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

BigTnaples

Todd Howard's Secret GAF Account
Like every other hardware platform ever released.
That's the problem.


If it doesn't have the vast library of Steam games, and Steam Sales behind it, what does it have?

Is CoD player #6,000,003 going to switch from PS or Xbox to play it on there?

Is the average PC user going to Switch to play HL3 on a Steambox instead of their PC?


The only thing I could think of is if it was VASTLY more powerful than the 720 and PS4. And providing the 720-PS4 are not colossal disappointments, then than means Steambox would have to be hella pricey.

So you have hundreds of millions of gamers who are invested in one or several gaming ecosystems already. PC, Playstation, Xbox, and Nintendo. What is one good reason any of them should jump ship for a Steambox that has to start from scratch on its library, has a new controller, and no online community or ecosytsem in place?
 
Minor work? Most games on Steam will use DirectX and .net stuff. It's not a minor bit of work to change to OpenGL.
Yes, it is.
The coust would be trivial compared to the potential market. As I already said many, MANY times, people here seem to have completely inflated expectations about how much porting a game from Windows to Linux would actually cost.

But what's more relevant, f this is going to have aven just a mild success, that would be necessary just for fairly recent Windows exclusives.
New games would come with a Linux version planned out of the box and very old games would easily be adapted through some sort of wrapper, without requiring any particular optimization.
 
Using Linux makes sense, they can basicly create a barebones linux distro. That would be designed specifically for running games. We saw improvement in performance in Valves linux ports, which where running on a demanding Ubintu distro.

However if they create an more specialised lightweight gaming distro the difference in performance will be even bigger.
 
Then they should not call it a Steambox because if it can't play the vast majority of games you currently buy on Steam, what's the point?

Yet another console created by a very small hardware team from a company that has no experience doing retail business. Sounds like a winner.
Digital delivery only. :p
 

BigTnaples

Todd Howard's Secret GAF Account
Steam Box is Valve's way of trying to get traditional console gamers migrate over to Steam.

Its primary target audience is console exclusive gamers, not PC gamers.
Which is exactly who I referred to in my post, the sentence following the one you quoted...?
 
I mean, me, with near 200 Steam games and a High end PC. (also all consoles) What incentive do I have to buy this thing?

Then there is someone who doesn't have steam or a gaming PC, but they see Steambox, what is the incentive for them to go with Steambox over 720 and PS4? Unless it is vastly more powerful.


I just dont see where this is going. As excited as I was about the idea of a Steambox, it being linux really hampers it IMO. Yeah that's normal for Playstation because they are consoles and always have been. Getting into the console market new, without some sort of ace in the hole only means death IMO.

If you have an high end pc and you can or don't want play pc games on the tv you don't need steambox.

But now PCs lasts for years, except for gaming.

I don't want to buy a pc every few years, I don't want to play new games at 20fps, I want to play pc games and I have a steam library, so for me a steam box makes sense.

PC has a lot of esclusives so it can be paired with Ps4 or Nextbox to have access to most of the offer of next gen.
 
Unless Valve can somehow distribute this thing in multiple parts of the world and offer a real first party support for it, The main three console makers will have nothing to fear from.
 

Gouty

Bloodborne is shit
Maybe its a lack of imagination on my part but I just don't see who exactly this would be for.

If it costs PC money why wouldn't you just buy a PC? Then you'd have access to everything in steam AND have a new computer.

If it costs console money then I have to assume spec wise it would fall within the ballpark of whatever MS/Sony are running with only without all of the exclusive software that makes the consoles so enticing in the first place.
 
Digital delivery only. :p
There is an issue with selling the actual hardware. Retailers aren't going to sell an extremely low margin, relatively large piece of hardware if there is no potential later sales. This is something the other console manufacturers have been dealing with and I wonder how Valve will deal with it.
 
A lot of core gamers will want this. Valve pulls huge love from a lot of gamers out there, and a lot of console players hate the complexities of a computer.
 
Then they should not call it a Steambox because if it can't play the vast majority of games you currently buy on Steam, what's the point?
Modern Playstation 3s can only play an incredibly limited selection of PS2 games, where's the complaints about that?

Steambox picking up titles in the future is vastly more important than playing titles out now.
And unlike consoles, the fundamental architecture of x86 PCs running any OS is the same, and a software solution for 100% compatibility will always be possible in the future.

Yet another console created by a very small hardware team from a company that has no experience doing retail business. Sounds like a winner.
Valve have no experience doing retail business? what?
 
Unless Valve can somehow distribute this thing in multiple parts of the world and offer a real first party support for it, The main three console makers will have nothing to fear from.
Well valve would need to expand, they cant just be producing FPS for it. I do expect exclusives though.

