Steambox - Valve's console Page 2

  • Page

    of 28 First / Last

  • Widge Moderator 9 Dec 2012 18:42:33 13,252 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    The benefit of Steambox over a great many console launch is the catalogue that goes with it. Not often something can get put out the door and have every major release of the past few years on it PLUS a ready to go spread of platform exclusives too.

    _ _ _

    www.unpaused.co.uk - electronic noise adjective salad

  • RobTheBuilder 9 Dec 2012 18:45:19 6,521 posts
    Seen 8 months ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    Although Xbox was a Pc in terms of spec, the difference here could be that Steam in a box would allow you use the same login and cloud updates as you could have on about PC in the future.

    If any model of gaming has the potential to wipe out the current console system it's this. If steam opened the system up to PC manufacturers via licensing, they could create a huge market presence that would make things very interesting.
  • gelf 9 Dec 2012 18:48:05 188 posts
    Seen 3 days ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    I feel Linux is the concern here. How much of the Steam catalogue will actually make it across? People seem to assuming they all will but I suspect it won't be that simple.
  • Kostabi 9 Dec 2012 18:51:56 4,874 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Maybe we'll see Valve throw some money hats around to convince Bethesda and Ubi to Linux up their big sellers?

    I wouldn't be surprised if they offered everyone a more favourable slice of the sales if they support all of Steam's platforms. Could be a large chunk of change for the big players.
  • gelf 9 Dec 2012 19:04:13 188 posts
    Seen 3 days ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    And then ubi will refuse until they have Linux uplay and drm etc avaliable..which, they may not be bothered to do.

    This idea of an instant amazing catalogue depends too much on third partys to be realistic in my mind. I hope I'm wrong as I would be interested in a Steam box.

    Edited by gelf at 19:05:27 09-12-2012
  • RobTheBuilder 9 Dec 2012 19:09:39 6,521 posts
    Seen 8 months ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    @gelf I guess it depends how much work is needed to make games run on Linux. It could be that valve could convert them all easily in-house
  • Bremenacht 9 Dec 2012 19:24:39 17,600 posts
    Seen 18 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    RobTheBuilder wrote:
    @gelf I guess it depends how much work is needed to make games run on Linux. It could be that valve could convert them all easily in-house
    They don't even have to do a lot to garner plenty of interest. I'm pretty sure they'll pull together enough big titles and new releases to make it all worthwhile. For example, I can think of one particular title that would be an incredible system seller, just the same way one particular title launched steam.

    It's a relevent concern though, so I'd guess Valve would publish a schedule of titles to be converted, to assure people a Steambox won't be a waste of money.
  • RobTheBuilder 9 Dec 2012 19:44:35 6,521 posts
    Seen 8 months ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    @Bremenacht If you took the component cost of an i5 3570, a 7850 card, 8gb ram, a hard drive and case, then you could have a box that will likely match or outperform the next Playstation or Xbox for about the same price. Add in an instant catalogue of available games and I can see why people would be interested. Add in higher margins for developers and I can see why they would like it.
  • oceanmotion 9 Dec 2012 20:11:29 15,647 posts
    Seen 1 day ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    I think the Steam ecosystem is quite the tasty carrot compared to console makers. Publishers should be quite interested if it manages to be a comparable easy device to use. Little to lose and much to gain.

    The shakeup that would happen in the console market if successful would be quite something but possible they might disappear into another area, which can be seen now, media streaming devices.
  • dominalien 2 Jan 2013 17:18:18 6,829 posts
    Seen 14 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    So, Phoronix confirms. Running Linux. What are they thinking?

    This looks like a huge gamble on Valve's part at best, and sheer lunacy at worst. Can they topple, or at least severely limit, Microsoft's monopoly on PC gaming?
    .

    PSN: DonOsito

  • Bremenacht 2 Jan 2013 18:05:10 17,600 posts
    Seen 18 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    It's brilliant. They could completely break the hegemony Windows has over PC gaming. It'll make PC gaming more affordable and therefore (I'd presume) more successful.

    The irony here is that it's Microsoft who are forcing Valve into the gamble, rather than Valve being frivolous.

    I cannot think of another company who are as efficient and cash-rich to make it work.
  • Deleted user 2 January 2013 18:13:35
    How is it lunacy? If it works they drive the development of game engines away from directs and toward open standards/multiplatform engines and at the same time expand their customer base. If it fails they lose...nothing.
  • Deleted user 2 January 2013 18:15:11
    And Microsoft don't have a monopoly of any kind over PC gaming. They have a monopoly on the operating system which isn't the same thing, is increasingly irrelevant and not much of a monopoly these days.

    My bet is this will keep going for 3-4 years then steam will start to do cloud delivery of games so the hardware is unimportant and they can sell even more of the consoles for a very long time.

    Edited by Aargh. at 18:17:48 02-01-2013
  • Fake_Blood 2 Jan 2013 18:27:04 4,063 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    I like the idea of dualbooting to a steam os, it might even make hardware faster as it doesn't have to run all those services windows has going on in the background.
    For a pure gaming machine you wouldn't even need windows anymore.
  • dominalien 2 Jan 2013 18:28:36 6,829 posts
    Seen 14 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    But monopoly on the operating system = monopoly on PC gaming. They don't make the games, but they can be sure everyone who plays games on PC is their client.

