Support NeoGAF

[Conor 419]

This just isn't going to happen, those genres aren't friendly to the closed system that MS and Sony operate

Sony aren't that closed off, and it's possible Microsoft might change their policies, especially with the success of Minecraft on 360.

Control scheme is a problem as well. Unless these things ship with something as fast and responsive as a keyboard, they'll never take off.

Wii U has already demonstrated advancements in this area.

I assume what he means is we've had 3 lackluster platform launches in the Vita, 3DS, and WiiU. Surely not signs for panic, but I see where he's coming from. It's hard to predict who's going to be successful going forward since things have flip-flopped so much from generation to generation

All of which are very early days, we're also excluding two MASSIVE systems.

 

[Sentenza]

Umm..no. Console companies can allow to sell below cost and order the parts in quanities beyond anything Steambox will ever be able to sell. So no, it will be a lot more expensive than console of similiar power level

"Selling below cost" is a choice they do.
It doesn't change the fact that new hardware that needs to be designed, built and sold in massive amount to amortize the initial investment is *factually* more expensive to produce for them.
The part in bold is your personal guess, not a fact.

 

[Karma]

No, I don't "think" it, I hope it, because that would be a good thing for everyone.


That's a VEEEEERY conservative estimation. Are you serious?

I am very serious? Do you really think it can even pass OSX market share? Give me a number.

 

[MrNyarlathotep]

Why don't you respond to my points instead of a shitty vague response? You're the one with the statement that what other console could have 40 launch titles before it's announced and then linked to linux compatible games. You refuse to respond after I called you out on your crazy comment?

your points, in order;

10) I posted a list of the likely titles that will be available at launch
20) You need concrete details of games definitely coming out for the steambox
    despite the hardware not being even officially announced yet, not 'hypotheticals'
30) I link you to concrete details of games you can buy right now 
    that will definitely be available as launch titles
40) You declare them all as shitty games and want bigger name titles
50) GOTO 10

I am very serious? Do you really think it can even pass OSX market share? Give me a number.

I don't see why not, Linux is free and OSX costs more than a PC does outside of hackintoshing

 

[Zia]

Why do they have to? You make it sound like everything a company does is correct and no system has been a failure before...

It might be a colossal failure. But Valve doesn't do anything unless it's backed by a lot of research. They're certainly not going to invest in and market a platform unless they have some insight into how it'll perform.

 

[Zaraki_Kenpachi]

your points, in order;

10) I posted a list of the likely titles that will be available at launch
20) You need concrete details of games definitely coming out for the steambox
    despite the hardware not being even officially announced yet, not 'hypotheticals'
30) I link you to concrete details of games you can buy right now 
    that will definitely be available as launch titles
40) You declare them all as shitty games and want bigger name titles
50) GOTO 10

So you didn't actually read my post? How about you actually combat my points? Thanks!

It might be a colossal failure. But Valve doesn't do anything unless it's backed by a lot of research. They're certainly not going to invest in and market a platform unless they have some insight into how it'll perform.

Again, and? You make it sound like every other company just randomly builds stuff one day and release it with no plan in mind. Every company does research.

 

[Wiktor]

"Selling below cost" is a choice they do.
It doesn't change the fact that new hardware that needs to be designed, built and sold in massive amount to amortize the initial investment is *factually* more expensive to produce for them.

Even if consoles are initialy more expensive to produce (which I doubt they will), it doesn't change the end result for gamer - Steambox will either be a lot weaker or a lot more expensive than next-gen consoles.

That's the problem I have with it. It seems just like such a pointless device. It won't offer the power, flexibility or as huge libeary as gaming PCs do, while at the same time it won't be as cheap as consoles, nor will it have the high-end exclusives. So really..what's the point?

 

[Woo-Fu]

Umm..no. Console companies can allow to sell below cost and order the parts in quanities beyond anything Steambox will ever be able to sell. So no, it will be a lot more expensive than console of similiar power level

A. You don't know this to be the case.
B. Valve can subsidize the hardware with margins from Steam, where everybody will be buying their steambox software from in the first place and still make that software cheaper than console competition.

I don't expect the hardware to be awesome but I also don't see anything stopping Valve from going the razor/razorblades strategy that most console makers other than Nintendo do.

