-exclusive tools, in exactly the same way that the traditional Windows tools are. Which means the main benefit of using GameWorks instead of the current standard is that you get to release your games on SteamOS in addition to Windows (for those who choose to do PC releases at all). If SteamOS doesn't set the world on fire, then it might be a waste of time to throw away years of expertise on your old tools in a transition to GameWorks. To speak nothing of EA, which might eschew GameWorks as a purely strategic maneuver.
GameWorks provides a cross-platform tool for various PC builds. The obvious benefit of using GameWorks is that a game written for it could run on Linux, Mac, or Windows - aka everything steam currently runs on. The current reality of video game development is that these APIs work as closely together to wrap one another as possible so that there is invisibilty in porting between platforms. The classical problem has been the unavailablity of the middleware solution. So, syntatically, microsoft's proprietary directX code might run on a playstation 4 using the playstation's native, proprietary API which wraps directX. DirectX doesn't exist for the PS4, but sony's API provides everything directX does and interfaces with directX. This is an actual computer programming concept - the idea of interface. interoperability, cross compatibility. You build you product, be it a class or program or whatever, to interface with an existing feature set.
GameWorks will, assuredly, wrap at least DirectX. That's the whole goal. From the developer's standpoint, nothing changes. They don't do any more work. The same work they did before is enough, only now, their game "magically" runs on Linux (/SteamOS) and OSX as well, because GameWorks provides compatibility with the other, more prominent APIs. Literally every major middleware game engine is designed to work like this, they can be API agnostic provided there is sufficient interface.
also, this initiative, a move towards an open, cross-compatible API, isn't unheard of or even unwanted by big manufacturers. Microsoft tried the same thing back at the beginning of last generation. They approached Sony and Nintendo about them developing their own version of XNA, so that one "indie" game could run cross platform across all 3 machines. Nintendo and Sony respectfully declined, but this idea of universal interface has caught on regardless. These companies see the benefit, even if they don't embrace the competition.
Mantle, at least, will be one alternative. People get the wrong story about that, too. I see people saying that Mantle is AMD-only. It's AMD-only because Nvidia doesn't want to use it. AMD has offered Nvidia free support for Mantle, but nvidia has declined their invitation into the development of the API.
And, before anyone questsion - AMD and Nvidia have both provided input and help in the development of GameWorks. Both are giving keynote speeches on their contributions to GameWorks at the Steam Dev Days conference.
Well, Mantle is a little bit more complex -- in order for Nvidia to see any actual benefit out of Mantle, they'd need to change their GPUs to use the GCN architecture (which is AMD-specific). There's no reason for them to do that.
Well, Mantle is a little bit more complex -- in order for Nvidia to see any actual benefit out of Mantle, they'd need to change their GPUs to use the GCN architecture (which is AMD-specific). There's no reason for them to do that.
right, which is why they appeared to be more receptive to GameWorks.
At the moment, it seems like EA is aligning themselves with Mantle, which has a similar goal as GameWorks. I think what EA does going forward will be the most interesting to watch. They've expressed desire to move towards open standards and linux development. Origin, as a concept, is not incompatible with steam (or SteamOS, for that matter). Valve's developer agreement for the steamworks API claims you are not obligated to use Valve's store. EA could publish their own games through a steamworks-enabled origin client using mantle, getting all the benefits of steam, without providing valve marketshare nor a dime in compensation.
I actually wasn't aware that GameWorks was going to have exactly the same interface as DirectX. I assumed from the way it was being presented as an alternative to DirectX that it would require a different development process.
Still, those other examples you provided show that there are very often forces at work opposing new standards, no matter how convenient they might be on paper. XNA is pretty much dead, and I imagine Mantle's penetration is going to be severely limited without Nvidia on board. EA could very plausibly push for the failure of SteamOS...they'd benefit from being able to cheaply support current Linux and OSX users, but a hypothetical long-term migration from Windows to SteamOS would kill Origin's potential for meaningful growth. If EA chooses not to support SteamOS, it makes the platform significantly less attractive as a Windows alternative and almost entirely kills it as a console alternative.
I actually wasn't aware that GameWorks was going to have exactly the same interface as DirectX. I assumed from the way it was being presented as an alternative to DirectX that it would require a different development process.
