Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 10th Dec 2012 23:24 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 544644
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Comment by Luminair
by Kroc on Tue 11th Dec 2012 04:47
in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Luminair"
RE[3]: Comment by Luminair
by Morgan on Tue 11th Dec 2012 05:16
in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Luminair"
It will run games minimally well and have a minimal game selection
Do you know something the rest of us don't? I can build a pretty fast gaming box for under $300 that will play any current Steam game very well, and that's with retail priced parts. Now enter Valve, who can put together a deal to get the hardware far below retail costs. You'll either have a kick-ass console for the same price, sold as a loss leader, or else a very capable console with a slim profit line of its own.
I really don't understand why you refuse to acknowledge the possibility that Valve can do this and do it well. It's almost as if you have a personal grudge.
RE[4]: Comment by Luminair
by Luminair on Tue 11th Dec 2012 16:23
in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Luminair"






Member since:
2007-03-30
What I said stands. Even if it is sold at a loss (say a $300 box for $200), and even if it includes Half-Life 3 for free (and CS: GO and TF2), I still don't see why people buy this. It will run games minimally well and have a minimal game selection and will compete for your $200 with not only the new and old consoles, but also a $200 upgrade to your computer so all windows games run even better. Yep, still don't get it