I'd really like it if the next Xbox just ties game updates to the game's save on the harddrive. The way it works now is the updates are all on a small portion of the HD dedicated to updates. This makes it so if you have a game you haven't played in a while, it'll have removed any updates to make room for other games, and will make you update per game more than once for the same updates.
I'd be happy playing on a PC if I can a) hook it up to my TV via HDMI so I have full surround sound and b) not require a keyboard/mouse to play.
I also don't want to have to put it together because I did that when I was in college and I still have memories of random reboots due to power supply failure or buying the wrong single item that should work but due to some bizarre configuration ends up causing an occasional full system crash. Plus, I'd have to buy Windows.
Still, I don't see how the next systems aren't essentially HTPCs already. They have a custom OS, but the rest of the hardware looks to be pretty standard stuff.
All consoles should have a "turn on at 3 am and update everything necessary" function built in, which would alleviate some of these problems.
I'd dig that. To me though, other than maybe a quarterly system update, the 360 is effectively hassle-free on that front. Pop in game, fire it up, it says "hey gotta update", and I'm done in 30s.
What I'd really like is a "get everything in the background" or remote-start feature. Log in to the web store, grab some DLC from work, and the download starts right then so it's done when I get home. I'd consider that a driver for my platform choice, honestly.
I actually don't like the "pop in" part. I would love to be able to automatically download updates to games without having to pop in the title each time. That would make it a lot easier to ensure that, when I did put in a disk, I could actually play it right away.
I'd be happy playing on a PC if I can a) hook it up to my TV via HDMI so I have full surround sound and b) not require a keyboard/mouse to play.
I also don't want to have to put it together because I did that when I was in college and I still have memories of random reboots due to power supply failure or buying the wrong single item that should work but due to some bizarre configuration ends up causing an occasional full system crash. Plus, I'd have to buy Windows.
Still, I don't see how the next systems aren't essentially HTPCs already. They have a custom OS, but the rest of the hardware looks to be pretty standard stuff.
I'd be happy playing on a PC if I can a) hook it up to my TV via HDMI so I have full surround sound and b) not require a keyboard/mouse to play.
I also don't want to have to put it together because I did that when I was in college and I still have memories of random reboots due to power supply failure or buying the wrong single item that should work but due to some bizarre configuration ends up causing an occasional full system crash. Plus, I'd have to buy Windows.
Still, I don't see how the next systems aren't essentially HTPCs already. They have a custom OS, but the rest of the hardware looks to be pretty standard stuff.
Most modern HTPCs come with HDMI ports. I know my Mac Mini did, and most of the PC equivalent boxes I looked at other had them. I think their pretty standard for video cards nowadays, too.
I'd be happy playing on a PC if I can a) hook it up to my TV via HDMI so I have full surround sound and b) not require a keyboard/mouse to play.
I also don't want to have to put it together because I did that when I was in college and I still have memories of random reboots due to power supply failure or buying the wrong single item that should work but due to some bizarre configuration ends up causing an occasional full system crash. Plus, I'd have to buy Windows.
Still, I don't see how the next systems aren't essentially HTPCs already. They have a custom OS, but the rest of the hardware looks to be pretty standard stuff.
So Steambox is your dream machine then?
For me, this could be true.
I guess my ideal would be:
- Not missing out on many exclusive titles that I'm interested in
- I use XBMC, so a "robust" media centre that can access my externally stored library, and be controlled via my universal remote
- Ability to use either a controller or mouse/keyboard
- Harware standardisation that comes with consoles
- Cost
- Looks presentable in my home theatre setup
None of those PC concerns come up for me. My PC is always on, my mouse and gamepad are wired, etc. I'm not saying the PS3 is inconvenient, just that the days of "consoles are great because you just sit down and play" are gone, and that the "Oh shit, which IRQ am I using twice?" days of PC gaming are also gone, making both experiences more inline with each other.
edit: As long as my PS3 or similar can play my movies and stream shit from my computer across the room, it's never going anywhere. Both are pretty much a necessity still at this point.