Yes the three main consoles will have something to fear from them. Cheaper prices, bigger cut to both indies and developers, anyone can develop for steambox, if they atleast have a crappy computer.
 
Everyone is focusing on this being Linux based. No one is thinking of the specs in this on top of being Linux based.

Low specs and Linux based hardware would be awful.

High specs and Linux based hardware could be expensive.

I don't see a target market where stores would carry this. Market would be extremely niche unless you could use a mouse and keyboard setup with it. Then it'd be slightly less niche.
 
There is an issue with selling the actual hardware. Retailers aren't going to sell an extremely low margin, relatively large piece of hardware if there is no potential later sales. This is something the other console manufacturers have been dealing with and I wonder how Valve will deal with it.
Microsoft partnered with Logitech to create their hardware. Got their products into the same stores. I don't think retailers are going to shun it just because they can't sell add-ons. Record stores sell iPods. I see Valve partnering with a big firm to get it made and into a wide variety of stores.
PC gaming is fine, it doesn't need a savior.

This Steambox will flop, though.
Flop compared to what? If they make their money back who cares. It sounds like they have a tiny team of engineers making this thing at Valve, they're probably going to use as many off the shelf components as they can. I think Ouya is going to suffer the same brush... it's probably going to be a modest success for what it is, but nobody will give it the time of day because it's not doing 360 numbers.
 

BigTnaples

Todd Howard's Secret GAF Account
If you have an high end pc and you can or don't want play pc games on the tv you don't need steambox.

But now PCs lasts for years, except for gaming.

I don't want to buy a pc every few years, I don't want to play new games at 20fps, I want to play pc games and I have a steam library, so for me a steam box makes sense.

PC has a lot of exclusives so it can be paired with Ps4 or Nextbox to have access to most of the offer of next gen.
I am typing from my TV right now from my TV, I also do most of my PC gaming using a 360 gamepad on my couch.(or Blutooth KB&M)

My point is, this box wont have your PC games and your steam library. So it does not make sense for you.'

Assuming this is a brand new console, starting from scratch with no BC, it will have a rough time IMO. No reason for console only gamers to switch, no reason for PC users to switch, no reason for PC/Console gamers like my self to bat an eye.
 

darkside31337

Tomodachi wa Mahou
Why does anyone think this would replace their PC? Which begs the question: why is backwards compatibility with the current Steam library that important? If you want to play your Windows games, play them on Windows.

The biggest problem for Valve going forward is getting developers to make Linux versions of their upcoming games. Whether it plays any game available in your Steam library right now is moot; it'll be the games which come out post-release that will determine this system's success or failure.
You seriously don't understand why people want to play the games they already own on Steam on a system that Valve is making?

I really don't get how you can call it a moot point. It's a deal breaker for a lot of folks I'd imagine.
 
Hmmm. I don't have the greatest PC in the world. If this can support the whole library and is priced within console the market, I'd probably pick this up instead of the next-gen consoles. Hopefully we get more info soon.
 

benny_a

extra source of jiggaflops
Modern Playstation 3s can only play an incredibly limited selection of PS2 games, where's the complaints about that?
Are you kidding? There are lots of complaints about that on this very forum.
Also when the PS3 took out backwards compatibility it was not met with applause.

Steambox picking up titles in the future is vastly more important than playing titles out now.
And unlike consoles, the fundamental architecture of x86 PCs running any OS is the same, and a software solution for 100% compatibility will always be possible in the future.
Yeah because Wine and CrossOver working on this for more than a decade and still not getting nowhere near 100% coverage is just because they suck so much at it.

So this is a console that will have to rely on third-party multiplatform games and the little amount of Valve created games.
(Little compared to Nintendo, Microsoft & Sony's first party output.)

Valve have no experience doing retail business? what?
What do you mean what? Or are you saying them selling their DOTA2 mousepads and COUNTERSTRIKE branded headphones is equivalent to doing world wide releases of consoles?
 
Valve isn't going to launch a game platform that can't run half the games on Steam. If they are going with Linux then their engineers have some solution to DX only titles, and I bet it's a lot better than WINE or any other existing solution to running Windows games on Linux systems.
This is what I'm thinking as well. They've probably figured out an easy way to get the games compatible... created a new language or drivers or whatever the fuck, you know what I mean! /dudebro

Is such a thing even possible? to create a new directx/openGL type of program?
 
Maybe its a lack of imagination on my part but I just don't see who exactly this would be for.

If it costs PC money why wouldn't you just buy a PC? Then you'd have access to everything in steam AND have a new computer.

