Valve Reportedly Working On 'Steam Box' Gaming Console

An anonymous reader writes "This article at the Verge claims that Valve is currently working on a way to bring Steam to the living room with its own gaming console. Quoting: 'According to sources, the company has been working on a hardware spec and associated software which would make up the backbone of a "Steam Box." The actual devices may be made by a variety of partners, and the software would be readily available to any company that wants to get in the game. Adding fuel to that fire is a rumor that the Alienware X51 may have been designed with an early spec of the system in mind, and will be retroactively upgradable to the software. Apparently meetings were held during CES to demo a hand-built version of the device to potential partners. We're told that the basic specs of the Steam Box include a Core i7 CPU, 8GB of RAM, and an NVIDIA GPU. The devices will be able to run any standard PC titles, and will also allow for rival gaming services (like EA's Origin) to be loaded up. Part of the goal of establishing a baseline for hardware, we're told, is that it will give developers a clear lifecycle for their products, with changes possibly coming every three to four years. Additionally, there won't be a required devkit, and there will be no licensing fees to create software for the platform.'"

Comments

It better play the games I already own

[tedgyz]

I think this would be a great addition to the market, but if I can't carry over my PC catalog then it will be stillborn.

Re:It better play the games I already own

[Dyinobal]

I'm sure you'd be able to play all your games from Steam on this thing. It's not like Valve has ever discouraged people from playing their games across multiple computers.

Re:It better play the games I already own

[Nidi62]

As long as you can log into your Steam account through this, why wouldn't you be able to? That is after all the whole point of Steam, to be able to play your games anywhere but just logging into Steam and redownloading your game

Re:It better play the games I already own

[nine-times]

My understanding of the story is that essentially this will be a Windows computer with Steam installed. There are two major developments that this signals:

First, that Valve plans to start issuing a sort of standard system requirement for game developers to target, which is one of the benefits of consoles right now. Developers know what platform they're developing for when they develop a PS3 game, and when I buy a PS3 game I know it'll play on my PS3. If all Steam Boxes have the same system requirements, then you get the same benefit.

The other implication is that Valve must be developing Steam software suitable for use on a big screen tv. This is going to mean menu systems with large fonts that can be navigated with a remote, as well have controller/remote hardware to use with it.

I'm pretty optimistic about this. I've been ranting for years now about how Valve should develop a console.

Re:It better play the games I already own

[Ethanol-fueled]

So instead of trivially adapting your existing PC for display on a Big-screen, you feel compelled to shell out extra dollars for a piece of hardware, which is essentially another redundant PC, that you don't even need?

Perhaps valve should develop a "big-screen" version of their software and leave it up to the gamer to build or modify their boxes appropriately. If anybody knows how to build bitchin' rigs, it's gamers. And Alienware machines have been overpriced pieces of shit for a long time now.

Re:It better play the games I already own

[Anonymous Coward]

You are being silly - you are treating it like because they call it a console, it's magically different - they are talking about selling a PC with steam autoloading and with fixed specs. It'll run anything fine, and patching games for it will be as easy as with any PC.

Re:It better play the games I already own

[miknix]

As someone who never bought any dedicated gaming device (in exception to a GameBoy long long time ago), I would look forward to this if Steam provide their own dedicated operating system for the SteamBox. I'm a day-to-day GNU/Linux user which dual-boots into Windows 7 for gaming. One of the things I hate is having to care about antivirus and windows updates when *I just want to game*. Having Windows rebooting my computer automatically for a update when I'm in the middle of Portal is really annoying. I love Steam though, I like their game offers and associated publishers, I think its a great idea which simplifies the whole process of buying and installing a game and would certainly love to see that in a dedicated device.

Re:It better play the games I already own

[Joce640k]

Nope. This is obviously aimed at the current 'console gamers' who just want a box which plugs in and runs Steam with a minimum hardware spec for developers to work to.

Even the summary manages to say it, no need to read the article.

Re:It better play the games I already own

[dissy]

I think this would be a great addition to the market, but if I can't carry over my PC catalog then it will be stillborn.

You clearly have never used steam before! (Which prompts the question: What catalog?)

Anywhere you install Steam, you can sign into your account and download games you have purchased. All you need to remember is your Steam ID and password, and it will show your library of games. You can install any or all of them.

This is one of the biggest features Steam provides, to make it easy to manage your library from anywhere.

As the article clearly states, this is just a PC inside, and will not be locked down such as the xbox, nor require any special devkit. Only the PC case will be designed for the living room (Which has been done before) and will come with game pads.
Being a regular PC with a regular OS and regular Steam client, it should have all of the regular features Steam has.

Being a regular PC, one would even imagine a bunch of front USB ports, in addition to the internal USB wireless dongle for their own controllers. It should work equally well with a keyboard and mouse as it does with a wired game pad, which is one of the reasons I don't like current generation consoles. A lot of people prefer keyboard/mouse over game pad, despite both being available on PC. This should cater well to everyone.

Re:It better play the games I already own

[nine-times]

So instead of trivially adapting your existing PC for display on a Big-screen, you feel compelled to shell out extra dollars for a piece of hardware, which is essentially another redundant PC, that you don't even need?

Well no, if you already have a good gaming rig, then you don't need to buy a new one. I don't think Valve is asking you to, either. There are hints, at least, that this will be more a set of standardized specs than a particular hardware console. As I said, I think what Valve is really doing is setting a standard set of requirements for gaming PCs. So in this scheme, you can buy a gaming PC that's "Steambox certified" (or whatever), and then in the Steam store, you'll be able to see that games are designed to run on all "Steambox certified" hardware.

It won't prevent you from running the same games on another computer, but it will make it so developers have a consistent hardware platform to target, and so gamers basically won't need to think about system requirements for each game. If games are developed/optimized for a 2012 Steambox and you have a 2012 model Steambox, then you know that it'll play well.

Re:It better play the games I already own

[tepples]

A console doesn't "run any standard PC titles", especially PC titles that an individual just compiled in Visual Studio. PCs let you develop software even if you don't live somewhere like Austin, Boston, or Seattle.

Re:It better play the games I already own

[Pi Is A Rational]

When did AC97 cards have Sound Blaster support?

Re:It better play the games I already own

[hjf]

Well, a console doesn't run standard PC titles, but you develop for XBOX 360 with Visual Studio and XNA. Compile, download to console, and play.

Re:It better play the games I already own

[hjf]

Being a regular PC it will run Windows...

Re:It better play the games I already own

[realityimpaired]

You do realize that Windows updates come out on a regular schedule (commonly called "Black Tuesday"), and that if you want to avoid your Windows deciding to reboot itself in the middle of a gaming session, you could simply boot it up the day after Black Tuesday and run the updates manually?

It's no different from updating your Linux system on a regular basis, which I would hope you're doing....

You could also simply install PlayOnLinux, and find that many (if not all) of your games are playable on Linux, and that in some cases, they perform better than they do on Windows. :)

Re:It better play the games I already own

[spire3661]

Have you even looked at Steamworks for Skyrim yet? Yes the menu was dumbed down, get over it. Steamworks more then makes up for it.

Re:It better play the games I already own

[thetoadwarrior]

What is stopping you from creating your own "steam box" now? Valve is developing a big screen mode for the whole purpose of being about to build your own steam box. But as someone who already uses Steam on a 40" HDTV it works fine as is imo.

Re:It better play the games I already own

[Joe_Dragon]

being a PC case will be designed for the living room make it have the room for a wide video card + a 1 slot for a cable / tv card.

Re:It better play the games I already own

[DerekLyons]

First, that Valve plans to start issuing a sort of standard system requirement for game developers to target, which is one of the benefits of consoles right now.

It's also one of the downsides of consoles - as you're stuck with whatever hardware the console provides, even if it's years out of date.

Re:It better play the games I already own

[miknix]

I didn't know about the Black Tuesday, thanks for the tip. Still, I have limited time to spend gaming so I would rather spend that time playing than to deal with updates or trying to get those games working on Linux. Hence my post about liking the idea of having a dedicated device with Steam which you just power on and play, no maintenance required : )

Re:It better play the games I already own

[Anonymous Coward]

You're taking the comment out of context.

MPC1 and MPC2 were standards for Windows Multimedia
PC97/98/99/2001 were also standards for Windows.

Prior to 1997 (AC97 standard), sound cards either came with windows drivers and "sound blaster compatible mode" under dos, or no dos support at all. From 1994 to 1997, some sound cards came with Windows 95 drivers that enabled sound blaster support... under Windows 95. No support under DOS.

A lot of the problems with the sound cards prior to AC97 were a result of mutually incompatible MIDI standards, ultimately with Windows coming with a low quality roland sample set around the time of DirectX5. Up to this point, most games were designed for MIDI because the only alternative was redbook audio streaming from the CD-ROM.

Once computers became powerful enough to play mp3's, midi's were wholesale dumped and few games since even try to use the MIDI hardware, and it's all done in software now. All games that use midi now sound the same because they use the Windows Roland sample set. If you play the same game on the Mac (if it was even released for it) Quicktime has a different set. You can hear the difference if you have the Quicktime plugin installed. Play it once on Quicktime and then play it once with windows media player.

Anyway that's my soapbox complaint about standards bleed. Hardware manufacturers don't give a crap about how well they conform to a standard as long as they sell more hardware. Just look at how much fragmentation there is with Android. None of these manufacturers care if a newer version of the operating system comes out.

If Valve really wants to create a viable standard, they would have to make the software discover if it meets the requirements, not relying on the hardware manufacturer at all. They will cheat the benchmarks. The Steam software could do this by running a benchmark, or comparing the hardware detected with previous hardware and driver configurations and notify the user if the system hardware is unusable. Like most laptops are sold with the onboard Intel graphics which are a joke. Few laptops can be used to play anything newer than 5 year old games. It is like the minimum requirements are "does it play WoW? Yes, good ship that..."

