Actually, instead of Micrsoft buying, I think it would be better for Steam to be split off as an independant company. Other game companies (like EA) might be reluctant to use Steam because it is associated with Valve. By splitting it off, you could make them more or less neutral.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Why Microsoft should buy Steam...
- Thread starter maxius
- Start date
No you can't. You're talking $350 minimum for everything but the videocard....and an ATI 3850 is not going to come close to doubling the graphical performance of consoles. I'll even go and say that an 8800GT will not outdo what consoles will be capable of in 2 years time, when developers are extracting more out of the console hardware. Also, a 360 premium is $350 and comes with 2+ games, and the PS3 can easily be had with a free game and movie for $420. You're really going to have to bargain bin for a decent $500 PC, and even then, you'll have no operating system or games with it.
Also, we've seen in the past that lower spec'ed consoles can do great things with their hardware. It's hard to imagine God of War 2 runs at a smooth 60fps, looks incredibly, and is running on a measly 300mhz processor and an 8 year old graphics chip. There are no PC game that even come close to running that efficiently.
While Crysis is definitely the graphical benchmark at this point, the consoles are no slouches. CoD4 at 60fps on both the 360 and PS3 is quite impressive for the visuals the game gives and the price of the consoles. And have you seen Killzone 2 / Resistance 2? Those games even give Crysis a run for it's money.
But really, it's not the graphical prowess of the systems that set themselves apart. It's the games. I play all my shooters, strategy games, online games on the PC if given the choice, as I do have the money for a good gaming PC, and I far prefer mouse and keyboard for the games that demand it. However, there's a very large array of games on the consoles that I simply cannot get on the PC. Some PS3 exclusives to name coming out soon: Gran Turismo 5 Prologue, Metal Gear Solid 4, Killzone 2, LittleBigPlanet, Resistance 2...I'm not going to avoid those just because the PC has more performance.
Megalomaniac
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2004
- Messages
- 2,193
1) MS just released SP1 for vista that broke PCs...
now imagine what you suggest with that kind of support..
your drivers will not work, the game patches will not work, the whole pc will crash when it tries to push the wrong patch, because someone forget to check something.
2) Gabe left MS to do his own thing, and he did very well for himself. I think that if Steam was bought by MS, it would loose half of its workforce, which would make steam useless.
3) Many have pointed this out. MS want to charge you for their service. they believe that free things that we enjoy now, like in game voice chat and a variety of other things, should command a premium -> $ are you willing to pay for services that other companies are currently providing for free?
4) MS WILL use this to leverage developers and make things more difficult for "unwanted" competition. If MS and EA were the only two companies in the PC gaming industry, how would you feel?
5) references 3 -> MS is the biggest SOB when it comes to making money, if there is a way, they will find it. and it will be more inconvenient to you, then to them.
p.s. Only a few games play well cross platform. so to compare a PC to a console is not 100% right. you should compare the upgrade costs of a regular PC to that which becomes a gaming PC -> Usually just graphics card and ram, this is because a pc is good for more things then just gaming, while only the PS3 is good for something else (blue ray)
now imagine what you suggest with that kind of support..
your drivers will not work, the game patches will not work, the whole pc will crash when it tries to push the wrong patch, because someone forget to check something.
2) Gabe left MS to do his own thing, and he did very well for himself. I think that if Steam was bought by MS, it would loose half of its workforce, which would make steam useless.
3) Many have pointed this out. MS want to charge you for their service. they believe that free things that we enjoy now, like in game voice chat and a variety of other things, should command a premium -> $ are you willing to pay for services that other companies are currently providing for free?
4) MS WILL use this to leverage developers and make things more difficult for "unwanted" competition. If MS and EA were the only two companies in the PC gaming industry, how would you feel?
5) references 3 -> MS is the biggest SOB when it comes to making money, if there is a way, they will find it. and it will be more inconvenient to you, then to them.
p.s. Only a few games play well cross platform. so to compare a PC to a console is not 100% right. you should compare the upgrade costs of a regular PC to that which becomes a gaming PC -> Usually just graphics card and ram, this is because a pc is good for more things then just gaming, while only the PS3 is good for something else (blue ray)
I am of the opinion that: if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Steam already works fine. As for the automatic update part, I agree with this poster.
