Steam Machines

[SinisterDeath]

So, Yesterday was Announcement 2 of 3 from Valve.

Monday, they announced The Steam OS, which is a Steam Flavored Linux OS, which will be 100% free, and can be put on basically any computer. Or if you wanted, a completely separate computer, designed for the Steam OS.

 

The Steam Machines.

 

 

Valve intends to partner with multiple manufacturers to build a variety of systems of various capabilities. No numbers have been revealed but the company said "there will ultimately be several boxes to choose from, with an array of specifications, price and performance." In the meantime, it's cooked up a "high-performance prototype that's optimized for gaming, for the living room, and for Steam," and this is where things get interesting: 300 of these rigs are being built and offered to beta testers, free of charge.

 

 

Needless to say, I'm pumped. This is The competition I've been expecting Valve to bring to Sony and M$. I honestly didn't expect this to be announced, until nearly half-way through the PS4/X1's life cycle. (Its VALVE we are talking about here!)

 

Plus, I called it 9-14 Months ago.

I believed steam would launch a 'console', that is entirely modular, and would use Linux as its operating system.

[Nolder]

IMO it's going to start out with an initial bang as Valve fanboys switch over and then it's going to go nowhere

[SinisterDeath]

IMO it's going to start out with an initial bang as Valve fanboys switch over and then it's going to go nowhere

1. Steam has already begun the process of converting its games to be playable on Linux.

http://store.steampowered.com/browse/linux/

2. Nvidia, has given Steam a major Thumbs up.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/128131-Nvidia-Offers-Linux-an-Olive-Branch-With-Open-Source-Drivers

3. Windows 8 Sucked hard.

http://kotaku.com/5974413/windows-8-was-a-giant-sadness-says-valve-boss-gabe-newell

4. Depending on what they do, These Steam Machines, can be as robust as a regular PC, or simply a tiny pc, to act as a hub between your PC, and your TV. (They mention that you can play Pc games on it, through a steam box, with a PC)

5. Developers won't have to be tied down by M$ restrictions.

[Durinax]

well they got a uphill battle, but good luck to them, we all need more variance to push the envelope.

[SinisterDeath]

well they got a uphill battle, but good luck to them, we all need more variance to push the envelope.

Uphill battle indeed!

Linux only has about 1.5% share of all the OS's. (windows is around 45%)

But Steam dominates the Digital Distribution market. (Something like 40%, split up between GoG, Impulse, and your smaller ones like Ubi/Square Enix, Sony xbox Marketplaces, ect)

Steam literally is raking in Billions, Toss in a few AAA Steam, SteamOS(Linux) Exclusive Video Games? We could see Linux OS market share skyrocket overnight. (which will get other developers attention) allowing for more games to be developed  on it, either exclusively, or just in general. Which is good for competition. Competition, is the corner stone of Capitalism after all!

[Vels]

I don't know why you'd want to stream your PC game on a TV to be honest. But I'm sure some out there would like to lay on their couch, with there 50" TV playing COD...

 

 

That was me (except with Battlefield 3)... then my girlfriend moved in so I had to move to a desk in a different room

[Durinax]

 

well they got a uphill battle, but good luck to them, we all need more variance to push the envelope.

Uphill battle indeed!

Linux only has about 1.5% share of all the OS's. (windows is around 45%)

But Steam dominates the Digital Distribution market. (Something like 40%, split up between GoG, Impulse, and your smaller ones like Ubi/Square Enix, Sony xbox Marketplaces, ect)

Steam literally is raking in Billions, Toss in a few AAA Steam, SteamOS(Linux) Exclusive Video Games? We could see Linux OS market share skyrocket overnight. (which will get other developers attention) allowing for more games to be developed  on it, either exclusively, or just in general. Which is good for competition. Competition, is the corner stone of Capitalism after all!

 

I am not a fan of steam though, I have had a lot of issues with it. Also did you mention Warcraft 4 earlier?

