I'll admit I haven't put a whole lot of thought into this because I don't care that much but basically what NiGHTS said. I built a "Steambox" myself 8 years ago. I see no point in buying one of these things if you already have a gaming computer. If they are trying to target console gamers the big problem they need to overcome is that fact that Xbox and Playstation fans aren't going to give a crap because it's not Xbox or Playstation. I think it has potential to do well, especially because of the controller and the large number of people who prefer controllers over keyboard/mouse, but it could blow up in their face just as easily if they don't think it through completely.
The thing is, people are shitting on the thread because we know you're extremely anti-Valve. We get it, you hate the company. Hard to take a full criticism seriously when you spend all day bashing the company's every move on Twitter and elsewhere.
Nights has a point with the argument you made about Form factor/hardware upgrade. The previous gen gaming systems survived for eight years, just like you said. I barely had to rebuild my PC gaming system in that eight year period simply because developers are held back by that console cycle. Those trends will continue into next gen whether we like it or not. No one who has a steam box at the OEM spec is going to be swapping out the hardware in 8-12 months after purchasing (unless, of course, they want to for fun). Graphics technology and minimum requirements are not going to go up enough to require that kind of changing. It's mostly a moot point for the Steam Box.
x86 architecture should help ports from here on out, too - depending on how you look at it, could continue to slow the need to update as frequently this gen as well.
Limiting factor is the lowest common denom of available vidjaRAM, IIRC. Can polish that up on it's way to PC I guess, though
"2) Porting anything to Linux is a non-trivial matter; for an already released game? Very high costs, minimal to no additional sales. As a developer or publisher, why would I do that for at best a few thousand new sales? Basically, anything that isn't Valve should be considered 'new releases only, and only a maybe at that."
But if developers shift to open source because Valve took this first step? Valve has been proven extremely influential.
Time for me to weigh in. @RootWyrm is mostly right for a business stand point, granted this move is one in a very long business plan that they can get the VC and internal balance sheet behind. Valve the game maker and Steam(Valve) really should be viewed as two different companies even if it has the same employees. Look at Steam and how it has changed and so many people love to use it and when sale season rolls around the net hypes itself, Apple effect. This is pure money because all they have to do is keep the system going and give small changes. Selling other people's games gives them money, taking cuts from the market place gives them money, micro-transactions into Valve's games give them money. The market place and micro-transactions are free money because it is a digital item and only requires the sunk cost of servers and employee hours. Simply looking at their model from that stand point shows they are moving more to an operator standpoint instead of a production company, they are interested only in their entrenched customers that provide a solid and continual flow of cash. Look at the green light program and how many ALPHA games have been on Winter sale, that is how much Steam actually loves you.....buy something so we can pay ourselves to finish this game, hopefully.
TL;DR Steam doesn't care that much about changing into what you would like Big Picture steam is a joke. Some people use it but generally it is a dump piece of software because it removes things it doesn't add things. You can see the same effect from companies pushing a unified multi-device platform so their maint. cost are lower but usually it means mobile versions of things where they cut function because mobile and they don't want to put the time in to figure what they could get to work. The steam box isn't meant to cut out consoles for some people they are really focusing at the subset of people who might be interested in buying a pre-built gaming machine for less and don't know better or people who would like to have a HTPC/gaming rig on their TV to be cool. Real gamers would not take the hit for loosing access to the AAA or mid-budget games they really want, that would mean you buy a steam box/make a steam box just to have one on a TV which means double spend for less of the same. Kids that don't have the money might be able to talk their parents into buying a Steambox over a console since they might know less about it and the game selection doesn't push COD style games the same.
TL;DR Steam Box doesn't add anything. Steam Box removes function and gets you to double spend. Sucker....really We all will buy the Steam controller. Most of us have a spare computer to run SteamOS and wait for streaming beta. Long term this is most likely a push back into gaming parties. Monitors mean a watch party of one person while a TV with a single player means a party where everyone sits together and can be invested in the moment. Digital life stuff sucks, unified device model(also no HID support). I have a computer why do I want twitter on my TV. Netflix, Hulu, Redbox, etc work within tolerance. SteamBox will be like a normal manufacturing scheme. The OEMs will build 10k+ at a time with a 1%-5% margin because that is the way that world works; a 10k order would be on the small end. Building boxes as hardware changes is an issue because specific PSUs, thermal designs, change in failure rates, drivers. With a single box and the components that are being used some of them you simply just can't swap and keep everything the same unless you don't care about faults. Yes the hardware will last a really long time if it is higher end but margins, granted AMD could do what they are doing with Apple and sell their top end cards for a third of the price to make this happen.
