Steam Console

[FredEffinChopin]

Next year should be interesting. Does anyone anticipate this being high-end? Or being released in several models? Or upgradable? It's walking a fine line as it is, the last of those would make it even harder to detect. I'm very interested in seeing exactly what it is though.

 

Valve/Google/MS/Nintendo/Sony. My body is ready. My wallet is another story.

[TheMightyEthan]

My understanding is that the hardware won't be (easily) upgradeable. Gabe said something like "If people want something they can mess with the hardware on, then they can build their own PC". That said, I'm sure the hardware will be updated as time goes on, and since it's going to be running PC games the transitions can be smoother, they don't have to have a hard cutoff between generations.

 

*Edit* - I could see system specs in the future being listed with a category for SteamBox. eg:

 

Far Cry 4

 

Minimum:

Intel Core i13

27 GB RAM

2 TB HDD Space

GeForce 860 Ti

or SteamBox 3

 

Recommended:

Intel Core i21

58 GB RAM

2 TB HDD Space

GeForce 990

or SteamBox 5

Edited December 10, 2012 by TheMightyEthan

[Mister Jack]

I see no way that this is a bad thing.

[madbassman39]

I'm not too sure what to think about a steambox. I mean aside from selling hardware, what advantage does Valve have? They surely can't rely on the hardware to make them money because they have to price it competitively in order for it to be considered as a "gaming console." Not to mention that my PC is connected to my TV and uses a controller, and I use big picture mode, essentially I have a steambox that can potentially do more than a steam box.

 

I guess what I'm getting at, if the steambox just a way of getting steam in peoples houses who are afraid to make the seemingly complicated jump into the PC gaming world, then I guess thats good motive, but really where the money on consoles is made is software, and how do you make profit on your system? Exclusives. I don't want to have to buy a steambox just to play the few valve games that I could potentially play on my PC but wont be allowed to because steam wants me to purchase their little box.

 

I guess we'll have to see where this goes, but the lack of details kind of bothers me.

[Faiblesse Des Sens]

but really where the money on consoles is made is software, and how do you make profit on your system?

 

I'm not getting your point. Why the fuck wouldn't they make money off of Steam in this case?

 

Also, why are you assuming that they'd lock people out and force you to buy the box? All a steam box would be is a pre-built computer. It seems like you're jumping to the absolute most negative conclusions possible even though they completely clash with Valve's culture.

[madbassman39]

You have an elegant way with words FDS. Do me a favor and ask more politely next time.

 

I'm saying is what is the point of them creating a steam box? If they make money off of software and not hardware, why enter the hardware business at all? I already can use steam, I don't need a steam box to do so, and that goes for everyone with a computer now. What is the incentive for me or anyone to buy the Steambox that, for all we know, doesn't run windows?

 

If steam doesn't make money off of the steambox, like the other consoles, why are they interested in jumping into that market? They already can get steam in front of everyone without selling the box, without having the added cost of producing hardware, without adding overhead that most likely wont make any profit or even be considered a loss.

 

I feel that asking these questions is very important, because even though it clashes with Valve's culture now, things may change in the future, or they may not. We wont know and the best way to know what direction Valve is heading in is to ask these questions.

[Waldorf and Statler]

They might get a percentage from sales, not to mention the guarantee of people using Steam almost exclusively.

 

But you forget that Valve has always been about promoting open-source. They see consoles as too restrictive for everybody besides big name companies. They want to bring in console gamers towards open-source ideals. If they make a Steam-like PC I might go for it depending if I can't afford my own gaming PC by then.

[Mister Jack]

I think the trainwreck that is Windows 8 might factor somewhat into their decision as well. Regardless of how you feel about Windows 8, Gaben hates it and sees it as a potential threat to the pc gaming space. In the unlikely worst case scenario that Microsoft keeps going down this path and ends up putting people off windows entirely, the steambox would still be there.

[Waldorf and Statler]

I don't see MS keeping it. I see it as MS making their smartphone/touchscreen OS and deciding to bring it out for PC's as well

[Mister Jack]

I don't see them keeping it either but people have done dumber things before.

[Faiblesse Des Sens]

If they make money off of software and not hardware, why enter the hardware business at all?

 

You might want to ask Google about that one.

