Steam box is targetted to go in front a TV like a console. Hence the small and unique-ish look. Anyone who will park a keyboard and mouse in front of the TV on a regular basis would mind parking a mid-size tower either and doesn't need a steambox.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Gabe Newell Interview
- Thread starter HardOCP News
- Start date
Steam box is targetted to go in front a TV like a console. Hence the small and unique-ish look. Anyone who will park a keyboard and mouse in front of the TV on a regular basis would mind parking a mid-size tower either and doesn't need a steambox.
:headdesk:
If Steam didn't exist then a lot of current PC titles would not even exist, would never have been developed/cross-ported from consoles and videogaming would be restricted to the domain that dino chicken nugget eater COD kids now rule in terms of demographics. Developers have stated this.
Before Steam took off not everyone was pirating games for financial reasons. A lot of it was convenience. Laziness is a more compelling force than cheapness for a lot of people, and Steam created that path of less resistance.
get real man. if you want DRM-free games, stick with indie games for $2 each. if you want anything worth an appreciable amount of money, then learn to embrace the DRM. if steam just released all their games for download without DRM, then everyone would just download it, burn it to a disc, and give it to all their friends. if you do not realize this simple fact then any attemps to use any other sort of logical argument will clearly fall on deaf ears.
and for the record, i pirated all my games in college. i did not have steam, and would never have paid $30-60 for a new pc game. 5 years ago i downloaded steam so i could play TF2. since then i have bought hundreds of games and i love the invisible, uninvasive DRM that is steam. i get pissed when it makes me log into GFWL, but for steam DRM, i couldnt care less. i value their platform and i trust them as a company (about the only one i do.)
Semantics
2[H]4U
- Joined
- May 18, 2010
- Messages
- 2,811
Steams early years were a pirates dream got multi version already cd free of games which just crack and publish at least scene groups liked steam but we wont talk about that will we.
What?
In the early years of Steam there was practically no DRM anyway. You bought games via disc and downloaded the crack.exe online. Hell, "pirating" was going to GameStop and opening the box, grabbing the CD key off it and going home.
Because the argument that everyone is a pirate is so logical... do you happen to work for Ubisoft?
Do you have a point?
dgz
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2010
- Messages
- 5,838
The most important and substantial quote from the interview, at least for me.
It's relieving that some actually gets it and wants to make via progress. My computer is powerful enough to serve at least two modern games concurrently with dedicated peripherals and output devices for each (virtual) desktop. This was Microsoft's job but they went all Apple and served us minor shit such as new interface and useless app store instead.
I don't envision this to work as I just imagined but it's a start. Post Kepler means 2013 won't be the year of the second coming. It would take a little more.
It's relieving that some actually gets it and wants to make via progress. My computer is powerful enough to serve at least two modern games concurrently with dedicated peripherals and output devices for each (virtual) desktop. This was Microsoft's job but they went all Apple and served us minor shit such as new interface and useless app store instead.
I don't envision this to work as I just imagined but it's a start. Post Kepler means 2013 won't be the year of the second coming. It would take a little more.
if given the choice between an incredibly easy way of getting a game for money and an incredibly easy way of getting the same exact game for free with no consequences, most people will choose free over money. pirating is hard; you have to find a good torrent with a working crack, you have to follow a few steps like turning off your internet and copying a patch to a certain folder, and you have to worry about getting angry letters in the mail or your internet shut off. those reasons (and in some cases conscience) are enough to make people prefer paying a few bucks for a legit copy over pirating, but if it were made easier and less risky to pirate, you can bet more people would.
for the record, i hate ubisoft, and only buy their games once they hit the bargain bin on steam. there is a big difference between an aggressive, invasive DRM scheme that interrupts games, forces you to always be connected to their servers, sign up for and log into other services, etc and steam which has been nothing but a pleasure to use for me for over 5 years.
4saken
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2004
- Messages
- 13,171
disappointed, i wanted gabes opinion on the twinkie factory closing.
This post basically answers both of the arguments going on in the thread succinctly and completely. Why there is even discussion after this is beyond me.
DeathPrincess
Fully [H]
- Joined
- May 15, 2010
- Messages
- 18,205
What I'd like to see happen is see Valve release a game, without saying it's made by valve... 
Yup. This is some crazy-ass world we're livin' in now.
TheMadHatterXxX
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2004
- Messages
- 3,022
What I'd like to see happen is see Valve release a game, without saying it's made by valve...
What I'd like to see happen is see Valve release a game, made by Valve.
WorldExclusive
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2009
- Messages
- 11,548
Good one.
What I'd like to see happen is see Valve release a game, without saying it's made by valve...
how do you know they havent already?
