The Shrine

Makes the Apple computers look cheap in comparison

http://www.gamespot.com/articles/this-s ... 0-6416958/

This other one, on the other hand, may be OK

http://www.gamespot.com/articles/cyberp ... 0-6416954/

Didn't 3D0 try this hardware licensing thing back in the day? If I recall correctly, didn't go very well....

Yay, Zeus is still around to make baseless accusations.

Whoah! $1900, it's like 1994-1996 all over again.

For comparison's sake, you could get a Wii U, PS4, Xbox One, 3DS, and Vita for a comparable price.

The other one is not so bad, but it's in the same range for price and specification, as pre-made PCs; which kind of nullifies the advantage.

Meh, the first one is made for people who have money but not time, it's not made for the mainstream, but you will see people buy them, nothing significant mind you.

The second one is a budget PC but without a Windows OS.

The big appeal for the Steam Machines is the Steam OS, optimizing gaming on PCs has always been a big freakin issue because Windows carries so much bloat, and Windows 8 is a fucking travesty for gaming.

The biggest challenge isn't really selling the hardware, it's getting developers to make shit for Steam OS. Valve wants to make a gaming OS for just games, and they have to sell this vision to developers, and hope their stellar track record with Steam can convert it's Steam users to give the OS a whirl on a second partition on current PCs as well as maybe consider picking up steam boxes instead of a PC all together(Most who buy steam machines will almost certainly also install windows on a second partition, because it's just a PC after all).

Honestly selling this hardware isn't a big deal Zeus, most of the guys selling this hardware already sell custom PCs, you're just asking for a custom PC with a free OS on it, so it's not like there's any risk involved in any of them making these. It's not like a console where the systems are sitting in a warehouse per-assembled. They get an order for a PC or steam machine, some guy puts it together and they ship it out.

SineSwiper wrote:Yay, Zeus is still around to make baseless accusations.

Read the last sentence of my post, think about it, do some research if you have to, then come back with something before shooting your mouth off without understanding what it is I actually wrote

Eric, i can see what you're saying. But how can you build an OS without standardized hardware? What are the developers building towards? If all you're doing is creating another Windows clone where it's all about minimum hardware specs, then its just chosing option A or option B. PC model ain't gonna work as a console, that's a given. So what will Steam OS offer to the non-PC gamer that makes up over 90% of the gaming population?

Zeus wrote:Eric, i can see what you're saying. But how can you build an OS without standardized hardware? What are the developers building towards? If all you're doing is creating another Windows clone where it's all about minimum hardware specs, then its just choosing option A or option B. PC model ain't gonna work as a console, that's a given. So what will Steam OS offer to the non-PC gamer that makes up over 90% of the gaming population?

Why are you making the assumption you have to build SteamOS on standardized hardware? It can be made from Intel or AMD processors, or Nvidia or AMD video cards, it's pretty flexible.

Steam OS isn't a Windows clone. It's also not for the non-PC Gamer or non-gamer in general. It's a 100% gaming only OS, BUT it's also free and accessible and also Open Source, so over time people will be developing other stuff for it, but the big difference is Steam OS prioritizes gaming which Windows doesn't do. Windows has a fuckton of bloat about it that consumes a lot of resources while you're trying to game. Steam OS trims the fat and allows the full potential of your hardware to be dedicated exclusively towards your games.

Eric wrote:

Zeus wrote:Eric, i can see what you're saying. But how can you build an OS without standardized hardware? What are the developers building towards? If all you're doing is creating another Windows clone where it's all about minimum hardware specs, then its just choosing option A or option B. PC model ain't gonna work as a console, that's a given. So what will Steam OS offer to the non-PC gamer that makes up over 90% of the gaming population?

Why are you making the assumption you have to build SteamOS on standardized hardware? It can be made from Intel or AMD processors, or Nvidia or AMD video cards, it's pretty flexible.