This is how virtually every gaming API works. Similar syntax, abstracted under the surface. API stands for application programming interface. Interfacing is a central tenant in their designs. The goal of every API is to ease development.
Still, those other examples you provided show that there are very often forces at work opposing new standards, no matter how convenient they might be on paper. XNA is pretty much dead, and I imagine Mantle's penetration is going to be severely limited without Nvidia on board. EA could very plausibly push for the failure of SteamOS...they'd benefit from being able to cheaply support current Linux and OSX users, but a hypothetical long-term migration from Windows to SteamOS would kill Origin's potential for meaningful growth. If EA chooses not to support SteamOS, it makes the platform significantly less attractive as a Windows alternative and almost entirely kills it as a console alternative.
I just addressed most of this. Origin and steam aren't mutually exclusive entities. EA can develop an origin client for SteamOS, using GameWorks or Mantle or whatever, and remain 100% wholely independent. They never have to sell through valve, they never have to compensate valve, they never have to publish through valve. Origin, talking about both the platform and storefront, are both completely in line with valve's steamOS philosophy.
In fact, a primary goal for valve is to get other vendors to view Steam (the platform, not the store) as a place for them to publish their own storefronts using valve's software. Valve isn't opposed to this, they support it. The example they gave was a cable provider making a steam machine settop box for their service. When you launch the box, it'll boot up into their own comcast-flavored variation of the SteamOS UI, with a comcast-store that sells music, movies and games. The customer could then navigate to, say, amazon and buy those same games through amazon. Or through steam's store. And each store, despite using valve's API, is wholely independent. When you buy through Amazon, amazon sets the prices, sets the publishing rate, and keeps the money. Valve does not. That's how these stores can offer competing sales that benefit the end-user. If valve takes 30 cents on the dollar from a sale, amazon can come in and take 20 cents on the dollar for the same game, and pass the savings along to the customer, to offer a lower price and try to get more sales. And valve never has to be compensated for this.
It's like how different cell phone providers all have their own stores that come built into their phone. Buy an android phone from sprint, and it has a sprint store selling mp3s. buy one from cricket, and it has a cricket store. Of course, all have the google store. Yet they all sell the same MP3s. Sprint doesn't have to pay google to sell MP3s, they keep all the money. Sales on SteamOS will work the same way.
Hence, no, there is nothing stopping origin from coming to SteamOS, and even working exactly like it does right now through windows. And valve is cool with this. They want that to happen, in fact.
+1
Options
GnomeTankWhat the what?Portland, OregonRegistered Userregular
People have been trying for the ubiquitous cross-platform super standard in all areas of technology for the entire span of time that computer science has been a subject. Do you know how many have succeeded? Almost none. There are only a small handful of super-standards in computing. Everything else is far from ubiquitous. People can't even agree on how printers are supposed to communicate, in 2013.
Still, those other examples you provided show that there are very often forces at work opposing new standards, no matter how convenient they might be on paper. XNA is pretty much dead, and I imagine Mantle's penetration is going to be severely limited without Nvidia on board. EA could very plausibly push for the failure of SteamOS...they'd benefit from being able to cheaply support current Linux and OSX users, but a hypothetical long-term migration from Windows to SteamOS would kill Origin's potential for meaningful growth. If EA chooses not to support SteamOS, it makes the platform significantly less attractive as a Windows alternative and almost entirely kills it as a console alternative.
I just addressed most of this. Origin and steam aren't mutually exclusive entities. EA can develop an origin client for SteamOS, using GameWorks or Mantle or whatever, and remain 100% wholely independent. They never have to sell through valve, they never have to compensate valve, they never have to publish through valve. Origin, talking about both the platform and storefront, are both completely in line with valve's steamOS philosophy.
They certainly could, but it stands to reason that Origin is going to be forever consigned to being second-fiddle on an operating system that's literally called SteamOS. Depending on how the final UI turns out, the average user might not even know how to install Origin on their Steambox, since it sounds like at least the early versions boot straight into Steam and don't provide a lot of convenient tools for accessing anything else under the hood. I think the preview builds didn't even have a file browser. EA could release their own Steambox with their own custom UI that favors Origin as heavily as they want, but that's only useful if people actually buy them.