FearTheCow
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 2, 2006
- Messages
- 6,681
Please post a video online showing you playing two instances of BF3 on two monitors connected to your PC.
The only way I see a gaming "server" like Gabe said is having a 16+ core system with a dedicated GPU for each output. So basically, you will get to spend thousands on a system just to be able to have multiple people play on it, or $300 for a console and just deal with playing on the same screen.
The best part about your post is I remember a friend in high school 14 years ago talking about the exact same thing you are here. The only way something like this is really feasible is if software doesn't advance with hardware, and that basically means turning PC gaming into console gaming.
So basically, Gabe Newell who has made a fortune off of PC gaming looks to be doing the best he can to shit all over PC gaming by releasing a console and talking about doing things that require console type thinking.
Same here, and now I have a huge list of Steam Games. I am happy to buy games without having to use those stupid wheels like Monkey Island 2 or red filters to find the word in whatever paragraph. And no more boxes!!!!
I want to add to that person's post that I do not miss the days of DOS and all of the memory nonsense to get a game working. I am tired of tweaking and adjusting. I just want to game on my PC like I do on my consoles and not jump through hoops. Steam seems to have made a lot of past issues go away, at least for me. If they can make a cheap computer that you plug into the TV and start gaming that will be going right besides my Xbox and PS3. Seems like the best of both worlds with possible minor tradeoffs.
Sublym3
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2008
- Messages
- 170
I love these threadsI still don't get Gabes hate towards Windows 8 (but thats another subject)
Valve/Steam is just looking after Valve/Steam, to think they are some paragon of PC Gaming is foolish. You could argue about Steam until the next mayan calendar ends, personally I don't think they have done enough for PC Gaming.
Regarding the interview, I could be reading too much into it but I don't think this will be competing directly with consoles (in terms of ease of use and ease of access)
To compete with consoles you need intergration, if it is just Ubuntu/Windows with Steam set to run at start up in big picture mode, then I think most would be disappointed.
And his comments about casual games are interesting, sounds like they don't consider that a good market to target.
next-Jin
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2006
- Messages
- 7,387
What I am looking at is the eventual possibility of a new baseline with Steambox. If Valve had a standard platform (even with Linux) how feasible would it be to give developers the ability to code to the metal?
Basically any custom PC running Steam BP would become a Super Steam Box that just handled the games that much better. Or going further, any game ran from a certified Steambox wouldn't have many options to change graphic settings and if ran from a non certified box it would either autodetect or allow users the ability to change things themselves.
Generally speaking, I am just wondering if this would improve the environment instead of the stagnation we are seeing now. Esspecially if Valve knowing the PC segment releases a new Steam Box every 2 years (as opposed to every six months for new GPUs)
Basically any custom PC running Steam BP would become a Super Steam Box that just handled the games that much better. Or going further, any game ran from a certified Steambox wouldn't have many options to change graphic settings and if ran from a non certified box it would either autodetect or allow users the ability to change things themselves.
Generally speaking, I am just wondering if this would improve the environment instead of the stagnation we are seeing now. Esspecially if Valve knowing the PC segment releases a new Steam Box every 2 years (as opposed to every six months for new GPUs)
cdr_74_premium
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2010
- Messages
- 1,577
Steam is a necessary evil. I hate it because I had a very bad experience with its terribad support. But I know many people who got hooked on PC gaming because of Steam sales. Most stopped buying console games and are moving all their stuff to their notebooks or desktops.
The best DRM I know of is from Runic Games' Torchlight II. Put the key, let it connect to their servers to validate, done. You can activate on all your machines this way. After activating, you can play offline at anytime, no questions asked, no need to put it in offline mode or whatever. BTW, this game is so good I recommend everyone to get it. You can get it on Steam or not, your choice.
Sublym3
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2008
- Messages
- 170
Well with 'coding to metal' it wouldn't matter what OS because you would be doing away with DirectX and OpenGL
It would also mean all the hardware would have to be identical for all the Steam devices.
Games would perform better (assuming the developer took the effort to do it) but the environment would be worse, no more upgrading hardware, your games would be limited to the life of that Steam Box version.
next-Jin
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2006
- Messages
- 7,387
What I am getting at is that it would give developers their baseline to program for. In other words it would completely avoid the console stagnation, and the market would move to that instead. Rather than every 5-8 years you would be looking at every 2 or so.
Nothing changes for us, if you are not running a Steambox platform it would be just like it is now, but we wouldnt be worrying about consoles.
Maybe I am just being optimistic because I honestly feel like consoles need to DIAF.
FearTheCow
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 2, 2006
- Messages
- 6,681
It wouldn't eliminate any stagnation because the "base line" steam box wont push the graphical limits. PC gaming is stagnating because developers pander to shitty consoles, so with steam basically making a shitty console of their own, they are just trying to get a slice of the console pie.