Re:It better play the games I already own

[khraz]

> What is stopping you from creating your own "steam box" now? Valve is developing a big screen mode for the whole purpose of being about to build your own steam box. But as someone who already uses Steam on a 40" HDTV it works fine as is imo. Of course - nothing does. In fact, I have one as well, and it's also a HTPC. But there are people who could not give two fucks about find the right computer, building it, and configuring it so it works fine on a big screen. They just want a device that they can buy, install and starting playing games, and that's what the Steam Box would do. Truth be told, I'd be happy for a success of console-like system that's based on much more open solutions and approaches than any of our current consoles. That's at least a step in the right direction.

Re:It better play the games I already own

[Anthony Mouse]

My understanding of the story is that essentially this will be a Windows computer with Steam installed.

Is there any inherent reason why it would have to be Windows? If you're going for the console market, i.e. not worried about people needing legacy productivity software, what sense does it make to pay the Microsoft tax? Certainly Sony and Nintendo don't do it, and even Microsoft doesn't run the same operating system on XBOX as they do on PCs.

Re:It better play the games I already own

[SScorpio]

We're already stuck, the Xbox 360 and Playstation 3 are extremely outdated, and a five year old PC is more powerful than either of them. The upside is that you can still place games at a comfortable quality settings on a five year old PC.

Re:It better play the games I already own

[SScorpio]

You really haven't used a game console in a while. For a PS3 and sometimes a Xbox 360 occasional usage is like this.

1) Start the console and what through the overly long boot animation
2) Wait for it to connect to the gaming network
3) Have it disconnect from the gaming network and tell you, your console needs an update and won't go online without it
4) Download the udpate, wait for it to install, and reboot your console
5) After the console starts back up launch the game, to have it tell you there is a required update for the game
6) Wait for the update to download and install
7) Finally play the game

This process is even worse if you are playing a game you haven't played before normally there is an automatic installation process you have to wait 10-15 minutes for. And that's after all of the updates it installs one by one.

Re:It better play the games I already own

[Narishma]

Gaming doesn't "live and die on the bleeding edge" like you say. If the huge popularity of consoles and flash games isn't obvious enough, you just have to take a look at the most played games on Steam and you'll see none of them requires high end machines.

Re:It better play the games I already own

[J-1000]

You forgot to mention that Valve will have its box for sale, and its form factor and default software will be tailor made for TV use. The UI will probably be centered around a game pad. So not only do you have the specs, you have a marketable product.

And to reinforce what you already said: To the non-technical, buying a gaming PC is tricky. Countless people have no doubt been burned whey they bought a $300 PC hoping it would play the latest games, only to be disappointed when their on-board video card turned everything into a slide show. Or maybe they listened to the salesman at Best Buy who convinced them that to really play games smoothly they were going to have to drop at least $1,500. So you could deal with all that mess, or you could spend $300 on an XBox and KNOW you're good to go. Valve knows that if buying a gaming PC were as easy as buying an XBox that they could potentially see a lot more customers.

Re:It better play the games I already own

[wanzeo]

I would rather they start over and create a Steam Console OS built on linux.

Yes, many games in my current library wouldn't translate, but it would eliminate the cost of a Windows license. Many Valve games have already been ported to the Mac, so that could provide the core offering of games until the third parties begin targeting the platform.

Also, if it catches on, game developers could target all the OpenGL platforms (Mac, Steam Console, Linux Desktop, Android) all at once. That would be a large enough market to actually stand a chance of unseating DirectX.

And of course, there is always Wine. In my experience, just about every game works on Wine, but most require so many extra tweaks it is easier to just install Windows. If the Steam Console OS included Wine and slowly added the necessary tweaks, a large percentage of the current library of Windows games could be made to work as seamlessly as a game written for the platform.

Re:It better play the games I already own

[justforgetme]

True. But I can think of 65.8 million reasons why Microsoft wouldn't
want them running a directX capable OS...

Re:It better play the games I already own

[shutdown -p now]

Microsoft wouldn't have much say over this; after all, in the end, it's a PC like any other, just advertised as a gaming console, and pre-configured for that purpose. Discriminating OEMs over the intended purpose of equipment that they sell would not look well in any anti-monopoly hearing, too (especially given that this was a point that was brought up back during antitrust investigation in US).

Re:It better play the games I already own

[shutdown -p now]

So you can't see that this is a blatant stepping-stone toward a Closed Platform and Vendor Lock-In?

This coming from a guy named "macs4all" is pretty ironic.

But, no, I don't see that. More importantly, I don't see the point of doing so for Valve. They're doing very well by covering their present niche, which is PC and Mac gaming. They already have some lock-in, in a sense that a game you buy from Steam needs Steam to run. Aside from that, they have not shown any signs of restricting your hardware and OS choices - if anything, they're diversifying them, since the release of Steam on OS X (which lets you download and run games on Mac that you have previously purchased on PC!).

This move is, quite obviously, an attempt to diversify further by also taking over a slice of the console market. What's sinister about it?

Re:It better play the games I already own

[shutdown -p now]

The goal would be to get the entire library of Steam games to run on that console from day 1. It's also easier for the developers if they have, essentially, one platform to target for both PC and console.

Anyway, judging from the listed specs, this is not a low-end rig by any measure, meaning that it will already be priced noticeably higher than competitors - so $30 (or whatever it is these days?) for OEM Windows is not likely to make a big difference. They'll probably position it as a console for high-end gaming - in terms of eye candy, it can certainly beat any current-gen console by a considerable margin, especially on a Full HD TV where high-res will be very visible.

Re:It better play the games I already own

[macs4all]

Gaming doesn't "live and die on the bleeding edge" like you say. If the huge popularity of consoles and flash games isn't obvious enough, you just have to take a look at the most played games on Steam and you'll see none of them requires high end machines.

Well, I knew I was going to get under arrest for that less-than-perfectly-qualified comment!

I agree that playing Angry Birds and Minesweeper is unlikely to tax any "computing platform" made since about 1995; but you and I also know that a so-called "spec" that includes the use of something like (IIRC) an i7 CPU and 4GB of RAM isn't aimed at playing minesweeper (unless it is coded in Flash, of course...) ;-)

So, with that clarification, my comments stand.

Now, do you care to address the actual content of my post, or were you just looking for some poorly-written sentence to poke at?

Re:It better play the games I already own

[Anthony Mouse]

Anyway, judging from the listed specs, this is not a low-end rig by any measure, meaning that it will already be priced noticeably higher than competitors - so $30 (or whatever it is these days?) for OEM Windows is not likely to make a big difference.

I think this ignores that the goal is to provide consistent specs long-term. The sensible way to do that is to make today's high end the standard, so that it will still have adequate performance going forward, even though five years from now the specs will be met by hardware that sells for a price that makes $35 look significant.

The goal would be to get the entire library of Steam games to run on that console from day 1. It's also easier for the developers if they have, essentially, one platform to target for both PC and console.

My thinking was that you could make Steam the platform, in the same way that Debian doesn't care whether the kernel is Linux or FreeBSD.

The advantage of doing it that way is that you have a sort of "cross-platform platform" -- you say that anything that provides X, Y and Z (e.g. x86-64 quad-core min. 3GHz + GPU of Y minimum spec + Z version of OpenGL + whatever else) is compatible. Then if Apple wants to implement the list of prerequisites on a new Apple TV, or Google wants to implement it on the Google TV, or Canonical wants to make a Steam-compatible media center edition of Ubuntu etc., they can. It lets Valve step in to Microsoft's shoes as the platform maintainer and opens up underlying platform innovation to the world rather than just Microsoft, while still providing minimum standards for developers to target.

Obviously you can't instantly port all of the existing games that way, but there is an easy way around that: You require future games to target the new platform (which Valve can itself implement on Windows, assuming it requires anything not there already), and then put "Windows optional" in the specs, so that if you have Windows then you get all past and future games, and if you don't then you still get all future games and anything anyone wants to port to the new Steam platform in order to get the greater number of sales available on Windows + Everything Else than only on Windows.

Re:It better play the games I already own

[JosephTX]

Not necessarily. The advantage of consoles is that they get to be sold at a loss, since those costs are subsidized by the money the companies make off the video games. A Steam console seems like a pretty good way to give a good gaming experience to those who can't afford a computer with the same specs.

Re:It better play the games I already own

[Lonewolf666]

...and if you don't???

Then I might wait for some reviews that tell me if that game will run on my hardware. Chances are that it will not (my PC is recently updated but still does not match a Core i7) and I'll stick to some older games that are not designed for the 2012 Steambox ;-)

Seriously, there are still a lot of AAA titles from the last decade I have not played yet. And today's graphics may be better, but the game play has usually NOT improved.

Re:It better play the games I already own

[thetoadwarrior]

If it plays all the same games then it's nothing more than a Windows PC so it has to some how make windows more friendly for consoles while allowing it to be open enough to install Origin on it which rumours say you'll be able to do.

Anyone can apparently make their own hardware which all sounds nice but what's the stop companies from starting a hardware battle to try and either get a power advantage or price advantage and again you don't get any real benefits of the console environment.

They're also dependant on Microsoft for windows who isn't going to be happy if it eats into their 360 market and let\s face it, it'll eat into Microsoft's marketshare more than Nintendo's marketshare.

It'll be, at best, a niche product, imo.

Re:It better play the games I already own

[Dhalka226]

Is there any inherent reason why it would have to be Windows?

To not create a console that has no games available.

I applaud things like Steam Play, but games with Steam Play still comprise only about 10% of my catalogue. I'd be surprised if it was much more than that on the total catalogue.

A lot of people might like if Steam tried to force publishers to create for an independent platform, but it isn't their job. It isn't even to their benefit, since they seem like they're only creating specifications and not the device itself. What is to their benefit is to immediately have access to all or the vast majority of the games they already sell, and steam users' existing libraries. That means Windows.

Re:It better play the games I already own

[MagusSlurpy]

Provide updates and patches? The devs have to do that, not Valve, and they can't be bothered to do that now with consoles that are seven years into their lifecycle and have 10 times the install base of Steam.

No, for this to fly, it has to be with hardware that doesn't change more than once every 3-5 years. Two tiers of hardware during that time might work, but as soon as you start updating to new hardware every year, it's no different than the problems with current PC development, which just puts this whole idea in the realm of "boutique manufacturer."