    Also, I'd hardly call their monopoly irrelevant. It allows them to make huge mistakes (ME, Vista, possibly 8) and take it all in stride, at the same time investing heavily in other, possibly loss-generating (Xbox) areas. And their mistakes don't matter, because you can be sure 90+% of computers will still be sold with Windows on board.

    That said, I think at this point it's a given Valve's console will not aspire to give us access to "everything on Steam right now". They'll probably focus on bringing all future games to it.

    Please don't, however, even get me started on the state any and all of the technologies competing with directx are... :confused:

    Edited by dominalien at 18:29:53 02-01-2013

    PSN: DonOsito

  • disusedgenius 2 Jan 2013 18:29:52 5,205 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    How does directX work with Macs anyway - aren't they based off UNIX as well?
  • dominalien 2 Jan 2013 18:30:14 6,829 posts
    Seen 14 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    It doesn't. DirectX is Windows only.

    PSN: DonOsito

  • disusedgenius 2 Jan 2013 18:31:32 5,205 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    So a second I assumed that most games are playable on macs as well. Then I remembered everyone still uses Boot Camp. Ignore me...
  • L0cky 2 Jan 2013 18:42:16 1,500 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Even if it fails it'll be good for us, most big devs will probably hire someone to port to OpenGL; then they might start going with it from the ground up.

    That'd be a big step in breaking away from the Windows/PC vendor lock in.

    /criticisms of OpenGL not withstanding.
  • oceanmotion 2 Jan 2013 19:45:00 15,647 posts
    Seen 1 day ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    So how do devs make the same game on other platforms with OpenGl, seems to work okay does it not, may be a pain in the arse, I dunno. Doesn't Carmack do OpenGL over DirectX ?

    Does DirectX lead the graphic tech train along the rails which is what people have issue with and OpenGL just emulates it ?

    Edited by oceanmotion at 19:45:58 02-01-2013
  • Deleted user 2 January 2013 19:49:23
    Surely it would just be trading one monopoly for another in the long run?
  • Deleted user 2 January 2013 19:54:22
    a single platform API vs a cross platform API isn't quite the same. Besides, there's no reason you can't target both.
  • Deleted user 2 January 2013 19:59:48
    I meant that ultimately Steam would become the defacto game system. Which it arguably already is - I've lost count of the number of purchases on third party sites that were just Steam keys with no other download option.

    Not necessarily saying that's a bad thing, but Valve saying they're moving away from Windows because they don't like the walled garden/monopoly approach is a bit rich.
  • Deleted user 2 January 2013 20:21:16
    As far as I understand it, if all engines were openGL/unity(?) then porting across the various platforms is relatively simple. Microsoft having the operating system becomes unimportant, there being a standard Linux and hardware configuration wouldn't be a monopoly because anyone else would be able to sell the same.

    It's not in valve's interest to have a hardware/os monopoly, just as many machines with steam as possible.
  • dominalien 2 Jan 2013 20:32:16 6,829 posts
    Seen 14 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    It may lead to a monopoly, but doesn't have to.

    It's certainly very convenient for everyone to have a single operating system on a single hardware platform, that "everybody" uses, so probably it'll tend to gravitate towards one.

    As for Steam, it'll never be a monopoly as long as it's just a distribution platform running on a system that's not proprietary to them. I can easily see them trying to actively rectify that in the near future.

    PSN: DonOsito

  • Bremenacht 2 Jan 2013 20:32:31 17,600 posts
    Seen 18 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    @meme

    It's competition in an area where's been no competition since the Amiga and ST.

    It could go the way you suggest, but then there's nothing to stop Microsoft from doing more to make games on Windows a better experience. e.g. making a 'gaming' edition of Windows.

    Even if it turns out as you put it -replacing one monopoly with another- at least we've have a slighty better monopoly! I reckon it won't come down to just Steam or Windows anyway. There's nothing stopping the likes of Amazon getting involved, depending on how stuff gets licenced.

    Edited by Bremenacht at 20:34:23 02-01-2013
  • dominalien 2 Jan 2013 20:35:22 6,829 posts
    Seen 14 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Bremenacht wrote:
    It's competition in an area where's been no competition since the Amiga and ST.
    Well, we did have OS/2 Warp. ;-)

    PSN: DonOsito

  • Deleted user 2 January 2013 20:44:41
    dominalien wrote:
    As for Steam, it'll never be a monopoly as long as it's just a distribution platform running on a system that's not proprietary to them. I can easily see them trying to actively rectify that in the near future.
    Many would argue Steam already is a monopoly, with an ever-increasing number of games being Steam only. From what I can gather they give devs incentive to use them by lowering their take if they fully integrate with Steamworks (IE, basically make it Steam exclusive). All they really have to do is position themselves as cross-platform middleware ("make your base game and we'll help you with multiplayer matchup code etc etc" ) and they'll sew up any Linux ports as exclusives pretty easily.

    Like I said, it's not necessarily a bad thing, but it is effectively trading an OS monopoly for a distribution one.

    Edited by meme at 20:44:50 02-01-2013
  • Page

    of 28 First / Last

Log in or register to reply