All else being equal, EA would much rather SteamOS flop and the market remain rooted in the Windows environment, where their opposition doesn't have a huge home field advantage (well, at least any more than they already do, being the older and more established platform). So they could very realistically choose not to release anything on SteamOS flat-out in hopes of starving out the operating system.
Posts
What all does it offer them that consoles do not?
what you are describing is in no way mutually exclusive. They're establishing a baseline hardware spec. Presumably, by market penetration and "follow the leader" mentality, those specs will be enforced. This happens over and over again - the lowest common denominator is honored, because it grants the biggest market potential. How many games were built with PS2 specs in mind despite releasing on the Xbox, for example? How many games can run on ancient iphones, despite newer models being much more powerful? What percentage of applications targetted the lowest spec Amiga 500 over, say, the A1200?
Whatever valve eventually builds and releases (either through themselves or through vendors) that is the lowest spec will be the spec everything needs to meet or beat. Presumably, those specs will be in-line with the Xbox One and PS4 to facilitate cross platform compatibility.
Origin could work through steam, EA chooses not to let it. I wrote a long series of posts about this the other day. Competing store fronts don't endanger a baseline spec. Infact, the ability to bypass valve and create your own storefront and sell apps without valve seeing a dime is a big part of their push to developers. Ubisoft, for example, might see the steam machine as a platform they should target, because they can sell games directly through their Ubisoft store for the console, paying no licensing fees, and keeping 100% of the sales.
Because games scale today. The same way Call of Duty Ghosts runs in 720p on the Xbox one and 1080p on the PS4. There will be a base spec for these steammachines. Developers will look at the spec and understand, "ok, I need to get my game running and playable under these specs." What is playable and running is up for question. Say a game runs in 720p with no AA at the baseline spec. Obviously, someone who wants a higher resolution and better AA can just pop in a better video card.
It's not about letting people run games they couldn't run before, it's about letting people run games they already could run in the past better. IF THEY WANT. The goal is to have games running just fine on the base spec, with everything else being "icing on the cake." Much like how PC gaming works right now, except instead of floating "minimum requirements" per game, all games would adhere to a hard set standard that they could be assured most people have.
There is just a stunning lack of modern AAA games from not-valve on it.
Also, absolutely no major licensed sports games... one of the biggest console draws full stop.
And none of the console space exclusives (thus far) that you only can play if you have a console, like Metal Gear or Final Fantasy.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
Yes it does. For the reasons I pointed out in my last post, and also because valve has addressed these concerns. Massive, peer-reviewed, crowd-sourced configurations will be automatically provided to end users as an invisible function of the operating system, that the end user won't have to worry about. Not savvy enough to tweak the settings for your box to make the game run as best as possible? SteamOS will scower user-submitted configurations, identifying your hardware and cross examining it with data mined about performance to set up an optimal experience. It's like what Nvidia is trying to do with the GeForce experience, but built into the OS.
Similarly, the OS itself will actually identify bottlenecks and suggest specific hardware to buy should you want to improve the experience. No research needs to be done by the person.
I thought you claimed to be up to date with steam machines? Why are you STILL making this claim after I've educated you about it several times now?
If I WAS hypothetically in the market for a gaming PC anytime in the next 5 years (doubtful), it better damn well have Excel and Word and Skype and all the other regular Windows shit that the rest of my family needs on top of being able to run the latest and greatest games. Maybe you can in fact do that with a "Steam Machine" (I have literally zero knowledge or experience with Linux), but from the sounds of it it feels like more bullshit than I would ever want to deal with.
Well, to begin with, there are more games on Linux than there are on the Playstation 4 or Xbox One at the moment.
but your entire argument is rooted in the belief that the release of the steam machines won't signal a shift in development. "Currently game makers don't target linux, so they won't tomorrow!"
Before last year, there wasn't a single announced PS4 game. It's reasonable to expect support to follow a successful platform. Valve is waiting till CES to announce their partners. I guarantee you they will have a number of big developers ready to work on SteamOS.
So Crytek wants to release Crysis 5: Cry Harder on Mac/Win/SOS. The game needs 2-3x more muscle than the baseline configuration, but can be "tricked" into running on locked platforms like the xbo/ps4.
How does Steam / Valve handle this?