It would be nifty to have driver updates handled automatically, if they did it right, but it would make more sense to integrate it with windows update instead of steam.
That being said, I wouldn't put money on it being done right, and therefore they should probably just leave it alone.
It would be nifty to have driver updates handled automatically, if they did it right, but it would make more sense to integrate it with windows update instead of steam.
That being said, I wouldn't put money on it being done right, and therefore they should probably just leave it alone.
Yep, Steam works great. I don't want anyone else to touch it. The only thing Steam needs right now is a better shop interface (though it's not terrible, it's just a little slow for my taste). I think they should keep the shoppable games in cache, so that you don't have to load the pages every single time. It feels too much like browsing a website. Still, I buy all my PC games off Steam if given the choice...1 click install is totally worth it.
Sure comparing 2009-2010 hardware to mid-high 2007 hardware, I am sure future hardware would be faster. Assuming of couse that theres a new gen console within the next 2 years which I doubt. PS3 is just starting to get some titles, they're not going to scrap the console anytime soon. Congrats, consoles are still cheaper. They are selling at a loss, we know that. You can always salvage older parts of computers. Call me crazy but I am pretty sure those Killzone pictures are doctored. Plus if you plan on playing those games in their graphical glory you're gonna need a tv that displays in at least 720p. Price wise Console+HD tv = decent gaming PC + monitor.
And you're right the games themselves set apart the systems, which is one reason I won't be purchasing a console.
spine
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2003
- Messages
- 2,722
I think I see where the OP is coming from and what he's getting at is because steam works so well now, wouldn't be great if loads more games were released through it? And who better to get that going than Microsoft?
Well I don't agree Microsoft would be the best though.
If anyone bought out/took over steam you can bet your bottom dollar it would EA. EA are just owning on the PC in terms of PC sales; check out the top 10 selling games of January. It's pretty much like this all year round; EA's Sims games dominating charts filling EA's pockets.
It wouldn't surprise me if Valve end up basically being the only other PC games publisher besides EA in just a few years time.
Valve definitely need to remain independant.
Well I don't agree Microsoft would be the best though.
If anyone bought out/took over steam you can bet your bottom dollar it would EA. EA are just owning on the PC in terms of PC sales; check out the top 10 selling games of January. It's pretty much like this all year round; EA's Sims games dominating charts filling EA's pockets.
It wouldn't surprise me if Valve end up basically being the only other PC games publisher besides EA in just a few years time.
Valve definitely need to remain independant.
I totally agree.
BladeVenom
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2005
- Messages
- 7,707
Some basic math. 720x1280=921,600
Twice as good would be approximately 1050x1680=1,764,000
Everything else being the same, twice the resolution is twice as good.
Secondly console games aren't held to that standard. Halo 3 was 640p, and COD4 was 600p.
link
So COD4 on a console is only 600x1024=614,400.
An HD3850 can easily play COD4 at 1024x1280=1,310,720
It is browsing a website. Look familiar?
bubomatic5
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2007
- Messages
- 408
ThreeDee
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2001
- Messages
- 11,377
it would appear that 90% or better of the individuals posting in this thread are totally missing the OP's topic of discussion .. he only proposed one group of ideas that might make gaming on the PC a more viable solution for the general populous
I agree with the idea that pricing on "gaming" hardware for the PC definitely needs to come down .. being that hardware configurations differ greatly , I don't think automatic driver updates overall , would work.. it's like the PC market would have to go the way of the console where everything is "the same" to be able to effectively do any kind of automatic driver type updating... for "Joe user" ..having a consolified PC wouldn't matter , but to most of us that post here ..we wouldn't go for that in a million years me thinks.
[F]old|[H]ard
I agree with the idea that pricing on "gaming" hardware for the PC definitely needs to come down .. being that hardware configurations differ greatly , I don't think automatic driver updates overall , would work.. it's like the PC market would have to go the way of the console where everything is "the same" to be able to effectively do any kind of automatic driver type updating... for "Joe user" ..having a consolified PC wouldn't matter , but to most of us that post here ..we wouldn't go for that in a million years me thinks.