Phelptwan
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2002
- Messages
- 6,804
There was a Windows COA on the side of that box. Wonder who the OEM for it is.
Sublym3
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2008
- Messages
- 170
You would 'stagnate' either way.
As developing and developer tools for the consoles has matured you can see the better stuff we are getting on the PC, most of the latest games look better on the PC than on the consoles and have other enhancements.
The bright side for the next gen consoles is that they are all rumored to be using X86 CPU's and AMD GPU's, which should mean not as much effort is required to port games. The developers might also see the benefits of designing the games in top down approach (PC > Consoles) instead of aiming at the lowest denominator then trying to add and patch and port etc.
kbrickley
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 13, 2012
- Messages
- 7,514
I think it is too early to tell how limited the Steam box will be compared to a low to medium end PC ... there are still some variables that we need to work out (including the business model that Valve has in mind) that will have dramatic effect on pricing and capability:
1. What business model does Valve wish to pursue? Do they wish to go the console path where they sell their hardware at a loss until economies of sale make the hardware profitable or do they wish to pursue the Amazon model where they sell hardware at minimal profit to facilitate sales in other areas?
- The console model seems unlikely since this won't be a proprietary closed system (like the consoles) and without that you can't use software licensing to beef up your profits until the hardware profits kick in. If they restrict access to the system to Steam they could have the closed system but they will probably invite the enmity of the PC community who like things more open.
- The Amazon model seems more likely since they are already in the digital software sales business (like Amazon) and get a cut of all sales through their store. If they have hardware that invites more sales they could make their profits there. If they are not trying to profit from the hardware they also have more flexibility in upgradeability and capability within a reasonable price range.
2. Can they use hardware deals to facilitate hardware performance and price?
- Since a Steam box would be a more closed system (like a console), their hardware suppliers will have exclusive access to their user base. They could use this to facilitate optimal pricing with either AMD for the CPU/GPU combo or Intel/Nvidia for them not to use AMD. Although CPU upgradeability would be out of the question they could work with their exclusive GPU supplier for a custom form factor that is more upgradeable (that provides continued lock-in and ongoing revenues from upgrades). They could use a cartridge style GPU that plugs in without opening the case to facilitate this style upgrade (maybe in a GPU compartment on the box). How they play with these options and what their targeted price point is could give them a lot of flexibility on performance (not up to the level of a high end system but maybe to get up to a reasonable medium end system).
3. PC Gaming is all about the Total Cost of Ownership.
- Console gaming appears inexpensive but the the software prices and peripheral prices over the life of the console are very high. PC gaming has a higher hardware entry price but there is much more flexibility on pricing of software and peripherals making the total cost of ownership much lower, in the long run, unless you only play a few games over the life of your console.
It will certainly be interesting to see what decisions Gabe makes and what paths that Valve chooses to follow.
Steam could opt to bring out a new console every 2-3 years, thus coupling their releases with a new GPU architecture. This would mean their dedicated gaming machines would be *more* powerful than most gaming PCs today.
Most people don't spend >$1000 on gaming rigs, and y'know what? They don't have to. If developers are given a platform to develop for then performance is going to go up much more drastically than if you spent another $200 on a GPU. Console ports don't suck just because they ask you to press 'select' to continue, but because they aren't optimized for your hardware. A Steambox would change that.
Most people don't spend >$1000 on gaming rigs, and y'know what? They don't have to. If developers are given a platform to develop for then performance is going to go up much more drastically than if you spent another $200 on a GPU. Console ports don't suck just because they ask you to press 'select' to continue, but because they aren't optimized for your hardware. A Steambox would change that.
Sublym3
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2008
- Messages
- 170
The PC still runs console ports better than what a console natively runs them, so even though developers can code closer to the metal they are not getting much more from the hardware and cant keep pace with the hardware/driver development seen on the PC.
Most (i.e. the average person) hardly spends anything on hardware (possibly even less on software if I recall correctly), Microsoft and Sony have already learnt that, hence why the console cycles are so long.
So if the average consumer only spends 200 - 450 (aussie prices for Xbox 360) every what 6-7 years why would that spend 500-600+ on a gaming PC/Console hybrid every 2-3 years?
Do you mean something like Skyrim? Where the game is DX9 and even with relatively modern hardware has trouble playing at 1080p with smooth frame rates? Or what about Bethesda's developer claiming it's a headache?
A modern day $300 box with a stable platform will outperform your DIY $1000 PC. Not because the $300 box has better hardware - it doesn't. It'll outperform your $1000 gaming PC because developers sure as hell aren't going to cater to the multitude of hardware that potentially makes up your PC.
