Steam Console

[deanb]

I'm not assuming they're just ordering parts from NewEgg, I am assuming that they have zero hardware manufacture capabilities and thus will be going through an existing supplier. And that supplier isn't likely to be able to go "Oh it's Valve, I guess I can suddenly change the laws of hardware pricing and make a high end PC for much cheaper than before". Or Valve have them make high-end PCs for a high-end price, then for the consumer price it as a middling PC at a loss of several hundred dollars per Steambox sold. which in order to recoup that they've have to be buying a shit load of games from Steam (and not games on other services like Origin. Desure or GOG, or one of the many stores that sells Steam keys). I can point to Sony, which sell games at $60 a pop in a controlled market, as a great example of what happens to you when you sell at a loss of several hundred dollars.

[Faiblesse Des Sens]

And that supplier isn't likely to be able to go "Oh it's Valve, I guess I can suddenly change the laws of hardware pricing and make a high end PC for much cheaper than before

 

What is bulk buying and economies of scale? What is taking a loss on hardware to sell software?

 

I can point to Sony, which sell games at $60 a pop in a controlled market, as a great example of what happens to you when you sell at a loss of several hundred dollars.

 

PS3 owners don't buy many games though is the issue there. Bad attachment rate. Don't assume Steam would be doing the same and it's not a fair comparison because Sony was doing things no one else was doing which really drove up costs: Blu-ray and cell.

[deanb]

Because of course the supplier up until Valve coming along would have just being making a couple of computers a year. And I explained the problems if taking a loss to sell software in the post you just quoted (yet you seemed to skip responding to that part...)

 

What makes you think potential Steambox owners will buy any more? Keeping in mind the aim is seemingly to go after these console gamers with their low attachment rates. And I wouldn't point to existing Steam users. I know about 20-30 of my games are Humble Bundle, dozen or so bought through other sites(including 2 Russian games) then there's the half dozen games given away for free, fair few bought from physical stores, and many dozen bought in sales leaving at most half a dozen bought direct from Steam for £20 or more.

Yeah, Cell and Blu-Ray drove the cost of the console to $900, just shy of high-end PC price range, and sold for $600. Many of you guys want Steambox sold for $500, even cheaper than a launch PS3. That's a loss nearing half, and it would be even more if you're wanting a high-end PC for that price. Steam Calculator says I've 157 games at full price of $2400, which would mean to recoup the loss incurred would take 7 years, require my games to be bought at full price and 17% of full games price going towards recouping losses (leaving ~13% to go towards bandwidth costs etc with maybe a bit of profit). But that's a full price game all directly through Valve and being fine with a 7 year loss leader. A 50% sale means 34%, more than the traditional distributors cut, would go towards recouping loss. It goes up again should I buy games via other services instead(with potential to hit 100%+) or should I buy steam games via other stores. It also goes up should they wish to recoup losses faster, and also if you're an existing Steam user with a large chunk of games already bought.

Note that a large chunk of these issues go away on consoles because only PS3 games work on a PS3. Sony charge everyone royalties for Selling games on their console and game prices pretty much all start at £40 and drop to about £20 for the most part. PC runs many services alternative to Steam, Steam charges only when sold directly through their store and gives Steamworks away for free, and we all know about the Steam sales and also how rare £40 PC games are.

[Thursday Next]

To add to all of Deans points about how impractical it is from a profit and loss standpoint. Are we seriously talking about a ~$500 mid-spec PC/Console with a Valve sticker on it competing in a market where everyone shakes their head at Nintendo and says that ~$300 is way too expensive for a console?

[TheMightyEthan]

People say $300 is too expensive for a new console? That's the same as what the PS3 costs (new) right now. Though admittedly it's apparently impossible to buy just the PS3 without a game bundle of some kind.

[Thursday Next]

Sorry, £300, $400. In any event, I'm sure people here have said the Wii U is too expensive, and it is less than $500.

[TheMightyEthan]

I feel like though part of any over-priced perception of the Wii U would be that in terms of hardware it's more comparable to current gen consoles than next gen consoles. $400 sounds about right for a new next-gen console.

 

I also didn't realize the Wii U was that much more expensive over there.

