Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 10th Dec 2012 23:24 UTC
Games Confirming the industry's worst-kept secret, Valve CEO Gabe Newell has confirmed Valve is working on its 'Steam Box', a Steam-powered HTPC geared towards console-like gaming. It'll most likely run Linux. "Well certainly our hardware will be a very controlled environment," he told Kotaku. "If you want more flexibility, you can always buy a more general purpose PC. For people who want a more turnkey solution, that's what some people are really gonna want for their living room." Steam has 50 million subscribers, so there's a market here. As a comparison: Xbox Live has 40 million subscribers.
Thread beginning with comment 544682
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Comment by shmerl
by kurkosdr on Tue 11th Dec 2012 11:13 UTC in reply to "Comment by shmerl"
kurkosdr
Member since:
2011-04-11

I don't see any benefits in consoles in general. On the contrary, they degrade the quality of games by limiting their interfaces (which is caused by the lack of keyboard and mouse) and by limiting many other features as well because of consoles' limited memory and processing power. It backfires back to PC gaming, since some developers produce cross platform games (i.e. targeted for PC and consoles), bringing console limitations right to the PC versions as well, since they don't want to spend much time on producing different versions, which results in crippled games


Yes but on the other hand, they allow people to buy the console, and not to have to buy new hardware for years. My PS3 from 2007 is still going strong. Instead on the PC, you either have to buy new hardware every once in a while, or try to find graphics settings which balance graphics quality with speed. Which can be tricky because you don't know how much detail the next levels will have. On consoles, the graphics quality vs speed problem is taken care by the developer, who knows. I personally quit this expensive hobby, and never looked back.

IMO the gaming industry is ruining the PC by constantly bumping up the requirements. Imagine if Hollywood constantly changed resolutions and codecs in the discs they sell, requiring more and more powerful players every now and then.

Essentially, consoles make gaming accessible to the public.

Reply Parent Score: 6

RE[2]: Comment by shmerl
by lucas_maximus on Tue 11th Dec 2012 12:39 in reply to "RE: Comment by shmerl"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

IMO the gaming industry is ruining the PC by constantly bumping up the requirements. Imagine if Hollywood constantly changed resolutions and codecs in the discs they sell, requiring more and more powerful players every now and then.


Utter garbage, I bought a 512mb 8800GT (2007, mid level card) and it can (just about) play Skyrim. I will be upgrading the Graphics card and possibly the PSU which is the same price as the console, other than that everything in that PC is the same.

The GPU I used previous to that was a 9800pro, that lasted 4 years, and the machine that it was in saw 2 other GPUs (An Ati X-pert at work and a ATi 9000pro).

While some people decide to upgrade the machines every year for maximum performance, it isn't really necessary.

Edited 2012-12-11 12:48 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by shmerl
by helf on Tue 11th Dec 2012 17:24 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by shmerl"
helf Member since:
2005-07-06

yeah. The whole argument about PC gaming is ridiculous. I've been using the same 9800gt video card I bought for $120 like 4 years ago to play games. it runs Skyrim at my monitors pathetic resolution quite well. It also runs Crysis and DiRT3 and anything else I've tossed at it.

Only people that want the maximum possible graphics settings at the highest resolutions at playable framerates constantly upgrade :p

My PCs other specs are a stock speed Intel Q9400 (2.66ghz, quadcore, 6mb L2, 1333fsb), 8GB ddr2-800. Nothing that special these days.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by shmerl
by JAlexoid on Wed 12th Dec 2012 11:48 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by shmerl"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

I'm sorry, since when is the GeForce 8800GT a "mid level card"?
In 2007 it was the newest addition to the high-end lineup and is the equivalent of today's GeForce 680.

So in short - 8800 is probably the best GPU nVidia has produced up until Fermi(GeForce 4xx series). So no wonder that you can play a lot of games.

The price at launch would have been a good $400+


It's not necessary to upgrade every few years if you buy the absolute best... But my mobile dual-core Core i7-3520M CPU @ 2.90GHz has a better built in HD 4000 GPU then my desktop with GeForce 9600... and I can barely play games on my desktop now.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by shmerl
by shmerl on Tue 11th Dec 2012 17:41 in reply to "RE: Comment by shmerl"
shmerl Member since:
2010-06-08

Those who build high end computers also don't upgrade them for years, since they are sufficient to run most of the stuff for a long time. But on the other hand upgrading some part can be done without upgrading the whole thing (like changing the GPU for example without bumping the CPU) which is impossible with consoles. So your comparison above is not to the point.

Edited 2012-12-11 17:41 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by shmerl
by Kivada on Wed 12th Dec 2012 07:15 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by shmerl"
Kivada Member since:
2010-07-07

We must not go to the same forums, most of the guys I see building high end gaming rigs upgrade them at least every 9 months.

New CPU core revision or new mobo chipset that overclocks 5% higher? they'll have it within 2 months of release, new top end GPU out? Gotta get it within 3 months of release.

Reply Parent Score: 3