Steam OS isn't a Windows clone. It's also not for the non-PC Gamer or non-gamer in general. It's a 100% gaming only OS, BUT it's also free and accessible and also Open Source, so over time people will be developing other stuff for it, but the big difference is Steam OS prioritizes gaming which Windows doesn't do. Windows has a fuckton of bloat about it that consumes a lot of resources while you're trying to game. Steam OS trims the fat and allows the full potential of your hardware to be dedicated exclusively towards your games.

Yes, I get that. But if you have a moving target for hardware specs, what do you do as a developer? Build to the lowest-common denominator? What if 80% of the market has the bottom 20% of the systems? What about 5 year-old systems that may make up 65% of the market? You run into the same issues that you have with PC gaming - regardless of OS - and that's why PC gaming has always remained a niche market. You can't have brand new, high powered games on a moving target for hardware. It just doesn't work for 80% of the potentital gaming population. Remember, we here represent a very small part of the market. Most people ain't gonna go for PC issues on a console.

Incidentally, you have the same issues with Android gaming right now. The game that my bud and I made (Happy Dobbo Jewels in case anyone's interested - currently going through the Apple approval process) he was forced to account for Gingerbread-level devices because in much of the world, that makes up a significant part of the market. So all those S2s and up are playing a game far below their abilities. That's fine when you're talking about Candy Crush-level stuff but when you start talking about high-end gaming, it becomes a big problem.

Zeus wrote:Yes, I get that. But if you have a moving target for hardware specs, what do you do as a developer? Build to the lowest-common denominator?

Uh, no you target to the highest, that's how pc gaming works sir. x_x You aim for the highest fidelity. These are just PCs, they are not consoles, you don't assume everyone has the weakest console.

Zeus wrote:What if 80% of the market has the bottom 20% of the systems? What about 5 year-old systems that may make up 65% of the market?

SteamOS's system requirements aren't exactly high, 64-bit processor and 4GB of RAM, that's....not much. My old personal PC I built back in 2008 had a quad core 64 bit processor and 4GB RAM. That being said you'd have a hardtime building a PC or even buying a PC now that couldn't handle SteamOS. Keep in mind when I talk about installing SteamOS, even on older PCs I only expect PC savy people to attempt this, you other...*sniff* commoners can just buy a prebuilt box.

Zeus wrote:You run into the same issues that you have with PC gaming - regardless of OS - and that's why PC gaming has always remained a niche market.

PC gaming is niche because it's not easy to understand, but it's also the biggest gaming market growing the most in recent years, and it's provides the best experience on any game that hits it and other platforms.

Zeus wrote:You can't have brand new, high powered games on a moving target for hardware. It just doesn't work for 80% of the potential gaming population.

You can actually, the last generation, most games lead with the 360 and ported to PC and PS3. But the XOne and PS4 both use a x86 architecture, making it easier then ever for them to lead with PC and port back down to those other consoles, which is exactly what's been happening(CoD, BF4, AC4, etc). From what I've seen most of the cheaper steam boxes should be able to hit the same FPS range as the Xbox One and PS4, if not exceed it. There's nothing complicated about what they're doing.

Zeus wrote:Remember, we here represent a very small part of the market. Most people ain't gonna go for PC issues on a console.

Tell that to the people who bought Battlefield on PS4 and Xbox One lol.

Zeus wrote:Incidentally, you have the same issues with Android gaming right now. The game that my bud and I made (Happy Dobbo Jewels in case anyone's interested - currently going through the Apple approval process) he was forced to account for Gingerbread-level devices because in much of the world, that makes up a significant part of the market. So all those S2s and up are playing a game far below their abilities. That's fine when you're talking about Candy Crush-level stuff but when you start talking about high-end gaming, it becomes a big problem.

