Steam Machines Don't Have A Chance Against The Xbox One/PS4

Azureth

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 29, 2008
Messages
5,323
I really love and agree with this video by ReviewTechUSA. As popular as STEAM is I just don't see how they can come out on top. Sure they say they aren't trying to compete with the competitors but by their very nature they are since they want to take living room time away from Xbox/PS4 and want you to play it.
 
its not really the same thing as a console tho, i do not think Valve takes any hit from selling or not selling them, the controllers are likely sold at a profit and the Link just lets you use your current pc on your tv which is also prob sold at a profit for $50

all those custom computer companies selling the machines take all the risk, if they build too many but one has to assume they are all sold for profit, and like most custom pc's are built when orderd since you can change parts around unless their models only come in 1 flavor then they might stockpile some to reduce costs and make them in bulk.

Steam OS is free so you can turn any pc into a steam machine.

and if you want too you can likely spend the $100 to turn any steam machine into a normal pc for a windows key if it doesn't already cone pre installed which some of the more expensive ones likely do.

it will likely convert some console players that have money to burn, or want a high end HTPC but they do not need to sell millions of them, i am sure the custom pc companies want them to sell millions so they make money.

even if no one buys a steam machine, every pc in the world can become a steam machine thanks to the OS being free, and Valve makes money every time someone buys a game from them on any platform normal pc or steam machine ect no matter what the steam machines will live on so long as linux is supported.
 
It will "fail" in that it falls between the market into its own niche. One that is hardly needed by most people. It won't be stealing console gamers away from the PS/Xbox unless they become more like a traditional console.
 
TBH i just dont really see the point of the steam machine. SteamOS aside and the merits of trying to bring unity to the PC market in terms of compatibility, controller support, etc, what is there actual market?
I dont see myself replacing my gaming rig or htpc with one for any reason.
 
The steam machine has the advantage of being exandable and upgradable. When the PS4/XBOXone start getting old the steamboxes can be updated. This means that it won't have a transition period like from PS3 to PS4.
 
The steam machine has the advantage of being exandable and upgradable. When the PS4/XBOXone start getting old the steamboxes can be updated. This means that it won't have a transition period like from PS3 to PS4.

Yeah but as RTUSA pointed out, wouldn't gamers that could afford and willing to buy something like the steam machines already have a gaming PC? I know there are many models but the cheaper ones are hardly better, and in some cases worse than current gen systems and the good ones are thousands! Why spend thousands on something dedicated to gaming when you can spend the same and get an uber gaming PC which you can also upgrade and do a heck of a lot more on?

Also with the steam machine you can't trade or sell your games once you are done so no doubt that will put a lot of people off.

I agree with what RTUSA said about how they should've just release one version, price it at $5-600 and make it a total beast. I know many people and have lots of friends that use STEAM but they all have good computers that can play most STEAM games on max settings for less than many of the STEAM machines. This just seems akin to the 3DO to me.

What incentive do people that already have good gaming computers and one or both of the current gen systems have to get it? Especially the good ones that aren't bare bones that will cost an arm and a leg to buy anyway. Sure it comes with a controller but most of my friends that play STEAM just use an Xbox controller and many don't even have Xboxs.
 
For me, a Steambox would be built from bits left over from old PCs.
 
Steam box isn't meant to outsell the consoles or anything really. Otherwise Valve wouldn't be giving away Steam OS and allow everyone to build their own Steam box. I don't understand why people insist on comparing it directly to the console sales.

Steam box is merely a subset of PC gaming. The aim of steam box is to provide a more accessible approach to PC gaming in the living room. This is for anyone who wishes to take PC gaming to their living room without going through the hassle of setting up one. But Valve isn't trying to replace the traditional approach to PC gaming, and this is the point some people are missing. Valve is not trying to dominate the entire PC gaming market with Steam box. People who want to build their own PC will continue to do so and Valve is trying to convert them.

At the heart of Steam box is still PC gaming. It's not a console. It retains an important aspect of PC gaming, which is the ability to have choices based on your budget. Those who are willing to spend more will be able to get better better hardware for a better experience, while those who have less to spend will still be able to play PC games with a system that suits their budget. What it takes away is the entire process of cracking your head trying to put together a system, which is more difficult when you have a finite budget.
 
Steam Machines seem pretty expensive. For the price it might as well include windows.
 
Yeah but as RTUSA pointed out, wouldn't gamers that could afford and willing to buy something like the steam machines already have a gaming PC? I know there are many models but the cheaper ones are hardly better, and in some cases worse than current gen systems and the good ones are thousands! Why spend thousands on something dedicated to gaming when you can spend the same and get an uber gaming PC which you can also upgrade and do a heck of a lot more on?