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
I'm about to leave work, so I'm rushing to get this in, but let me be clear - the benefit of the steam machine is primarily on the development side, and those benefits will trickle down to the consumer eventually. SteamOS will get support, because, as a development platform, it offers a much better incentive for the developer because of it's lack of licensing fees, freely available SDK, and the outrageous publishing situations it offers that consoles can't match (publishing through valve for $0.30 on the dollar, or publishing yourself with the ability to keep all profits).
This already translates into crazy sales not possible on consoles in the current steam ecosystem. SteamOS and steam machines will be able to offer sales that no console can match.
any 'trick' they can do on a PS4 or Xbox one they can do on a PC with a similar baseline spec.
So when GTAV comes out for PC in a few months it will run on 512 megs of ram combined between GPU and system, with mid-spec PC parts from 2005?
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
There are more games on the WiiU or Vita than there are on the Playstation 4 or Xbox One.
People aren't buying the new consoles because of what they have now. They're buying them because of what they'll have in the future. I don't know when Battlefield 5 or Call of Duty 17 or God of Castlevania May Cry: Revelations: Origins: Legacy will come out, but I know that if I buy a PS4, there is a 100% chance that I will be able to play them when they come out. No such confidence exists for Linux gaming. Very, very few people will be willing to bet $500 that this is the Year of the Linux sight unseen. If very few Steam machines sell out of the gate--which is a near certainty, because they're selling off of what Linux support is now and not what it might possibly hypothetically be in a decade maybe, and what Linux support is now is "crap"--then there's even less reason to believe that 100% of major publishers and developers will consider it worthwhile to jump on the Linux train.
You're still not getting it. You're suggesting in your post, for example, that there isn't a 100% certainty that battlefield 5 will release for the pc.
"I doubt this will succeed" isn't an argument. It's an opinion.
I don't think they're going to go away though. And as such, they'll become a less weird proposition as time goes on.
Steam didn't become awesome overnight, after all.
But so is "this will be a raging success, I just know it!"
No, I'm assuming there isn't a 100% chance that Battlefield 5 will release for the PC with Linux support. If it releases for the PC with only Windows support like all the others then Steamboxes cannot run it natively and the vast majority of the console market will scoff at the idea of buying a Steambox as a direct result. Why buy a console that might not be able to play the biggest and most popular games?
That goes double when you consider that Battlefield is an EA game, and EA no longer sells through Steam, and the entire SteamOS platform is essentially a power play by Valve to popularize a platform that they dominate by default. EA could create a Linux-compliant Origin storefront...or they could not bother and cripple their competition for literally negative effort.
"Valve's push for widespread Linux support is guaranteed to succeed" is also an opinion. In the absence of incontrovertible evidence either way, cautious consumers will choose to stick with what they already know will work, and that ain't Linux.
What I'm discussing are valves stated intentions. When I say "they'll become ubiquitous and become embedded in tvs," that's not my prediction. That's what valve has said their goal is. When I say "the problems facing configuration, fragmentation, and hardware setups are not a problem" I'm saying that because valve is saying "here is our solution to these problems."
When user x on this forum is saying "naw, these boxes can't do this" or "naw, that problem still exists," they're not arguing, they're not discussing the platforms goals or what has been done to achieve those goals. They're expressing doubt, like a talking point. If this were, say, the xbox one thread, and someone just kept going on about how Microsoft was going to go with always online drm, after their reversal, stemming solely from their skepticism, and used that as a knock against the platform, they'd be outright ignored. "Don't buy an xbone dude, Microsoft is going to go back to always online."
I recognize the same posters here. They're reusing the same arguments over and over again, no matter how many times they get addressed in this and other topics. It's fud at this point.
Nintendo designed the WiiU with the goal and expectation of getting "unprecedented support" from EA. Therefore it must have happened?
You can't handwave away consumer doubt like it's a non-issue; consumer doubt about the viability of Linux as a gaming platform is a major obstacle to SteamOS's adoption.
. Steam mschines aren't linux-only. Steam isn't Linux. Steam is now an all encompassing platform. Steam OS, gameworks api, etc... these are tools meant to unify the platform. Going forward, assuming a game runs on some version of steam, it will likely run on all versions specifically because the tools already used to make these games are getting cross-platform equivalents.
