Valve to release its own 'tightly controlled' console-like PC for the living room

[Steve21]

Hats? You're talking about TF2 which is a game, not the platform as far as I can tell, which still updates pretty regularly. You're talking about something that doesn't exist now then - why talk about something that you don't use now? I get updates on the actual Steam platform about once or so a month. Nothing heavy. I just don't understand your complaint about a platform that was growing and updating, and way back when you're talking about it, stablising itself and adding things (steamworks, the overlay, improving the update mechanism for games, etc...).

 

Steam doesn't force updates on you either. It informs you an update is ready and you can ignore it and carry on if you want. I've been using it for at least 5 years now and not once has a login been denied due to a lack of update.

 

As I said, "examples". I wasn't talking about something I don't use now, I made a single comment that I don't get the point in using it anymore when there are many alternatives, there's nothing really unique about steam anymore, and you started a conversation about it's updating process, and linking what I said to games and linux...

 

Anyway going back to the original point, what is there to keep someone using Steam over another of the big platforms? Unless there's a specific game on Steam you want, or your friends etc already use it there are lots of ways to download games etc and use them without Steam. Thus the point on Valves "console"

 

Steve

[localzuk]

Alternatives to steam are still not that great in my experience, which is why I'm so confused by your comment saying it updated too often!! You can't get away with one line comments basically saying that the system is no good because it updated itself, because the comment is just wrong IMO.

 

Alternatives to steam? EA Origin - shockingly bad platform. Atari's download platform? Good for the initial download, but if you need to download it again? You have to pay again if you're outside the short 'grace period'. Some game makers have started making their games available via direct downloads (indie games mostly, like Minecraft and Towns) but these are still few and far between.

 

Steam has also made gifting games very easy - buy as gift, send the person a code. A mechanism that is used a lot in the online streaming community.

 

Not to mention the sales being very cheap compared to most games, and most other platform discounts.

[ben604]

Steam's ace. It would be better if it worked behind a proxy server, obviously...

 

Steam is good for having everything in one place, updates/patches, being able to back up and restore (saved me a good 5 hours of downloading time last night), Midweek Madness!

 

I'm fundamentally against consoles and hardware that can't be easily upgraded, so I'll be sticking to my PC/Laptop rather than buying a dedicated box. That being said, a lot of people will want the dedicated box and it should attract more users to Steam, hopefully leading to more variety and (even) better pricing.

 

(As a side note, why would you want to fiddle with the linux build of a dedicated gaming machine?! Just turn it on and play the bleedin' games on it!)

[Rawns]

Anyway going back to the original point, what is there to keep someone using Steam over another of the big platforms? Unless there's a specific game on Steam you want, or your friends etc already use it there are lots of ways to download games etc and use them without Steam. Thus the point on Valves "console"

 

Steve

 

But none of the alternatives even come CLOSE to Steam's in-depth nature. It leads the way. What other alternatives are there? Origin? A pile of garbage that caused so much uproar when BF3 was released because EA wanted a piece of the pie, and it proves to be a more worrying piece of software if you actually read the T's & C's when agreeing to install it (Example: You give EA the right to selectively 'scan' your machine and return information on any files and software installed).

 

Yes you can download from companies like Direct 2 Drive but the games are simply install media. You still have to download updates and patches yourselves, and even install them!!! (Can;t remember the last time I actually went through a "setup" to install a game!)

 

And Steam are in most cases hard to beat on price. And if you are more reserved with spending your hard earnt cash on the latest release, wait a few months when chances are it will have 50-75% off in one of their awesome sales.

 

Frankly, I rarely get a game unless it's in steam!

Edited December 11, 2012 by Rawns

[tmcd35]

Alternatives to steam? EA Origin - shockingly bad platform. Atari's download platform? Good for the initial download, but if you need to download it again? You have to pay again if you're outside the short 'grace period'. Some game makers have started making their games available via direct downloads (indie games mostly, like Minecraft and Towns) but these are still few and far between.

 

These may be "alternatives" to steam in the Windows PC world, but they are not alternatives/competitors as far as a Steam Console is concerned. The alternatives would be Apple-TV, Rocku, Google/Android TV, Wii-U, Playstation 4, XBox 720, OnLive. A some what crowded market with some big players. As I said above PS4 already as the Playstation Store and PS+ accounts offer cracking value. It's how they compete and differentiate themselves in this market that will be key. And the biggest key is attracting developers to Linux. If developers stick with Windows/Direct-X, Wine isn't going to get them that far...

[CAM]

The reason Steam has survived and doing well is because it is updated and it evolves to meet the current climate. Remember when it first started? The system was designed for distributing Half-Life and official mods with a ropey Friends feature and some parlor games to play whilst waiting for rounds between CS. Then someone said "Why not get other companies on board?"