 

 

"People can already search Google from their computers, why do they need a device that does this?"

 

But you forget that Valve has always been about promoting open-source

 

But Steam is a closed platform that isn't open-sourced!

 

In the unlikely worst case scenario that Microsoft keeps going down this path and ends up putting people off windows entirely, the steambox would still be there.

 

And what about the 99% of steam games that doesn't run on OSX and Linux? What would you even play on the Steambox besides Valve games and newer titles that are compatible?

 

 

Anyways, to quit beating around the bush I'll make it clear what I see Valve doing here:

 

If you provide easy to use hardware to push your service you will expand the people who use your service and make your money. This has the benefit of providing a solution for users who might think that PC gaming requires too much setup/knowledge/etc and possibly even be cost effective. For Valve, they get to tap into this market they aren't tapping into right now (or are minimally) and push their service. So it's not about Valve making money off of hardware. It's about getting more hardware out there that works with the service to more people and then making money off of the service. Which is why I brought up Google. Android is only free because they make money off of ad revenue. Which is why the Nexus 4 and the Nexus 7 are basically sold at cost. Services provide long term cash: If someone has a device that can connect to the service then they will dump money into the service (or ad-revenue in Google's case since they only recently started doing well with selling content.) I mean shit, I can think of a couple of examples just from Google relating to stuff like this. Not so much hardware but platforms that tie into the services that make them money.

Edited December 10, 2012 by Faiblesse Des Sens

[Waldorf and Statler]

Steam is not open-sourced but Gabe has always complained consoles are too closed off. At least Steam is attempting to correct how closed they are with Greenlight. I don't know all the technical details of Steam but I'm gonna go ahead and assume they don't charge game makers thousands of dollars to update games via Steam

[deanb]

I'm in the realm of "I'm not really sure what they'd be planning to do, I've a feeling it'll just be a reference box". You get a black sticker on the front of a Dell PC that says "Steambox certified" or something. And all the games that are "steambox certified will run on the Steambox PCs. Even you lot have been questioning if Far Cry 3 would run on your PC, it'd make it much simpler knowing you've got a "Steambox lvl3" and FarCry 3 is a "Steambox lvl2" game that you can run it fine.

I don't see them making a PC, or why they'd even want to. PC's aren't something like a phone where you can do your own that's quite distinct from others on the market. Apart from specs and brand there's nothing separating a Dell from a HP from a Vaio, they're all Windows when they boot up and so would a "Steambox" (because folks are kidding themselves if they think Valve would make a Linux based PC so you can spend £500 on a PC that won't run most of your already existing software, let alone only a couple of your Steam games.)

 

I'm saying is what is the point of them creating a steam box? If they make money off of software and not hardware, why enter the hardware business at all? I already can use steam, I don't need a steam box to do so, and that goes for everyone with a computer now. What is the incentive for me or anyone to buy the Steambox that, for all we know, doesn't run windows?

Well the hardware would allow them to sell the software, which Valve get a cut of whatever is sold through Steam. It's pretty much how consoles work too. Though I'm unsure on just how many games they plan to shift via HTPCs though, I assume they've got good enough figures already to attempt the venture. All they really needed to do was make Big Picture mode and let other companies do the rest. And given 100% of everything Valve sell through Steam runs on Windows, they'd have to have a Steambox run Windows. Which 2013 will be in full swing of Windows 8 for OEMs.

 

But you forget that Valve has always been about promoting open-source.

Hah! No they haven't. They even have FSF concerned over Steam on Linux due to Valves use of closed systems, especially when seemingly working so closely with Canonical on it. Until they're recent "we're going to put Steam on Linux" they've never really done anything open-source. It would be great if they did though because then you'd have the option of alternative Steam clients.

 

I don't see MS keeping it. I see it as MS making their smartphone/touchscreen OS and deciding to bring it out for PC's as well

That's pretty much what they've done already, and yes applying the closed phone market model to PC is what has folks like Gabe concerned (that and scrapping all the legacy stuff which makes 100% of Steams catalogue work. Kind of like if you were Lotus in '95 but instead of having Lotus 123 n Notes on MS-DOS, youv'e got 1,500 programs sold on MS-DOS. I know you haven't said this, but it's a bit silly to reduce Gabes Win8 concern down to "MS are releasing a competing store" because they have had a competing store for years now and Gabe has made hardly a peep on it except vague references to other not-as-good services.