Even if consoles are initialy more expensive to produce (which I doubt they will), it doesn't change the end result for gamer - Steambox will either be a lot weaker or a lot more expensive than next-gen consoles.

That's the problem I have with it. It seems just like such a pointless device. It won't offer the power, flexibility or as huge libeary as gaming PCs do, while at the same time it won't be as cheap as consoles, nor will it have the high-end exclusives. So really..what's the point?

A. You don't know this to be the case either. As it stands now I can buy the parts to build a PC that will be better than your next-gen consoles and spend ~$500 to do it. That is before economies of scale, that is before any hardware subsidization.

B. Just because you are not the target market doesn't mean that there is no market for it. I could easily see buying one of these for the living room. More flexible than a console, cheaper than building an HTPC to do the job, more features than any other set-top box on the market. That is what you need to be looking at, what other set-top boxes offer. People will plug this in, get hulu/youtube/full browser support/steam gaming/social networking/etc. in a relatively hassle-free and low-cost unit.

I think it will look attractive if they deliver all of that at a reasonable price point, even if it doesn't look attractive to you. The magic living room box that does everything has been the holy grail of consumer electronics for over a decade now. Many have tried, many have failed.

 

[diffusionx]

The Kindle undercut everyone at launch by basically selling at cost, because it was a good way to promote access to its real revenue streams; the Amazon store.
Android is given away free because it is a good way to promote Googles real revenue streams; its targetted ad sales.

Steambox could be sold at cost because...?

What is cost? it cost MS about $715 to build a 360 at launch - they were eating almost half the cost.

To build a PC with similar components as the top-of-the-line X51 without an OS or BR drive (because why would Valve put a drive on this?), is about $850 on Newegg. How much of that is markup? 20%? 30%? Even at 30% it's still about 599 US dollars, and well, I've heard that price before. How much is Valve willing to eat on this thing? That would be a huge capital investment from them. Valve, as successful as they are, are not Sony or MS. It would change the company drastically.

I don't know, it just looks like this is a solution looking for a problem. People who want consoles also want cheap, convenient devices, and people who want PCs want lots of flexibility and openness. A Steambox running a Linux kernel can't even play the vast majority of PC games.

 

[SapientWolf]

How could they "pull the plug"?

Because MS controls support of the OS and the licensing terms. And like I said, even if they don't pull the plug the lack of control over the OS and its source code can make it difficult or impossible for Valve to do everything they want with the machine.

 

[Sentenza]

I am very serious? Do you really think it can even pass OSX market share? Give me a number.

Fine, I'll give you a number then.
Even being *very* conservative and imagining mostly a failure in penetrating the console market, I can easily see Linux footprint in the gaming market increasing above 200% of what it is now (which isn't really much and wouldn't be enough, given how small it is at the moment).

But let's say I'm too optimist, everything below a 50% increase would be a capital failure; Linux increasing merely by a 4%, as you guessed, would be a running joke for years.

 

[MrNyarlathotep]

So you didn't actually read my post? How about you actually combat my points? Thanks!

What are your points other than nothing has been officially confirmed, which, in response, no shit sherlock

 

[Wiktor]

.
B. Valve can subsidize the hardware with margins from Steam, where everybody will be buying their steambox software from in the first place and still make that software cheaper than console competition.
.

I doubt Valve has anywhere near enough cash to be able to afford that.

 

[Zaraki_Kenpachi]

Because MS controls support of the OS and the licensing terms. And like I said, even if they don't pull the plug the lack of control over the OS and its source code can make it difficult or impossible for Valve to do everything they want with the machine.

I really can't see microsoft banning valve from buying windows licenses, that seems completely unlikely.

What are your points other than nothing has been officially confirmed, which, in response, no shit sherlock

LOL, I love the condescending tone after you didn't read my posts and make misleading as hell statements. Glad to see you admit you had not points.

 

[Imperial Hot]

What do we think the pricing on this thing will be? If its running custom Linux doesn't the typical performance model for Windows computers not apply.

 

[Sendou]

You know, Linus wasn't talking about the performance of the driver when he said that.