[F]old|[H]ard
junglicious
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2007
- Messages
- 474
Right now I am not a fan of Live! and that would give MS a chance to have another monopoly debate, again.
A PC should not be consider or compare to a gaming console because it can do much more than what a 360 and PS3 can. I don't know about all of you, but I don't build a computer just to game.
Steam is fine the way it is, for now. It seems like its the trend now, companies merging with other companies or being bought out.
A PC should not be consider or compare to a gaming console because it can do much more than what a 360 and PS3 can. I don't know about all of you, but I don't build a computer just to game.
Steam is fine the way it is, for now. It seems like its the trend now, companies merging with other companies or being bought out.
The Killzone 2 stuff is in no way doctored. They played the game in realtime at E3 last year, and even allowed people to play through the level. They demonstrated everything obviously being rendered in real time, as they were enabling and disabling post processing filters during their playthrough to show the effect they had on the image.
I'm not saying console hardware is superior to PC hardware at all. I just think consoles do reach near their full graphical potential, while PCs do not (since there is a lot of overhead and lack of hardware specific optomisation on the PC). I think the PS3 has a chance to outperform the PC though in many ways. As developers start utilizing the Cell, they should come up with some pretty ingenious ways of extracting performance out of it. The Cell is very well designed towards things related to image processing and post processing. The GPU can take care of vertex manipulation while the Cell applies many post processing features, including anti-aliasing. Of course, the Cell still suffers at stuff like branch prediction compared to Intel CPUs, but when it comes to applications for gaming, it's a damn good piece of hardware. If you want a nice introduction on techniques used to get performance out of it, read the MIT course notes in parallel processing by the Insomniac developer...there's some pretty interesting stuff there.
As for games, I think each system is best suited to different genres. Action games and JRPGs just aren't well suited to PCs at all, and in reality are not even produced on PCs, so the consoles are where I get my fill for those games. I can't stand playing a competitive shooter on a console, so the PC is the clear choice for me.
As for the cost of the systems, consoles simply usually have a lower entry point (both regarding price and ease of usability). If I want a 360 right now, I can go out and buy one for $280 - $350, hook it up to my TV (whether it's SD or HD), and I'm ready to go. If I want a PC, I either have to upgrade a current one (which whether you like it or not, is too complicated for the general population to want to attempt), or build a new one. Most people do not re-use PC components...most people simply buy new PCs, and it's tough for people to add $500 to a build to make it able to play games at/above console specifications.
The primary reason PC gaming is in jeopardy and is small compared to the console gaming business, is integrated and low end video cards. As soon as the Vodoo 1 came to the market, you had computers either capable or not capable of video acceleration, this was the beginning of the downfall. As soon as there was a higher entry for PC gamers as compared to regular PC users, you had most PCs unable to play current games. Now most PCs come with integrated solutions, and PC purchasers are simply uneducated when it comes to PC components. They won't know the difference between an 8400 and 8800 series card when they see that both solutions can come equiped with 512MB VRAM. Bestbuy, Walmart, Dell and the likes aren't going to instruct them better. The only values costomers can read are GHz and MBs, assuming more is always better...they have no way of knowing what kind of PC hardware is needed to play games. We take our knowledge for granted.
With a console, it's easy. They buy it, and they're assured that all games on that console will work (for a good 4-5+ years, no less). Even if you buy a gaming PC, you're assured 2 years of quality gaming or so before you need to upgrade to be able to play new games at acceptable framerates. Whether the graphics are better or not, the cost rises. The problem is developers are not making their games scalable enough, and this is especially true when it comes to port jobs to the PC. Look at Guitar Hero 3 and Assassin's Creed on the PC...the requirements are downright ridiculous. How many people do you think bought GH3 for the PC and ended up finding out the game was virtually unplayable (as it is below 60fps, since audio/video synchronization and speed is of utmost importance here)? They likely just got fed up with it, and returned it for a comparable console version.
Also, one thing consoles offer that PCs haven't offered for ages: local multiplayer. I can invite my friends over to play some Smash Bros, Rock Band, or Warhawk together. PCs offer no local multiplayer beyond LAN play. PCs are for solitary gamers, and online gamers.