Re:It better play the games I already own

[Anthony Mouse]

A lot of people might like if Steam tried to force publishers to create for an independent platform, but it isn't their job. It isn't even to their benefit, since they seem like they're only creating specifications and not the device itself.

I don't know about that. If they became the new de facto gaming platform, that is a strong position to be in. Especially if the "platform" isn't dependent on any particular vendor (like Microsoft), who may at any time decide that they want to try to eat your lunch.

Re:It better play the games I already own

[KingBenny]

i dunno, they talk about a four year lifecycle ... most stuff in my pc is about that age but gfx-cards seem to have more like a two year lifecycle really, only for the gaming bit, it was my last upgrade, the card itself cost more than a ps3 actually, how this has to work out i dont see, not if the new pc-games are supposed to surpass the old, unless you are allowed to open up the console and stick in a new card without losing warranty? fat chance there
i'd rather see microsoft come up with a 50euro windows for gamers version, since basically i only boot into windows to play games on steam and origin, anything else ye olde ubuntu is way better and flexible (for me at least) and way less 'weighty'
except for the part that the latest releases dont really accept that gfx card very well on a standard install

Re:It better play the games I already own

[kestasjk]

I'd say the bigger question is how would it compete on price when the Xbox 360 is subsidized by game sales, and produced in huge bulk, while Steam offers games cheap and couldn't risk producing huge numbers of them.

Re:It better play the games I already own

[stms]

Windows? I hope they don't use windows. It would probably be pretty easy for them to use the compatibility layer they've been developing for mac over the last few years. Since OS X is unix maybe they could use the Linux kernel. My fingers sre crossed because this would mean I would no longer need windows installed on my machines.

Re:It better play the games I already own

[shutdown -p now]

It won't have to compete on price with Xbox, anymore than Macs have to compete on price with PCs. It's all a matter of product placement. Judging by the specs, this thing will easily handle 1080p - that's a major feature right there. All they need to do is position it as a high-end console for discerning gamers.

Re:It better play the games I already own

[shutdown -p now]

You require future games to target the new platform (which Valve can itself implement on Windows, assuming it requires anything not there already)

I doubt that would work for many games, especially graphics-heavy ones like most modern FPS. Sure, you can emulate OpenGL on top of D3D or vice versa, thus providing a common API - but the cost of such an emulation layer is not free. Historically, most engines that used D3D on Windows and OpenGL elsewhere (e.g. Unreal Engine) had two rendering paths completely separated on lower level, and an abstraction layer on a relatively high level - high enough that it would not be engine-agnostic.

Re:It better play the games I already own

[shutdown -p now]

Well, I was trying to be above all that ad hominem crap; but I forgot this is Slashdot...

Chill down. It was hard not to rise to the bait like that. ~

Unless I am drastically wrong, maintaining these Steam variants isn't screwing with Developers of "Steam-Compatible" games (isn't Steam just a cross-platform API, much like Qt or (ewww!) Flash?). It's really only Valve that is feeling the pain of multiple Steam platforms, right? (I admit to knowing nothing about developing for Steam). Otherwise, how could have Valve's catalog been instantly available to OS X users just because "Steam" itself was ported?

The short answers are: you're wrong; wrong; and it isn't.

To begin with, the entire Steam catalog is not available on OS X. Only those games which developers have elected to port to OS X are there - though porting Steam was itself a pretty strong push for game publishers to consider such porting, which is why it has a decent selection now - GTA, Civilization etc. Then, of course, Valve also helped by porting its own engine and games that use it.

Steam is not a cross-platform API for games. It is a platform for game distribution, but it cares nothing about how your game is actually implemented in terms of graphics, sound etc. It does give you some APIs to enable Steam's DRM, and also (optionally) to do stuff like achievements, cloud storage for configs and savegames, Steam friend system etc - but nothing to help you write a cross-platform engine.

That's precisely why the console runs Windows and not some kind of Linux-based embedded thingy - because most games in Steam catalog are still Windows only, and so are most new titles.

Re:It better play the games I already own

[batkiwi]

So you'd lose the ability to play all of your past game catalog and make developers port to your platform simply to knock $30-50 off of the up front price?

Re:It better play the games I already own

[tlhIngan]

You forgot to mention that Valve will have its box for sale, and its form factor and default software will be tailor made for TV use. The UI will probably be centered around a game pad. So not only do you have the specs, you have a marketable product.

And to reinforce what you already said: To the non-technical, buying a gaming PC is tricky. Countless people have no doubt been burned whey they bought a $300 PC hoping it would play the latest games, only to be disappointed when their on-board video card turned everything into a slide show. Or maybe they listened to the salesman at Best Buy who convinced them that to really play games smoothly they were going to have to drop at least $1,500. So you could deal with all that mess, or you could spend $300 on an XBox and KNOW you're good to go. Valve knows that if buying a gaming PC were as easy as buying an XBox that they could potentially see a lot more customers.

Two things.

1) It will probably look better than any gaming rig or desktop PC connected to a TV. Face it - the biggest cost on most HTPCs is the case, if you're going for something the wife would approve and something that looks like a piece of equipment that belongs in the living room. Gaming capable desktop PCs are either only meant to work in the tower orientation (with all sorts of portrusions), or have so many gaudy lights and decals that glow/blink/etc that make it look like crap compared to all the other A/V equipment out there.

And yes, looks ARE important if you want the wife to approve and not kick it into the computer room.

Understated HTPC cases can easily cost $300-500 but look like modern A/V equipment.

2) Perhaps if it takes off, PC gaming won't be a solo activity - we can gather 2-4 people on the couch, give them a controller, and start playing off one PC, like we can with consoles today.

Re:It better play the games I already own

[adolf]

Is that a system problem, or a software problem?

Re:It better play the games I already own

[macs4all]

Not necessarily. The advantage of consoles is that they get to be sold at a loss, since those costs are subsidized by the money the companies make off the video games. A Steam console seems like a pretty good way to give a good gaming experience to those who can't afford a computer with the same specs.

I'm sorry, did I miss a mention of price?

Re:It better play the games I already own

[macs4all]

I stand corrected. Actually, I care very little for games, and (obviously) know nothing about how Steam works. So, it's nothing more than an "App Store"? Phhhhht!!! Here I was thinking Steam was something cool; but it turns out to be nothing but marketing...

Re:It better play the games I already own

[Anthony Mouse]

There are ways around that. Probably one of the best is to take one of the lightweight boots-in-3-seconds Linux distributions and run OpenGL games in a VM so that you have a native OpenGL implementation. Or even better, do it the other way, run non-Windows as the host OS and then run 'legacy' games in a Windows VM, because the 'older' games will require less fast hardware and therefore care less about any VM overhead.

Another point here is that if you're successful in making OpenGL the standard again, it's very likely that Microsoft will bring back the native implementation on Windows.

Re:It better play the games I already own

[nine-times]

Which compatibility layer are you talking about? Vavle has been developing/compiling games for the Mac natively. There is WINE, but it's still far from perfect.

Re:It better play the games I already own

[wallsg]

Hopefully when games are developed for this "common" hardware it won't become the "only" hardware. If this system succeeds and captures a fair amount of the market then you may end up with gaming companies not bothering with the additional effort to target better graphics hardware.

Re:It better play the games I already own

[jseale]

Account access is one thing, game compatibility is yet another. I'm sure Steam's auths are going to LOVE porting their games to a TV-viewable format. And for that matter, some of Steam's games have keyboard controls. If we're talking about a Bluetooth keyboard here, offering one of those with the gaming system would be expensive (unless companies like Nyko and MadCatz offered them).

Re:It better play the games I already own

[JimboFBX]

You could have graphics cards on a 2 year lifecycle and have the game automatically pick the quality based on the one detected. Virtually every game no-adays can run on graphics cards older than 4 years, just it doesn't look as good as it could.

I think the main purpose for this is to simplify hardware requirements for a PC. "I have a steamBox 1" is simple, you make games and you say "compatible with steambox 1 or higher". Likewise, it ensures that nobody does stuff something stupid like skimp on dirt cheap RAM then wonder why the game plays like crap.

Add a controller and mouse and keyboard support and you got something spiffy. Still waiting on someone to make a wireless mouse/keyboard capable of the high resolution you get from a wired device. Right now I have USB extension cords strung across my living room and a mouse and keyboard on my ottoman with a high end computer hooked up to a 65" 3d TV.

Re:It better play the games I already own

[shutdown -p now]

Another point here is that if you're successful in making OpenGL the standard again, it's very likely that Microsoft will bring back the native implementation on Windows.

With Windows being 90% of desktop market, and Xbox having a good chunk of consoles, good luck with that...

Re:It better play the games I already own

[shutdown -p now]

So, it's nothing more than an "App Store"? Phhhhht!!!

It's not just an app store. It's an app store that has crazy promotions, like selling a game for 1/5 its original price, if you can wait for a year after release.

That, and - app stores are convenient, and Steam was the first one for games on PC - and still remains the one with the largest catalog.

Re:It better play the games I already own

[KingBenny]

and here i thought my 50" plasma was impressive :p it might just be the boost for pc gaming that it needs with all the bad piracy press its been getting, i can never get used to fps's playing with an xbox controller, the question with all the beefy specs its gonna need is the price. I dont think i'd go for it myself i like poking around in my pc way too much but it might just hit with the 'laptop-crowd' . I'm definitely curious to see how it turns out

Re:It better play the games I already own

[Kalriath]

PCs by definition easily handle 1080p. In fact, 1080 is a significant downgrade on PC resolutions.

Re:It better play the games I already own

[shutdown -p now]

Most PCs I see these days have 22-24" 1920x1080 widescreen monitors attached, so I don't quite get what you mean about "downgrade".

Re:It better play the games I already own

[Kalriath]

You just stated that "A console doesn't run any standard PC titles, especially PC titles that an individual just compiled in Visual Studio". This is patently false, as an Xbox 360 can run titles an individual just compiled in Visual Studio. He tells you this, then suddenly you redefine what you said. Face it, you're wrong.