That shit seems pie in the sky, and seems far removed from SteamOS and SteamPlay/SteamWorks and all the other neat initiatives that will create a platform-agnostic gaming environment. I honestly don't see this growing the PC gaming market much at all, but rather reshaping it into something more palatable for people who dislike the direction Microsoft is taking their home OS.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
The argument isn't "this will succeed" the argument is "this is their goal."
Frankly, talks about performance is outright silly because these boxes haven't even been unveiled yet.
As stated in the op, this topic is intended to be a place to discuss valves plans, not attempt to defend the platform from every person who thinks to chime in with their own "a-ha but what about product x!" quip.
And I can certainly handwave fud. If the conversation is rooted entirely in skepticism that ignores the core argument. If someone presents an argument about solutions to long-standing linux problems, "but it's Linux" isn't a refute.
This benefits those who make games the most.
By consuming the flesh of those who are in it.
And that's how Walking Dead happened.
COME FORTH, AMATERASU! - Switch Friend Code SW-5465-2458-5696 - Twitch
Does it also benefit those who sell licenses to release games on their proprietary devices?
Do developers care if their games put money in microsofts pockets? Especially at the expense of their own profits?
They likely will not support the GameWorks API. So? Both companies already use proprietary APIs.
EDIT: And to be certain, you do know what a wrapper is, right? Because Sony's proprietary API wraps directX already, and the version of directX microsoft uses for the Xbox One can wrap OpenGL. Presumably, GameWorks will wrap either of those, and then there is also the case of Mantle, which EA is committed to, which is already cross-platform.
The idea is if you port a game to windows PC, Valve has an SDK and API's and IDK what else's that will make it a easy to support a dual release on Linux/Windows.
If Sony and Microsoft do not support GameWorks, then GameWorks is not some magical, universal tool that resolves the fragmentation of gaming across all platforms. It's an additional thing you need to support alongside the two console-exclusive tools, in exactly the same way that the traditional Windows tools are. Which means the main benefit of using GameWorks instead of the current standard is that you get to release your games on SteamOS in addition to Windows (for those who choose to do PC releases at all). If SteamOS doesn't set the world on fire, then it might be a waste of time to throw away years of expertise on your old tools in a transition to GameWorks. To speak nothing of EA, which might eschew GameWorks as a purely strategic maneuver.
I don't know how much Wyvern knows about development, so I don't want to assume one way or another, but this sort of touches onto the reason to begin with that DirectX overtook OpenGL and Glide.
DirectX is near ubiquitous in the PC space not just because it's from microsoft, but because it offered a shitload more to game development than OpenGL, which really only handles graphics. Microsoft's DirectX platform, by contras, offered a suite of development tools, and could handle everything from input to audio to visuals and more. GameWorks by Valve and Mantle by AMD are the first two real competitors to DirectX in a long while. Unlike, say, OpenGL, they're aiming to offer a complete video game development setup.
The lack of such an API for various linux distros is also a major reason why so many developers don't target linux. The so-called fragmentation people talk about? It's already here. You might use OpenGL for graphics, sure, but then you might use the KDE API to handle your input, which means anything using Gnome is likely SOL, or you might use Compiz for your graphics, which isn't compatible with every linux suite or so forth. There is no single solution on Linux yet that works across a variety of distros that lets a developer say, "ok, here's all the tools you need to make a game. Here's access to the GPU, a handler for input, and a sound event handler. Enjoy."
Until now.
GameWorks provides a cross-platform tool for various PC builds. The obvious benefit of using GameWorks is that a game written for it could run on Linux, Mac, or Windows - aka everything steam currently runs on. The current reality of video game development is that these APIs work as closely together to wrap one another as possible so that there is invisibilty in porting between platforms. The classical problem has been the unavailablity of the middleware solution. So, syntatically, microsoft's proprietary directX code might run on a playstation 4 using the playstation's native, proprietary API which wraps directX. DirectX doesn't exist for the PS4, but sony's API provides everything directX does and interfaces with directX. This is an actual computer programming concept - the idea of interface. interoperability, cross compatibility. You build you product, be it a class or program or whatever, to interface with an existing feature set.
GameWorks will, assuredly, wrap at least DirectX. That's the whole goal. From the developer's standpoint, nothing changes. They don't do any more work. The same work they did before is enough, only now, their game "magically" runs on Linux (/SteamOS) and OSX as well, because GameWorks provides compatibility with the other, more prominent APIs. Literally every major middleware game engine is designed to work like this, they can be API agnostic provided there is sufficient interface.