TL;DR Root has some valid points. It will most likely be a good enough deployment model.
TL;DR We have to wait and see, I feel the use of Big Picture is a good indicator for acceptance beyond I want one of those.
I work in the OTT world and we design and have built our hardware. I have a grasp of the digital home and life markets and what they say they are interested in. *Piggie safe thread*
"2) Porting anything to Linux is a non-trivial matter; for an already released game? Very high costs, minimal to no additional sales. As a developer or publisher, why would I do that for at best a few thousand new sales? Basically, anything that isn't Valve should be considered 'new releases only, and only a maybe at that."
But if developers shift to open source because Valve took this first step? Valve has been proven extremely influential.
That's not ALWAYS the case. At least one developer that actually did port a game to Linux came out and said the cost of porting was quite low. Also, as Humble Indie Bundles have shown, there is a market for Linux games, and Linux gamers are willing to (when given the choice of how much to pay) pay more on average for the games.
A couple weeks removed from @RootWyrm original post I'm understanding a bit more of what he was trying to convey. The recent flood of hardware is going to create mass market confusion as to what the Steambox is. What's Valve's vision, where do they really want to go with this? It feels like they are just kinda making it up as they go along.
I'm not a brilliant strategist, but if I were in charge I'd likely have hardware at a base spec for Joe Blow user that just wants a plug and play experience, then to keep it open, I'd have the OS readily available for free download for system builders that want to do it their own way. The way it's coming to market is strange. What do you need to have a good SteamBox experience? I think I have a good idea of what it would take, but do I? I don't know for sure.
I think Valve is going to need to implement some software solution to dummy proof the settings for variance in the hardware. This hardware runs that game at X settings, and this other game at Y settings without the user having to ever go into the quality settings menu for individual titles. We will see how they handle it, hopefully they have a plan because I would love for Steam to become mainstream in the living room. Right now if I were to guess? A ton of 3rd party hardware partners are going to be left holding onto their systems. People are not going to buy.
0
midga"There's so much hot dog in Rome" ~digi(> ^.(> O_o)>Icrontian
I've got a feeling that what they're doing right now is letting other hardware producers test the market for them. If it fails, Valve really doesn't get hit for much. If it succeeds, then they can jump in with a Steambox 2.0 that is more on-par with current console systems. Getting into the console market (or any electronic hardware market for that matter) is a huge expensive gamble, and they've taken most of the risk out of it. I agree that it reduces their chances of success, but given how crafty Valve has shown itself to be, I think we'll see lemonade either way.
@midga - I think you hit on a huge part of the strategy for Valve which is to reduce the hardware inventory risk. They don't want to be in that business, the real money is in their continued dominance of the digital distribution of software.
Still, I'm not sure what would have prevented Valve from publishing a base spec for a plug and play system that partners could have used as a template for "official" or "licensed" or whatever you would want to call it. Something that guarantees the user a good experience. Right now I'm a bit confused and I'm a pretty savvy hardware guy. A console gamer on the fence about the PS4 or Xbox One isn't going to consider a SteamBox, and that's a shame because the platform can offer so much more than a few console exclusives at a much better value overall for the gamer, it's just too hard to say, yeah, that's the box to get.... Which one? Who knows?
Funny how they keep repeating that this is about how this is keeping the PC platform open by moving it to Linux with Steam as the OS, Steam is an active DRM.
Releasing Big Picture seems like a failure on Valves part because it would have made a picture splash being released as head of their OS and it seems entirely that the Big Picture mode was developed to head their OS. The steam boxes are being released at a prefab price that gives zero incentive to actually buy them because you can go buy a MS OS PC for the same price and roughly the same specs but yet play less games through Steam itself. This is much more in tune with their released of Steam as a whole because everyone hated it for years but not because of making it a money sink and net memes it has lasted and is leading the market because it realistically made it viable.