Cloud

[Anonymous Coward]

Cloud console! Store your games in the cloud!

Re:Cloud

[True Vox]

You mean... Onlive? :)

Re:Cloud

[spire3661]

Onlive is actually VERY good for what it is. I'm a pixel junkie so it would never totally satisfy me, but when the service first rolled out and my gaming rig was dead, it was a very nice option to have

Steam Box AKA

[wisnoskij]

AKA a windows computer hooked up to a TV and with many software blocks in place to prevent general computer like use.

Re:Steam Box AKA

[Dyinobal]

and you think that is different from the xbox how?

Re:Steam Box AKA

[The MAZZTer]

It says you can load stuff like Origin and standard PC titles on there, I doubt it will block any other software... Steam is their platform, Valve won't care if you run other stuff too I think.

Re:Steam Box AKA

[BetterSense]

I see your point; I really do. As a Linux user, I would really like a Linux Steam client so that I can play Portal. But I don't know if I will ever see one of those in my lifetime.

I had to buy a Roku box to get Netflix, so maybe I will have to buy a Steam box to get steam. Does it bother me that I should have to buy another piece of consumer hardware just to access "content" that I should be able to access with my Linux HTPC? Yes. But beggars can't be choosers.

Re:Steam Box AKA

[wisnoskij]

"does it bother me that I should have to buy another piece of consumer hardware just to access "content" that I should be able to access with my Linux HTPC?"

Linux cannot play windows games, and this is not due to some content blocks from greedy publishers.
Portal was never released onto Linux, so even if you got a Linux steam client you still could not play it.
Just install Windows on your computer if you want to play video games.

Re:Steam Box AKA

[westyvw]

Play on LInux supports portal and portal 2 and can setup steam. It handles the setup for you.

Re:Steam Box AKA

[Opportunist]

Umm... I can buy premium titles online right on the box, not just some hobbyist games that existed ages before as free to play flash games?

Re:Steam Box AKA

[Stuarticus]

Free online play? Reasonably priced games? (Hopefully) decent quality hardware? (Hopefully) usable as a media centre (360 fanbois, don't even bother trying to convince me it's an acceptable media centre)? Quieter than a jet during normal operation?

really valve?

[FrozenFood]

a "steam console" with PC hardware, with what i can only assume with x86 hardware with a USB port in the frount and a HDMI port on the end...

just like a PC? that I can buy from anywhere? except with a steam sticker? will it run Windows 7? whats the point

I assume they wiill use the bulk-cost savings of PC parts to bring the price down, but the entire point of having a PC over a console is that it can do other things other than games dedicated by the manufacturer. perhaps it is just a PC, perhaps its locked down.

I'm still not buying one, a PS4 or a xbox3 or that phantom console that hardocp called out.

Ive learned the hard way the only way to play a game is on a PC. and PC only.

Re:really valve?

[Dyinobal]

I think this could be a good way to get people into PC gaming myself. I know plenty of people who seem to think PC gaming is this huge headache and that you have to fiddle with bunch of stuff to get each game to work, and that your PC specs must be exactly right.

Re:really valve?

[lattyware]

The point is that most people don't have a PC good enough, and don't like the idea of not being sure if a game will run. You get a steam box and you plug it into your TV (most people don't want to play on their small monitor or move a PC around, hell, most don't have an HDMI port and most people don't know DVI->HDMI is easy) and you load up the browser, and can play any game with 'works on steambox v1.0' stamped on it, and know it'll work, just like with a console, at a similar price point to a console.

No, it's not for people who are currently PC gamers, it's to try and make PC gaming viable to the console crowd, because then Valve don't have to play nice with M$, Sony and Nintendo to get their games to them. It makes complete sense, and is actually a really good idea. Why create an open console platform when we already have one - the PC.

Re:really valve?

[Joce640k]

I know plenty of people who seem to think PC gaming is this huge headache and that you have to fiddle with bunch of stuff to get each game to work, and that your PC specs must be exactly right.

And, ummmm, they're right...!

Most people don't have a clue how to maintain a Windows PC, they want a gaming box which "just works".

Re:really valve?

[Joce640k]

Guess what, you were once a "window licker"...

Re:really valve?

[shutdown -p now]

The main point for gamers is that they get a standard hardware config which game developers can then target. I bet they'll also have some "designed for SteamBox" kind of logo for games, such that, if the game has it, you'll know that it runs in all its glory on that hardware.

As for price, they could drive it down even below cost by subsidizing it with sales of games.

Anyway, if you're an avid PC gamer, this is clearly not intended for you. It's for all those kids with PS or Xbox.

Multiple logins and players on a single account

[Xian97]

What if I want to play a game on my Steam account on the PC and the kids want to play a different game at the same time on the Steam Console? Since the majority of my gaming is done on Steam on the PC these days, we would never be able to play different games on two devices at the same time since Steam only allows a single active login.

What about multiple players on the same console? They are going to have to come up with a family setting, because if it is just a single login allowed then my kids will be complaining about who gets the achievements and such, and I am not going to buy multiple versions of the same game for each account on the console.

Re:Multiple logins and players on a single account

[Dyinobal]

That is an interesting question and something I hadn't considered. I do wonder how valve will deal with that.

Re:Multiple logins and players on a single account

[FrozenFood]

erm... first off, thats not permitted anyway is it? multiple users to an account and all that?

"You may not reveal, share or otherwise allow others to use your password or Account. " - Steam SSA

of course they want a single game licence to be to one person. its a business, not a charity!

Re:Multiple logins and players on a single account

[Ihmhi]

The lack of a "family account" - being able to play multiple games off of the same account - is the only real weakness Steam has IMO.

Re:Multiple logins and players on a single account

[Xian97]

I am comparing to the PS3 or XBox for instance which would be the competition if they are trying to get into the console business. If I buy a game for those, be it digital distribution or retail, every account on the console can play it, not just the account that bought it. That's why I said they would have to make some changes to their SSA if they do make a Steam Console.

Re:Multiple logins and players on a single account

[FrozenFood]

I agree, that is an issue that they will have to overcome.

Re:Multiple logins and players on a single account

[mrsmiggs]

By putting a steam box under the tv they are moving out of the basement and into family life. Like it or not if valve want this to be a success beyond the rich poser demographic they are going to have to adapt to family life and that means sharing and probably censorship control for parents.

Re:Multiple logins and players on a single account

[joocemann]

Show me data that demonstrates Valve cnsumer demographics, as compared to an average of gamers across other platforms and software..... you know...with your "facts".

I would almost bet u a teste that valves customer base is hardly more specifically as you described than gamers in general.

Re:Multiple logins and players on a single account

[SScorpio]

Try offline mode. I installed Steam on my wife's laptop and it automatically loads in offline mode and she can play any game other than online games that require Steam for multiplayer. This isn't much of an issue since she mainly sticks to single player puzzle games, I need to log into Steam once in a great while when it want's to reauthorize the account, but normally this isn't an issue since I'll have logged in to download a new game before that occurs. It's not the best solution, but it's worked just fine for two and a half years so far.

The problem with account sharing is that lots of people have a ton of games on Steam. And allowing multiple logins which negate a reason to buy games as you can just share an account with a friend. Offline mode is a nice compromise.

Re:Multiple logins and players on a single account

[bartoku]

I just start a new Steam account for each game I buy, while of course restricted as always to only one license per game, all my games can be played at the same time on different computers.

Two downsides I have found are having to log out and back in to bring up a different game and maintaining multiple friend lists. Neither problem is a huge issue to me but could be more annoying to others.

Re:Multiple logins and players on a single account

[Asmor]

A while back, I bought Warhammer 40k: Dawn of War II on Steam. I didn't notice it was saddled with Games for Windows Live, or else I wouldn't have bought it. Oh well. So I go into it and hook it up with my existing Xbox Live gamer tag. And I play. And everything works fine.

A while later, my girlfriend decides she wants to watch a movie. So she turns on the Xbox in the living room. And I get kicked out of the game I'm playing on my PC, because the Xbox is set to automatically sign in under my name when it's turned on.

And so now I wrote a greasemonkey script that warns me whenever any Steam game mentions 3rd-party DRM or Games for Windows Live.

But... yeah. This is definitely something Valve needs to sort out if they're going to try and push a set-top box.

Re:Multiple logins and players on a single account

[Ihmhi]

Offline mode would defeat the purpose of a family account in many ways, such as two people playing different games online. Thanks for the tip nevertheless.

Re:Multiple logins and players on a single account

[happylight]

I think a bigger downside of doing things the way you do is unable to play two games on the same computer at the same time. You'd have to somehow log into two different steam accounts at the same time.

Re:Multiple logins and players on a single account

[bartoku]

Haha, if you had said that to me a few months ago I would have thought you were joking.
But I wanted to to trade some things between two steam accounts and it was annoying that I needed two computers.
I ended up using VNC to remote control the second game on the second computer all from one computer.
Of course VNC would not be much of an option for playing the actual game though do to the delay.

I wonder what games are being played that require so little focus that you can play two at once?
And even if you could split your visual attention across to screens the physical inputs would still be restricted to one game at a time
Well perhaps a turn based game where you take a turn and wait, and while waiting you play the second game.

I guess the solution would be to group games you play at the same time in one Steam account. If you could launch two accounts on one computer then you would not be sharing the game with someone else at that time anyway. Of course if you had three games your rotate between, you want to play two of them at the same time but allow someone else to play the third game on another computer, then you would have an issue.

I say the solution is still to have separate accounts for each game and multiple computers matching the number of games you want to play simultaneously. If a gamer wants to play three games at once, then rig up three computers, they are cheap enough and that gamer is obviously dedicated enough to their gaming to afford such luxury.

Re:Multiple logins and players on a single account

[LittleImp]

Probably going to be done the same way every console does it. Nothing really for Valve to think about.

Never work with their entire library.

[wisnoskij]

I wonder how they will handle it. Right now Steam is just a normal games publisher and they publish many games that do not even run without unofficial patches and customization. This is forgiveable on a PC, but on a console it is not.

Not sure this will work...

