Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 26th Nov 2013 18:31 UTC
Games

Valve's official Steam Machine prototype isn't cheap, but it won't be the only Steam-powered video-game console available come 2014. This morning, iBuyPower revealed a prototype of its own upcoming Steam Machine, which will go on sale for just $499 next year. For the price of an Xbox One, the computer will offer a multicore AMD CPU and a discrete AMD Radeon R9 270 graphics card - that's a $180 GPU all by itself - and come with Valve's Steam Controller as part of the package deal.

That's an absolute steal. This is exactly what Valve is betting on: for the same price, an x86 SteamBox will be more powerful than the new consoles. with SteamOS, it has all the convenience of a console, too. With the launch titles for the two new consoles being total and utter garbage, the argument "but SteamOS has no games!" is moot.

I can't wait until CES coming January when Valve will unveil its publishing partners. That's the make-or-break moment. If SteamOS will get all the same major titles as the consoles, why on earth would anyone want a limited, locked-down, proprietary, slower console?

Thread beginning with comment 577477
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Comment by shmerl
by lucas_maximus on Tue 26th Nov 2013 21:39 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by shmerl"
lucas_maximus
Member since:
2009-08-18

That may be, but it's not relevant for Steam OS really. I'd say, Nvidia based Steam Machine would be a better option.


Well it is, because they could have used a proven gaming platform (Windows) that had decent 3D drivers for all 3 of the major GPU manufacturers or they use Linux which only really has one GPU manufacturer that provides good drivers.

Edited 2013-11-26 21:40 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: Comment by shmerl
by Thom_Holwerda on Tue 26th Nov 2013 21:41 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by shmerl"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

With that attitude, we'd all still be using DOS.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by shmerl
by lucas_maximus on Tue 26th Nov 2013 21:43 in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by shmerl"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Errr no.

Windows is still the better technical choice for playing PC games (which is what a Steambox is, with a controller).

Valve could just made the haptic games controller and the box and have sold that and it would have been just as effective. No having to port games or anything else in the short term.

Sorry you really have to do a better argument than that Thom ... because your comment doesn't make any sense.

Edited 2013-11-26 21:47 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by shmerl
by shmerl on Tue 26th Nov 2013 23:47 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by shmerl"
shmerl Member since:
2010-06-08

Valve aren't interested in a proven platform - they want to make a new one. Or rather to "prove" Linux. So that's what they are doing.

Edited 2013-11-26 23:48 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by shmerl
by lucas_maximus on Wed 27th Nov 2013 21:38 in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by shmerl"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

They don't want to prove linux. They want to prove SteamOS.

This won't help the greater ecosystem or the community.

What is the point of open source if it doesn't benefit everyone?

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by shmerl
by Kivada on Wed 27th Nov 2013 08:33 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by shmerl"
Kivada Member since:
2010-07-07

Well it is, because they could have used a proven gaming platform (Windows) that had decent 3D drivers for all 3 of the major GPU manufacturers or they use Linux which only really has one GPU manufacturer that provides good drivers.


Wrong, Gabe Newell already stated that the entire idea of the SteamBox was to get the hell away from Microsoft products.

They already knew they'd be losing compatibility with most of their library, but that is par for the course for game consoles, the few that have had it are actually the exceptions to the rule.

They also knew that the only real hurdle they had to surmount was getting the game engine and middleware devs on board, hence why they also put so much effort into SDL2 and why they have almost assuredly been leaning on them to make Linux ports of their software that is the underpinnings of most games to make porting by the game devs as cheap and painless as possible.

With every piece of middleware or game engine tech that gets ported theres then a flurry of new ports made within a few weeks. Not all of them are on Steam yet for various reasons but they have been ported to Linux.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: Comment by shmerl
by Ford Prefect on Thu 28th Nov 2013 01:24 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by shmerl"
Ford Prefect Member since:
2006-01-16

Windows is such an inferior platform for a gaming console. Does Windows run on the XBOX? No? Guess why.

Windows and hardware heterogeneity are the two reasons that drove gamers away from the PC in the first place. Valve fixes both things by setting up a minimal game-centered system on a controlled set of certified hardware setups.

You cannot do that software-wise on a Windows platform. However you can setup a barebone Linux system and use that to create exactly the experience you want (see Android). And you have control on every layer of the system (and much fewer needed layers to start with).

Reply Parent Score: 1