 

Now it is the biggest digital distribution service with the Steam Community added to meet the new social networking climate, non-games for sale, graphics drivers, adaptations for F2P plus Steam Wallet to support that new revenue model...it's come a long long way from playing Checkers as you wait for two AWP campers to kill each other assuming Friends was even working.

 

Shame the parlor games never came back though.

[localzuk]

These may be "alternatives" to steam in the Windows PC world, but they are not alternatives/competitors as far as a Steam Console is concerned. The alternatives would be Apple-TV, Rocku, Google/Android TV, Wii-U, Playstation 4, XBox 720, OnLive. A some what crowded market with some big players. As I said above PS4 already as the Playstation Store and PS+ accounts offer cracking value. It's how they compete and differentiate themselves in this market that will be key. And the biggest key is attracting developers to Linux. If developers stick with Windows/Direct-X, Wine isn't going to get them that far...

 

But that's the thing isn't it - the hardware platform will need to progress relatively quickly too. Consoles don't update often enough IMO. Just look at that graph earlier about graphic performance differences. If they produce a console using commodity style hardware, I'd be quite keen on them also selling approved upgrades too - eg. every year release a range of graphics cards that can be slotted in easily whilst the underlying system has already been updated to support the devices without any interaction from the end user.

 

There are a surprising number of games on Steam that have Linux versions already. Ok, most are indie games, but its still quite a few.

[TechMonkey]

But how will a linux distro deal with DX10 games?

 

I'd love this to work, I miss PC games but got bored of often spending more time on hardware issues then on the games. Would be nice also to have a PC "console" rather than having to have a HTC that can be a gaming rig or lugging your PC in to the living room.

 

Big issue though is that all the games work and price.

[tmcd35]

If they produce a console using commodity style hardware, I'd be quite keen on them also selling approved upgrades too - eg. every year release a range of graphics cards that can be slotted in easily whilst the underlying system has already been updated to support the devices without any interaction from the end user.

.

 

Personally I'd copy Apple approach with the iPad, small annual hardware increments. I'm surprised Nintendo haven't gone down this route with the Wii as they use mostly stock hardware, the core chips have been the same since the GameCube, and they certainly can't keep up with Sony and Microsoft in the horse power department.

 

I can't see Valve wanting to do a modular system. They've already pretty much said "if you don't like our hardware, build your own and put Linux+Steam on it". I think they want to get away from Windows (didn't the CEO say "Windows 8 is a carp gaming platform"?). In order to do that they need to attract developers to Linux. To do that developers need a popular platform to target. Thus, the Steam Console. Makes sense, but it also means going up against Apple, Sony and Microsoft in a big way...

[CyberNerd]

But how will a linux distro deal with DX10 games?

 

 

Same way PS3, Wii, OSX do - buy using OpenGL.

Any game that is ported to run on non-MS platforms has to deal with this anyway.

[sonofsanta]

I think they'll produce 2-3 sealed boxes at various price points and have a pre-configured set of graphics settings for each game at each of those points. Maybe release an updated hardware platform every 3 years (not much point in doing so more often, IMHO - not a significant enough difference between generations atm).

 

They're talking about a turn key solution - i.e. something simple and hands off. I doubt they'll lock it down completely, they'll be open to people playing, but at a basic level it will plug in, boot to Steam Big Picture, load with the appropriate performance/quality settings and let you just get on with it - like a console.

[tmcd35]

Maybe release an updated hardware platform every 3 years (not much point in doing so more often, IMHO - not a significant enough difference between generations atm).

 

Funny, that's the exact reason why I think they should update the hardware platform annually. Again, look at the iPad. Instead of one big change every 3/4 years, you can enter the ecosystem at the current level at any time and then choose your own replacement/upgrade cycle. I think it would be tough on a small company to develop a hardware platform that can remain current for 3 years and compete with Sony/Microsoft consoles - Nintendo haven't been able to do it and they've been in the business a lot longer!

Edited December 11, 2012 by tmcd35

[X-13]

I'd be quite keen on them also selling approved upgrades too - eg. every year release a range of graphics cards that can be slotted in easily whilst the underlying system has already been updated to support the devices without any interaction from the end user.

 

I said something similar a long time ago.

 

Combine the upgradeablity of a computer with the "it just plays" of a console. Throw in the cheap games of Steam, and the console war is over.

[edutech4schools]

Based on the first chart above you would think that no new consoles had been released during that time but that is not the case.

 

oooops pasted in to wrong forum.