He was specifically talking about Nvidia "taking advantage" of all of the work put into Linux for use in their Tegra platform, but not really contributing back. (A lot of companies that use Linux heavily also contribute to Linux heavily.)

Also, he was saying that in response to a question about Optimus support.

I stand corrected then. I only remembered it being about how difficult Nvidia was to work with as a company.

 

[Fenror]

Fine, I'll give you a number then.
Even being *very* conservative and imagining mostly a failure in penetrating the console market, I can easily see Linux footprint in the gaming market increasing above 200% of what it is now (which isn't really much and wouldn't be enough, given how small it is at the moment).

But let's say I'm too optimist, everything below a 50% increase would be a capital failure; Linux increasing merely by a 4%, as you guessed, would be a running joke for years.

I think he meant (and wrote) "to 4%", not "by 4%."

 

[Card Boy]

So what are the advanges to the Linux OS as a result of this thing becoming very popular? Could MS (or even Apple) be losing a much larger market share on the PC OS if everyone starts using Linux for gaming if all their games are on there?

Talking about 5-10 years down the track here and out of my arse.

 

[Karma]

Fine, I'll give you a number then.
Even being *very* conservative and imagining mostly a failure in penetrating the console market, I can easily see Linux footprint in the gaming market increasing above 200% of what it is now (which isn't really much and wouldn't be enough, given how small it is at the moment).

But let's say I'm too optimist, everything below a 50% increase would be a capital failure; Linux increasing merely by a 4%, as you guessed, would be a running joke for years.

We are not too far apart. I said it could get 4% of market share not 4% increase. That is over 100% increase. 200% would put it around 5 to 6% and would be very close to OSX worldwide.

I think he meant (and wrote) "to 4%", not "by 4%."

Correct.

So what are the advanges to the Linux OS as a result of this thing becoming very popular? Could MS (or even Apple) be losing a much larger market share on the PC OS if everyone starts using Linux for gaming if all their games are on there?

Talking about 5-10 years down the track here and out of my arse.

Might go from 2% to 4%. Not going to challenge Apple or Microsoft.

 

[Imperial Hot]

If the Ouya can fit better-than-iPad visuals in for $99, I think Valve could do wonders with a $199 price point especially if they're designing the OS and are writing directly for the hardware.

I'd assume they'd be developing in a more console-esque method, making an engine specifically for the hardware instead of making an engine that can work for a large swathe of hardware.

I think the missing component is some kind of compiler that makes if easy to port to the SteamBox.

So what are the advanges to the Linux OS as a result of this thing becoming very popular? Could MS (or even Apple) be losing a much larger market share on the PC OS if everyone starts using Linux for gaming if all their games are on there?

Talking about 5-10 years down the track here and out of my arse.

By making a custom Linux OS, Valve can make it as lightweight as they desire. They can strip down the OS as much as possible to better utilize the hardware for rendering the game as opposed to OS-overhead.

 

[Woo-Fu]

So what are the advanges to the Linux OS as a result of this thing becoming very popular? Could MS (or even Apple) be losing a much larger market share on the PC OS if everyone starts using Linux for gaming if all their games are on there?

Talking about 5-10 years down the track here and out of my arse.

They won't lose significant market share because people who only use their OS for gaming make up a very small percentage of either of those platforms. The average end-user shouldn't even know/notice that linux is the OS of the Steambox.

 

[Datschge]

So, there seems to be a lot of negatively about what market this would cater to. My question is, don't you think Valve knows exactly what market this caters to? I don't really understand what they're doing yet, but I'd imagine they do.

I think it's pretty clear that Valve wants to target the part time gamer (not necessarily casual) audience, that just doesn't have the time to micromanage a higher spec PC to work with more demanding games available on Steam.

Extending Steam onto an open system and dedicated hardware also allows Valve to solidify Steam as an ecosystem of its own that isn't dependent on a single manufacturer of the underlying system where it's up to said manufacturer how the system and its audience evolves (as is the case with Steam on Microsoft's Windows currently). And Valve is apparently willing to fill said ecosystem with a dedicated development environment that in the end would allow developers to target a manufacturer agnostic PC audience (i.e. Steambox, Microsoft Windows, Apple Mac OS X, Ubuntu/Linux) instead limiting to only one moving target.