I've got a Mac Mini hooked to my TV. It's a great, seamless little media machine but useless for games. From what I've read of the new Intel PC and mobile processors, the bog standard out-of-the-box processors are going to have powerful enough GPUs to match either of the next gen consoles.
When I can hook up a tiny PC to my TV, set up a wireless controller with a few clicks and then play and mod virtually any Steam game, I no longer have a need for a console. I'm a minority there, but the way Steam and the success of the iGames is pushing PC manufacturers to look at building mass market machines that can handle gaming, I don't know that I'm that far ahead of the curve.
There isn't any permutation of Haswell that will match the GPUs in the new Sony/MS consoles. Whoever told you that was wrong.
What would they be equivalent to? I'd be quite happy with "slightly better than current gen."
In PC terms, it is probably going to be a low-end part. I'd say somewhere around the WiiU's GPU maybe.
Interesting. Some of the review I read placed it more at the line of the mid-level solo graphics cards - something to do with the way data transfers between the memory, CPU and GPU drastically increasing the speed and capability of the chips beyond what the raw specs would suggest.
I doubt we'll know for sure until the chips get into production and benchmarked.
There's one configuration that's going to have an eDRAM block like a lot of the consoles, which will help, but it won't be a serious challenger to any of the stand-alone GPUs worth buying. What we're seeing with Haswell GT3 and AMD's APUs is pretty much the end of the <$75 GPU market, but the stuff above that is still in a different performance class.
I'd be happy playing on a PC if I can a) hook it up to my TV via HDMI so I have full surround sound and b) not require a keyboard/mouse to play.
I also don't want to have to put it together because I did that when I was in college and I still have memories of random reboots due to power supply failure or buying the wrong single item that should work but due to some bizarre configuration ends up causing an occasional full system crash. Plus, I'd have to buy Windows.
Still, I don't see how the next systems aren't essentially HTPCs already. They have a custom OS, but the rest of the hardware looks to be pretty standard stuff.
So Steambox is your dream machine then?
I think the idea of a Steambox would be great, but it depends on the price and longevity. If I can spend $300-400 for a box that plays all PC games, looks at least as good as PS4 games do for the life of the PS4, and has an expected lifespan of at least 5-6 years before I need to upgrade, while being as easy to use as a console? That would be awesome. But I'm skeptical of all those things being in one box, especially reading about Valve's vision of "good, better and best" models. It sounds like the system that will look great for half a decade or more is going to cost a lot more than $300-400, and I'm wondering if the system they'll offer for $300 will really be competitive for the long haul. As developers continue to base their games on cutting-edge hardware, how much effort will they devote to looking great on a system someone bought five years ago? Versus a game on PS4, where the developer knows exactly what his target hardware looks like, and doesn't have the luxury of devoting all his time to utilizing hardware that came out two months ago.
I know that when I built a PC years ago, which was not a high-end PC at the time, it ran a few games pretty competitively with the Xbox and PS2. Two years later, the games on consoles had an edge versus my machine, because my video card couldn't handle the snazzy new hotness. Four years later, my machine was lucky to even run the damned games, and then only with most of the effects turned off. Is that what I'd get out of a Steambox for my $300?
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
0
Options
syndalisGetting ClassyOn the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Productsregular
I'd be happy playing on a PC if I can a) hook it up to my TV via HDMI so I have full surround sound and b) not require a keyboard/mouse to play.
I also don't want to have to put it together because I did that when I was in college and I still have memories of random reboots due to power supply failure or buying the wrong single item that should work but due to some bizarre configuration ends up causing an occasional full system crash. Plus, I'd have to buy Windows.
Still, I don't see how the next systems aren't essentially HTPCs already. They have a custom OS, but the rest of the hardware looks to be pretty standard stuff.
So Steambox is your dream machine then?
