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 577479
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: Comment by shmerl
by lucas_maximus on Tue 26th Nov 2013 21:43 UTC 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[6]: Comment by shmerl
by Thom_Holwerda on Tue 26th Nov 2013 21:46 in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by shmerl"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Yes, and for a long, long time DOS was a far better option for gaming than Windows.

With your attitude, nobody would have ever moved to Windows, and nobody would have ever tried to improve the gaming situation on Windows. However, because there were people who wanted to improve gaming on Windows (in this case, Microsoft itself; in the case of SteamBox, Valve+hardware manufacturers), Windows eventually turned into the better option.

That's what's happening right now. SteamOS will make Linux (or, at least, Valve's Linux) a viable option for gaming. Because, you know, there's no reason why it can't.

Reply Parent Score: 6

RE[7]: Comment by shmerl
by lucas_maximus on Tue 26th Nov 2013 21:52 in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by shmerl"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Yes, and for a long, long time DOS was a far better option for gaming than Windows.


We aren't talking about the ancient past.

With your attitude, nobody would have ever moved to Windows, and nobody would have ever tried to improve the gaming situation on Windows. However, because there were people who wanted to improve gaming on Windows (in this case, Microsoft itself; in the case of SteamBox, Valve+hardware manufacturers), Windows eventually turned into the better option.


Because the person that was pushing the OS was actively trying to help the game makers ... not the other way around (which is now).

Most Linux contributors aren't interested in improving the consumer experience. They are interested in improving the kernel for their own gains (server hardware and smartphones).

The driving motivation behind distros and the kernel aren't the same as those as what Microsoft wanted ... a consumer level OS.

That's what's happening right now. SteamOS will make Linux (or, at least, Valve's Linux) a viable option for gaming. Because, you know, there's no reason why it can't.


Debatable. If most of the money is being made on PS4 and Xbox One, they will do half arsed ports (PC games have suffered already from thing.

So I could get a PS4 which the game is guaranteed to work on with no problems or a Steambox with a crappy port.

Comon be realistic.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[6]: Comment by shmerl
by Thom_Holwerda on Tue 26th Nov 2013 21:47 in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by shmerl"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Valve could just made the synaptics 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.


No. They would have had to be dependent on Microsoft - and as history shows, Microsoft is a bad business partner. With Windows 8, the writing is on the wall where Windows is going - and there's no place for Steam where it's going.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[7]: Comment by shmerl
by lucas_maximus on Tue 26th Nov 2013 21:53 in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by shmerl"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

No. They would have had to be dependent on Microsoft - and as history shows, Microsoft is a bad business partner. With Windows 8, the writing is on the wall where Windows is going - and there's no place for Steam where it's going.


Only for a short amount of time. You aren't thinking about Migration. Migration takes time, I guarantee a lot of their library doesn't work with Linux and far few Triple A games, it is far better to use an existing known platform that works and port over slowly than try forcing people on a death march.

This will hurt their customers, this will hurt them.

It is foolish.

Edited 2013-11-26 21:54 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[6]: Comment by shmerl
by leech on Tue 26th Nov 2013 23:07 in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by shmerl"
leech Member since:
2006-01-10

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.


It actually isn't (and never really has been) the TECHNICAL superiority of Windows over Linux that made it 'a better gaming platform'. It's always been due to the high volume of users that the game makers targeted Windows.

Technically, Linux is better, as Valve's own benchmarks have shown. It's a tighter kernel overall than the Windows one.

Also as Thom properly compared this too, DOS vs Windows days. Most publishers still shied away from games on Windows back then because DOS really allowed full on hardware access whereas Windows did not until DirectX came along, and even then in the early days that was extremely spotty. Most of the games started getting Windows versions simply due to demand, since most people either had issues with the DOS versions, or figured Windows wouldn't run them anymore. And after Windows ME that was true anyhow.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[7]: Comment by shmerl
by lucas_maximus on Wed 27th Nov 2013 18:51 in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by shmerl"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Technically, Linux is better, as Valve's own benchmarks have shown. It's a tighter kernel overall than the Windows one.


It was a few frames per second (I believe it was well over 200 FPS) so the percentage increased was negligible. We have no idea how the Windows box was configured.

Also they were testing it against a Direct X 9 games engine. Direct X 10 and above is faster. Valve don't have a Direct X 10 engine.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[6]: Comment by shmerl
by shmerl on Tue 26th Nov 2013 23:49 in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by shmerl"
shmerl Member since:
2010-06-08

Windows is still the better technical choice for playing PC games


Not really. Windows is technically inferior to Linux. You may mean that some drivers are better on Windows than on Linux (like the AMD case above), but that's the problem of the manufacturer, not of the OS. When drivers behave properly, Linux is unquestionably better.

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[7]: Comment by shmerl
by lucas_maximus on Wed 27th Nov 2013 18:46 in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by shmerl"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Superior how?

I can say "My bicycle is superior to car in terms of speed" but this only applies when there is heavy road traffic.

The criteria you are judging something by is important in defining what is superior.

Edited 2013-11-27 18:52 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[6]: Comment by shmerl
by WereCatf on Wed 27th Nov 2013 06:14 in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by shmerl"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

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.


I disagree with you, but I won't argue with you about that. I will, however, point to the fact that you're wholly missing the point of Steam Boxes: they're meant for the Average Janes and Joes, the teenage kids, all the folks who either don't have the time or will to manage their own computers or maintain them or whatever. Valve has full access to all the source-code they need to make the system as idiot-proof as needed and to have it all automatically update in the background and have an easy-to-use, big-screen UI. Windows most definitely does not have a good UI for a controller-driven, big-screen experience.

Edited 2013-11-27 06:14 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[7]: Comment by shmerl
by lucas_maximus on Wed 27th Nov 2013 18:46 in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by shmerl"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Windows most definitely does not have a good UI for a controller-driven, big-screen experience.


No you are correct.

Reply Parent Score: 2