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 544693
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Comment by shmerl
by lucas_maximus on Tue 11th Dec 2012 12:39 UTC 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[4]: Comment by shmerl
by lucas_maximus on Tue 11th Dec 2012 17:30 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by shmerl"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

I am getting a 660GTX shortly with a new PSU, it going to be about £250, I will be able to run every game for the next few years at 1680x1050.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by shmerl
by kurkosdr on Wed 12th Dec 2012 11:08 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by shmerl"
kurkosdr Member since:
2011-04-11

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


Or people who don't want to mess with graphics settings...

I may be stupid, but on most PC games, I never managed to hit the balance between getting a decent visual quality and speed. When I had just said "that's it, I nailed it, I am good now", immediately afterwards the game would throw a level with much higher-that-usual detail at me and I would lose FPSes (i hate it when this happens, it ruins the virtual reality feeling, I can't believe most PC gamers are fine with their games suddenly going choppy, then back to normal again).
So, most of the time, I decided to stay on the safe side and run my PC games at a lame resolution and with most settings to "low".

Essentially, the only way to escape the settings hell is to spend a bucketload of money every now and then on upgrades...

Instead, on consoles, the developer (who really knows how much detail each level has) knows exactly what graphics settings are good for the hardware, and can even optimize the levels themselves (read: remove useless fluff that only bogs down the hardware).

In plain English, on consoles, if it loses FPSes, it's developers fault, not mine. I like that.

Edited 2012-12-12 11:19 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: Comment by shmerl
by zima on Mon 17th Dec 2012 15:40 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by shmerl"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

I've been using the same 9800gt video card I bought for $120 like 4 years ago to play games [...] My PCs other specs are [...] Nothing that special these days.

Though it's sad how some people basically slander consoles ...games are now finally decently optimised for oldish hardware largely because of them (well, and because laptops are more and more popular - an average PC caught up to the present console generation, GFX-wise, only a year or so ago)

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