 

And no, Steam updates are free. As is bandwidth and all that stuff.

[Waldorf and Statler]

Maybe I shouldn't have said the word open-source. Maybe should've just explained Valve's previously stated disgust to how extremely closed say Microsoft and Sony (especially Microsoft) are with their consoles. Gabe went towards the ps3 in mind for Portal 2 to try that Steam-PS3 merger. It never went on from there but hey, at least they attempted it. Microsoft, like Valve, wants to run shit on their own. Mods are near impossible on a console. Sure the PS3 had some mods but compare installing mods on a console vs a computer.

 

And after reading evidence and opinions, I do think the most logical/realistic approach Valve can do with the Steambox would be similar to Google and their Nexus series. Release hardware they have some sort of control over and make sure that developers optimize their games to run on said Steambox as best as possible as they do with consoles. Once games reach a point they can't run there, release a new Steambox2. I'd assume hardware manufacturers can sale said PC/consoles at a loss if they can get a certain percentage of sales/revenue from Valve's Steam service in general. Competitively this hardware would need to release as a mid/upper-tier system at a price range no more than $500 imho. Have it run on 1080p natively and be as painless as possible to work with tvs. Maybe have accessories that can be used from a distance such as the steam controller they are planning, a wireless mouse/keyboard. Though I saw they mentioned something about a motion-sensitive wrist-band that sounds pretty cool.

[Faiblesse Des Sens]

Gabe went towards the ps3 in mind for Portal 2 to try that Steam-PS3 merger. It never went on from there but hey, at least they attempted it.

 

They originally planned cross-platform again for CS:GO. Forgot why they cut it. I think it had something to do with how frequently CS:GO was going to be updated and how that wasn't viabel for a console version to keep up.

 

But yeah, agreed on the second paragraph and that's what I see happening. I like Dean's idea of "Steambox compatible" eliminating the whole "Can my computer run it?" problem.

 

They don't need to sell the hardware at a loss (they could) but just at cost like Google does. Though the obvious issue is PC stuff being more expensive to begin with so finding that right price point will be the issue here and yes they might have to take a loss to do it.

 

So either way, this is looking pretty interesting.

 

I was discussing with some people about the platform for it though: It basically has to be Windows. It won't be good if it's Linux and most games don't work on it. MS wouldn't let me release a Linux box with some sort of perfect Windows VM since it would still require a windows license. But who knows, they might just take the risk and make all future games Linux compatible and try to push other developers to do that.

 

It's really too early to tell. This is all just fun speculation.

[Waldorf and Statler]

Yep. Running it on Linux would be a major problem if it isn't a stand-alone console. They would lose a large interest of the people interested in buying it if they basically can't play anything but upcoming games.

 

I'm just imagining the possibilties and I am pretty excited. If done correctly it could usher a new era of PC-gaming as it attracts more and more console gamers. They would definitely need to improve their servers and have the thing come with a gigantic hard drive seeing how it is all digital based.

[FredEffinChopin]

I'd actually be pretty surprised if this thing is running any kind of full version of Windows. There are a few things that I think Valve are attempting to accomplish with this move, but I think one of the key goals is (I'm hoping, here) to get out a piece of hardware that can run (a) any game at (b) high-ish settings (since Gabe mentioned he expects this thing to compete with the Xbox 8 and PS4), if not highest. The reason consoles are able to squeeze so much out of their hardware is that they don't have huge OSs constantly hogging resources and doing other things in the background. I'd imagine the idea here is similar; it won't be a drastic departure from the norm in the hardware department, but will have a unique OS that is primarily used for interacting with Steam, and can also do a few other things like run their FPB (first-person browser), and whatever types of applications might release on it. Without that kind of isolated environment, there seems to be even less reason to create a Steambox than people are perceiving so far. Why even call it anything different at that point; it's just a custom pc. Someone correct me if I'm spewing nonsense.