 

[Aguirre]

I'm hoping they debut Source 2 at the same time to show off what the box can do.

half life 3 or bust

 

[spwolf]

Because MS controls support of the OS and the licensing terms. And like I said, even if they don't pull the plug the lack of control over the OS and its source code can make it difficult or impossible for Valve to do everything they want with the machine.

thats crap. They simply dont want to pay Microsoft licensing fees, end of story. I wouldnt either.

I dont think Valve would be doing this without getting support from a lot of 3rd party publishers.

 

[James Sawyer Ford]

I think it's pretty clear that Valve wants to target the part time gamer (not necessarily casual) audience, that just doesn't have the time to micromanage a higher spec PC to work with more demanding games available on Steam.

Extending Steam onto an open system and dedicated hardware also allows Valve to solidify Steam as an ecosystem of its own that isn't dependent on a single manufacturer of the underlying system where it's up to said manufacturer how the system and its audience evolves (as is the case with Steam on Microsoft's Windows currently). And Valve is apparently willing to fill said ecosystem with a dedicated development environment that in the end would allow developers to target a manufacturer agnostic PC audience (i.e. Steambox, Microsoft Windows, Apple Mac OS X, Ubuntu/Linux) instead limiting to only one moving target.

The problem with that, is that this directly competing with the console market (which is primarily the "part time gamer" that doesn't want to deal with micromanaging a PC).

I really don't see an audience for this.

 

[SapientWolf]

I really can't see microsoft banning valve from buying windows licenses, that seems completely unlikely.

Still, can you see why complete control over the OS could make dealing with Linux worth it, despite the lack of current game support? Or at least see why Valve would think that way?

 

[markot]

It'll be a niche product, proof of concept. Valave originally trird to pitch steam to Yahoo and others but only made it themselves when it was clear there was no interest. I don't think they want to become console maker beyond triggering hopefully others to pick up the torch.

 

[Imperial Hot]

thats crap. They simply dont want to pay Microsoft licensing fees, end of story. I wouldnt either.

I dont think Valve would be doing this without getting support from a lot of 3rd party publishers.

I bet using Windows would force the price of the device up significantly in order for it to w able to both run Windows and render the graphical fidelity that customers would expect from the product.

 

[diffusionx]

If the Ouya can fit better-than-iPad visuals in for $99, I think Valve could do wonders with a $199 price point especially if they're designing the OS and are writing directly for the hardware. ...

By making a custom Linux OS, Valve can make it as lightweight as they desire. They can strip down the OS as much as possible to better utilize the hardware for rendering the game as opposed to OS-overhead.

Then it's just a console, competing on Sony's and MS' turf. And while obviously companies have had success (though not much since 1995), that's a tough market. If the console market is sinking like people earlier in the thread said, the Steambox you describe is going down with it.

 

[Kammie]

Can't wait for the Linux sale with the same 15 rotating titles!

This needs to have Windows titles on it somehow. But then again, I don't know--maybe it'll be released as if it were a new console, with a limited, and eventually growing, library.

 

[Saty]

Last thing Valve wants to do is fight Microsoft with exclusives. MS will just start buying up exclusives. Hell they might just buy EA and call it a day. If Microsoft saw the SteamBox as a threat.

How would Valve be 'fighting' anyone? Steambox will just play the PC-exclusive games that always existed and always will and that Valve has no part in their production. It would be hilarious if there will anything like what you are envisioning...MS buying Bohemia to prevent Arma 3 releasing anywhere but on the 720..That's not gonna happen.

 

[Zaraki_Kenpachi]

Still, can you see why complete control over the OS could make dealing with Linux worth it, despite the lack of current game support? Or at least see why Valve would think that way?

Sure, I can see why they did but I still think it's a terrible choice and goes back to my point about them having beef with windows. By beef I meant the way Gabe seems to hate windows and whine about the inevitable walled garden that blocks everything. Because of that they made a bad design choice and chose linux (IMO naturally) which is why it's dumb to me. He's paranoid over nothing.

It'll be a niche product, proof of concept. Valave originally trird to pitch steam to Yahoo and others but only made it themselves when it was clear there was no interest. I don't think they want to become console maker beyond triggering hopefully others to pick up the torch.