[CptSpatula]

What this reminds me of is 3DO. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3D0 for reference. I'm not sure if they'll be able to pull this off. The hardware will be too expensive, limiting the market share. Multiple vendors make for a muddle too. Also, why spend a bunch of money on a Valve box when you can just buy a cheaper off the shelf pc? It's not like I don't want to share being part of the glorious PC gaming master race, I'm just not sure Valve can pull this off.

Re:Not sure this will work...

[Kreigaffe]

I don't see how you can say the hardware will be too expensive -- the latest generation of consoles (Wii excluded) were essentially priced the same as a low-end PC, and that was a number of years ago already, and that was for an oldschool-style console. People bought PS3s, there's no reason to think any price point is too high -- and Valve's box, from what they're saying, will be more versatile than the PS3 was.

I've already got one, thanks

[Veritech_Ace]

I've had a gaming PC connected to my HDTV for some time now, running both XBMC and Steam. If Valve will just release their 10-foot interface (now we know why they've been working on it), I think I'm all set. A Q9400 and a HD5850, with an SSD underneath, basically runs everything out there at 1080p quite nicely.

Re:I've already got one, thanks

[Dr. Spork]

Yeah, exactly! I don't know why they need a dedicated "box" for this, because the games that run on Steam have been developed from the start to run on a great diversity of hardware at varying levels of quality. In fact, a great investment in developer effort already went into doing this. Unlike in the case of game consoles, nobody really gains much from having an "official" box from which to run all this.

But I think the real promise behind the system, and something that the other living room competitors can't offer, is in the very adaptability of Steam games: They could license their software to every other company that's making living room convergence devices and wants to say "yeah, and this thing is a game console as well". For example, it's inevitable that AppleTV will have hardware that's strong enough for some gaming, and it will definitely be connected to the internet. So everyone would win if Steam abstracted their game catalog from from the hardware enough to make a Steam game app run on the AppleTV. It would add value to the device (Apple happy), and it would result in all kinds of extra revenue and mindshare for Steam. And they could make a deal like this with everyone else as well. The hard part of taking PC games into the living room is to work out all the pesky interface issues. Steam are apparently happy to take on this hard part. But porting (parts of) their library to run on ARM chips - that could be the move that gets Steam into normal peoples' living rooms.

Re:so basically

[iampiti]

So it seems. The only difference seems to be that the hardware will be stable for a number of years just like every game console ever.
Anyway, since PC games have been hold back for several years already since they're developed taking into account console limitations even the point of stability is moot.

Console?

[ninjacheeseburger]

I guess according to the description on Wikipedia "The term "video game console" is used to distinguish a machine designed for people to buy and use primarily for playing video games on a TV" - this device would be classed as a console.

What's interesting is this device allegedly runs off the shelf PC hardware, can play any PC game, allows for rival services and has no dev kit or licensing. I'm going to assume this device will have to run Windows to meet those goals. Therefore all valve have done is create a standardised PC.

I can only see this taking off if they can sell enough to keep the price down. Valve could become some serious competition to media PCs and standard games consoles.

Standardisation

[Retron]

Yes, it's just a PC-in-a-box. However, this is something a bit more interesting in that at long last it'd set a more modern minimum spec for games. For too long PC games have been crippled graphically, as no games maker wants to lose out on the Windows XP-with-DX9 graphics crowd. If enough of these boxes are shifted it would work to further PC games in terms of graphics, as developers could assume a certain minimum level - and I'd wager it wouldn't be crusty old DX9-level graphics.

As a bonus, everyone who has a decent gaming PC already would stand to benefit from a larger pool of developers and games.

Things like this have been tried before, however. Remember MPC and MPC2? They quickly fizzled out, as did use of the Experience Index that's present in consumer versions of Windows from Vista onwards.

The main fly in the ointment is likely to be cost, however. i7s are around £230 alone in the UK and a decent midrange graphics card (like the GTX560) is another £120. A PS3 is cheaper than an i7 CPU, around £190.

Re:Standardisation

[FrozenFood]

I think you have missed the possibilities of a PC and where console games are born.

a PC can do everything from run a nuclear power plant (Siemens Simatic) to be a code platform (Visual Studio), be an office suite, (Microsoft office), and thats not starting to be a web/file server. A PC is industry standard and can be reparied and upgraded from any vendor in the world.

a PS3. it only does everything!*...

*where everything is play PS3 games, and nothing else. cant even open a text file.

In 20 years time, your PS3 will be in a landfill, and the then donated i7 will be in africa, helping someone.

Re:Standardisation

[Retron]

My comment referred to the use of PCs for gaming - which is largely what the MPC standards were about and also what the Experience Index is for (after all, you don't need a 7.9 rating to use Word or knock up some PHP code....)

I don't own a PS3 and nor do I want one - the PC on which I'm writing this is my games machine.

As a PC gamer, anything that brings more people to the platform and which drags graphics up from DX9 gets my vote. (Skyrim, for example, looks nice. But think how much nicer it'd be with a DX11 engine with tesselation, as seen in that Heaven benchmark... mmm!)

Re:No more stuff in my entertainment center please

[SScorpio]

Depending on your setup you will need a power cable and HDMI cable to carry both audio and video. Network access could be via WiFi and wireless input devices.

If Valve keeps the platform open maybe something like XBMC could be easily packaged for deployment. Then it would need some type of remote input, but you could toss the POS Apple TV that can't output 1080p and have a nice all in one HTPC that doubles as a high powered gaming rig.

Game neutering

[devphaeton]

My only concern for this is that Steam (one of the major forces in PC gaming) moving this direction will discourage Desktop PC game development. Instead of creating games for the latest PC hardware, developers will focus on the 'sure thing' of the Steam Box. We all know the difference in graphics, processing and gameplay between PC and console games of the same title.

The specs of the Steam Box are respectable now (my main PC doesn't have an i7, for instance) but in a few years its specs will be merely 'ok', and I'm not optimistic about being able to upgrade video components, ram or processing capabilities on it without major headaches.

Re:Game neutering

[lattyware]

Developers already do this. They target graphics for the lowest common denominator, the rubbish PCs and the consoles. The only difference is that on PC they allow you to adjust the settings. The Steam Box would change nothing, excpet maybe raising the bar for PCs, and making it a more targetable platform.

Re:Game neutering

[Joce640k]

Doesn't that already happen? PC games are written for PCs which are a couple of years old, not the latest and greatest.

Re:Game neutering

[rogueippacket]

If Valve sticks true to the upgrade lifecycle, we won't have anything to worry about. For instance, I've been running the same i7 rig for nearly four years now - and it still runs every current title at maximum detail (yes, even Crysis 2!) with plenty of extra FPS. This is clearly due to developers focusing on cross-platform games designed to run on 7 year old Xbox hardware, so gaming hardware requirements have not progressed nearly as rapidly as they did a decade ago.

Re:Game neutering

[klingens]

The specs are not respectable: the Alienware X51 has a MOBILE i7, which is a very different thing from a desktop one. It also has a mobile GPU which is the equivalent of a nvidia GT530. Not exactly a gaming card. Faster than a xbox360, yes but definitely not a gaming card.

Re:Game neutering

[nine-times]

My only concern for this is that Steam (one of the major forces in PC gaming) moving this direction will discourage Desktop PC game development.

That doesn't seem like a sensible concern to me. These rumors indicate that the Steam Box will essentially be a normal Windows desktop PC, so it's more likely to encourage development for desktop PCs. Now, if this plan is successful, it may discourage developers from optimizing their games for bleeding-edge systems, and instead target the Steam Box specs. The rumors indicate they expect an upgrade cycle of 4 years or so, which isn't far outside of what most game developers do anyway. Also, the way this is structured, it shouldn't be hard to set new specs (since its all based on commodity hardware), so there's no reason why new specs should be delayed. What I mean is, with the XBox and Playstation, they need to develop the whole hardware/software platform. With the Steam Box, Valve can just choose an appropriate model from Dell or HP (or whomever) and make that the new reference model.

Re:Game neutering

[Nemyst]

Actually, most PC games are built for the contemporary consoles of the time. The few AAA PC exclusives out there tend to have much higher hardware requirements and graphical capabilities (Crysis, The Witcher 2, to name a few) than their console-ported counterparts.

Consoles (PS2 last generation, 360 this generation) are the flagship targets now.

Let me know when the Apple TV has games

[tepples]

Right now all I have is my apple tv and TV.

Let me know when the Apple TV has games like the other iOS devices. If games aren't "worth it" to you, then you aren't the target audience. Next story.

It's great!

[wbr1]

Wii need more competition in the console market. But, unless if fucking comes with Half-Life 3, kiss my ass!

Windows.

[FatLittleMonkey]

TFA doesn't specify, but since this is meant to run their existing catalogue, that means Windows. Which is a shame. There was an opportunity for Valve&co to create an Android-like dedicated gaming operating system, free from licensing costs. Linux-for-games-consoles, instead of XBox-for-Steam.

Re:Windows.

[MrManny]

In all fairness, Android isn't that free either, thanks to patent licensing fees.

Re:Windows.

[Nemyst]

Anything Linux-based would be stuck with OpenGL. DirectX has left that in the dust a long time ago.

Re:Windows.

[shutdown -p now]

If it didn't run the existing catalog, nobody would want it in the first place.

Re:Windows.

[Plekto]

You're wrongly assuming that they wouldn't just pay Microsoft to use the DirectX drivers. It's a lot cheaper than paying for a whole copy of Windows. Also, NVidia is releasing their drivers for Linux, so there's a good chance that when it's a big multi-million dollar company talking to them, they'll come up with some solution that works and is just rolled into the price of the console.

It's kind of an odd thing, really, that so many people who run Linux automatically assume that you can't use proprietary code. You or I might not *want* to pay for those codecs and drivers just because we're cheap or have some personal issue with doing so, but Steam certainly would have no such reservations.

Re:No more stuff in my entertainment center please

[LoudNoiseElitist]

Someone either doesn't know what Steam is, or is trolling, or both.

Pricing ???

[winspear]

It will be interesting to see how competitively they price it against the xbox and the play station. I would definitely get one if it is in the sane price range.