Also with the steam machine you can't trade or sell your games once you are done so no doubt that will put a lot of people off.

I agree with what RTUSA said about how they should've just release one version, price it at $5-600 and make it a total beast. I know many people and have lots of friends that use STEAM but they all have good computers that can play most STEAM games on max settings for less than many of the STEAM machines. This just seems akin to the 3DO to me.

What incentive do people that already have good gaming computers and one or both of the current gen systems have to get it? Especially the good ones that aren't bare bones that will cost an arm and a leg to buy anyway. Sure it comes with a controller but most of my friends that play STEAM just use an Xbox controller and many don't even have Xboxs.

Not just affording, but caring to upgrade. Millions don't have the time and don't want to learn how to upgrade a computer. Even if it is somewhat simple.

The only niche this fills are people who want to play their PC games in the living room... which you can already do with a Windows based PC. These people want to play a console port with higher graphics settings than those on a console at their couch. For the rest of us PC gamers who play actual PC only games, a desk for mouse/keyboard/HOTAS/wheels makes a hell of a lot more sense.

It does have its niche, but that is all it is. If they wanted to steal the Xbox/PS crowd, they would have made a traditional console with no monthly online fees, lowered costs for developers, ran Steam sales and made it easier for smaller teams to put their games on the system. Both Sony and Microsoft have made costs lower for smaller dev teams on the current gen systems, but I still think it is a good bit higher than getting it onto Steam. But if they had offered the traditional console experience with some of these advantages I would think it would have a good chance at stealing a large part of the PS/Xbox crowd.
 
It does have its niche, but that is all it is. If they wanted to steal the Xbox/PS crowd, they would have made a traditional console with no monthly online fees, lowered costs for developers, ran Steam sales and made it easier for smaller teams to put their games on the system. Both Sony and Microsoft have made costs lower for smaller dev teams on the current gen systems, but I still think it is a good bit higher than getting it onto Steam. But if they had offered the traditional console experience with some of these advantages I would think it would have a good chance at stealing a large part of the PS/Xbox crowd.

It's really simpler than that. Games. And I don't mean how the PC/Linux has thousands of more games than the Xbox One/PS4. As much grief as we give, people in general just want to play the next Call of Duty, or Madden, or Final Fantasy, or whatever.
 
I watch Rich's channel.... but lately he's been trying to do more retarded jokes, and freakin' hell, it's annoying as shit.
 
I would rather have a SteamBox (with Windows installed) than an XBone or PS4 any and every day of the week.

Idiots though, would not. Most people are idiots so of course SteamBoxes wont compete well.
 
Steam Machines seem pretty expensive. For the price it might as well include windows.

Yea Valve wanted to push linux for their own reasons(the app store in windows has to be one of the big ones) but I think it is a mistake. Windows cost the big oems 50 bucks a machine on the high end. MS has been cutting the price down pretty hard in the cheap tablet market. I'm sure valve could have worked something out. Hell maybe go with windows embedded.

The steam machine is a subset of a subset. In the long run I don't think they will do well. At least not with steam os.

I will say I didn't think of the resell of games that the guy mentioned in the youtube link. Yea I could see this being a negative as well.
 
Yea Valve wanted to push linux for their own reasons(the app store in windows has to be one of the big ones) but I think it is a mistake. Windows cost the big oems 50 bucks a machine on the high end. MS has been cutting the price down pretty hard in the cheap tablet market. I'm sure valve could have worked something out. Hell maybe go with windows embedded.

In this thread: small picture thinking.

All Valve is doing is diversifying here. Not sure why people get so upset like its all-or-nothing or that they have to choose sides. Valve isn't abandoning Windows, or making SteamOS exclusive games - they have stated and reiterated that their future titles will still include Windows.

However Valve also realized that it's not smart for their company's future to be tied solely dependent on another corporation - one with its own ever-changing interests and marketing priorities - which for the past 15 years has not really included PC gaming. The move to Linux democratizes PC gaming and more importantly the API, and breaks Microsoft's 15 years of holding PC gaming hostage with a proprietary API for the sole purpose of customer lock-in while they continued pouring all their real focus and attention on their console product.

At the same time Valve sees an opportunity to expand into the arguably stagnant console space. Its not going to be an overnight megaseller with advertising on the sides of doritos bags and happy meals. They're playing the long game, so this is really just planting a small tree in MS & Sony's collective console backyard. Let's face it, oldgen and newgen consoles are trash that hold back PC gaming and graphics because developers build their multi-platform games around lowest common denominator. We see this on games today more than ever- just about everything is a "console port" and everyone here complains. The cycle will never be broken as long as the binary console status quo remains. How many more years are we going to go around and around complaining about shitty console ports before we stop the madness by embracing something with the ability to actually break the cycle? The previous gen consoles being able to carelessly coast for 7-8 years unchallenged and all the while having a chilling effect on PC graphics is a fucking disgrace.
 