Edited December 11, 2012 by edutech4schools

[LosOjos]

Based on the first chart above you would think that no new consoles had been released during that time but that is not the case.

 

oooops pasted in to wrong forum.

 

True, but no new consoles with better graphics than the 360/PS3 have been released, that's what the chart is based on.

[sonofsanta]

Based on the first chart above you would think that no new consoles had been released during that time but that is not the case.

 

oooops pasted in to wrong forum.

 

The Wii U barely keeps pace with the PS3/360 though, and the GPUs in those are effectively a 7600 and an X1800 - not quite, but similar; they're both essentially half a dozen generations old. Compare the 8600 in this chart to the 660Ti today - i.e. similar price points in the line up - and performance has improved around 14x in BF3. Consoles can keep up to an extent from bare metal coding, and by avoiding the inefficiencies of an abstraction layer like DirectX, but they've hit that limit. Compare a recent game like BF3 or

from console to PC - it's a different game altogether, the level of detail, lighting, ambience, texture...

[tmcd35]

True, but no new consoles with better graphics than the 360/PS3 have been released, that's what the chart is based on.

 

I think the situation is a little more complex than nVidia would have us believe (but then they're in the business of selling graphics cards not games consoles!). No manufacturer will put a top of the range $600 graphics component in a games console. Games consoles don't have to drive PC screen resolutions. Developers are able to more effectively target the static platform and eek out more performance than on a PC (for the same spec) because on a PC you have to take in to account a number of different variations of spec. So yes, current graphics cards might be 10x more powerful than in consoles but that doesn't necessarily mean 10x fast, 10x better graphics, etc.

[X-13]

it's a different game altogether, the level of detail, lighting, ambience, texture...

 

Assassin's Creed 3 is beautiful on Xbox because of a redesigned engine. [Even moreso on PC]

 

There comes a point where more graphics is pointless though... I think we're at that point now [or fast approching it]

[LosOjos]

I think the situation is a little more complex than nVidia would have us believe (but then they're in the business of selling graphics cards not games consoles!). No manufacturer will put a top of the range $600 graphics component in a games console. Games consoles don't have to drive PC screen resolutions. Developers are able to more effectively target the static platform and eek out more performance than on a PC (for the same spec) because on a PC you have to take in to account a number of different variations of spec. So yes, current graphics cards might be 10x more powerful than in consoles but that doesn't necessarily mean 10x fast, 10x better graphics, etc.

 

It's always hard to completely trust the findings of any company who has something to gain by skewing them but in this case it's quite easy to see for yourself how graphics have come along since the 360/PS3 were released.

 

Don't forget, nVidia make the graphics processor for the PS3 and ATI for the 360, so they still get their cut in the console market

[sonofsanta]

Assassin's Creed 3 is beautiful on Xbox because of a redesigned engine. [Even moreso on PC]

 

There comes a point where more graphics is pointless though... I think we're at that point now [or fast approching it]

 

Uncanny valley ho!

 

I do wish developers would spend less on $graphicsTech & MOAR POLYGONS and a bit more on art direction, but still, as someone currently playing through ME3 on PC, god how I hate the consoles for their pitiful lack of RAM and the godawful textures I am having forced upon me.

 

EDIT:

Don't forget, nVidia make the graphics processor for the PS3 and ATI for the 360, so they still get their cut in the console market

- by all accounts, it's a fairly pitiful cut though :/ certainly not enough to keep AMD afloat at the moment, anyway.

[localzuk]

Assassin's Creed 3 is beautiful on Xbox because of a redesigned engine. [Even moreso on PC]

 

There comes a point where more graphics is pointless though... I think we're at that point now [or fast approching it]

 

Oh, I agree, but at the same time, having decent graphics improves things like level complexity - so you can have more textures loaded, faster etc...

 

Some of the best games of the last couple of years are in no way graphics intensive. Minecraft for example. That just tasks your CPU until it explodes.

[tmcd35]

It's always hard to completely trust the findings of any company who has something to gain by skewing them but in this case it's quite easy to see for yourself how graphics have come along since the 360/PS3 were released.

Undoutably, but then again both systems are due an imminent upgrade.

 

Assassin's Creed 3 is beautiful on Xbox because of a redesigned engine. [Even moreso on PC]

 

There comes a point where more graphics is pointless though... I think we're at that point now [or fast approching it]

 

I think we're probably past it. I think the big push's now are in AI and Physics, both of which can be off-loaded to quiet GPU intensive tasks (Open-CL?). The rumour mill has it that the PS4 might use an AMD APU and a separate GPU. If the dedicated GPU is busy pushing polygons, the AU as quiet a bit of power in it's onboard GPU for some serious number crunching.