Re:so...

[Joce640k]

I'm guessing:

a) It runs Steam when you switch it on
b) Games will run on it without needing to tweak their configuration first

ie. It's aimed at console owners.

Hm..

[PessimysticRaven]

I'm a self-professed PC elitist. I've run through about every console system that's out there or been (I miss the Dreamcast, dammit..And the Saturn, oddly, but that was a Spring Break one-night-stand with itching and burning as the result), but I already have a kick-ass gaming rig, thanks! I like the idea of another choice among the Big Three, though.

Now... Am I the only person that would like to see a "Steam Games" sectional next to Nintendo and Sony in stores, though? I still like physical media, in some regard; I can't be the only one.

Re:Steam = Cheaters Paradise

[PessimysticRaven]

That's simple: Block anyone with a Steam account with MW3 and BF3. That'll take care of those idiots.

Re:No more stuff in my entertainment center please

[chilvence]

Durr, everyone and their mother would like to put a box on your tv. Have you been into this technology thing much?

Keyboard + Mouse for the livingroom TV?

[Dr. Spork]

If they're just making available their normal Windows games, does this mean that the interface will be a mouse and a keyboard? I'd be fine with this, but it's interesting that every major company that's making living room entertainment devices are really going out of their way to avoid using a keyboard and mouse. They must have some research backing up their decision.

Re:Keyboard + Mouse for the livingroom TV?

[tepples]

A USB or Bluetooth mouse and keyboard should work fine on a TV tray, and existing games can have patches released through Steam to improve the experience when played with a gamepad.

Re:Keyboard + Mouse for the livingroom TV?

[CronoCloud]

but it's interesting that every major company that's making living room entertainment devices are really going out of their way to avoid using a keyboard and mouse. They must have some research backing up their decision.

I don't know about that, PS2's/PS3's/Wii's/Xboxes all have USB ports for a reason. IMHO Sony is the most keyboard friendly, having games that support them. In fact any game that uses the PS3's standard OSK widget also sutomatically supports keyboard input to that widget. Nice for naming items in Oblivion/Skyrim.

I had a separate keyboard and mouse attached to my PS2 for those games that used them, but always wanted to try one of these with EQOA and FFXI

http://www.amazon.com/Logitech-NetPlay-Controller-Sony-Playstation-2/dp/B00006SKJ4

And of course both the 360 and PS3 have "chatpads" that hook up their respective controllers.

Windows Store/Xbox

[lilfields]

If Microsoft ever starts pushing cross platform digital distribution through the Windows Store and Xbox Live...EA's Origin and Steam are basically dead. Right?

Re:Windows Store/Xbox

[daninbusiness]

I think it depends if they are serious about improving their "Games for Windows Live" now "Xbox Games Marketplace PC" experience. The customer experience (to date) on PCs is not as good as what Steam offers (IMHO). Their direct download game offerings on PCs (to date) are not marketed well, though this is probably since MS is consciously promoting the Xbox over PC gaming. I think if MS is serious about selling PC gaming, they'd improve the experience and their marketing of PC gaming. But, I think they may have better luck when tablet/PC/console games converge more - ie, widespread Onlive or Gaikai type gaming (could be a while before that takes off, however).

Re:Better have good cooling and full web browser /

[rogueippacket]

Also if it's a pc can they have a pci-e slots so you can add a cable card tuner or a OTA tuner card? E-sata / room for more HDD's for DRV use.

A full web browser should be there, as well full web streaming so you can pick what you want / what your isp / tv providers offers.

We can call it the Steam Box - Clown Car Edition! Seriously though, you've just described any basic Home Entertainment PC. I believe the goal here is not to create a small form-factor PC that also runs Steam, but to bring PC titles directly to the living room - which means stripping the "fat" and focusing just on game delivery.

network access

[way2trivial]

could also be via the HDMI cable

see v. 1.4 "an HDMI Ethernet Channel (HEC), which allows for a 100 Mbit/s Ethernet connection between the two HDMI connected devices so they can share an Internet connection;[174] "

(hmm, how long before we run a single ethernet cable to the TV, and then it has a router running out to our optical disc/blu ray, game console, htpc, and all other tv connected internet devices)

Re:network access

[Moryath]

I'm having some serious deja vu.

Don't we get stories like this every couple of years? And they always turn into vaporware.

Re:network access

[Creepy]

remember when Microsoft tried to do that too? They had some success, but not in the US.

Re:network access

[SScorpio]

Yup HEC is really cool, there is also the control protocol which works over HDMI so your TV's remote can send commands to attached devices all over the HDMI cable.

I really like the idea of the new Roku which is the size of a thumb drive and powers off the TV. I don't know if it supports HEC though, I thought I read it has WiFI support.

I'd be surprised is the Steam box has HEC though, no consumer video cards support CEC right now, I'd be surprised if they suddenly started supporting HEC. It's possible, but I'm not sure how custom Valve will go with the hardware.

Re:network access

[hairyfeet]

Not to mention the problem with these kinds of ideas is a simple fact one can't escape...time to market. The PC world is still kicking out some serious advances on both the CPU and the GPU and by the time this box goes from drawing board to sitting on a shelf frankly it'll be using tech 3 generations behind at a cost comparable to something MUCH newer. This is why MSFT basically took a big bath on the original Xbox and took nearly 2 years to make a dime on the X360 as they knew you had to think long term with a market like that. How many years is Valve willing to lose money on this thing?

And if its one place i'd argue DON'T need a set top box its PC gaming. PC gaming boxes have frankly never been cheaper, you can pick up a nice barebone for $300 that'll play most of the games out there or add $75 to your local mom&pop shop and they'll do it for you. Dell and HP and everybody and their dog have both gaming desktops and laptops, and thanks to Steam I haven't seen an incompatibility in ages. This is a solution in search of a problem IMHO and a BAD idea. Valve should just keep backing the money truck up to their doorstep with Steam and not even consider getting in the ring with Sony and MSFT. Just look at how much money both of those companies have lost in that arena and you can see its not a smart move.

Re:network access

[icebraining]

Yeah, but Valve has a credibility - particularly in this space - that Phantom never had.

Throw in XMBC while you're at it

[lbgator]

This would be the killer box if XMBC was rolled in. They could even team with the Boxee crew. I'd put in my preorder today.

Wine

[tepples]

Linux cannot play windows games, and this is not due to some content blocks from greedy publishers. Portal was never released onto Linux

What would be the prime reason for not bothering to include a Wine box or two in your testing farm other than "some content blocks from greedy publishers"?

Just install Windows on your computer

Windows costs more than a computer. Why is that?

Re:Wine

[wisnoskij]

1) It is hard enough, impossible really, to get all the bugs out for a single platform. Adding a few wine boxes (which would not even guaranty it works on all Linux systems) and making sure it works on them is not at all a insignificant task. Also Wine is really not all that great, you simple cannot get all games to work on it.

2) With all the MS tax, Windows is pretty much free. I personally own about 5 copies, have access to a cooperate pro version of XP, and can use any version of it for free indefinably because my university offers it to every student.
If you wanted Windows for free You could most likely get a copy off of a friends old computer or you likely know someone whos work or school gives them access to tons of free take home versions of Windows.
And to answer your question: because anyone stupid enough to pay for a copy deserves to pay that much.

Valve still has to play nice with M$

[tepples]

Valve don't have to play nice with M$

If Valve wants to run games designed for the Windows operating system, then it has to play nice with Microsoft to get cheap copies of Windows. Otherwise, a copy of retail Windows costs as much as a whole Xbox 360 console.

Why create an open console platform when we already have one - the PC.

Because we can't guarantee that a particular make and model of PC hardware . Microsoft got in trouble when using commodity PC parts from Intel and NVIDIA in the original Xbox because it was hard to convince the suppliers to lower their unit prices over time even as processes shrank.

Re:Valve still has to play nice with M$

[adolf]

Because we can't guarantee that a particular make and model of PC hardware . Microsoft got in trouble when using commodity PC parts from Intel and NVIDIA in the original Xbox because it was hard to convince the suppliers to lower their unit prices over time even as processes shrank.

Isn't that the eventuality that Steambox 1.1 is supposed to cover?

Personal Computer vs. Family Computer

[tepples]

As Endo13 pointed out, PC stands for personal computer. If you want a family computer, get a console. You need to buy a separate copy of a multiplayer PC game for each player anyway.

Re:Personal Computer vs. Family Computer

[Kestrell69]

Then buy them in meatspace. Steam is incompatible with the basic usage you have in mind, and could very well stay that way indefinitely.

Spouse acceptance factor

[tepples]

why spend a bunch of money on a Valve box when you can just buy a cheaper off the shelf pc?

For one thing, a home theater PC in a specialized home theater PC case has a better wife acceptance factor than a standard minitower. For another, system requirements become easier to interpret once there's a standardized configuration.

Re:so...

[Opportunist]

To you and me, it will probably be a PC with some Windows variant installed and Steam preinstalled and autostarting.

For the console player, it will be a console that lets him play games without having to insert some CDs where he gets his games delivered online directly to console.

I think it's a pretty smart move, and I wonder why nobody had that idea before. Nothing beats the convenience of buying your games online right on your console, wait a few minutes for them to be delivered and play.

It's a windows PC

[thetoadwarrior]

Valve rarely fucks up but my concern is that this is the first time they will. If it can play all my existing games then it's a windows PC dressed up as a console. At worst that means you get all the hassle of PC gaming with the lock down of console gaming. At best it's just a windows PC in a customised case.

Either way I can't see the point of it. Steam works fine as is on HDTVs. If people want to do that they can do it already.

Re:It's a windows PC

[Anonymous Coward]

You and I know that, but the average console idiot has no idea their PC can hook up to their TV.

Re:It's a windows PC

[CronoCloud]

Oh, they might know, but odds are they think of a PC as "something that sits on a desk and is used for desktop-y things" Especially since many PC's in homes are older machines basically used for facebook/web browsing or budget boxes that might not even be able to keep up with a PS2 let alone a PS3 or 360.