[SinisterDeath]

 

 

well they got a uphill battle, but good luck to them, we all need more variance to push the envelope.

Uphill battle indeed!

Linux only has about 1.5% share of all the OS's. (windows is around 45%)

But Steam dominates the Digital Distribution market. (Something like 40%, split up between GoG, Impulse, and your smaller ones like Ubi/Square Enix, Sony xbox Marketplaces, ect)

Steam literally is raking in Billions, Toss in a few AAA Steam, SteamOS(Linux) Exclusive Video Games? We could see Linux OS market share skyrocket overnight. (which will get other developers attention) allowing for more games to be developed  on it, either exclusively, or just in general. Which is good for competition. Competition, is the corner stone of Capitalism after all!

 

I am not a fan of steam though, I have had a lot of issues with it. Also did you mention Warcraft 4 earlier?

 

I mentioned warcraft as a possibility, as it is one of the largest franchises in the PC side of gaming.

Blizzards been working on project titan For a number of years. So, If Blizzard were to put that, or 'warcraft 4' (or WoW2) on the Linux, it would spawn even more people on the Linux side.

 

And hey, even if you don't like Steam all it takes is for these game companies to make Linux-compatible games for you to benefit, if you want to use Linux.

 

Eitherway, any Triple A title going exclusively to Linux would draw millions over to Linux, even if just temporarily to play it, on Linux.

Steam, Offering a library of Linux games, might make them stay. (hopefuly) 

[Durinax]

Sinister you need to be more careful with the word Warcraft 4, I have been wanting that game for a long time, if they can continue the story from where it ended up with WoW I would be very impressed.

[SinisterDeath]

Battlefield Director "we Strongly want to get into Linux"

I actually listed battlefield as a potential game when I first wrote the post, but after a couple of re-writes (Yes, that is the shortest version) I left it out. So I do find it interesting.

 

If Dice steps up, and provides, they can help Steam, and Linux actually challenge Windows.. And windows needs a good challenge.

 

 Windows vs Ubuntu

So, apparently ATI already open sources their Drivers for Linux users, where as Nvidia closes them off, but they release their own professional grade drivers to the Linux community... about 6-12 months after a video card has released.

 

Was under the impression neither company had much to do with Linux.

What the previous comments from Nvidia means... is possibly two fold.

1) They are going to stop supporting the professional drivers, and just let the community do it themselves.

2) if they don't do number 1, this will at least mean, the Linux community can create their own drivers, during that 6-12 month gap so those new cards are Usable.

 

Either way, if Linux gets popular so will those who have the skills to make the new drivers, update them, and make games run all-around better.

 

Also, that link regarding Ubuntu shows Linux has evolved far more than I knew it did. I never knew they fixed the issues with obtaining drivers and installing them without having to resort to command line installing everything. (Though you still need to do that, if you have no net access, or want to install something that's not released yet)

[Werthead]

It's encouraging news with benefits and pitfalls. The idea's greatest strength and problem is the same thing: Valve is solely targetting its existing userbase with the idea. This makes sense, as directly engaging Microsoft and Sony will only result in failure and defeat. However, getting even 10% of the 55 million Steam-users to get a Steam Machine will be an early success. The cheap streaming machine idea means that existing PC gamers can use their expensive systems on their TVs with only a minor outlay, whilst using the new SteamBoxes to entice newcomers in. However, I think both Valve and their parters are going to proceed cautiously with the latter to avoid financial risk.

 

IMO it's going to start out with an initial bang as Valve fanboys switch over and then it's going to go nowhere

 

 

That isn't how Valve work. Valve engage and pursue an idea relentlessly until it is successful, even in the face of years of failure. It took several years for Steam to be user-friendly and not a massive hassle to use, but Valve stuck with it because they knew it would be the future. Now they make billions a year from it with everyone else playing catch-up (GoG does a good job and is popular for taking a different tack).