I think the idea of a Steambox would be great, but it depends on the price and longevity. If I can spend $300-400 for a box that plays all PC games, looks at least as good as PS4 games do for the life of the PS4, and has an expected lifespan of at least 5-6 years before I need to upgrade, while being as easy to use as a console? That would be awesome. But I'm skeptical of all those things being in one box, especially reading about Valve's vision of "good, better and best" models. It sounds like the system that will look great for half a decade or more is going to cost a lot more than $300-400, and I'm wondering if the system they'll offer for $300 will really be competitive for the long haul. As developers continue to base their games on cutting-edge hardware, how much effort will they devote to looking great on a system someone bought five years ago? Versus a game on PS4, where the developer knows exactly what his target hardware looks like, and doesn't have the luxury of devoting all his time to utilizing hardware that came out two months ago.
I know that when I built a PC years ago, which was not a high-end PC at the time, it ran a few games pretty competitively with the Xbox and PS2. Two years later, the games on consoles had an edge versus my machine, because my video card couldn't handle the snazzy new hotness. Four years later, my machine was lucky to even run the damned games, and then only with most of the effects turned off. Is that what I'd get out of a Steambox for my $300?
If the steambox is a success, developers would be daft to not code for the platform. Unless it takes a couple generations of steambox to really find their stride, in which case you get burned like every early adopter in the history of ever. People with the iPad 1, a locked platform that sold many tens of millions of units, cannot play new games any more, and don't get OS updates because the platform really didn't find its stride and appropriate levels of power until the iPad 2, which is still the baseline for all development on iOS and matches the CPU capabilities of the iPad Mini and iPad 3.
I think waiting a year or two on the steambox before jumping in is a really good idea unless you are invested in its success because you like the concept and want to support it. You will save money and probably get a more powerful, less buggy box waiting a little while.
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
If Sony or Microsoft want me to be an early adopter, they had better have as many apps as say, a Roku does. If they want to be included in the living room experience of the future, they had better be able to do more than play movies, games and stream Netflix. That thing had better do a lot of shit because space in the entertainment center is at a premium. You already have the surround unit(s), the cable/satellite box, DVR, Blu-Ray (dvd). The more you can combine those things, the more likely somebody can justify buying a new console.
Wait, I thought the idea of a Steambox was a games machine that played all PC games? If developers are specifically coding for the Steambox, then they would necessarily not be coding for the bleeding-edge PCs that show off all their fancy effects. So does this mean that A) there's no longer any reason to buy a high-end PC for gaming, because it would look, at best, no better than the Steambox games, or the set of all Steambox games and the set of all PC games are not the same, or C) developers have to build two versions of the game, one for the PC and one for the Steambox?
If A), you're basically killing the graphics card market. If or C), how is the Steambox significantly different than any other console?
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Wait, I thought the idea of a Steambox was a games machine that played all PC games? If developers are specifically coding for the Steambox, then they would necessarily not be coding for the bleeding-edge PCs that show off all their fancy effects. So does this mean that A) there's no longer any reason to buy a high-end PC for gaming, because it would look, at best, no better than the Steambox games, or the set of all Steambox games and the set of all PC games are not the same, or C) developers have to build two versions of the game, one for the PC and one for the Steambox?
If A), you're basically killing the graphics card market. If or C), how is the Steambox significantly different than any other console?
I would think it be that developers would make sure to include a set of options that are tested to just work well enough on an official "steambox" but still include all the normal options, so if you have a more powerful system you can turn things up.
so if your on a steambox and buy the game off the steam store, it comes configured for your system because they know exactly what your hardware is. and then the developers just make sure to include a low enough option set that the game will work on a steambox, not an entirely different version. That would remove a lot of the frustration some people have with PC games in figuring out what set of graphics options to use to get the best look/performance ratio.