Neither system is going to suit everyone's needs, they both have pros and cons in their own rights. PC gaming is simply for the well educated gamer, while console gaming has more widespread appeal...that's the reason for the discrepancy in sales on either platform.
edit: HOLY DEAR LORD I WROTE A NOVEL @_@
wow i will say the saving grace of the pc games industry should be plug and play. my original idea was to purpose some hypocritical situations and see what happened. The central idea is this PC gaming should be as simple if not simpler that a console what is needed is a one stop shop interface that can bring everything together. logically Microsoft buying steam or one of the alternative players that provide services to pc gamers would help speed things along. their is a whole untapped market for pc gamers if the industry just steeped up offered the same playability features as say a 360/wii/ps3. with the ability to use peripherals seamlessly like a controller/wii mote/weight board/gutair and the ability to stream the game environment form your pc straight to your tv with ease it would literally put the pc toe to toe with any console.
[this is going on page one]
That you did. That is awesome that you got to go to E3. Good to here that those pictures are legit.
I do agree with you on all those points you listed. Although I am feeling less than confident of a reliable console platform especially after the RRoD for the 360. What was that thread in the console forum stating, 16% of the 360s may be affected? Ouch.
You are right, when you want to play a game with your friends in the same room, LANs are just too complicated. I totally agree, my wife and I bought a Gamecube so we could play some multiplayer games with family in the same room. We are thinking of getting a Wii (once you can find them) when Smash Bros Brawl comes out.
I think that if there was a PC "Platform" to market and "educate" the general populace, PC gaming would be very viable to most people. Oh well thats just my pie in the sky wishes.
The thing is, there's a problem because the PC is an open platform. Even if Microsoft buys Steam, you have other online distribution services such as Direct2Drive, EA's distribution service, GameTap, etc...There's a definite lack of unity. I think the best we can hope to happen, is for all publishers to release their games on all of these services, so the user can decide which distribution service they like more, and stick with that particular service. The problem is right now, this isn't happenning. Personally, I like Steam, so if a game is only available outside of Steam, I'm much less likely to buy it.
I simply don't see the advantage of having Microsoft buy Steam. Valve has proven they can handle Steam properly, and can get many games on their service. Microsoft's service is basically non-existent, and they did a terrible job promoting it with releasing Vista only games such as Halo 2 and Shadowrun. If they were to buy Steam, I'd be afraid they'd do something similar. Also, I'm under the impression that any software/hardware Microsoft gets their hands on, gets destroyed. They have the most unsecure operating system out there, for one (regardless of the number of viruses, there are simply too many security flaws in their systems [i.e. ActiveX]). Their programs such as MSN Messenger are extremely slow and unstable (MSN Messenger is the program most likely to lock up and crash on my PC at this point). They weren't even able to keep their XBOX Live service stable during December-January, as it was in a practically unusable state (and they refused to divulge any information to the public about the situation). On top of that, you've got the red ring fiasco. I just think Microsoft has one of the worst quality assurance programs in the entire industry...I don't want to see that brought onto Steam.
What Microsoft should do, is partner with Valve. Let Valve develop and mature the online system, but have it integrated into Windows. That way, anyone who installs Windows will be exposed to Steam. It's not going to happen though, as Microsoft is too stubborn to drop their Games For Windows Live system.
At least Steamworks is now available free to anyone who wishes to use it. It's a great incentive for developers to publish games on Steam.
I think PC has some incredible potential. The problem is the lack of a unified push, and I think that's what the OP is getting at. I think the creation of the PC Gaming Alliance is a start, and hopefully they can do something to push the industry forward, but the current divide between all these new online distribution networks is only serving to segregate the market and confuse the consumer.
Oh, and I didn't go to E3, I simply saw the demonstrations remotely. If you just watch the E3 trailer, it's not clear that it's real time. However, the E3 Trailer footage was actually taken from gameplay, and there is footage available demonstrating the developer playing through that level (including the landing sequence, with no load times in between the real-time cinematic and gameplay). There's also footage available where the developer is demonstrating the effect of all the different post processing routines they have going on, and it's pretty amazing to see the difference it makes. That part wasn't demonstrated at E3 though...I can't remember...it might have been Leipzeig or w/e it's called. It was a NeoGAF topic a few months back.