For the first few years a Steam Box in the living room is most likely going to be a status symbol for adult/elite gamers that are the master race because it gives less at the same or higher price, if you know what you are doing at buying microsoft licenses. Right now Valve is making a market move that might pay off and if it does most likely bank on their long term following as well as their current customer base because not all that follow Steam believe in them, @Rootwyrm and meany others. So many of the things that Valve has said the past few years and done have made little to no since in the market. They release Portal 2 and it is bland compared to the original, they release Big Picture on HTPC players but it doesn't add value to their system besides being present and some people it feel it provides better FPS on random games, free purchase weekend for L4D2 which is a partial indicator of L4D3, they say they let their devs work on what they think is viable but and the community wants but can't make remarks on the single single player game EVERYONE that plays valve wants.
The past few years feel like Valve does what it wants because it is Valve and people will follow because VALVE, king of FPS microtransactions!!!!!!*
Lulz. Look at the time stamp and my previous post. I am not that great at grammar plus I use unconventional structure because that is how I speak. It is not a tirade. I literally feel crazy by saying Americans are looking in on a market place that doesn't exist in their universe since ISPs provide such a block to the idea of value added services provided on top of their service. @ardichoke you should be able to understand where Valve is attempting to place themselves given your job but you seem to gloss over the kind of data traffic that explains exactly their long term plan.
Comments
Nights has a point with the argument you made about Form factor/hardware upgrade. The previous gen gaming systems survived for eight years, just like you said. I barely had to rebuild my PC gaming system in that eight year period simply because developers are held back by that console cycle. Those trends will continue into next gen whether we like it or not. No one who has a steam box at the OEM spec is going to be swapping out the hardware in 8-12 months after purchasing (unless, of course, they want to for fun). Graphics technology and minimum requirements are not going to go up enough to require that kind of changing. It's mostly a moot point for the Steam Box.
Limiting factor is the lowest common denom of available vidjaRAM, IIRC. Can polish that up on it's way to PC I guess, though
Hey I'm a gamer that hates the greatest FPS ever and fantastic sales?
Edit: Almost forgot a .gif to help poor Pigflipper.
But if developers shift to open source because Valve took this first step? Valve has been proven extremely influential.
Valve the game maker and Steam(Valve) really should be viewed as two different companies even if it has the same employees. Look at Steam and how it has changed and so many people love to use it and when sale season rolls around the net hypes itself, Apple effect. This is pure money because all they have to do is keep the system going and give small changes. Selling other people's games gives them money, taking cuts from the market place gives them money, micro-transactions into Valve's games give them money. The market place and micro-transactions are free money because it is a digital item and only requires the sunk cost of servers and employee hours. Simply looking at their model from that stand point shows they are moving more to an operator standpoint instead of a production company, they are interested only in their entrenched customers that provide a solid and continual flow of cash. Look at the green light program and how many ALPHA games have been on Winter sale, that is how much Steam actually loves you.....buy something so we can pay ourselves to finish this game, hopefully.
TL;DR Steam doesn't care that much about changing into what you would like
Big Picture steam is a joke. Some people use it but generally it is a dump piece of software because it removes things it doesn't add things. You can see the same effect from companies pushing a unified multi-device platform so their maint. cost are lower but usually it means mobile versions of things where they cut function because mobile and they don't want to put the time in to figure what they could get to work. The steam box isn't meant to cut out consoles for some people they are really focusing at the subset of people who might be interested in buying a pre-built gaming machine for less and don't know better or people who would like to have a HTPC/gaming rig on their TV to be cool. Real gamers would not take the hit for loosing access to the AAA or mid-budget games they really want, that would mean you buy a steam box/make a steam box just to have one on a TV which means double spend for less of the same. Kids that don't have the money might be able to talk their parents into buying a Steambox over a console since they might know less about it and the game selection doesn't push COD style games the same.