Last edited:
I would rather have a SteamBox (with Windows installed) than an XBone or PS4 any and every day of the week.

Idiots though, would not. Most people are idiots so of course SteamBoxes wont compete well.

I'd rather take a PS4/One over a Steambox in the event a game or two comes out for them that is not on the PC. Steamboxes will pretty much have what I can already get on my superior desktop. ;)

However Valve also realized that it's not smart for their company's future to be tied solely to the ever-changing marketing priorities and interests of another corporation, which for the past 15 years have not really included PC gaming. The move to Linux democratizes PC gaming and more importantly the API, and doesn't allow a corporation only interested in their own console product to hold PC gaming hostage with a proprietary API for the sole purpose of keeping customers locked into the platform.

If the Steambox becomes popular (which I doubt) you will probably see Valve shift priorities. Just like how their recent games are extremely dumbed down "social games" made for mass appeal and low end systems. You give Valve far too much credit when at the end of the day all they care about is maximizing their profits, much like Microsoft. Aside from some lagging development of DX12, what has Microsoft done to keep PC gaming back? A few average games like Halo? I don't want their junkware tying itself to my games and I don't need social bloatware that Steam is trying to push upon its users. The only "good" thing you mentioned about Valve in that whole post is that we now have a limited, slightly more open than console OS which isn't held back API wise without having to upgrade to a new Windows version.

BTW, I wouldn't use Valve in the same sentence to describe a company which makes PC centric games. Their floaty and obscenely simplistic mechanic games such as L4D and TF2 with their in game avatars, bloated menus feel just like those terrible console ports you despise so much. ;) The days of Valve making traditional PC centric games are long over and have been since around 2008.
 
Last edited:
Aside from some lagging development of DX12, what has Microsoft done to keep PC gaming back? A few average games like Halo? I don't want their junkware tying itself to my games and I don't need social bloatware that Steam is trying to push upon its users. The only "good" thing you mentioned about Valve in that whole post is that we now have a limited, slightly more open than console OS which isn't held back API wise without having to upgrade to a new Windows version.

BTW, I wouldn't use Valve in the same sentence to describe a company which makes PC centric games. Their floaty and obscenely simplistic mechanic games such as L4D and TF2 with their in game avatars, bloated menus feel just like those terrible console ports you despise so much. ;) The days of Valve making traditional PC centric games are long over and have been since around 2008.

At the risk of getting into semantics, I didn't really say Microsoft has held gaming back. Consoles have done that. I said MS has held PC gaming hostage, while a mod called Steam has managed to make Windows a successful gaming platform in spite of the fact. DirectX only exists to create platform lock-in. Forget GFWL and the Halo/Vista fiasco, shall we start with MS paying off developers to the tune of millions to keep previously announced PC titles off of PC? Their firstparty studios cancelling previously planned Windows releases to keep the titles Xbox exclusive? And that's only what we know about. This is not a company that's cared about PC gaming by any stretch ever since the first Xbox launched. Valve on the other hand is 100% focused on PC gaming because their success depends on it.

As for the API, the establishment of an open, industry standard, high performance API is a big deal. Not paywalled, not tied to a single OS (or OS version), not tied to a single GPU family or vendor, and not tied to a single architecture. Vulkan will allow a developer to build once, and extend anywhere - Windows, Linux, SteamOS, Mac, Mobile, iPhone/Android, Nvidia, AMD, Intel, PowerVR, etc. It should also be able to iterate and improve faster than DX since its not shackled to corporate agendas or having its release timing tied to major releases of an underlying OS.

I see nothing but positives, but that's just me. If you're a diehard Windows gamer that doesn't care about the bigger picture or anything past your own nose then at worst this is going to light a fire under Microsoft to improve their attitude about Windows gaming. In fact it may already be changing, with the sudden nervous press statements about how "they really care about PC gaming this time" in their new Windows 10 marketing campaign. Seriously, 15 years go by and *now* all of a sudden, with SteamOS looming, for the first time ever Microsoft's executive level is making statements about "having failed PC gamers"? Seems like more than just coincidence.

So what's not to like?
 
Last edited:
I said MS has held PC gaming hostage, while a mod called Steam has managed to make Windows a successful gaming platform in spite of the fact.