 

I think it's going to be a game-changer though. I know that a lot of PC guys scoff at the idea that their gaming platform of choice is difficult for a lot of consumers to hang with, or more expensive (to enter), but it just is; especially so on the latter if one wants those games to looks as pretty as possible while maintaining performance. While throwing a PC together isn't the hardest thing in the world, it's easy even for experienced people to hit unforeseen bumps in the road during the process. All the hardware and software variables can make it a troubleshooting nightmare, too. Ignorant as I sound (and am, in ways) on the topic, I've built and upgraded my fair share of PCs in my time, and the reasons I name have been contributors to why I've mostly neglected them as a gaming platform, and opted for consoles. With some exceptions, until recently when I have went all-in on it

 

What they're doing though, is a little more than simply entering the console market. They're entering and bringing a tremendous library of games along with them out of the gate. We still don't know if they will decide to go all digital, or if they will include a media drive (I know, I pulled that out of nowhere, but it doesn't sound that crazy to me the more I think about it), but either way I think that the pricing on Steam is enough to keep them competitive for the console audience they're looking to welcome.

 

Anyway, I'm curious and a bit excited. And I'm holding off on some of the hardware upgrades I was planning on making by next month.

[Waldorf and Statler]

I thought the main reason consoles could run games as well as they can with low-end hardware is because developers can optimize to use the hardware as best as possible instead of having to take into account customization and different pieces of hardware.

[Faiblesse Des Sens]

To me it kind of eliminates the point of a PC if you can't play most PC games on it and you're forced to buy newer titles that are built with it in mind.

At that point it's just another console but it'll be easier to develop for. I see the benefit in that but it just seems like it really would divide Valve's user base.

[madbassman39]

To me it kind of eliminates the point of a PC if you can't play most PC games on it and you're forced to buy newer titles that are built with it in mind.

At that point it's just another console but it'll be easier to develop for. I see the benefit in that but it just seems like it really would divide Valve's user base.

 

I guess thats where I am having issues understanding what Valve is trying to do with the Steambox. If it is what Dean speculates, then that is actually a smart idea. Computers with Steambox levels on it, steam preloaded, auto boots into big picture mode maybe, then I get that.

 

If its a stand alone box that is another console, then it will divide Valve's user base. If they want to make the best of it they have to give incentives for one to buy the steambox and link their account to that, and to those who already have a PC running Steam, probably will need some large incentive.

 

I guess the target though is to grab the market of gamers who don't have any interest in PC gaming. Those who only game on xbox/playstation may see this as a "console" and jump into steam. At that point, its getting steam in front of those people, but you have to hide the OS, and it probably will be windows to get the maximum number of games available for that system.

 

There are just so many possibilities that this thing could be.

[Faiblesse Des Sens]

Yeah, it's going to be really interesting to see how this develops.

[FredEffinChopin]

I finally read the source:

 

He said the reaction to Steam's TV-friendly Big Picture interface has been "stronger than expected," and that their next step is to get Steam Linux out of beta and to get Big Picture on that operating system, which would give Valve more flexibility when developing their own hardware.

 

I guess that answers that in a way. I couldn't possible be more ignorant about OS intricacies... would not-using Windows necessarily mean that older games wouldn't function? Could not a similar enough environment be created? I have no clue.... He also talks about how he foresees other manufacturers making similar setups designed for the living room next year though, so I don't think this Steam Linux ... thing... is looking to stand on too-isolated of a platform. I guess it's too early for me to be talking myself in circles. Hopefully there will be more info soon.

[Waldorf and Statler]

If it is Steam-Linux let's pray they find a work around where it can still run the old games or they'll have taken out their target audience.

 

And Madbass why would it only appeal to those not interested in PC gaming? I'm interested in games in the PC, problem is when I have to shell out $800+ to build a decent gaming PC and then have to update it. My friends spent around $1500 And they don't have to update in a while, but if they release something that can play PC games meant for Steam at a fraction of that price, and it guarantees playing certain games more than decently until the next update it could save quite a bit of money.

[Faiblesse Des Sens]

What work around is there? You just can't run Windows in a VM- Licensing issues. WINE isn't a very good solution, either. That's why I bring up compatibility a few times.

[Waldorf and Statler]

Ugh. I trust Valve like I've trusted them before but if this ends up being "Developers promise they'll make games to run on this Linux based device" then I won't be game till much later when it becomes evident if developers are actually going for it.