That's why the base Steambox, the $500 one, is parity with the Xbox One or PS4, anything bigger/better then that just looks better/performs better. Like I said at the top of this post, you target the highest end PC experience first, a game will look great and be playable across all portions of the platform, but if you have a more powerful SteamBox, much like if you have a more powerful PC the game is just going to look run/better. The same game will run on the $500 SteamBox and the $6000 SteamBox. The $500 Steambox is gonna look like or better then PS4/Xbox One, while the $6000 is gonna look like a high-end PC game. Easy example is that you can play Tomb Raider or Battlefield 4 in 4K Resolution right NOW if you have a PC that can support it, but obviously the PS3 and 360 versions run just fine don't they? They don't look nearly as good, but again that's the whole point of PC gaming, the more you invest, the better your graphical return. I don't really think it's fair to compare the cell phone market in the past 5 years to the PC market in the past 5 years, hell I'm fairly sure I had a Flip Phone I could only play Snake on 5 years ago >.>

Also, side-node: you just brought up Apple approval process, Apple are a bunch of fucking nazi's when it comes to getting shit approved on their store, even Google Play(Android Store) will tell you when it doesn't think your phone can handle the game but it won't force the developer to make it work. You're dealing with that approval process for the "privilege" of putting it on their store. If you wanted to put that same game on steam, their approval process has gotten significantly better since the disaster that was Greenlight.

PS: I not the PC expert I'm making myself out to be, but I think you can research this subject better Zeus, Valve actually picked the perfect time to attempt this, and it could change things if it succeeds on a very large scale.

You know, Eric, I hope it succeeds. I'd like to see someone kick $ony and Microshaft in the ass a bit (as much as I love Nintendo's games, they're a niche product now). I'd like to see how it turns out I just don't see it. I see it as PC gaming version 2 which will certainly NOT work with the majority of the gaming population. I know this first-hand having had my own store and hanging out with my bud at his EB and seeing the type of shit he deals with on a daily basis. They absolutely need to eliminate the annoyances of PC gaming that us gamers have no issues with but is a non-starter for the majority of the market.

Just FYI: fastest-growing still has them a niche. At the end of 2013, it's estimated to be only 9% of the overall market (source: http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/193625/).

I do hope I'm wrong, I really like Valve. And I trust that they're much smarter than me. I just don't see it, at least right now. I wish they prove me wrong, I'd love to be forced to buy a Steam machine.

Zeus wrote:

SineSwiper wrote:Yay, Zeus is still around to make baseless accusations.

Read the last sentence of my post, think about it, do some research if you have to, then come back with something before shooting your mouth off without understanding what it is I actually wrote

Dude, you're comparing this to the 3DO, which is like comparing apples with assault rifles. There is no "think about it". It's a fucking stupid comparison for many, many reasons, including:

1. 3DO was a looooong time ago. The industry is totally different now.
2. Steam has a fuckton more gamer cred than Panasonic.
3. The goals are completely different.
4. 3DO had zero games because nobody gave a shit. People care a great deal about Steam.

I mean, Jesus Fucking Christ, that was the worst comparison I've heard of in the year 2014, and it will probably go down as the Worst Comparison of Anything Ever Mentioned in 2014.

And then you have the gall to tell me to "read it again", as if you weren't deeply fucking embarrassed to utter that sentence the first time?! Really?

Yes, Sine, that's exactly it. I wrote nothing else on the matter.....

Forget it

Relevant to our conversation

Steam Dev Days show plan for Valve-owned future, and Microsoft should be terrified

http://www.polygon.com/2014/1/14/530758 ... uture-plan

Steam Dev Days, taking place Jan. 15-16 in Seattle, isn't open to the press. There will be no interviews given, and it's unlikely that there will be video or archives of the content shown. It's an off-the-record event where AMD, Intel, Nvidia, Oculus, Unity and yes, Valve itself will give talks and create bridges between the distribution service, the hardware and software that will drive Steam Machines, and the people who make the games that we play on the platform.

Microsoft has nothing to fear today, but the idea that Valve, AMD, Nvidia and Intel are getting together with developers to push for a future without Windows should scare the living hell out of them as they peer into the future. Valve and Microsoft both want to own your living room, but the Xbox One is often a clunky, awkward device that tries to force you into Microsoft's ecosystem while limiting your media options. There is plenty of room for disruption.