[FredEffinChopin]

@Ethan: Crystal ball gazing: There is no way that a new home entertainment device is going to join or supplant Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft in the living room for gaming, not unless they've got the reach of Apple or Samsung. Certainly not if we're looking at people's mums or other casual / core (but not FDS hardcore) gamers.

 

If you are a PC gamer, and you want PC gaming in your living room, there are plenty of solutions for that already. If you are a console gamer, there are no benefits to going to Steam on a mid tier box and you're probably already balls deep into your platform of choice. I've got too much Sony content to jump ship to a Steam console / PC and I only have space / time in my living room for one console so I'm not going to double up.

I don't see why there isn't room for another living room experience. Everyone has to start somewhere, and while Valve isn't the household name that Apple is, they certainly have made their bones in the video game world. There are far crazier choices for someone to sneak into living rooms from behind. As far as being invested in a console, I'v been invested in my PS3 since 01/07, and it didn't stop me from growing a large Steam library quickly. Once I had a (dedicated, as in to my TV) setup that I felt could run things, at least.

 

There have been solutions, or *a* solution, which is to hook a PC up to a TV. That connection in itself hasn't been the sole deterrent to stop console gamers from playing PC games (the idea of having a platform for a kb/m is a more likely individual deterrent than making the connection, IMO), though, and I believe Valve understands that now, and is trying to bring a new audience within their reach. It sounds like your argument right now is against the practicality and/or wisdom of a Steambox, or that people don't need/want a Steambox when they should have already gotten involved in the PC. You might have a point and end up being right as far as demand for this type of product goes, but you might be underestimating it too. The same way Valve released BPM long after people started PC-gaming on TVs, only to find that the demand was not only there, but far stronger than they expected it to be; so much so that it has pushed them into talking about hardware for the first time.

 

I know offering myself and some people I know as examples might not seem like much when making an argument for the existence of a potential market, but something is definitely going on here. It seems like I'm not that isolated of a case, and there is kind of a demand from people who are or would like to PC-game on a couch.

 

btw most motherboards come with PCI-E slots, so you could always throw in a GPU to instantly boost gaming capabilities and over ride the integrated GPU.

Yes, and I've done exactly that before, but then we're talking about upgrading PCs again, which is not the context in which I brought up the crappy hardware. We were talking about how simply an affordable rig can be obtained by someone who is not comfortable tinkering around inside of a PC. I was saying that affordable pre-built setups are often too crappy for gaming, expensive ones are expensive, and custom one requires someone willing to build it for you.

 

As far as Valve selling hardware at cost/loss, it doesn't seem quite that ridiculous to me. I think the potential difference between Vale and other suppliers isn't that Valve can work out a more economic approach to getting a unit together, but that they don't need to manufacture it with the purpose of making a profit on the hardware. Dell and HP will sell you scrap for $400, and while I can't say this with authority, I'd assume that any Alienware rig is sold for far more than the sum of its parts' cost, fancy casing and all. The hardware sale is the beginning and end of that transaction, though.

 

While the math you presented paints an admittedly bleak picture, it is using the PS3s cost/retail. As you said, the new blu ray technology was a large part of that, as well as the EE and the cell, while Valve's box would (theoretically) be working within an existing framework. I don't think they would have to incur a $300 loss in order to offer a capable machine. As far as the DD cost discrepancy between them & Sony, I can't offer an explanation as to the why of it, but I can say that as it stands, Steam seems to be making Valve money. I can't imagine the business model would last otherwise, discounts and all, if it wasn't keeping them rich. I'd also say that with the gift-giving that goes on in Steam, the average $ brought in per user likely goes up exponentially. I'm totally guessing there, I don't really know. It's working for them somehow, though.

 

Which I guess is what's at the heart of my optimism. Why would they take on hardware at all if it didn't seem like it would end up being profitable? The announcement could just be a knee-jerk reaction to the positive response of BPM, but I'm more hopeful that they have something smart in mind. Gabe seems to be thinking it'll happen within the next year too, which makes it sound to me like he has something in mind that is in the realm of concrete. It's possible that it could wind up being totally underwhelming, and that'll suck if it is. I feel like they are well-poised (time-wise) to do something that shakes things up though. I hope they take advantage of it properly, assuming that they can.