Wait, I thought the idea of a Steambox was a games machine that played all PC games? If developers are specifically coding for the Steambox, then they would necessarily not be coding for the bleeding-edge PCs that show off all their fancy effects. So does this mean that A) there's no longer any reason to buy a high-end PC for gaming, because it would look, at best, no better than the Steambox games, or the set of all Steambox games and the set of all PC games are not the same, or C) developers have to build two versions of the game, one for the PC and one for the Steambox?
If A), you're basically killing the graphics card market. If or C), how is the Steambox significantly different than any other console?
The main issue I see is that the Steambox is heavily rumored to be a Linux based machine. If that's the case, unless it has some damned good Direct X emulation, it's going to have a tiny library compared to normal steam on a PC (or even on a Mac).
Wait, I thought the idea of a Steambox was a games machine that played all PC games? If developers are specifically coding for the Steambox, then they would necessarily not be coding for the bleeding-edge PCs that show off all their fancy effects. So does this mean that A) there's no longer any reason to buy a high-end PC for gaming, because it would look, at best, no better than the Steambox games, or the set of all Steambox games and the set of all PC games are not the same, or C) developers have to build two versions of the game, one for the PC and one for the Steambox?
If A), you're basically killing the graphics card market. If or C), how is the Steambox significantly different than any other console?
The main issue I see is that the Steambox is heavily rumored to be a Linux based machine. If that's the case, unless it has some damned good Direct X emulation, it's going to have a tiny library compared to normal steam on a PC (or even on a Mac).
Wineskin/Crossover for Mac is already very good, and the Linux version is getting to the same level. They can license that or similar tech and be fine.
Wait, I thought the idea of a Steambox was a games machine that played all PC games? If developers are specifically coding for the Steambox, then they would necessarily not be coding for the bleeding-edge PCs that show off all their fancy effects. So does this mean that A) there's no longer any reason to buy a high-end PC for gaming, because it would look, at best, no better than the Steambox games, or the set of all Steambox games and the set of all PC games are not the same, or C) developers have to build two versions of the game, one for the PC and one for the Steambox?
If A), you're basically killing the graphics card market. If or C), how is the Steambox significantly different than any other console?
The main issue I see is that the Steambox is heavily rumored to be a Linux based machine. If that's the case, unless it has some damned good Direct X emulation, it's going to have a tiny library compared to normal steam on a PC (or even on a Mac).
Wineskin/Crossover for Mac is already very good, and the Linux version is getting to the same level. They can license that or similar tech and be fine.
I hope so. They have to be perfect, or at least label the games as non-compliant on the storefront, which will take a ton of resources considering the number of games on Steam. If even one or two games are sold that don't work correctly, people will be pissed. And valve doesn't have a history of the best customer support for those sorts of issues.
Wait, I thought the idea of a Steambox was a games machine that played all PC games? If developers are specifically coding for the Steambox, then they would necessarily not be coding for the bleeding-edge PCs that show off all their fancy effects. So does this mean that A) there's no longer any reason to buy a high-end PC for gaming, because it would look, at best, no better than the Steambox games, or the set of all Steambox games and the set of all PC games are not the same, or C) developers have to build two versions of the game, one for the PC and one for the Steambox?
If A), you're basically killing the graphics card market. If or C), how is the Steambox significantly different than any other console?
The main issue I see is that the Steambox is heavily rumored to be a Linux based machine. If that's the case, unless it has some damned good Direct X emulation, it's going to have a tiny library compared to normal steam on a PC (or even on a Mac).
Wineskin/Crossover for Mac is already very good, and the Linux version is getting to the same level. They can license that or similar tech and be fine.
I hope so. They have to be perfect, or at least label the games as non-compliant on the storefront, which will take a ton of resources considering the number of games on Steam. If even one or two games are sold that don't work correctly, people will be pissed. And valve doesn't have a history of the best customer support for those sorts of issues.
GOG uses it already for their Mac games. Crossover relies a lot on their community to supply tweaked settings you can download for individual games. With dedicated hardware, one or both of those approaches should work fine.
I'd be happy playing on a PC if I can a) hook it up to my TV via HDMI so I have full surround sound and b) not require a keyboard/mouse to play.
