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 577492
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: Comment by shmerl
by leech on Tue 26th Nov 2013 23:07 UTC 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[8]: Comment by shmerl
by WereCatf on Wed 27th Nov 2013 20:55 in reply to "RE[7]: Comment by shmerl"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

It was a few frames per second (I believe it was well over 200 FPS) so the percentage increased was negligible.


Left 4 Dead 2 ran at 315 frames per second on the developer's Ubuntu Linux machine, versus 270 frames per second on a Windows PC -- that's a 16% increase. That's definitely not "negligible."

Reply Parent Score: 1