Mantle, at least, will be one alternative. People get the wrong story about that, too. I see people saying that Mantle is AMD-only. It's AMD-only because Nvidia doesn't want to use it. AMD has offered Nvidia free support for Mantle, but nvidia has declined their invitation into the development of the API.
And, before anyone questsion - AMD and Nvidia have both provided input and help in the development of GameWorks. Both are giving keynote speeches on their contributions to GameWorks at the Steam Dev Days conference.
right, which is why they appeared to be more receptive to GameWorks.
At the moment, it seems like EA is aligning themselves with Mantle, which has a similar goal as GameWorks. I think what EA does going forward will be the most interesting to watch. They've expressed desire to move towards open standards and linux development. Origin, as a concept, is not incompatible with steam (or SteamOS, for that matter). Valve's developer agreement for the steamworks API claims you are not obligated to use Valve's store. EA could publish their own games through a steamworks-enabled origin client using mantle, getting all the benefits of steam, without providing valve marketshare nor a dime in compensation.
Still, those other examples you provided show that there are very often forces at work opposing new standards, no matter how convenient they might be on paper. XNA is pretty much dead, and I imagine Mantle's penetration is going to be severely limited without Nvidia on board. EA could very plausibly push for the failure of SteamOS...they'd benefit from being able to cheaply support current Linux and OSX users, but a hypothetical long-term migration from Windows to SteamOS would kill Origin's potential for meaningful growth. If EA chooses not to support SteamOS, it makes the platform significantly less attractive as a Windows alternative and almost entirely kills it as a console alternative.
This is how virtually every gaming API works. Similar syntax, abstracted under the surface. API stands for application programming interface. Interfacing is a central tenant in their designs. The goal of every API is to ease development.
I just addressed most of this. Origin and steam aren't mutually exclusive entities. EA can develop an origin client for SteamOS, using GameWorks or Mantle or whatever, and remain 100% wholely independent. They never have to sell through valve, they never have to compensate valve, they never have to publish through valve. Origin, talking about both the platform and storefront, are both completely in line with valve's steamOS philosophy.
In fact, a primary goal for valve is to get other vendors to view Steam (the platform, not the store) as a place for them to publish their own storefronts using valve's software. Valve isn't opposed to this, they support it. The example they gave was a cable provider making a steam machine settop box for their service. When you launch the box, it'll boot up into their own comcast-flavored variation of the SteamOS UI, with a comcast-store that sells music, movies and games. The customer could then navigate to, say, amazon and buy those same games through amazon. Or through steam's store. And each store, despite using valve's API, is wholely independent. When you buy through Amazon, amazon sets the prices, sets the publishing rate, and keeps the money. Valve does not. That's how these stores can offer competing sales that benefit the end-user. If valve takes 30 cents on the dollar from a sale, amazon can come in and take 20 cents on the dollar for the same game, and pass the savings along to the customer, to offer a lower price and try to get more sales. And valve never has to be compensated for this.
It's like how different cell phone providers all have their own stores that come built into their phone. Buy an android phone from sprint, and it has a sprint store selling mp3s. buy one from cricket, and it has a cricket store. Of course, all have the google store. Yet they all sell the same MP3s. Sprint doesn't have to pay google to sell MP3s, they keep all the money. Sales on SteamOS will work the same way.
Hence, no, there is nothing stopping origin from coming to SteamOS, and even working exactly like it does right now through windows. And valve is cool with this. They want that to happen, in fact.
They certainly could, but it stands to reason that Origin is going to be forever consigned to being second-fiddle on an operating system that's literally called SteamOS. Depending on how the final UI turns out, the average user might not even know how to install Origin on their Steambox, since it sounds like at least the early versions boot straight into Steam and don't provide a lot of convenient tools for accessing anything else under the hood. I think the preview builds didn't even have a file browser. EA could release their own Steambox with their own custom UI that favors Origin as heavily as they want, but that's only useful if people actually buy them.
All else being equal, EA would much rather SteamOS flop and the market remain rooted in the Windows environment, where their opposition doesn't have a huge home field advantage (well, at least any more than they already do, being the older and more established platform). So they could very realistically choose not to release anything on SteamOS flat-out in hopes of starving out the operating system.