Windows was a successful gaming platform before Steam came along and would be just fine had it never been invented. You're giving Valve too much credit at the minimum, if not revising history altogether.

This is not a company that's cared about PC gaming by any stretch ever since the first Xbox launched. Valve on the other hand is 100% focused on PC gaming because their success depends on it.

Until it isn't. I know you like you hate Microsoft because its cool and like to praise Valve while ignoring their various shortcomings, but you must realize Valve is first and foremost a company out to make money. Make no mistaken, if the Steambox concept takes off it will be like Xbox is to Microsoft. Companies follow the money. Why are Valve titles in the past 5-6 years glorified social games? Because that is where the money is.

The end goal for Valve is to get as many games as possible under Steam/Steam OS so they can take their 35% cut of each game sale. Very much like Microsoft's App Store concept. You don't have to prohibit something (SteamOS may allow Origin); you just make your store the default or easiest to find choice. Don't forget the purpose of the SteamOS. If Valve simply wanted "PC games" in the living room, they wouldn't make a Steam branded OS as we can already play PC games in our living room using any PC we want.
 
Steam Machines seem pretty expensive. For the price it might as well include windows.

The problem is you can't take Windows and customize it, it belongs to Microsoft. Open source OS allows you to do that, and Steam OS is basically a customized version designed for living room gaming. Valve can customize it in anyway they want that they believe will improve the living room experience.

Valve themself have said that Steam OS should not be considered as a replacement OS for desktop. So it certainly isn't beneficial to take a desktop OS and put it in Steam machine, as you will merely be making another desktop PC.


If the Steambox becomes popular (which I doubt) you will probably see Valve shift priorities. Just like how their recent games are extremely dumbed down "social games" made for mass appeal and low end systems. You give Valve far too much credit when at the end of the day all they care about is maximizing their profits, much like Microsoft. Aside from some lagging development of DX12, what has Microsoft done to keep PC gaming back? A few average games like Halo? I don't want their junkware tying itself to my games and I don't need social bloatware that Steam is trying to push upon its users. The only "good" thing you mentioned about Valve in that whole post is that we now have a limited, slightly more open than console OS which isn't held back API wise without having to upgrade to a new Windows version.

BTW, I wouldn't use Valve in the same sentence to describe a company which makes PC centric games. Their floaty and obscenely simplistic mechanic games such as L4D and TF2 with their in game avatars, bloated menus feel just like those terrible console ports you despise so much. ;) The days of Valve making traditional PC centric games are long over and have been since around 2008.
Steam box is a PC, it isn't anything else. Any games that can run on Steam box can run on any PC, as openGL runs everywhere. That's the wonderful thing about open source API. Valve can never force anyone to use Steam OS, because anything that runs on Steam OS will run anywhere.

And you seem to be judging games based on what you enjoy. The quality of a game has got nothing to do with the kind of system it requires to run, or how complex it's game mechanics are. MOBA may not be your thing, (it isn't mine either), it is still merely a different kind of games, games that many people happen to enjoy. In that sense, these games excel in being what games are supposed to be, which is to be entertaining.
 
Last edited:
The problem is you can't take Windows and customize it, it belongs to Microsoft. Open source OS allows you to do that, and Steam OS is basically a customized version designed for living room gaming. Valve can customize it in anyway they want that they believe will improve the living room experience.

Valve themself have said that Steam OS should not be considered as a replacement OS for desktop. So it certainly isn't beneficial to take a desktop OS and put it in Steam machine, as you will merely be making another desktop PC.



Steam box is a PC, it isn't anything else. Any games that can run on Steam box can run on any PC, as openGL runs everywhere. That's the wonderful thing about open source API. Valve can never force anyone to use Steam OS, because anything that runs on Steam OS will run anywhere.

And you seem to be judging games based on what you enjoy. The quality of a game has got nothing to do with the kind of system it requires to run, or how complex it's game mechanics are. MOBA may not be your thing, (it isn't mine either), it is still merely a different kind of games, games that many people happen to enjoy. In that sense, these games excel in being what games are supposed to be, which is to be entertaining.
Okay, let me ask you this:

A friend of mine has a good gaming PC that he currently has hooked up to his big HD TV in his living room. What advantages would he get from getting a STEAM machine? Especially at the cost it would be to just build another very good pricey computer?
 
Okay, let me ask you this:

A friend of mine has a good gaming PC that he currently has hooked up to his big HD TV in his living room. What advantages would he get from getting a STEAM machine? Especially at the cost it would be to just build another very good pricey computer?

Obviously Steam machine isn't targeted at your friend who knows how to set up his own gaming HTPC.

As I've mentioned in my previous post, Steam machine isn't meant to replace the traditional gaming PC.
 