That doesn't make sense and is not the reason they are making the steam box. They didn't make it so that hopefully someone else will start producing it to "pick up the torch", that makes no sense and would only result in a complete waste of money for them.

 

[diffusionx]

How would Valve be 'fighting' anyone? Steambox will just play the PC-exclusive games that always existed and always will and that Valve has no part in their production. It would be hilarious if there will anything like what you are envisioning...MS buying Bohemia to prevent Arma 3 releasing anywhere but on the 720..That's not gonna happen.

Those PC-exclusives that all run on Windows?

This is not a PC that runs everything and won't be without a lot of time and a lot of success.

 

[Imperial Hot]

Then it's just a console, competing on Sony's and MS' turf. And while obviously companies have had success (though not much since 1995), that's a tough market. If the console market is sinking like people earlier in the thread said, the Steambox you describe is going down with it.

Not if they make it easy to port too as well as undercut the price of Sony and MS. The killer app here is that it would run Steam. This device lives or dies based upon how well it can leverage Steam and its immense library. Valve already charges the least for use of Steam by developers and provides the most flexibility. I don't see why a developer wouldn't at least give it a shot.

I can see this working very well for Valve, especially when rumors of the next consoles suggest another generation of super powerful yet very expensive consoles is on the horizon.

Valve is in a great position with a great plan on paper. It's all execution at this point. It's a good time to shake-up the home console market. Look at the Wii U, we might live in a world that no longer has room for the typical home game console model.

Very exciting times.

 

[wsippel]

I don't get the Linux hate

Valve might also be working on a directx to opengl wrapper and binary translator.

Yeah, I doubt it. It took the Wine project two decades, a huge number of contributors, and support from several companies and corporations to achieve the level of binary compatibility they currently have - which is still not even close to 100%.

 

[Coolwhip]

Yeah, by getting into console market, which is crumbling ten times faster than PC one...

I really doubt they will go for a traditional console. Eventually PC/console/whatever wont matter anymore. We will just have screens.

 

[MrNyarlathotep]

LOL, I love the condescending tone after you didn't read my posts and make misleading as hell statements. Glad to see you admit you had not points.

Okay, as apparently you really want this; let's deal with your 'points' one by one.

LOL, so what you meant to say is 40 shitty indie game ports that you could play for years before now? Ya, what a HUGE launch!

But that's not the system launch is it?
Those are titles that are definitely guaranteed to be available at launch, because they are available right now .

what are other probable launch titles?

Anything available on OSX would seem logical to be present; as would anything sold via HIB, as of course they are already available on Linux and available through the Steam store.

Also your definition of 'shitty' indie titles is almost embarrassing.

Valve is making it and the only game they made that they could be bothered to port is TF2, why isn't their whole collection on it?

Except for the fact that Left 4 Dead 2 has already been ported to Linux and was their test case for optimisations, as shown in previous blogs about their Linux experiments.

Given all of Valves games are made in the source engine, that pretty much guarantees Valves entire library will be available at launch.

The 'real' version of TF2 will of course be a Steam exclusive, as current consoles simply can't handle it in it's present multi-patched form.

The same I am sure will go for DOTA2 when that finally moves out of Beta.

Again, when they even get a single major release then I'll be more impressed than the absolutely nothing they have now.

Well, it would seem like it is nonsensical to be raging about lack of support before the hardware is even officially announced, wouldn't it?

The fact that we have the information we already do regarding software support for launch is far, far, far more than any other platform release I can think of ever.

Some of those games were already released as a linux version on those indie dev's website, steam didn't create linux in case you didn't know.

Well thanks for the insight into Linus Torvalds not being a Valve employee.

Games being available for Linux is a good thing for the Steambox, as it offers a native catalogue from the get go; I'm not sure why you seem to think the opposite.

That's like saying if this was using windows that "What other system has THOUSANDS OF GAMES as launch titles??????", you couldn't be more misleading.

You're the one demanding information that doesn't exist, but yes, if MS released a dedicated gaming platform based on an x86 architecture and a Windows kernel, you'd better believe that all of their marketing would make substantial gains on the wide library already natively available for it.

