Modred189
Can't Read the OP
- Joined
- May 24, 2006
- Messages
- 16,321
It would solve the worlds biggest problem for gamers of not being locked into Windows.
You're generalizing waaaayyy too much; basing fact on some universal constant that all people think alike.
It's not so much as it's *fixing* *something* but rather adding an option for people who have different perspectives/wants/needs/stuff.
It gets Valve the money of console gamers/people who would never game in front of a PC.
Console gaming is deemed far more socially acceptable than PC gaming is - no matter how much PC gaming has grown in years past.
That's not what I mean. To sell something... to overthrow the status quo, you have to have a value proposition. You have to be abel to hold something up in front of the consumer and say, "look, you life will be easier/better/etc because our product [solves X problem]."
I'm not sure I see a problem with gaming right now. I'm not sure I know of many/any PC gamers that lament the fact that Windows is the OS in which their games run.
Good points, and while I get them, and agree tbh, what about the consumer. Let's fast forward 365 days. Valve has 3 products on the market (good, better and best systems) all run by their new OS. They want you to buy said products.The immediate benefit is not for the customer, but for Valve. They don't own the infrastructure that they are dependent on, and it's not as if they can roll their own distro of windows. With MS's recent behavior, I would certainly feel more comfortable ( as a company ) if I owned the entire stack I used to make money.
Longer term, valve controlling the full stack allows them to provide the consumer with a stable environment, tailored to the specific needs of the platform.
This isn't a bid to replace windows, at least not yet. And I doubt that's the plan anyway; it's just a push to give them options should MS put them to the screw. Given that, last I heard, they were seriously considering putting Elop in charge...well, ya. I'd want as many lifeboat options as I could get, too.
As a PC gamer, with $1000 sunk into a gaming machine, and many times that in an extensive Windows-only game library, what is Valve's box going to do that makes your life easier? Better? etc. Sure, the streaming box for $100 is kind of cool for some games, and for $100, it's not bad. But for the price of the more expensive systems, you can roll your own and not have to worry about the hassle of Linux at all.
Put it this way What's Valve's one-liner advertising point that gamers can intuitively 'get?' After all, if no one buys in, this whole thing falls apart.
TBH, I'm more concerned with the networking hardware required for decent streaming to work. Netflix alone has crazy issues with compression artifacting. Hulu too, and they are not close to the kind of imagry and data that would have to come through to stream a game. And i don't know about you, but I would not want to wire my entire home for ethernet just to do this...I'm not sure how successful it will be, but I think it's an interesting concept. If the games stream from your main computer, I'm curious how powerful the SteamOS box will actually have to be. Also, will other companies be able to make use of the same platform for their own games without going through Valve (like Android's various custom stores)?