Obviously Steam machine isn't targeted at your friend who knows how to set up his own gaming HTPC.

As I've mentioned in my previous post, Steam machine isn't meant to replace the traditional gaming PC.

That might make sense if setting up your PC was difficult/cumbersome but that is far from the truth. Hell I am disabled but my PC sits on a wooden slab next to my desk and for the times I want to hook it up to my TV all I have to do is scoot it from my room to the living room and plug an HDMI cable in and it's good to go; takes me about 2 minutes.

I just think more than anything the price they have are outrageous, who is really going to spend THOUSANDS on a STEAM machine when they could just go online to a site that builds your computer for you and get a kick ass PC and even with tax and shipping it's still much cheaper for something meant just for STEAM games?
 
That might make sense if setting up your PC was difficult/cumbersome but that is far from the truth. Hell I am disabled but my PC sits on a wooden slab next to my desk and for the times I want to hook it up to my TV all I have to do is scoot it from my room to the living room and plug an HDMI cable in and it's good to go; takes me about 2 minutes.

I just think more than anything the price they have are outrageous, who is really going to spend THOUSANDS on a STEAM machine when they could just go online to a site that builds your computer for you and get a kick ass PC and even with tax and shipping it's still much cheaper for something meant just for STEAM games?

That's not the part of the setting up process that Valve is focusing on, lol. It's the part of actually building a gaming HTPC. I have no doubt most users here are knowledgeable enough to build their own HTPC system, but we're not the targeted audience.

For the laymen, building a HTPC is difficult, especially when you're aiming to build a compact system that packs enough performance for gaming. Not everything fits, so you need to know hardware what suits your build, ensure your system doesn't overheat, etc.

So what Valve is doing is getting system builders to start designing their own compact HTPC which are suitable for gaming. If you look at Asus' offering for example, that is a very compact design, it looks great, and any user can just buy one and skip the hassle of trying to build their own. Of course such specialized design will probably come at a premium price, but there are other companies with offerings that look more similar to a typical HTPC casing and I suspect these will be more competitively priced than Asus's offering.

Anyway, it's similar to what Origin PC is offering for example. Even their fanciest system are something we can build ourself, but they are of course marketed towards users who would rather pay for a system with water cooling installed than trying to build one themself. That's the kind of market Valve is aiming for.
 
Yeah but as RTUSA pointed out, wouldn't gamers that could afford and willing to buy something like the steam machines already have a gaming PC? I know there are many models but the cheaper ones are hardly better, and in some cases worse than current gen systems and the good ones are thousands! Why spend thousands on something dedicated to gaming when you can spend the same and get an uber gaming PC which you can also upgrade and do a heck of a lot more on?

Also with the steam machine you can't trade or sell your games once you are done so no doubt that will put a lot of people off.

I agree with what RTUSA said about how they should've just release one version, price it at $5-600 and make it a total beast. I know many people and have lots of friends that use STEAM but they all have good computers that can play most STEAM games on max settings for less than many of the STEAM machines. This just seems akin to the 3DO to me.

What incentive do people that already have good gaming computers and one or both of the current gen systems have to get it? Especially the good ones that aren't bare bones that will cost an arm and a leg to buy anyway. Sure it comes with a controller but most of my friends that play STEAM just use an Xbox controller and many don't even have Xboxs.

The bold is a misconception, and the answer is "no, they wouldn't".

It's not price that keeps people out of PC gaming, it's the PC that keeps people out of PC gaming.

For the most part a desktop PC is a relic of the late 90's. It's ugly, old, and about as useful as a fax machine or type writer. For what most people do on a computer, a tablet or smart phone works just fine. For the few tasks, mostly work related, where you need a computer, most people have a laptop.

All of those devices cost more than a console.

The problem with the computer is that computers suck. Most people hate patching, updating, dealing with configurations, and all of that. Consoles, smart phones, and tablets are the preferred devices because they get rid of all that. People don't buy gaming PCs because nobody wants to bring back that relic of the 90's known as a desktop and go back to the miser of driver updates, patching, crashing and the slew of other things they hate about computers.

If, and this is a huge if, Valve can work around that they may be onto something. If they can kitbash together a system in a form factor that's slightly larger than a Fire TV, with a single point of sale for everything on it (ie make Steam more like itunes), and handle all the updates and tinkering with a single monthly patch than they have a product people will buy.