[Thursday Next]

The bottom line is that this whole concept does not appeal to me and I don't think that there is enough information for me to understand who they are trying to appeal to. I'll follow it with interest, but only as a curio, not a potential purchase.

[deanb]

I'm maybe not wording myself incorrectly but the Cell and Blu-Ray are the reason the PS3 cost $900 to make not why it had a $300 loss. The loss is an optional thing in order to bring the PS3 down to reasonable costs. The $900 was an unchangeable fact, same as the cost of hardware components for building a high end PC, existing parts or not. And yes alienware and such will have profit on their price, that's why we're counting ~$900 to get a high end PC not $1200.

 

And yes valve are obviously making profit on the games, but no one except valve knows the per-game breakdown. It's said to be different for each dev (and NDAed up). But we do know the end user price and from thete you can backwards workout the potential cut per game they'd need to be taking, as demonstrated.

[TheMightyEthan]

Even assuming Valve made 100% of the money from every game (which is obviously not the case), most stuff I buy on Steam I buy so discounted that it'd take years to make up any serious loss they took on the hardware.

[VicariousShaner]

http://vglens.com/20...hing-this-year/

 

 

Although the website is down now because of Reddit, it's supposed to have some legit info. I'll update when it's back up.

 

 

Edit: It's up. As FDS says below, nothing really interesting to be gleaned other than what's said in the headline. Although with Valve, I kind of doubt that it will come out this year without delays.

Edited January 6, 2013 by VicariousShaner

[Faiblesse Des Sens]

I don't recall anything interesting in the article other than the headline.

[TheMightyEthan]

How could it possibly be Linux-based? It won't be able to run 99% of Steam's catalog.

[deanb]

Yeah I'm really confused on that. Some folks are countering with "when has a new console had even 40 games at launch " which makes me wonder what consoles they're buying because all of the current consoles have launched with the ability to play the back catalogue.

 

Also a thought had sprang to mind this morning; if it's Linux based and gains momentum, what's to stop other companies making their own? For example Amazon, who've been rather successful in taking Android and making it their own thing, are in the digital games biz, and various other digital media arms too (they also run LoveFilm over here, which is how I get most my PS3 games of late). Steam's big, but it's minute when compared to Amazon. The Kindle Fire shows they're pretty adept at taking someone else's groundwork of a software platform and making it their own. Their recent sales have shown they're pretty competitive in wanting to get a slice of the digital games sector too. And unlike Valve they've got the hardware connections too through their years of making Kindle (as well as the aforementioned media services too that sweeten the deal over Valves offering). Of course nothing stopping you having Steams services installed too, same as you can root a Kindle and stick on Play, but most folks would likely stick with whichever service Amazon stick on their distro. About only major issues is Steamworks games, but I'm sure Amazon could provide some reason to swap out for their API while doing the legwork of Linux porting.

[VicariousShaner]

http://www.polygon.com/2013/1/7/3848826/xi3-and-valve-unveil-a-modular-computer-optimized-for-steam-and-big

 

Current codename: Piston

 

Oh, Valve, you.

[deanb]

I imagine the hype to go two ways now. Right down due to the reality of a high-price low-end device built around laptop parts. Or skyrocketing due to a physical existence of a device from Valve. I fear the later. It'll be fun to watch how tjis goes, but unless you'rea bit dumb and/or have no technically inclined friends you're still gonna be better off building your own PC. Heck a store bought ATX box will likely still do you better off. At least you can upgrade those with common parts.

[TheMightyEthan]

I imagine the hype will go both ways, from different segments.

 

This article at Joystiq has more details from the Kickstarter pitch about the X7A this is supposedly based on:

 

As we envision our new X7A Modular Computer, we see it powered by a new Quad-Core 64-bit, x86-based processor running at up to 3.2GHz, integrated with up to 384 graphics shader cores, and 8GB of DDR3 RAM, and able to handle graphics-rich computer games like Crysis 2 with ease. The X7A Modular Computer will also run 3 high-definition monitors simultaneously, has four USB 3.0/2.0 ports, four eSATAp ports, four USB 2.0 ports, a 10/100/1000 Ethernet port, and up to 1TB of super fast solid-state storage inside the chassis, making it perfect for gamers and power users alike. And yet the X7A Modular Computer will be housed in a chassis about the size of a softball (4.27x3.65x3.65-inches) and run on a mere 40Watts of electricity or less. We expect the X7A Modular Computer to begin shipping in early 2013 with a price starting at under $1,000. All within a chassis you can hold in the palm of your hand!