Alumni, OEM licensing, time vs. money

[tepples]

my university offers it to every student

Until you graduate. Or does your university also offer it to alumni?

If you wanted Windows for free You could most likely get a copy off of a friends old computer

The license for an OEM version is tied to a particular motherboard, and OEM versions aren't for home-built desktop PCs.

you likely know someone whos work or school gives them access to tons of free take home versions of Windows.

But is the target market for this product dedicated enough to 1. home-build a PC and 2. traverse a friends-of-friends network to obtain a free copy of Windows for it? There's a time-money tradeoff, and I was under the impression that the target market for a game console wanted the convenience of plugging in and playing over all else.

Re:Alumni, OEM licensing, time vs. money

[wisnoskij]

"Until you graduate. Or does your university also offer it to alumni?"

Don't know, but I would hope that they would of given a big warning when I downloaded it if they planed to remotely break my computer at some point.

Can institutions do this? Is MS willing to turn off working licences for corporations?

Re:Alumni, OEM licensing, time vs. money

[Plekto]

Of course, the best way to solve this issue would be to have it use Linux and a custom-designed version of Wine. Basically what Transgaming did. It's not going to be easy, but they certainly have the resources to pull it off and if they can, it will mean maybe $20 in licensing fees for a few drivers and codecs, and beyond that, nothing at all.

After all, it's not going to run anything aside from games most of the time and this would allow them to likely use a basic integrated board like a multi-core Atom or similar with a dedicated Nvidia card added. By sticking with off-the shelf components and not having to pay for licensing fees, they can probably crank out a prototype for under a million dollars - way under what a typical console costs to develop. We're talking about $300-$400 or so for a machine that plays your entire Steam library. And if they can come out with it by this holiday season, they'll have blown a huge hole in the nex gen XBox and PS4's market (which is at least a year or two off).

I don't want to live on this planet anymore!

[SICKECHO]

I love Valve, I love Steam as a PC distribution platform. However we don't need another reason for developers to exclusively develop for consoles, or in some cases write the code for the consoles and make a shitty port for PC's which is often done. I hope PC's will still have companies developing games for them, certainly the indie developers will keep making games for PC because it's such an easy platform to distribute and test such games. Any thoughts?

Why do I need this?

[shoehornjob]

My computer has all of those things and more. Why do I need to have some console attached to my tv for gaming. From Steam's perspective I suppose it makes sense. They are already a pretty big player in the gaming community so why not take a piece of Sony and Microsoft's action. I'm kind of interested to see if they can make a go of it though.

Valve has a long way to go.

[nickmalthus]

I tried to make my own Steam gaming box as a part of the HTPC I built over the Christmas break. First, Valve has not delivered the Steam Big Picture mode which it promised a year ago (!). This means you need to use the native Windows application navigation with small fonts that even on a big HDTV it is difficult to read and navigate. Next Steam just acts as wrapper to native Windows games so there are still installer/update issues. As my first effort I tried to get Mass Effect 1 to run on my HDTV through steam and spent a couple of hours trying to determine why the launcher would silently die. It turns out I needed to manually download a patch from EA that Steam did not automatically include and apply it along with setting the game launcher to run as administrator. Not very user friendly at all. Then, I find out that on the PC Bioware/EA crippled game controller support for Mass Effect since they want you to buy the XBox 360 version for that so it only supports native mouse/keyboard. I had to buy a third party utility, xpadder, and manually create an control schema myself that works OK with a wireless 360 controller.

With all that said, I will continue to use Steam as a lower end cloud based backup service for buying bargain games future proofed against console obsolescence. Beyond that, Steam still requires all the PC gaming overhead of troubleshooting/patching/driver updates and probably will never provide the plug and play experience the polished consoles can.

Re:Valve has a long way to go.

[nickmalthus]

One more thing, Steam does not currently integrate with Windows Media Center so if you want to run your HTPC completely through WMC you are out of luck unless you want to spend a few hour researching and building your own WMC launcher.

Re:Valve has a long way to go.

[The_mad_linguist]

First, Valve has not delivered the Steam Big Picture mode which it promised a year ago (!).

Oh, wow. Valve missing their release date. I don't think I've ever heard of that happening before.

Re:Full of fail

[shutdown -p now]

To see why PC gaming is not dead, despite people like you saying that it's dying for over a decade now, one only needs to fire up the same game on a high-end PC gaming rig and on the latest-gen console, and compare the picture.

Reinstall after graduation

[tepples]

I would hope that they would of given a big warning when I downloaded it if they planed to remotely break my computer at some point.

I believe they gave you that warning in the page of 8 point print you bought along with a copy of Windows from your university bookstore. Watch your copy of Windows fail to activate when you reinstall after you've graduated.

Pack-in Title!

[RyoShin]

Episode 3 will be the pack-in title. That's why we haven't seen it yet, because Valve made it for the Steam Box but the box is taking too long to come out.

But really, considering how often computer hardware changes, if they're smart they'll make this a hybrid of console and PC gaming; each year they'll release a model, likely using higher-end hardware from the last year to keep prices down, with set standards to make it easy for developers to program for the future and to let things degrade nicely for the past (say, the standard will be to support the last three-five years of models). This way someone can buy one once and have the same cycle as consoles, or if they have more money they can buy each year's model and sell the older one. And Valve won't give two shits about the "used market", because the distribution will be mostly digital and they'll need to make their own Steam account to get into the PC (even if they use Origin, ha) and that will likely lead to money for buying from Valve. It's like TF2 and hats, but the game is physical (hats are still digital, sadly.)

Even if it doesn't take off, they might be able to form an industry standard "definition" of PC gaming ability to make it easier for people to figure out if their PC will run certain games.

Re:Full of fail

[Plekto]

Seriously, you have to be kidding.

PC games are driven by one segment that consoles have yet to make a dent in, which is MMOGs. As long as you need a PC to play WoW and games like it, PCs are going absolutely nowhere for the foreseeable future. And, honestly, Steam does work better than XBox live or the PS3's kludge when it comes to actually keeping track of friends and finding players to play with in most games. Being able to sort by half a dozen variables in most games as well simply doesn't happen with the consoles, either. A great example is compare BF3's servers. How many are actually running with Hardcore, which turns on friendly fire damage?(A: ZERO EA servers and literally 10-12 non EA ones) How easy is it to find a server and save it as a favorite? On the PC, it's dead simple by comparison and many people are running their own servers.

Until we see WoW and other games like it on consoles, AND playing on the same servers, you simply don't have to worry about PCs disappearing.

Gamer Windows

[maxbash]

I wondered why Microsoft never makes a gamer edition of Windows. It could be a cut down not include all the libraries and services that games never use. They could put a light weight 10 foot interface on it, maybe even the Xbox interface on it. It would use less RAM and probably even play the games faster. I guess it would compete with Xbox, but Xbox hardware is not a money maker. They could make money with a logo program or a built-in app store.

Valve is out...

[blahplusplus]

... to undermine game ownership and turn games into a 'service' permanently.

Re:Valve is out...

[ErikZ]

I'd be concerned, if it wasn't better than game ownership.

Re:Valve is out...

[blahplusplus]

You're a moron if you believe this.

HTPC

[Bensam123]

This isn't going to work. Essentially Valve is trying to bridge the gap between computers and consoles, showing the average joe that they can easily hook up their computers to the TV and it becomes a console. They're decking it out with modern hardware and they're making it compatabile with windows games... But that's not the way consoles work. They settle on the least common denominator when developing software for hardware. That means after Sony and MS crap on their next latest and greatest system, the software will essentially be designed for the least powerful system (as long as one doesn't turn out like a Wii).

That's the way it worked with the latest entourage of consoles. That saves the developers tons of work. If they weren't lazy they'd develop for the PC and port them to the consoles already, but they don't do that. That's also part of why Sony got royally screwed. They built a really powerful piece of hardware, but no one cared because it was hard to use and then they'd have to adjust things to make it run on the Xbox. With the exception to this being PS3 exclusives.

Essentially all Valve is doing is muddling the waters and rebranding a HTPC when they should be pushing steam on normal computers, raising customer awareness, and generally showing people how hooking a PC up to their TV isn't all that scary. That completely blows away all the nonsense MS and Sony have been throwing at people. They keep trying to make their consoles seem magical, when really it's already a PC. Nintendo already realized that consoles are crossing the niche to PCs and they solidified their position by making their system seem completely different from a computer, not just in terms of how you interact with it (the Wiimote), but also the kind of games you see on them. They tried to make them seem classical and basically retro. The graphics look like they're on the same level as a nintendo 64.

I really hope Valve doesn't go through with this... Maybe their real intention is to muddle the waters and make people actually attempt to hook a PC up to their TV...

Microsoft could afford to lose $6 billion

[rsilvergun]

can Valve?

Back compat fail

[tepples]

Isn't that the eventuality that Steambox 1.1 is supposed to cover?

Unless it is discovered that some Steambox 1.0 games will not run on a Steambox 1.1, just as many Xbox games will not run on an Xbox 360 due to lack of customized emulation software. Commodity PC hardware goes in and out of production faster than end users' expectations for the console life cycle.

Re:Back compat fail

[adolf]

The Xbox and the Xbox 360 are completely different pieces of kit: One of them is a Pentium III, and the other is PPC.

They don't even share the same endian-ness.

Commodity PC parts (as we've known the term for the past twenty years or more) haven't ever experienced such a change.

Re:Back compat fail

[tepples]

Commodity PC parts (as we've known the term for the past twenty years or more) haven't ever experienced such a change [comparable to the instruction set transitions of Xbox or Mac].

Good luck running a game "for the PC" designed for Windows 3.1 on 64-bit Windows Vista or 64-bit Windows 7. Heck, good luck running some Windows 9x games on Windows XP.

Re:Back compat fail

[adolf]

I thought the meta-discussion was about hardware.

When did it become about software?

Re:Back compat fail

[tepples]

As I understand it, the x86 hardware is capable of executing 16-bit instructions after it has executed a 64-bit instruction. You go from real mode to 32/16-bit protected mode to 64/32-bit long mode, and as I understand it, long mode can't run 16-bit instructions without emulation.