Things that are true aren't misleading. Princessbride.gif

 

[Persona86]

VR confirmed!

 

[Datschge]

The problem with that, is that this directly competing with the console market (which is primarily the "part time gamer" that doesn't want to deal with micromanaging a PC).

I really don't see an audience for this.

The nice thing about Steambox is that it offers something that neither consoles nor Steam on Windows or Mac OS X do: Steam without any strings attached. Valve's priority is making itself and the Steam ecosystem independent from a single proprietary OS manufacturer. The Steambox is essentially just a means to that end. Everything else is a bonus for the time being and as such can be slowly nurtured, completely unlike the volatile console gaming space.

 

[tci]

Sounds good. Initially I was really negative towards Linux on Steambox. But after some though, it's the only option. Also Valve har worked alot on porting for Linux in Source.

I'm not sure if I would get it, but I might.

 

[dragonelite]

Hope this project doesn't kill valve betting everything on a console/prefab pc.
Steam library is to big and don't want to loose it.

Off course we dont know shit on how they are planning to do this.

 

[Sentenza]

I'm not sure if I would get it, but I might.

I'm almost sure I won't (well, unless pricing is going to be very, very competitive, as I was planning a system change anyway in the next months) and yet I don't understand how anyone could think of this as a bad thing.

If they can actually make Linux a viable market for gaming, that would be one of the best things in years for the PC user base.

For the console user base, on the other hand, it doesn't change a thing. It would simply be a console like many others, but with far less restrictions.

 

[Kurdel]

Hope this project doesn't kill valve betting everything on a console/prefab pc.
Steam library is to big and don't want to loose it.

Off course we dont know shit on how they are planning to do this.

Valve has some of the smartest people in the industry. I think it's safe to assume they aren't dumb enough to bet the farm on a hardware venture.

 

[SapientWolf]

Sure, I can see why they did but I still think it's a terrible choice and goes back to my point about them having beef with windows. By beef I meant the way Gabe seems to hate windows and whine about the inevitable walled garden that blocks everything. Because of that they made a bad design choice and chose linux (IMO naturally) which is why it's dumb to me. He's paranoid over nothing.

None of the consoles use a COTS OS and it has nothing to do with paranoia. The prime benefit of a custom OS is control and flexibility.

 

[markot]

That doesn't make sense and is not the reason they are making the steam box. They didn't make it so that hopefully someone else will start producing it to "pick up the torch", that makes no sense and would only result in a complete waste of money for them.

They did it with steam. Gabe wants to make games. They want the market to move forward,but iI doubt they want to be a console maker big time. I mean, you think other companies will play nice when valve becomes a hardware rival too?

 

[Whompa]

Might grab the core market, a bunch of nerds, and then expand from there. To do that though, I would need a game to go with that. If it's Half-Life 3 then I'm on board. Otherwise I'll need more convincing I think.

 

[Zaraki_Kenpachi]

They did it with steam. Gabe wants to make games. They want the market to move forward,but iI doubt they want to be a console maker big time. I mean, you think other companies will play nice when valve becomes a hardware rival too?

What do you mean play nice? Who are you talking about? And who did they pass the torch to with steam?

None of the consoles use a COTS OS and it has nothing to do with paranoia. The prime benefit of a custom OS is control and flexibility.

Again, I know that's what the trade off is but I think the trade off of eliminating their HUGE digital library for having control and flexibility of owning the OS isn't worth it. It just seems like they removed their most desirable bulletpoint.

 

[dragonelite]

Might grab the core market, a bunch of nerds, and then expand from there. To do that though, I would need a game to go with that. If it's Half-Life 3 then I'm on board. Otherwise I'll need more convincing I think.

Core markets and the so called nerds can make their own pc and probably feel proud to when they are done at least i did when i saved like $200 by assembling it myself.

 

[Stewox]

Big things start small.

Exactly

Well all my interest in this is gone now if its Linux based :/

What did you expect anyway? 10 times better code quality than Windows and OSX combined

 

[Zaraki_Kenpachi]

Exactly




What did you expect anyway? 10 times better code quality than Windows and OSX combined

I think most thought it would be able to play their huge library of games on steam which is probably the biggest pull for steam.