Edited January 8, 2013 by TheMightyEthan

[deanb]

See the $1000 price point is what makes me question this device. Not sure people are up for working five jobs to afford this. There is supposedly a cheaper device made by them too but I reckon that'll be lacking the 1TB SSD(do they even exist? And under $999?) and other bells and whistles the X7A would like to sport.

 

Also 40W gaming PC? I'd take pause at a 400W PSU on something expecting to run Crysis 2 on one monitor, nevermind across 3.

[TheMightyEthan]

Yeah, obviously a lot of that is pie-in-the-sky wishful thinking, but it gives us at least some kind of a direction on what kind of processing power they're talking about. Obviously they've got something convincing enough to get Valve on board.

 

Price point is definitely a problem. I just can't see who they're targeting. Anyone PC savvy is going to look at that price and go "why would I buy that when I can build my own gaming PC from parts for $500-600?" And anyone not PC savvy is going to look at that price and go "why would I buy that when I can buy a PS4/Xbox 720 for $400?"

[Faiblesse Des Sens]

I'd save up the extra money for something that small but has all of those features. I fucking hate the size of desktops.

[madbassman39]

I'd save up the extra money for something that small but has all of those features. I fucking hate the size of desktops.

 

Agreed about the size. I bought my desktop and its almost as tall as my entrainment unit itself. The case is almost up to my knee! Its enormous and I don't know where to put it aside from right next to my tv stand. I got used to just letting it sit there and ignoring that its right there, but it is seriously way too big.

[Saturnine Tenshi]

HUGE DESKTOPS ARE SO SEXY

[deanb]

 

So this is the guts of Pisten. If this is truly the "Steambox" then Valve can take any comments made against closed systems, coat them in crystal sauce and mint shower gel and shove them up their arse. Cos that ain't fucking standard anything. That ain't #TX anything. The network port and power is on the "graphics card", which likely isn't even a "graphics card" and just the PCB with the video outs on since the steambox is supposedly an APU which'll be under that black heatsink.

 

Also talking of the APU, now I'm home n can look about, decided to look into the 40W thing. The AMD "Trinity" APUs have a TDP of between 65-100W, which mean the CPU on it's own exceeds their 40W PC.

http://www.cpu-world...s_Revealed.html

They could of course underclock them, which is opposite of what you'd want on a gaming spec PC, or they could go with a laptop spec one

http://www.cpu-world...obile_APUs.html

 

Also the GPUs included in these:

http://www.videocard...HD 7660D&id=315 - for the 100W ones

http://www.videocard...Radeon HD 7660G - for the more mobile ones (and the lower wattage versions fare even less)

http://www.videocard... 9600GT&id=1312 - my current, and rather old, dedicated GPU.

 

So I'm unsure on the whole 3 monitor thing and running Crysis 2 and all that stuff they've got planned if Steambox will be rocking and AMD APU. The APUs are not built for gaming, they're built for the shitty Medion PCs and laptops where the most demanding task you'll ask of the GPU is watching a HD movie or browsing Google Earth.

 

edit: Oh new responses. If you're wanting a smaller PC then don't use an ATX based desktop PC, get something ITX based instead. Most are built around Atoms mind, but you can find the odd one here n there that support Core chips.

[deanb]

http://www.theverge.com/2013/1/8/3851740/steam-box-inches-closer-to-reality-CES-gabe-newell

 

And this is also supposedly a Steambox. Looks a much more traditional HTPC design (and it's the one actually in Valves booth as opposed to the one by the guy who bumped into Polygon hinting at having a steambox with the Kickstarter for a $1000 imaginary spec PC*). Seems we're still going to be waiting on word of what will eventually be a "Steambox" and it'll ultimately best to only read it when it hits this spot right here.

 

 

*I also looked into 1TB SSDs and they've got a price point of around $1500+. NewEgg doesn't even sell them(but google suggests they once did)