 

If Valve pursue the SteamBox idea, they will keep at it until it achieves breakthrough or until it is proven beyond dispute it's an unmitigated failure and will then retire the concept. They will ensue it is something profitable in the meantime, or if it needs to be subsidised from Steam profits, it will not risk too much money.

 

It may well be that Valve are predicting failure, but in the process it will still create a viable gaming landscape using SteamOS and Linux, so 5-10 years down the road no-one who does PC gaming will be using Windows and its increasingly draconian DRM and protectionist systems at all. This is what will worry Microsoft more than anything else: people are abandoning big PCs to use tablets and smartphones. Gamers will increasingly make up a bigger and bigger percentage of desktop PC users (overall desktop PC sales are down worldwide, but gaming PC sales are shooting up) and will be where the money lies in the future. Valve's actions may be an attempt to seize control of that market before Microsoft can do so.

 

Meanwhile, you can see how the Steam Controller works here. It looks neat.

[SinisterDeath]

Gamers will increasingly make up a bigger and bigger percentage of desktop PC users (overall desktop PC sales are down worldwide, but gaming PC sales are shooting up) and will be where the money lies in the future. Valve's actions may be an attempt to seize control of that market before Microsoft can do so.

 

In that regard, Businesses, and not just Gamers market share for 'Desktop' PC's would increase.

Now consider this.

http://store.steampowered.com/software/

Put up things like AutoCAD (Linux), Photoshop, with free-ware versions of excel that do the same thing?

What company wouldn't mind buying a PC for $200 cheaper? (The cost of windows 7)

 

 

Meanwhile, you can see how the Steam Controller works here. It looks neat.

Saw that the other day. While it doesn't beat the Mouse/KB, I wouldn't mind using it on my Ps3, or even playing some pc games with it on a bigger screen. Some games, actually do play better with a controller. (Not shooters!)

[Lanthirrhos]

I'm all for the Steam OS... There's nothing really tying me to Windows except pre-existing support. I'm assuming Valve will support their own OS pretty well though--hopefully better the M$ does Windows. But the Steam Machines seem pretty useless for me. I don't really want to play most of my games on a TV, in the living room. I like to sit up, focus, and use a mouse and keyboard (for most games, not everything obviously). Which bring me to the controller... I prefer Mouse and Keyboard in almost every way to a controller. They have a long way to go to prove to me that this is a rival to keyboard and mouse. They have me sold on the fact that it'll be better than traditional controllers (even though I only have a few people's say-so), but not that it'll make me want to play my PC games in the living room with it. I need to see a lot more of it.

 

As for the Steam Machines bringing in other people into the Steam/"PC" market... I'll admit that I haven't been following the price points/specs of the machines, so I can't really comment. Just generally speaking, I'd think getting access to Steam's library (which essentially consolidates the titles from PS3(4), X-box, and PC) and a better controlling device would be a huge draw to a lot of people, even if it was at a higher price point than other consoles... so long as it stays below the price of a normal PC and still runs well. If the devices rival high end PC prices, then I don't see why people would want to buy them. aside from living space issues, or being more used to consoles over maintaining a PC, I suppose.

[SinisterDeath]

I'm all for the Steam OS... There's nothing really tying me to Windows except pre-existing support.

 

Same. With the direction Microsoft is going with Windows (8) they are forcing gamers hands in abandoning them.

 

 

I'm assuming Valve will support their own OS pretty well though--hopefully better the M$ does Windows

There's a good possibility, its a version of Ubuntu, with a  steam/UI flavor... which would be an improvement. Ironically, it may look a lot like windows 8, in terms of UI. (Look at steams big picture mode!) lol

 

But unlike windows, its going to be 100% open, so if you don't like the steam OS you would be able to modify it and still play games.