Think of something with the form factor of say a gigabyte brix or the Alienware alpha. Give it all the standard netflix/hulu/amazon stuff people use, make sure it can talk to your smart phone and tablet. Now grow Steam, fuck video games here honestly that's small bullshit. Sell movies, music, software though it as well and let people back shit up to "Steam Cloud" or whatever. Have "Steam Update" take care of everything, not just games. Drivers, software, OS patching, Security patching all of it. So every two/three months the damn thing updates like your smartphone and if something is wrong you restore it from the cloud.... just like your smart phone.

For this to work it will have to be as far from the PC and as close to a console/tablet as possible. And it can work.

Quit assuming people don't game on the PC because it's expensive. People don't game on the PC because they don't want to deal with the PC. And thanks to other items people already own, they don't have to. The less like a PC the Steam Box is the more it's like current technology the better it will be.

This is a huge threat to consoles and the PC as well. Just as handheld consoles, blackberry, Palm, and Microsoft didn't see the iphone and android coming and lost out massively this could pull off a repeat.

The future of Steam is much larger than mere PC gaming, Valve seems to realize that.
 
Any games that can run on Steam box can run on any PC...

As can any console game. You could even port over a PSP/3DS games (Ubisoft has done this before) to. I think you missed the point. Valve only cares about the Windows market when it makes them money. The moment SteamOS becomes more popular than Windows is the moment they will shift their focus to it rather than Windows. Just like Microsoft did with the Xbox. Valve is out to make money. The reason Steam takes so much revenue from every game sale is that is essentially necessary to put a PC game on Steam these days. Unless you're a big studio (like EA), you're going to loose out on sales by not having a Steam option. Valve didn't always charge 35% per sale. The costs were low then; now that they have a hold on the market they charge more. SteamOS follows in Steam's footsteps. It isn't rocket science that Valve is trying to expand their reach and control as much of the market as possible.
 
Big post.

You essentially said that people don't want to game on PCs because it is complicated. So your suggestion is a PC that is even more limited? Because that is what the Steambox is. A PC that can't do all the things that make a gaming PC a gaming PC. Modding, ect. which require third party programs like Photoshop, 3DS Max, and various other programs. I really doubt SteamOS will ever catch up to Microsoft or Apple in this regard.

If someone doesn't want all the extras associated with PC gaming (upgrading, ect.) then they want a console. Which is what most people prefer as you pointed out. But it isn't a threat to those of us who want a traditional PC gaming experience, because it has most of the limitations of a console while lacking the advantages of a PC.
 
The problem is you can't take Windows and customize it, it belongs to Microsoft. Open source OS allows you to do that, and Steam OS is basically a customized version designed for living room gaming. Valve can customize it in anyway they want that they believe will improve the living room experience.

Surely they can customize windows. Not at the same level, but still.

I tried SteamOS and I don't really see a major difference against windows/steam big picure.
 
You essentially said that people don't want to game on PCs because it is complicated. So your suggestion is a PC that is even more limited? Because that is what the Steambox is. A PC that can't do all the things that make a gaming PC a gaming PC. Modding, ect. which require third party programs like Photoshop, 3DS Max, and various other programs. I really doubt SteamOS will ever catch up to Microsoft or Apple in this regard.

If someone doesn't want all the extras associated with PC gaming (upgrading, ect.) then they want a console. Which is what most people prefer as you pointed out. But it isn't a threat to those of us who want a traditional PC gaming experience, because it has most of the limitations of a console while lacking the advantages of a PC.
Funny you should say that, on another forum I was reading a thread about why the Xbox One isn't popular in Europe and one thing people kept saying is that in Europe people are much more likely to have capable gaming PCs. At the very least I can definitely say STEAM machines will not be popular in Europe.
 
You essentially said that people don't want to game on PCs because it is complicated. So your suggestion is a PC that is even more limited? Because that is what the Steambox is. A PC that can't do all the things that make a gaming PC a gaming PC. Modding, ect. which require third party programs like Photoshop, 3DS Max, and various other programs. I really doubt SteamOS will ever catch up to Microsoft or Apple in this regard.

If someone doesn't want all the extras associated with PC gaming (upgrading, ect.) then they want a console. Which is what most people prefer as you pointed out. But it isn't a threat to those of us who want a traditional PC gaming experience, because it has most of the limitations of a console while lacking the advantages of a PC.

Most people don't want to deal with the PC part of a PC. That sounds odd to those of us who build and enjoy tinkering with our own, but it's the way things are.

You're thinking about this wrong. It's completely possible to remove the stuff people don't want from a PC, and just push a set-top box that is a cross of Amazon Fire TV, gaming console, with the "computer" portions of a tablet computer, and then leverage Steam as a sort of itunes on steroids.

It doesn't have to catch Microsoft, it just has to push sales over Steam. And there is room for something like this.