Eric wrote:Relevant to our conversation

Steam Dev Days show plan for Valve-owned future, and Microsoft should be terrified

http://www.polygon.com/2014/1/14/530758 ... uture-plan

Steam Dev Days, taking place Jan. 15-16 in Seattle, isn't open to the press. There will be no interviews given, and it's unlikely that there will be video or archives of the content shown. It's an off-the-record event where AMD, Intel, Nvidia, Oculus, Unity and yes, Valve itself will give talks and create bridges between the distribution service, the hardware and software that will drive Steam Machines, and the people who make the games that we play on the platform.

Microsoft has nothing to fear today, but the idea that Valve, AMD, Nvidia and Intel are getting together with developers to push for a future without Windows should scare the living hell out of them as they peer into the future. Valve and Microsoft both want to own your living room, but the Xbox One is often a clunky, awkward device that tries to force you into Microsoft's ecosystem while limiting your media options. There is plenty of room for disruption.

Hmm, so a consortium of companies forced to work with and suffer because of Microshaft is getting together for a referendum on how to knock Microshaft out of the throne? Hey, I'm all for this coup and I hope it work. But until I see what it is exactly they're doing, I just can't get excited. My computer is 8 years old and I will up for an upgrade soon so if they prove to me I should have a Steam machine, I'll buy one.

But they do have to prove I lose nothing and only gain something by switching to them.....or prove that they are a legitimate stand-alone console I should buy instead of the Xbox 360 or PS4.

We are not the market for steam machines. Non-PC gamers are the market. Will they be successful? I have no idea...not sure what the "draw" is supposed to be? Simplicity and Steam I guess.

(btw - still not a steam supporter. I hear enough stories about shitty customer service and entire libraries being locked out due to disputes.)

kali o. wrote:We are not the market for steam machines. Non-PC gamers are the market. Will they be successful? I have no idea...not sure what the "draw" is supposed to be? Simplicity and Steam I guess.

(btw - still not a steam supporter. I hear enough stories about shitty customer service and entire libraries being locked out due to disputes.)

That's what I mean. I'm a non-PC gamer. Other than Diablo 3, I haven't sat down to play a game on my PC in a decade. And I just don't know what the draw is for me...

OK, I didn't realize that Valve was this hands-off on it. Heck, they're not even committing to a name for the things. It appear that the "Steam Machine" is simply an agreement to add a couple of things (internet radio...really?) to your device, maybe use that specific controller, and that's about it

http://www.gamespot.com/articles/what-s ... 0-6417110/

If all this is is a PC with a couple of features, it won't do jack. Only the people who currently buy PCs to play games will care because the other 90% of the people won't even be sure what they're buying. Heck, we're all nerds here and no one can really pin down what a "Steam Machine" is beyond just a fancy name for a PC.

Like I keep saying, I hope I'm proven wrong. But it ain't lookin' good.

This is the kind of thing that they just need to get out there and then they can start tinkering. Unlike consoles a Steam Box doesn't necessarily need to have a near decade long wait between iterations and changes. A big part of 'not caring' what goes into a Steam Box is because you can just put whatever the fuck you want into and onto one - this is a good thing. A proper targeting of the console audience can come when the bugs and glitches are worked out and they've had some time to see what exactly they actually want, as opposed to what some suits in an office think they want. The whiny peasants (joke) that play consoles can be courted later.

In the end Valve has nothing to lose in all this. The SteamOS will likely be wildly successful, with Windows 7 probably being the last Windows any PC gamer is going to buy (on purpose) and Valve is basically just getting their name out there to a larger audience. This endeavor isn't going to make or break them.

PC games are typically something you do alone. The Steam Box draw is that you can get multiple people in the room to do things with you. It's nothing new, the draw here is the PC games, the customization, the non-existent development cycle (for the Steam Box), and not having to deal with Sony and Microsoft.