I also don't want to have to put it together because I did that when I was in college and I still have memories of random reboots due to power supply failure or buying the wrong single item that should work but due to some bizarre configuration ends up causing an occasional full system crash. Plus, I'd have to buy Windows.
Still, I don't see how the next systems aren't essentially HTPCs already. They have a custom OS, but the rest of the hardware looks to be pretty standard stuff.
So Steambox is your dream machine then?
I think the idea of a Steambox would be great, but it depends on the price and longevity. If I can spend $300-400 for a box that plays all PC games, looks at least as good as PS4 games do for the life of the PS4, and has an expected lifespan of at least 5-6 years before I need to upgrade, while being as easy to use as a console? That would be awesome. But I'm skeptical of all those things being in one box, especially reading about Valve's vision of "good, better and best" models. It sounds like the system that will look great for half a decade or more is going to cost a lot more than $300-400, and I'm wondering if the system they'll offer for $300 will really be competitive for the long haul. As developers continue to base their games on cutting-edge hardware, how much effort will they devote to looking great on a system someone bought five years ago? Versus a game on PS4, where the developer knows exactly what his target hardware looks like, and doesn't have the luxury of devoting all his time to utilizing hardware that came out two months ago.
I know that when I built a PC years ago, which was not a high-end PC at the time, it ran a few games pretty competitively with the Xbox and PS2. Two years later, the games on consoles had an edge versus my machine, because my video card couldn't handle the snazzy new hotness. Four years later, my machine was lucky to even run the damned games, and then only with most of the effects turned off. Is that what I'd get out of a Steambox for my $300?
But with consoles you have the games (and accessories) subsidizing the hardware. Just look at Steam sales versus how the price of video games evolves. Wouldn't you be willing to accept more frequent upgrades of the Steambox in exchange for cheaper games that also work on your computers and that you don't have to rebuy next generation? Sounds like a value proposition to me.
Of course, for proper nerds like ourselves, we'll be building our own Steamboxen instead of buying the prebuilt ones anyway. So I actually expect us to get a rather smashing deal even on the hardware itself.
I'd be happy playing on a PC if I can a) hook it up to my TV via HDMI so I have full surround sound and b) not require a keyboard/mouse to play.
I also don't want to have to put it together because I did that when I was in college and I still have memories of random reboots due to power supply failure or buying the wrong single item that should work but due to some bizarre configuration ends up causing an occasional full system crash. Plus, I'd have to buy Windows.
Still, I don't see how the next systems aren't essentially HTPCs already. They have a custom OS, but the rest of the hardware looks to be pretty standard stuff.
So Steambox is your dream machine then?
I think the idea of a Steambox would be great, but it depends on the price and longevity. If I can spend $300-400 for a box that plays all PC games, looks at least as good as PS4 games do for the life of the PS4, and has an expected lifespan of at least 5-6 years before I need to upgrade, while being as easy to use as a console? That would be awesome. But I'm skeptical of all those things being in one box, especially reading about Valve's vision of "good, better and best" models. It sounds like the system that will look great for half a decade or more is going to cost a lot more than $300-400, and I'm wondering if the system they'll offer for $300 will really be competitive for the long haul. As developers continue to base their games on cutting-edge hardware, how much effort will they devote to looking great on a system someone bought five years ago? Versus a game on PS4, where the developer knows exactly what his target hardware looks like, and doesn't have the luxury of devoting all his time to utilizing hardware that came out two months ago.
I know that when I built a PC years ago, which was not a high-end PC at the time, it ran a few games pretty competitively with the Xbox and PS2. Two years later, the games on consoles had an edge versus my machine, because my video card couldn't handle the snazzy new hotness. Four years later, my machine was lucky to even run the damned games, and then only with most of the effects turned off. Is that what I'd get out of a Steambox for my $300?
Totally what this boils down to for me.