 

 

 But the Steam Machines seem pretty useless for me. I don't really want to play most of my games on a TV, in the living room. I like to sit up, focus, and use a mouse and keyboard (for most games, not everything obviously)

Same. I doubt a steam machine will cater to the casual gamer. However there is the possibility that they'll have smaller versions of the steam machine, that simply streams your games to your TV. That technology already exists, but this would be over your localized network, instead of through your internet. So, in a manner of speaking you could buy a steam machine, + the streaming box, And now one person has access to the PC, and one has access to the steam library via their TV.

how this will work with games and performance? I can't imagine people playing Crysis 3 on both the tv in another room, and on the pc at the same time. o_O

 

There's a lot of parallel between steam machines and Android at this point. The official ones are really just publicity. They are going to be expensive, and for the hardest-core gamers. But it is possible to build a gaming pc relatively cheap, and even cheaper ($200 cheaper) by simply using Linux over windows..

 

I think I was able to find parts, to put together a $300 (no monitor) PC. supposedly it would be able to play Skyrim, but I can't say how well it would. (500GB  HDD, Pentium 2 core 3.0ghz cpu + intergrated graphics card, and 4GB memory)

But for an additional $400, I could build something that puts the PS3/360 into the ground. i5 3.6Ghz quad core cpu, GTX 660, 8GB memory.

 

 

 Which bring me to the controller... I prefer Mouse and Keyboard in almost every way to a controller. They have a long way to go to prove to me that this is a rival to keyboard and mouse. They have me sold on the fact that it'll be better than traditional controllers (even though I only have a few people's say-so), but not that it'll make me want to play my PC games in the living room with it. I need to see a lot more of it.

I look at it as this. If I were playing a game in my living room, I'd use that controller.. Cause a mouse/kb in the living room is... difficult. The only games I'd really use it on, Are Ports (Dark Souls), and games like X: Rebirth.

infact, I kind of want to get this controller, just for Dark Souls 2 and X: Rebirth. <_<

(I've always been better at flying games, with a controller like that, then a joystick or m/kb.)

 

 

As for the Steam Machines bringing in other people into the Steam/"PC" market... I'll admit that I haven't been following the price points/specs of the machines, so I can't really comment. Just generally speaking, I'd think getting access to Steam's library (which essentially consolidates the titles from PS3(4), X-box, and PC) and a better controlling device would be a huge draw to a lot of people, even if it was at a higher price point than other consoles... so long as it stays below the price of a normal PC and still runs well. If the devices rival high end PC prices, then I don't see why people would want to buy them. aside from living space issues, or being more used to consoles over maintaining a PC, I suppose.

Well, right off the bat, they are between $100-200 cheaper than standard PC, because of the high cost of Windows 7. Though they won't really be able to compete with the consoles on the price point, as Valve isn't going to be a manufacturer in that regards. (Nor would we want them to be! )

They'll most likely send out some basic price point/specs to companies like Dell to pre-load the steam OS on, and have them market it.

 

Either way, if they (dell/steam/ect) set the specs in such a manner, that they are easily upgradeable for the next 5 years, they'll be set.

 

All they would need, is  a motherboard that can take an i3,i5, and an i7. (I think this is Socket 1155?)

Is able have upwards of 32gb of memory, at the lowest to highest speed.

At least 4 PCI-E 3.0 slots)

A modular power supply with at least 500 watts.

There would be no reason that machine couldn't last for 5-10 years. It could potentially have a lowest price point of around $450, and high of around $2500.

[Lanthirrhos]

I'll take your word for most of that.   Like I said, I haven't been following it too closely, and I lack the knowledge to actually figure most of it out for myself.

 

As for streaming to the TV... I've never been a fan of the idea. Mostly because it would tie up my computer AND the TV instead of freeing up one or the other. It's not something my computer could handle. And I get frustrated at the slightest latency (even if it isn't the root cause of my failure within a game  ). I might be a smidge impatient. Barring those two issues, it's a nifty enough feature, but it doesn't really appeal to me. I just like the feel of being at the computer. Just like I prefer to have a physical book in my hands, versus a kindle/electronic copy of a text... I may also be irrational.