The biggest problem is gonna be definition and compatibility. They can't market what they can't define (we saw this with the Wii U where there was huge confusion) and they can't have certain games only compatible with certain systems (current problem with PCs that you can't translate into the living room). Those two things will severely limit the market if they ain't addressed properly

Compatibility is basically a foreign word to PC gamers these days. If you have an old ass PC you might have issues, but one of the (further) advantages are patches that don't need weeks of QA and okaying with MS and Sony before they're released. This is also something that's going to be addressed as times goes on. Valve isn't making a product that's going to have to be the same thing for a decade. The Steam community will also likely have a hand in providing definition and possibly the creation of third party support for any issues that arise. The hardware they're putting in these things is pretty cut and dry. Intel cpus that'll likely last 5-8 years, video cards that'll last that long before hitting minimum reqs. They aren't producing knock offs that are going to have compatibility issues. Purchasers are going to be greeted with the joy of upgrading something for $100 as they need it and not having to drop another $400+ on a brand new console.

Also, I don't think Valve is going to be stingy with developer kits since it's in their best interest to not have any fuck ups, like launching products that break in the first couple weeks or constantly crash. It has the benefit of launching with countless games that are already proven to work well. I very much doubt anyone dropping $500 on a pre-made will ever have a driver or compatibility issue once everything gets going for real. There are a lot of games that they've already translated to the living room that I would have said would have been nearly impossible to. There are already 296 games that Steam has labeled with "full controller support." The number is just going to go up from there. Some of these games are strategy games that will never have console ports. Exclusives, we basically have a genre full of them.

Anyone buying this from the get-go is likely going to know what they're doing. Definition can wait and the community can help provide it. Steam needled itself into the PC gaming market starting from nothing and growing. I'm sure they're ready try the same thing here. When I was forced to install and buy HL2 on Steam I just thought it was going to be some annoying thing that I'd uninstall some day. And look at what it is now.

I have one last thing to say on this subject.
And I rest my case, god speed Steam Machines.

Eric wrote:And I rest my case, god speed Steam Machines.

God dammit, Eric, no fapping on the sabbath!

Well, why don't you guys get the same basic message except from the Brits, then?

http://www.edge-online.com/news/steam-m ... long-game/

Yes, well, thank you for posting an article that is almost completely about the point I was trying to make :P

Shrinweck wrote:Yes, well, thank you for posting an article that is almost completely about the point I was trying to make

The biggest issue is it's only gonna cater to those who already have Steam if Valve remains so hands-off and laisse-faire about it. If that's the case, it's barely even something to care about. The only way this matters is if it provides something new. It just isn't and doesn't seem like it will aside from a controller from the sounds of it. If that's the case, it'll be barely a blip in the history of gaming. Sure, it may hang around for a while, but it'll barely be anything other than a PC with a controller....and that's something we can easily do now. Heck, my bud just got one of those mini-computers for $500 that's the size of a CD jewel case but about 8x as thick. Get him a dongle and a wireless Xbox 360 controller and you've basically got everything a Steam Machine can do.

No one cared about Steam at first. If anyone knows how to play a long game it's Valve. It probably won't be something to care about for the first year or two. The new thing it brings is PC games in a more social environment, which is one of the biggest things that consoles have that PCs don't. People see PC games as something you do alone, whereas you can have a party and a console can be part of that while still being a very sociable activity. This isn't going to start huge, but it's a step in opening up PC games to an audience that it just didn't have access to before. Like I've said, they can make tweaks that make bigger splashes once they have their foot in the door.

What this should be at launch is something a layman can just jump into on their TV, something console users need because the barrier entry to PC gaming can seem daunting. It isn't going to begin as something new. It can become that later. By pushing "Big Picture" games on the Steam Box, Valve gets to cherry pick games that won't have issues with compatibility and play nice with their software and controller. Also, once people start absorbing things through osmosis, they'll realize how much freedom can come out of having a computer whose hardware you can tinker with, as opposed to a console that you can't. If you don't like a program on the OS, uninstall it, because you can do that now! Basically every time one of these sells to a console user, they're getting tons of publicity and it'll just flood outwards as awareness builds. This is potentially a grand slam for the hardware manufacturers and whatnot who're getting in at the ground floor. It'll just be a very slow running around of the bases.