I might be OK with upgrading a PC regularly to keep it current - but I'm not interested in doing that with my living room. In fact, it's pretty much the point of consoles for me.
I'd be happy playing on a PC if I can a) hook it up to my TV via HDMI so I have full surround sound and b) not require a keyboard/mouse to play.
I also don't want to have to put it together because I did that when I was in college and I still have memories of random reboots due to power supply failure or buying the wrong single item that should work but due to some bizarre configuration ends up causing an occasional full system crash. Plus, I'd have to buy Windows.
Still, I don't see how the next systems aren't essentially HTPCs already. They have a custom OS, but the rest of the hardware looks to be pretty standard stuff.
So Steambox is your dream machine then?
I think the idea of a Steambox would be great, but it depends on the price and longevity. If I can spend $300-400 for a box that plays all PC games, looks at least as good as PS4 games do for the life of the PS4, and has an expected lifespan of at least 5-6 years before I need to upgrade, while being as easy to use as a console? That would be awesome. But I'm skeptical of all those things being in one box, especially reading about Valve's vision of "good, better and best" models. It sounds like the system that will look great for half a decade or more is going to cost a lot more than $300-400, and I'm wondering if the system they'll offer for $300 will really be competitive for the long haul. As developers continue to base their games on cutting-edge hardware, how much effort will they devote to looking great on a system someone bought five years ago? Versus a game on PS4, where the developer knows exactly what his target hardware looks like, and doesn't have the luxury of devoting all his time to utilizing hardware that came out two months ago.
I know that when I built a PC years ago, which was not a high-end PC at the time, it ran a few games pretty competitively with the Xbox and PS2. Two years later, the games on consoles had an edge versus my machine, because my video card couldn't handle the snazzy new hotness. Four years later, my machine was lucky to even run the damned games, and then only with most of the effects turned off. Is that what I'd get out of a Steambox for my $300?
But with consoles you have the games (and accessories) subsidizing the hardware. Just look at Steam sales versus how the price of video games evolves. Wouldn't you be willing to accept more frequent upgrades of the Steambox in exchange for cheaper games that also work on your computers and that you don't have to rebuy next generation? Sounds like a value proposition to me.
Possibly. This ties into the issue of used games sales, so I'll only briefly touch on it so as not to derail the thread, but my game purchasing habits don't include a lot of new games. If I'm already paying an average of $20-30 for games, I don't get much benefit from other people being able to get them for $40 new. So in that case, no, I wouldn't be willing to spend more money more frequently for my Steamboxes. (Though I can certainly see how it's an awesome deal for others.)
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Consoles are generally sold at a loss at launch because they intend to make money on the games/licensing. Since Steam games will be selling on the PC as well, I doubt developers will want to pay a licensing fee to Steam for the Steambox alone. So I'm not sure what the model is that would allow it to be sold at a loss. So I don't see how it could have anywhere near the longevity of a console that's equivalent to a much more expensive gaming rig at launch.
You guys massively underplay the importance of the "casual" market to consoles. I definitely know of far more households that primarily use a console and tablet, and have foregone turning on any full-use computers than I know of houses that have a PC and no console.
Consoles are generally sold at a loss at launch because they intend to make money on the games/licensing. Since Steam games will be selling on the PC as well, I doubt developers will want to pay a licensing fee to Steam for the Steambox alone. So I'm not sure what the model is that would allow it to be sold at a loss. So I don't see how it could have anywhere near the longevity of a console that's equivalent to a much more expensive gaming rig at launch.
Valve does get a % from every game sold on steam(I think it's something like 30%, but finding the exact number is hard), so I would assume they sell the steambox at a slight loss, knowing that over the next few years they would more then make that up from game sales.
The thing I've been waiting to hear, and I haven't heard yet, is how Steam will handle renegotiating licenses for steambox. With releasing on PC as a platform, lots of game companies haven't made a big deal out of it because they can just view it as a quick port, an alternate distro system, or even a way to unload old IP's for bonus cash.