A modern-ish Steambox would allow for a prebuilt gaming PC and allow developers to actually cater to that instead of pasting DX9 on the box and saying 'Screw it'.
And 'closer-to-metal' coding only happens on stable platforms and unchanging architecture. This doesn't happen anywhere in the PC space. The only thing I can think of is perhaps the HPC space, though that's usually higher level programming like CUDA.
A modern day $300 box with a stable platform will outperform your DIY $1000 PC. Not because the $300 box has better hardware - it doesn't. It'll outperform your $1000 gaming PC because developers sure as hell aren't going to cater to the multitude of hardware that potentially makes up your PC.
A modern-ish Steambox would allow for a prebuilt gaming PC and allow developers to actually cater to that instead of pasting DX9 on the box and saying 'Screw it'.
And 'closer-to-metal' coding only happens on stable platforms and unchanging architecture. This doesn't happen anywhere in the PC space. The only thing I can think of is perhaps the HPC space, though that's usually higher level programming like CUDA.
Sublym3
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2008
- Messages
- 170
I disagree
Developers already cater to the multitude of hardware that makes up everyones PC, the standard API's (in both Linux and Windows) allow them to do that. Plus we know that Steam is not making its own OS so the games that run through Steam will still have to follow the rules of the OS it runs on.
With that being the case even with standard hardware, they would still have to put up with the 'bad' drivers and the 'bad' API's for the OS used
Pete Hines is the marketing guy, (Bethesda is a bad example, they have never made a non buggy game, they are lucky they have a community that puts most others to shame) you just have to look up the issues with Skyrim and the PS3 to see that Bethesda can't even make a stable game in a closed system.
The APIs don't target specific hardware, thus there's a LOT of room left for optimization that wasn't done and subsequently the gamer missing out on performance.
What you get with any modern PC game is hardware pushing itself to the limits because it's inefficient and wasting cycles. A developer can get a lot more out of a standardized box with X drivers because it doesn't change. 'This is your hardware and this is what you've got to work with' is a heck of a lot easier than 'Go to NewEgg and make sure it's compliant with the whole website'. The API doesn't have any hardware in mind. None. It's made to work on a variety of hardware and there are no close-to-metal optimizations done. That has to be done by the developer on his/her own time. That's why we have development kits. It's the same reason why Java is considered inefficient but so popular. Something that can stretch across all hardware is great unless you're looking for efficiency and performance.
The 'Bad drivers' wouldn't change drastically on a standardized box. That's the point of a console in the first place.
What you get with any modern PC game is hardware pushing itself to the limits because it's inefficient and wasting cycles. A developer can get a lot more out of a standardized box with X drivers because it doesn't change. 'This is your hardware and this is what you've got to work with' is a heck of a lot easier than 'Go to NewEgg and make sure it's compliant with the whole website'. The API doesn't have any hardware in mind. None. It's made to work on a variety of hardware and there are no close-to-metal optimizations done. That has to be done by the developer on his/her own time. That's why we have development kits. It's the same reason why Java is considered inefficient but so popular. Something that can stretch across all hardware is great unless you're looking for efficiency and performance.
The 'Bad drivers' wouldn't change drastically on a standardized box. That's the point of a console in the first place.
Let me sum up my point so it's short and clear:
A $300 box, with a specific hardware configuration, that developers know is more popular than an X or Y hardware configuration will get a lot more attention.
That, in essence, is what makes a console. Steam's throwing a bit of curveball because you can still build your own box, but don't expect it to get as much developer attention as a Steambox.
It stands to reason that the $300 standardized box will perform "above its weight" in gaming.
A $300 box, with a specific hardware configuration, that developers know is more popular than an X or Y hardware configuration will get a lot more attention.
That, in essence, is what makes a console. Steam's throwing a bit of curveball because you can still build your own box, but don't expect it to get as much developer attention as a Steambox.
It stands to reason that the $300 standardized box will perform "above its weight" in gaming.
Why do you think you need a system like that to do what Gabe is looking to do?
You wouldn't. You could address the problem much like many people on this very forum do with respect to virtual machines, which is dedicating a certain amount of cores to a specific task.
Sublym3
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2008
- Messages
- 170
Did you read the article? Gabe said the SteamBox is running Linux so everything will just be OpenGL etc etc
I would be very surprised if Valve can drum up the hardware numbers to sell it at $300 especially when they invite every other OEM to do it as well.
That doesn't change his point though. If Valve's particular Steam Box is a targeted set of hardware and software, the developer is able to make optimizations.
It's similar to how the video drivers add optimizations for games after the fact. The video driver has to handle the generic case, but when a particular game is analyzed, the driver developers can go into the hot spots and remove the inefficiencies.
I would say probably not. Miniturizing the PC will impact cost/performance relationship probably making it a wash.