If it costs console money then I have to assume spec wise it would fall within the ballpark of whatever MS/Sony are running with
only without all of the exclusive software that makes the consoles so enticing in the first place.
Would it be? At least in the past MS and Sony always took a big hit on console sales and could probably get their components a lot cheaper than market price by dealing directly with AMD, Nvdia etc. and produce it cheaper by economies of scale. Can Valve do the same things? Unless I've missed it I've haven't heard anything about Valve approaching any of the hardware companies for a custom machine, so it's possibe it will be something made mostly from off the shelf parts. If that's true, this steambox would have to be quite a bit more expensive than the Durango/Orbis to even match their specs.
 
That's the problem.


If it doesn't have the vast library of Steam games, and Steam Sales behind it, what does it have?
It will have a VAST library (far more than any console will launch with), it just won't have an ENTIRE library.

Every Humble Bundle game ever made will be available.

Every title that's already using some form of emulation will be available (DOSBox, the various Sega collections).

Any titles with an OSX port should be available.

Any titles using middleware would only need a patch from the middleware provider to offer support.
 

BigTnaples

Todd Howard's Secret GAF Account
Modern Playstation 3s can only play an incredibly limited selection of PS2 games, where's the complaints about that?

Steambox picking up titles in the future is vastly more important than playing titles out now.
And unlike consoles, the fundamental architecture of x86 PCs running any OS is the same, and a software solution for 100% compatibility will always be possible in the future.

There were a ton of complaints about that. Its the reason I still have my huge 80gb PS3 and not a slim, but have long since switched to my Slim 360, which retained BC.



Even without that though, refer to my early response to you.





Edit:

It will have a VAST library (far more than any console will launch with), it just won't have an ENTIRE library.

Every Humble Bundle game ever made will be available.

Every title that's already using some form of emulation will be available (DOSBox, the various Sega collections).

Any titles with an OSX port should be available.

Any titles using middleware would only need a patch from the middleware provider to offer support.


Assuming we know this, which we dont. Again, what incentive does a PC gamer have to get this then?

What incentive does an Xbox Live member have to get this?

A Playstation player?

What reason is there for them to suddenly want to switch to a Steambox? It NEEDs a reason for people to want it over what they already have. And limited BC with games many PC users already own wont be enough for success.
 
I'm actually more interested in the kind of controller valve came up with. They're mostly a fps company so I don't think they'd be satisfied with a standard controller like the 360 pad or the dual shock. And aren't they working on some kind of vitality sensor?
 
valve is not gonna relase a system that your average dumb ass can't use. stop worrying about LUNIX because omg only huge nerds use it and waste their time learning it and whatever other stupid microsoft propaganda you've eaten the last couple of years. the system will be easy to use

getting developers on board won't be that hard either. most developers already support the ps3 and planned to support the ps4, which would be using opengl anyways.

after all valve has done over the last couple of years, the least you can do is trust them this once

Is reverse engineering DirectX something Valve could legally do?
they could do it, they could use wine to get the majority of games running well from the get go, but both of these alternatives are simply bad

for one, because developers would continue to support only windows and consider the rest an afterthought. that would make the experience poorer.

for another, the point is to move people away from windows, developers and users alike. if it's just emulating directx, then there is no incentive. even if people move out, the better version is still available on windows. you could argue that by both directx/opengl versions existing, it'd have the same effect. but when microsoft starts trying to charge their 30% on every product sold, valve can just make the store linux only.

also, microsoft is gonna keep updating the windows apis to deprecate the current ones so people are forced to use the new apis and get locked into their store. that would continually make the emulation a problem, as well as not get rid of the true problem here
 
Sounds good, but I won't buy it with Linux, sorry Valve :(
Well, it's totally understandable why they wouldn't include Windows on this. Valve wouldn't want to pay out the additional licensing fees to MS. But if this Steambox is going to be a PC in a console form factor like the Alienware x51, then there shouldn't be an issue. You will probably be able to dual boot windows along side it if you really want to.
 
getting developers on board won't be that hard either. most developers already support the ps3 and planned to support the ps4, which would be using opengl anyways.
How on EARTH are you trivialising that? The PS3 is

1| Successor to most successful system of all time
2| A system which did some pretty fucking big numbers before it started getting support.
 
Yes, it is.
The coust would be trivial compared to the potential market. As I already said many, MANY times, people here seem to have completely inflated expectations about how much porting a game from Windows to Linux would actually cost.

But what's more relevant, f this is going to have aven just a mild success, that would be necessary just for fairly recent Windows exclusives.
New games would come with a Linux version planned out of the box and very old games would easily be adapted through some sort of wrapper, without requiring any particular optimization.
Why would developers bother at all? Nintendo cant get dev support and you think something with less than 1% share on desktop and 0% in console share is?
 
If it costs console money then I have to assume spec wise it would fall within the ballpark of whatever MS/Sony are running with only without all of the exclusive software that makes the consoles so enticing in the first place.
The PC has more exclusive games than all three consoles combined.