Microsoft and Sony try to negotiate exclusivity when they can, or at least complex release structures on games that are going to be flagship to their consoles. While they may not care about a PC port so much, they'll probably view the steambox as more complicated, and may start putting more licensing restrictions on developers shopping their games around in order to prevent them from going to steambox, assuming steambox achieves any prominence as a console.
I'd be happy playing on a PC if I can a) hook it up to my TV via HDMI so I have full surround sound and b) not require a keyboard/mouse to play.
I also don't want to have to put it together because I did that when I was in college and I still have memories of random reboots due to power supply failure or buying the wrong single item that should work but due to some bizarre configuration ends up causing an occasional full system crash. Plus, I'd have to buy Windows.
Still, I don't see how the next systems aren't essentially HTPCs already. They have a custom OS, but the rest of the hardware looks to be pretty standard stuff.
So Steambox is your dream machine then?
Potentially. How does one-machine multiplayer work on modern PCs? Can I play co-op games with my girlfriend? Do I need 2 Steamboxes to play Torchlight 2 with her, or can it do splitscreen/2 people 1 map?
Okay, well, I've already played that on a console. If a PC-console can't do couch multiplayer, it's going to have a very limited audience. Which, I think, takes it back to the problem of PC developers having to target the platform specifically.
Steam does seem to encourage couch co-op by giving them the tag "local co-op." But yeah, it's naturally up to the developers. Once Steamboxen are released I fully expect developers to have split screen on any PC versions where the console version supports split. Because why wouldn't they. That's just needlessly leaving sales on the table.
Posts
I hope they fix that.
I also don't want to have to put it together because I did that when I was in college and I still have memories of random reboots due to power supply failure or buying the wrong single item that should work but due to some bizarre configuration ends up causing an occasional full system crash. Plus, I'd have to buy Windows.
Still, I don't see how the next systems aren't essentially HTPCs already. They have a custom OS, but the rest of the hardware looks to be pretty standard stuff.
I actually don't like the "pop in" part. I would love to be able to automatically download updates to games without having to pop in the title each time. That would make it a lot easier to ensure that, when I did put in a disk, I could actually play it right away.
So Steambox is your dream machine then?
Most modern HTPCs come with HDMI ports. I know my Mac Mini did, and most of the PC equivalent boxes I looked at other had them. I think their pretty standard for video cards nowadays, too.
For me, this could be true.
I guess my ideal would be:
- Not missing out on many exclusive titles that I'm interested in
- I use XBMC, so a "robust" media centre that can access my externally stored library, and be controlled via my universal remote
- Ability to use either a controller or mouse/keyboard
- Harware standardisation that comes with consoles
- Cost
- Looks presentable in my home theatre setup
There's one configuration that's going to have an eDRAM block like a lot of the consoles, which will help, but it won't be a serious challenger to any of the stand-alone GPUs worth buying. What we're seeing with Haswell GT3 and AMD's APUs is pretty much the end of the <$75 GPU market, but the stuff above that is still in a different performance class.
I think the idea of a Steambox would be great, but it depends on the price and longevity. If I can spend $300-400 for a box that plays all PC games, looks at least as good as PS4 games do for the life of the PS4, and has an expected lifespan of at least 5-6 years before I need to upgrade, while being as easy to use as a console? That would be awesome. But I'm skeptical of all those things being in one box, especially reading about Valve's vision of "good, better and best" models. It sounds like the system that will look great for half a decade or more is going to cost a lot more than $300-400, and I'm wondering if the system they'll offer for $300 will really be competitive for the long haul. As developers continue to base their games on cutting-edge hardware, how much effort will they devote to looking great on a system someone bought five years ago? Versus a game on PS4, where the developer knows exactly what his target hardware looks like, and doesn't have the luxury of devoting all his time to utilizing hardware that came out two months ago.
