Valve engineer confirms Linux-based Steambox for 2013, could appear at GDC or E3

I'm thinking the minimum price is higher than that. I can see anywhere from $400 and somewhat worse, to $500-600 and comparable. Gabe also hinted that multiple configurations and perhaps end-user upgrades would also be possible, so that complicates things a bit further.
Sounds like a machine built for the niche.
 
I'm thinking the minimum price is higher than that. I can see anywhere from $400 and somewhat worse, to $500-600 and comparable. Gabe also hinted that multiple configurations and perhaps end-user upgrades would also be possible, so that complicates things a bit further.
I'd also imagine that it wouldn't be sold at a profit but at pretty much cost, as Valves revenue stream is Steam, and not being a PC builder.

This is exactly what Amazon did with the Kindle range, and it's seemed to work out okay for them.
 
Though Ubuntu is a likely candidate, we really don't know what Linux distro Valve would use. In any case, expect Big Picture Mode or some variation on it to take center stage, rather than any recognizable Linux window manager.
 

StudioTan

Hold on, friend! I'd love to share with you some swell news about the Windows 8 Metro UI! Wait, where are you going?
The irony of all this is all the people who were so worried that some future version of Windows might become a closed system with all purchases going through the Windows Store are now excited about Valve taking an open-source OS and making it a closed system where they are the only source to buy your software.
 
The irony of all this is all the people who were so worried that some future version of Windows might become a closed system with all purchases going through the Windows Store are now excited about Valve taking an open-source OS and making it a closed system where they are the only source to buy your software.
1) Those aren't necessarily the same two groups of people, making your point probably false. 2) You don't even know that the platform will work that way because they haven't announced anything.
 
Why would I want a machine that does what my computer already does, but with fewer games? What's the point? I don't know why I would want to spend money on such a thing at this point. Just because Valve's making it does not make it an inherent must-buy for me, not at this stage.

So what if Valve makes it? I haven't loved a Valve game since Portal. Before that, Half-Life 1. :|

The writing's been on the wall for years, anyways. Their games have been designed with consoles/televisions in mind (rather than PCs) at least since Left 4 Dead 2's GIANT TV-oriented menus, weapons that took up much of the screen space, and extraordinarily-narrow FOV.
 
Which do you think loses a company more money;

1) A unit comprising of off-the-shelf parts, sold at cost to keep prices low

2) A unit utilising one or more completely custom chipsets that had to be R&Ded individually and manufactured in bulk accordingly, sold at a loss to try and loss lead into software sales

feel free to look at your billions lost figures.
The system comprising off-the-shelf parts, of course. That one costs $4 billion in 2000 dollars at 20 million units and is still losing when you put a bullet in its head, while even the most miserable heavily-customized failure peaked at $4 billion lost in 2006 dollars around a year after launch, and has been slowly recouping since.
 
Pardon my ignorance, but this could also benefit Mac OS gamers too? Right?
Yes.

Though Ubuntu is a likely candidate, we really don't know what Linux distro Valve would use. In any case, expect Big Picture Mode or some variation on it to take center stage, rather than any recognizable Linux window manager.
As you said, to some extent, it doesn't matter what distro they chose because you are going to be locked into whatever name they choose for BPM on the SteamBox.
 

StudioTan

Hold on, friend! I'd love to share with you some swell news about the Windows 8 Metro UI! Wait, where are you going?
1) Those aren't necessarily the same two groups of people, making your point probably false. 2) You don't even know that the platform will work that way because they haven't announced anything.
1) The thread starter is definitely one of those
2) There was no evidence that Windows would end up that way either, it didn't stop him from making endless threads about it
 
Sounds like a machine built for the niche.
Is anyone expecting anything else? If you know Valve, its size and interests you know there is no way they are building hardware for super mass production. They are just probably building a user friendly, affordable option to a gaming PC with very limited availability.
 
The irony of all this is all the people who were so worried that some future version of Windows might become a closed system with all purchases going through the Windows Store are now excited about Valve taking an open-source OS and making it a closed system where they are the only source to buy your software.
Your premise is flawed, and you're just trying to take cheap shots at the OP rather than addressing this actual topic.

1) To use all aspects of Windows 8, you need to sell through the platform holders store. That's not 'crazy tinfoil hats 20 years time' thinking, that's the reality of now.

2) Valve have explicitly said that they would make a steambox open. Even if they didn't, Valve aren't the platform owners of Linux in a way that MS are with Windows.

Even if Valve become the shittiest, most anti-consumer company that has ever existed, any work done in making Linux gamer friendly benefits everybody forever.

The system comprising off-the-shelf parts, of course. That one costs $4 billion in 2000 dollars at 20 million units and is still losing when you put a bullet in its head, while even the most miserable heavily-customized failure peaked at $4 billion lost in 2006 dollars around a year after launch, and has been slowly recouping since.
1) If your business model is so retarded that you spend $4 billion day one and never sell a single unit, sure.

2) The Xbox 1 to this day has never recouped the losses it made. It never will recoup those losses. It's dead, and every unit it ever sold cost MS money. Pretty much any other company that didn't have a massive ulterior motive for price dumping the thing would have killed it off year 2 or 3. As it was they couldn't wait to get the 360 out there so that they could kill it off, because every unit sold cost them money.
 
My worry is what would Japan do, as I can't see Japan warming up to the Steambox, especially given the handheld focus Japan has now.
Valve is apparently making some inroads:

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=492595

You really think Intel and Nvidia are going to give Valve deep discounts?
Yes. Intel gave out $300m to partners for marketing the Ultrabook, I'm pretty sure they'd be all over a project that nets them a place under the TV.
 
Im calling it right now there is more than meets the eye with Steambox. I believe its VR tech. I dont know why. Im not trying to go all stupid on everyone. I just have this gut feeling about it.
 
I'd also imagine that it wouldn't be sold at a profit but at pretty much cost, as Valves revenue stream is Steam, and not being a PC builder.

This is exactly what Amazon did with the Kindle range, and it's seemed to work out okay for them.
My guess is that Valve won't be making these devices themselves, but instead use an OEM like Samsung, Asus, Dell or whatever.

In that scenario, why would an OEM build and sell these at cost? Unless Valve gives them a share in the Steam proceeds. I doubt Valve would want to set that precedent.