The biggest threat to "the PC" is mobile. Tablets and smart phones are now where people do most of their traditional PC activities. Internet, email, facebook, etc. The PC is a laughable dinosaur in those ways. When it comes to productivity, read office/photoshop, this is being handled more and more often on laptops. And that's more and more a machine strictly for work, it's not a device for gaming, surfing the web, or entertainment.

There's nothing wrong with what they are doing. Create a device with all the complexity of a set top streaming box. Sell software, games, apps, movies, and push updates all through Steam. Steam automatically checks the box you have to see if it's capable of installing and handles all the details. Valve pushes once a month updates that require nothing but clicking yes on the box and can internally verify that they all work.

Limited isn't a bad thing. Drivers are a bad thing, hundreds of different form factors are a bad thing, Microsoft is a bad thing. The very options, complexity, and form factor of the PC are such glaringly massive problems that most people actively seek out any other device to do what they could be doing on the PC. It doesn't matter how attractive the platform is when everyone knows it has herpes and looks as goofy as a white kid in parachute pants from flyover in the year 2015.

Looking at the Steam Box as a PC or console replacement is wrong, though it could accomplish both. Looking at SteamOS as a portal to Steam and Steam expanding to cover more items like an itunes on steroids is the better way to see what's going on.

Is it a threat, it sure as shit is to current market players. Because if more people decide that buying shit directly through Steam to use on a Steam system is the better experience, then there will be no reason to push on anything else. Because even if it could run on it, you could get a better return on your money paying people to create more shit for Steam than paying them to port things to other platforms.

That's what valve gets, but what many people don't want to face up to.

Keep in mind that valve is already selling more than games. You Need A Budget was the best selling and most played game on Steam for a while.

Don't think about this in a pure hardware specs or costs perspective, that's wrong. Think about it from a software, purchase portal, and user experience. That's where SteamOS makes sense.
 
Windows was a successful gaming platform before Steam came along and would be just fine had it never been invented.

I can only dream how "fine" things would be for Windows gaming had Steam never come along. No heights we would not soar.

fN35tWR.jpg
 
Sadly games for windows live is the least problematic thing about the PC as a gaming platform. Windows, nvidia, amd, drivers, patching, and ugly desktops are all far more problematic.
 
I'll tell you right now that if I could play all my games on something other than windows I'd be all over it. Current consoles are a fucking joke except for wii u. Good for steam for doing this I say. Yeah the actual market for steam machines may be slim..
 
only people that will buy Steam machines are PC people and those people already own gaming PC's...the console folk won't know what to make of this new 'Steam' machine...they'll look at it as another PC
 
Steam Machines Don't Have A Chance Against The Xbox One/PS4 sales wise because lots of people buy consoles not for a game or function but simply because they're fucking stupid. Not everyones that buys a console is a complete fuck tard, but it is a percentage of sales.

reasons people own consoles
1.games
2.apps
3.Because I'm a fucking idiot and someone at bestbuy told me to buy one.
 
I watch Rich's channel.... but lately he's been trying to do more retarded jokes, and freakin' hell, it's annoying as shit.

Agreed. I think Rich has an axe to grind and he lets it get in the way of some decent reasoning (from time to time).

However I think he's dead wrong on this one.

Steam is cheaper , has sales CONSTANTLY that absolutely destroy whatever MS or Sony offers. Steam is better supported , it scales well as a GUI (Couch mode is great) its just superior in every way to Sony's dreadful UI and MS's block interface.

Steam scales much better , it works as well on my $99 Windows 8.1 Tablet as it does on my $2000 Desktop gaming PC.

Steam has massive developer support , encourages an atmosphere of cultivating developers who don't have massive contracts with Sony/MS/Nintendo.

Steam machines will force Nvidia/AMD to automate drivers like never before and to optimize heavily outside of Direct X which has been LONG needed. Even a lower end Steam machine will be capable of easily supporting 1080p 60fps in a vast majority of games thanks to PC scaling which is FAR better than console scaling which doesn't exist.

I can build a $500 gaming PC that can run games at 1080p 60fps that current "next gen" consoles couldn't dream of doing. Valve also offers an easy way to stream 1080p 60fps games with a simple $50 device or you can do it on your own right now to anything that supports even the bare minimal of streaming. I can stream 1080p 60fps to my $99 Windows 8.1 tablet with an Xbox 360 controller attached and play beautifully and wirelessly in my home. Can't do that on PS4 or Xbox One. The PS4 can do streaming but its very costly and doesn't support existing library titles only PS Now enabled titles. Steam machines will be upgrade capable and easily so unlike current consoles which can only do HDD upgrades and thus an average Steam machine will age much better.