I know that when I built a PC years ago, which was not a high-end PC at the time, it ran a few games pretty competitively with the Xbox and PS2. Two years later, the games on consoles had an edge versus my machine, because my video card couldn't handle the snazzy new hotness. Four years later, my machine was lucky to even run the damned games, and then only with most of the effects turned off. Is that what I'd get out of a Steambox for my $300?
If the steambox is a success, developers would be daft to not code for the platform. Unless it takes a couple generations of steambox to really find their stride, in which case you get burned like every early adopter in the history of ever. People with the iPad 1, a locked platform that sold many tens of millions of units, cannot play new games any more, and don't get OS updates because the platform really didn't find its stride and appropriate levels of power until the iPad 2, which is still the baseline for all development on iOS and matches the CPU capabilities of the iPad Mini and iPad 3.
I think waiting a year or two on the steambox before jumping in is a really good idea unless you are invested in its success because you like the concept and want to support it. You will save money and probably get a more powerful, less buggy box waiting a little while.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
If A), you're basically killing the graphics card market. If
I would think it be that developers would make sure to include a set of options that are tested to just work well enough on an official "steambox" but still include all the normal options, so if you have a more powerful system you can turn things up.
so if your on a steambox and buy the game off the steam store, it comes configured for your system because they know exactly what your hardware is. and then the developers just make sure to include a low enough option set that the game will work on a steambox, not an entirely different version. That would remove a lot of the frustration some people have with PC games in figuring out what set of graphics options to use to get the best look/performance ratio.
The main issue I see is that the Steambox is heavily rumored to be a Linux based machine. If that's the case, unless it has some damned good Direct X emulation, it's going to have a tiny library compared to normal steam on a PC (or even on a Mac).
Wineskin/Crossover for Mac is already very good, and the Linux version is getting to the same level. They can license that or similar tech and be fine.
I hope so. They have to be perfect, or at least label the games as non-compliant on the storefront, which will take a ton of resources considering the number of games on Steam. If even one or two games are sold that don't work correctly, people will be pissed. And valve doesn't have a history of the best customer support for those sorts of issues.
GOG uses it already for their Mac games. Crossover relies a lot on their community to supply tweaked settings you can download for individual games. With dedicated hardware, one or both of those approaches should work fine.
But with consoles you have the games (and accessories) subsidizing the hardware. Just look at Steam sales versus how the price of video games evolves. Wouldn't you be willing to accept more frequent upgrades of the Steambox in exchange for cheaper games that also work on your computers and that you don't have to rebuy next generation? Sounds like a value proposition to me.
Of course, for proper nerds like ourselves, we'll be building our own Steamboxen instead of buying the prebuilt ones anyway. So I actually expect us to get a rather smashing deal even on the hardware itself.
Totally what this boils down to for me.
I might be OK with upgrading a PC regularly to keep it current - but I'm not interested in doing that with my living room. In fact, it's pretty much the point of consoles for me.
Possibly. This ties into the issue of used games sales, so I'll only briefly touch on it so as not to derail the thread, but my game purchasing habits don't include a lot of new games. If I'm already paying an average of $20-30 for games, I don't get much benefit from other people being able to get them for $40 new. So in that case, no, I wouldn't be willing to spend more money more frequently for my Steamboxes. (Though I can certainly see how it's an awesome deal for others.)
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Valve does get a % from every game sold on steam(I think it's something like 30%, but finding the exact number is hard), so I would assume they sell the steambox at a slight loss, knowing that over the next few years they would more then make that up from game sales.
Microsoft and Sony try to negotiate exclusivity when they can, or at least complex release structures on games that are going to be flagship to their consoles. While they may not care about a PC port so much, they'll probably view the steambox as more complicated, and may start putting more licensing restrictions on developers shopping their games around in order to prevent them from going to steambox, assuming steambox achieves any prominence as a console.
Potentially. How does one-machine multiplayer work on modern PCs? Can I play co-op games with my girlfriend? Do I need 2 Steamboxes to play Torchlight 2 with her, or can it do splitscreen/2 people 1 map?