TL;DR Steam Box doesn't add anything. Steam Box removes function and gets you to double spend. Sucker....really
We all will buy the Steam controller. Most of us have a spare computer to run SteamOS and wait for streaming beta. Long term this is most likely a push back into gaming parties. Monitors mean a watch party of one person while a TV with a single player means a party where everyone sits together and can be invested in the moment. Digital life stuff sucks, unified device model(also no HID support). I have a computer why do I want twitter on my TV. Netflix, Hulu, Redbox, etc work within tolerance. SteamBox will be like a normal manufacturing scheme. The OEMs will build 10k+ at a time with a 1%-5% margin because that is the way that world works; a 10k order would be on the small end. Building boxes as hardware changes is an issue because specific PSUs, thermal designs, change in failure rates, drivers. With a single box and the components that are being used some of them you simply just can't swap and keep everything the same unless you don't care about faults. Yes the hardware will last a really long time if it is higher end but margins, granted AMD could do what they are doing with Apple and sell their top end cards for a third of the price to make this happen.
TL;DR Root has some valid points. It will most likely be a good enough deployment model.
TL;DR We have to wait and see, I feel the use of Big Picture is a good indicator for acceptance beyond I want one of those.
I work in the OTT world and we design and have built our hardware. I have a grasp of the digital home and life markets and what they say they are interested in.
*Piggie safe thread*
(really don't care, but the gifs have been fun)
And yeah, I want that controller too. I
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTM5Mjk
I agree though, if Valve drags even a few more developers over to developing their games for Linux, I'd be happy.
I'm not a brilliant strategist, but if I were in charge I'd likely have hardware at a base spec for Joe Blow user that just wants a plug and play experience, then to keep it open, I'd have the OS readily available for free download for system builders that want to do it their own way. The way it's coming to market is strange. What do you need to have a good SteamBox experience? I think I have a good idea of what it would take, but do I? I don't know for sure.
I think Valve is going to need to implement some software solution to dummy proof the settings for variance in the hardware. This hardware runs that game at X settings, and this other game at Y settings without the user having to ever go into the quality settings menu for individual titles. We will see how they handle it, hopefully they have a plan because I would love for Steam to become mainstream in the living room. Right now if I were to guess? A ton of 3rd party hardware partners are going to be left holding onto their systems. People are not going to buy.
Still, I'm not sure what would have prevented Valve from publishing a base spec for a plug and play system that partners could have used as a template for "official" or "licensed" or whatever you would want to call it. Something that guarantees the user a good experience. Right now I'm a bit confused and I'm a pretty savvy hardware guy. A console gamer on the fence about the PS4 or Xbox One isn't going to consider a SteamBox, and that's a shame because the platform can offer so much more than a few console exclusives at a much better value overall for the gamer, it's just too hard to say, yeah, that's the box to get.... Which one? Who knows?
Half-life 3 confirmed.
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2014-01-11-valve-plays-the-long-game-again
Piggeh Gif:
Releasing Big Picture seems like a failure on Valves part because it would have made a picture splash being released as head of their OS and it seems entirely that the Big Picture mode was developed to head their OS. The steam boxes are being released at a prefab price that gives zero incentive to actually buy them because you can go buy a MS OS PC for the same price and roughly the same specs but yet play less games through Steam itself. This is much more in tune with their released of Steam as a whole because everyone hated it for years but not because of making it a money sink and net memes it has lasted and is leading the market because it realistically made it viable.
For the first few years a Steam Box in the living room is most likely going to be a status symbol for adult/elite gamers that are the master race because it gives less at the same or higher price, if you know what you are doing at buying microsoft licenses. Right now Valve is making a market move that might pay off and if it does most likely bank on their long term following as well as their current customer base because not all that follow Steam believe in them, @Rootwyrm and meany others. So many of the things that Valve has said the past few years and done have made little to no since in the market. They release Portal 2 and it is bland compared to the original, they release Big Picture on HTPC players but it doesn't add value to their system besides being present and some people it feel it provides better FPS on random games, free purchase weekend for L4D2 which is a partial indicator of L4D3, they say they let their devs work on what they think is viable but and the community wants but can't make remarks on the single single player game EVERYONE that plays valve wants.
The past few years feel like Valve does what it wants because it is Valve and people will follow because VALVE, king of FPS microtransactions!!!!!!*
Icrontdick.com*