PC is winning because "next gen" consoles are basically shit. They are underpowered , they are pushing remasters instead of original IP's and the whole "Cinematic" experience that publishers are going for is ruining AAA gaming. The collapse of the AAA publisher/developer is coming very soon. We need a platform that can immediately acclimate to that huge change without interruption.

Video gaming is the biggest form of entertainment on the planet. Steam is the platform that will get us there and Valve is the publisher we need.

Rich will be proven wrong and that's really that.
 
As can any console game. You could even port over a PSP/3DS games (Ubisoft has done this before) to. I think you missed the point. Valve only cares about the Windows market when it makes them money. The moment SteamOS becomes more popular than Windows is the moment they will shift their focus to it rather than Windows. Just like Microsoft did with the Xbox. Valve is out to make money. The reason Steam takes so much revenue from every game sale is that is essentially necessary to put a PC game on Steam these days. Unless you're a big studio (like EA), you're going to loose out on sales by not having a Steam option. Valve didn't always charge 35% per sale. The costs were low then; now that they have a hold on the market they charge more. SteamOS follows in Steam's footsteps. It isn't rocket science that Valve is trying to expand their reach and control as much of the market as possible.

I agree Valve is out to make money, as do all companies. I certainly do not assume there's any company out there with any incentive other than to make money.

What I meant was, Valve cannot make games that are exclusive to Steam OS only, because Steam OS runs on openGL which works everywhere. Whatever they do on Steam OS will work on any OS. Steam OS is merely one of many custom Linux OS out there. If Valve is trying to make PC gaming exclusive to Steam OS, they would need a propitiatory OS and not an open source one.

The industry will always make games for Windows, I don't see how that will ever change (unless Microsoft stop making Windows for PC). What we need from Steam OS is to encourage the industry to make their game compatible with Linux system as well, which would then allow us to have a choice.
 
I agree Valve is out to make money, as do all companies. I certainly do not assume there's any company out there with any incentive other than to make money.

Yeah I don't understand why people keep bringing up "Valve is just doing this for the money" like its shining a light on something previously unknown. Thing is, Linux has had 20 years for someone to come along and create a revolution in gaming on that platform, based on FOSS or for non-commercial interests. Has anyone stepped up? No, because the amount of heavy lifting required, the amount of synchronization of disparate moving parts (GPU vendor support, API support, driver support, debugging tools, developer partnerships, infrastructure, bandwidth) to make it happen could only be pulled off by an interest with the means AND the finances.

What I meant was, Valve cannot make games that are exclusive to Steam OS only

They have no reason to make SteamOS-exclusive games, nor would it fit the vision of "the anti-console" platform they're building. The CEO is on record multiple times stating their firstparty titles would not be SteamOS exclusive. Not building games for Windows would be financially foolish. But some people get a little upset like SteamOS means Valve is abandoning Windows as a platform.

All they're *really* doing if we boil it all down is beginning a migration away from DirectX to an open API, and the company in general moving to open source and open standards. Vulkan API, debugging and development tools, Source Engine 2 is allegedly going to be partially or fully open sourced, SteamVR will be open, the positional VR tracking tech (Lighthouse) will be "free for anyone to take", they just wrote an open-source Intel GPU Vulkan driver, SteamOS itself will run on an open OS, etc -- there's obviously a pattern.
 
Last edited:
The industry will always make games for Windows, I don't see how that will ever change (unless Microsoft stop making Windows for PC). What we need from Steam OS is to encourage the industry to make their game compatible with Linux system as well, which would then allow us to have a choice.

They'll make games for Windows for the foreseeable future, but they won't necessarily base them on DirectX forever. The API is the key. Valve knows it, Microsoft knows it. That's why all of a sudden we've seen this frantic rush to low level APi's, with MS and Khronos both sourcing IP from Mantle. However, from a developer's point of view, Vulkan looks like it will create efficiencies and value over DirectX in that they'll be able to build once and deliver anywhere: Windows, Linux/SteamOS, Mac, Mobile, ARM, PowerVR, Intel, NVIDIA, AMD, etc.

As well, developers of Windows games will no longer have to hold graphics back and write to the lowest common denominator version of DirectX because a large percentage of the install base still runs an older version of Windows. Even though Windows 10 will be a supposedly free upgrade for a year for Windows 7 users, a good percentage of that base will not upgrade, for many different reasons, and will be locked out of DirectX 12's featureset. Vulkan on the other hand will harbor no such arbitrary restrictions, because its not tied and timed to corporate interests, paywalls and forced platform upgrades. Seriously, if there's a downside to an open API slowly replacing DirectX, where performance is equal or better, I'd love to hear it.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top