Mom and pops use XBOX HUEG cases

[tepples]

you can pick up a nice barebone for $300 that'll play most of the games out there or add $75 to your local mom&pop shop and they'll do it for you.

One mom and pop computer store in my home town wouldn't use any case smaller than a standard tower unless I chose to downgrade to an Atom CPU, which the shopkeeper told me wasn't designed for gaming. Compared to a game console, a standard tower is even more XBOX HUEG than the original Xbox.

Re:Mom and pops use XBOX HUEG cases

[hairyfeet]

Then your mom and pop shop was run by an idiot. You buy the case I'll be happy to jam any damned thing that'll match the holes, I'll just warn you that if you try to jam some Core i7 into a teeny tiny case you need to add water cooling or at least make sure it has plenty of airflow. I have a minitower with a Thuban X6 and it runs at room tem so I know with the right cooler it can be done quite easily. Its a damned shame the shipping would kill me or i'd be making some extra scratch doing that right now as there are a ton of excellent barebones on Tiger and i can whip one of those off in a couple of hours, about 5 if you want a fully patched OS included. I've built so many of the things I have it down to a science, with much of the install process fully automated.

But just remember the customer is always right and if the first shop you come to won't give you want you want there are always others. the fact that he didn't sit down with you and help you design it would have thrown a red flag to me anyway, the first things I ask are 'What do you want to DO with this machine? What is your budget?" and then i sit there with you and we design the best machine we can for the price point. Lately I've been building a lot of the Thuban X6 units, they are transcoding and gaming monsters with serious OCing headroom and the chips are less than $140 on tiger right now. Pair it with a nice case, a Hyper 212 or my fav hyper N520 cooler, a decent board with 8Gb of DDR 3 and whatever size drive you want and you can have yourself a sweet gaming machine. If you aren't worried about power bills I'd go for the HD4850s, you can get a pair of those for $100 which makes for a Crossfire monster but if power is an issue I like the 5770 or 6770 when you can find them.

Re:Full of fail

[CronoCloud]

And here I thought that PC gamers were the ones always saying gameplay was more important than graphics.

What you realize is that we've reached the point of diminishing returns, and simply put, consoles are "good enough" for most people. Sure, Skyrim or whatever might look some nicer on the PC, but it' won't be like the old days of comparing some 1990 PC game and a NES game.when there was a bigger difference in quality and capability. And then if you were tell them the price of that high end gaming rig, most people don't want to pay the premium for a slightly better picture when the actual game is exactly the same. And when you're immersed in it, you won't really care.

Re:Full of fail

[CronoCloud]

PC games are driven by one segment that consoles have yet to make a dent in, which is MMOGs. As long as you need a PC to play WoW and games like it, PCs are going absolutely nowhere for the foreseeable future.

Until we see WoW and other games like it on consoles, AND playing on the same servers, you simply don't have to worry about PCs disappearing.

While I agree that MMORPG's are keeping the PC as a platform alive, you do realize that it might not be forever. That statement of yours is rather similar to other statements made by PC gamers in the past trumpeting how PC gaming would never die or that the PC platform was better:

1. "You'll never play an action packed blood soaked slugathon DOOM on a kiddie console, Nintendo/Sega would never allow such an Xtreme/Adult game" Saw that in a PC gaming magazine once.......we all know what happened.

2. "Okay, you've got DOOM, but you'll never have network play on a kiddie console, that's where REAL MEN play." Cue the Saturn Netlink, and the modems/ethernet adapters for the Dreamcast/PS2/Gamecube/Xbox, etc etc.

3. "I don't play it, but my Imaginary Girlfriend/Wife plays the Sims, you don't have that."

3. "OKay you've got networked shooters now, but you'll never play MMORPG's like Everquest or Ultima"

4. "Okay so I forgot the PS2 has USB ports and you have MMORPG's now, and The Sims, and that PS2 port of Half-Life looks pretty nice. but you don't have WoW. Until you have that we'll keep on bashing you. You don't have Bethesda or Bioware games wither."

5. "Goddamn it, quit proving me wrong when I say you'll never have something, Bethesda and bioware now."

So in other words, it's only a matter of time. Sooner or later Blizzard will realize "Hey, we started as a console centric dev house, lets start doing console games again."

Re:Full of fail

[Plekto]

While this might be true in the far future, there are types of games that will require a level of complexity that you can't dumb-down enough and fit into a hand-held controller. There's simply no way that you can effectively play a game like WoW without a keyboard. Other games require high resolution graphics that exceed most people's TVs to be effectively played.

1: Doom on the consoles was actually tried and it stunk due to the consoles of the time having very poor sound and video. The PC side by that time was running Quake and Team Fortress. The PCs just simply moved faster and farther than the consoles could keep up with, since it's cheap to just add a better video card. The major problem consoles have is that they are set in stone hardware-wise, so you rapidly have an ancient system. A good example is to look at how many games on the PS3 are 720P. Very few are 1080P and even then, they are limited to 30fps and have horribly compressed and down-graded textures.

Battlefield 3 is quite frankly a let-down on the consoles. No mouse, no keyboard (hardware can do it, it's purposely disabled as it would create an "unfair advantage"). FPS is limited to 30, resolution is a pathetic 720P, which PC long ago went past (every monitor since about 2000 can do 1280X1024 minimum) , and the maps are roughly 1/4 the size. On top of that, you are limited to EA's servers and half the players.

WEAK SAUCE.

2: At the same time that the PS2 was trying to do its online gaming which was extremely weak, you had Counterstrike in full force on the PC side. A few hundred servers by a few dozen companies versus literally over a hundred thousand at its height.

3: MMOGs have never caught on on any of the consoles, even to date. Sure, there are a few pseudo ones that are coming out of Japan, but nothing, say, like Eve Online, WoW, Entropia, Second LIie, and... (huge list goes on and on) Since many of these games also use web based front-ends, which is a sore point for many consoles, it's a real problem. You can't play a game like Astro Empires on a console. Not without a keyboard, at the least. Intense micro-management RPGs also are full of problems. As great as Oblivion was, every minute I played it I was thinking "God, I want a proper keyboard and mouse."

The lack of mandatory 1080P and keyboard/mouse is that's currently holding the consoles back. But since that would make it a "PC" and they don't want to go in that direction, well, we have this divide that isn't going to change any time soon. You simply can't dumb-down an interface that much and expect it to work effectively. Steam's box, though has a lot of promise as it's not trying to fit a genre but a product.

4: Half-life was a joke. Deus Ex was a disaster. Bioware and most of that genre (Mass Effect and so on) were designed to be console games from the beginning, so porting them back to the PC doesn't really count. By that time, though, you had games like HalfLife 2, FEAR, and so on, which even though they were ported to consoles, looked extremely sad.

It may be a matter of time until consoles catch up, but PCs always will move ahead quite a lot faster.

Roku + PC OnLive

[aaronb1138]

I'm in favor of this Steam box, assuming they can work deals with vendors and actually get the price of a gaming PC box lower or equal to the build your own crowd.

The Steam box idea also allows better tiering of game quality for high quality on the "Steam box" platform or similar specs, and the option for ultra-high quality to still be available to bleeding edge gamers. At the current developmental cycle and proposed specs, the only part you would need to upgrade in the 2-3 years would be the video card, maybe RAM.

Also, please note how much Valve's early efforts at profiling gaming PC platforms with the first Steam surveys produced Half-Life 2 with excellent graphics, yet playable on a wide variety of hardware. This is a perfect example of Data Mining actually benefiting the consumer.

The fact that such a box will likely have a living room friendly form factor and cooling is certainly nice. Most mATX cases still leave a lot to be desired for a living room box.

Another vector I would like to see though would be some of the network media player box makers (Roku, WD, Slingbox, Blu-Ray players, etc.) Include an RDP client with bandwidth and screen quality optimizations to let you stream games over the network, in a manner similar, but vastly superior to OnLive (due to latency and bandwidth obviously). Off the shelf tech could be licensed from Citrix easily as an example. Another project for Raspberry Pi? XBMC?

N-Computing sells overpriced dumb terminals for use in small business and homes with a similar setup with a productivity oriented slant. You install their RDP server

Include the server side software for Windows / *nix / OSX to provide the optimized RDP service and UI, especially with the ability to allow usage of the computer by 2 or more users. Clearly, you might not be able to game at both ends simultaneously, but setting up notifications and optional per-user / per-session performance splitting would work on beffier PCs.

An i7 with 8-16 GB RAM would easily have enough power for 2-3 AAA titles at 1080P if the consumer just added a second top tier video card and had a appropriate RDP service and client for the usage model.

Similarly, Valve / Steam box could work with developers on multiplayer split-screen and multi-monitor (HDTV) variations, which the PC platform has severely lacked.

A console with a real mouse-support?!

[datorum]

If this is going to be a "console" with a real mouse as (optional) input device, it would be great. The main reason I didn't convert to consoles is simply that I don't want to play strategy games and fps with a freaking game-pad (not that there are many strategy games at all on the consoles).

Please allow an amendment

[tepples]

I admit that my original statement was false. Please allow me to amend it to make it true.

A console doesn't run any standard PC titles, especially PC titles that an individual just compiled in Visual Studio that use libraries that are not available in a C# version. A Sony or Nintendo console doesn't even run those.

Re:Please allow an amendment

[Kalriath]

Now that, I can agree with. And for what it's worth, I do think it's stupid that you need to have a bank vault and $20,000 to develop literally anything for a Nintendo or Sony console. XNA is a good first step, and there's not Xbox Live Indie Games which I hear actually allows a proper devkit so maybe sometime in the future you can run just about anything on an Xbox.

Re:Please allow an amendment

[tepples]

Xbox Live Indie Games is XNA. (Xbox Live Arcade allows native code but is a much more selective program, which I'm told is comparable to WiiWare.) It's just that it appears that Microsoft has made a point of ensuring that programs written in languages other than C# cannot run on an Xbox 360 even if they can run on the .NET Framework. Standard C++ needs unsafe code, which is banned in verifiably type-safe environments such as XBLIG and Windows Phone 7, and Python needs Emit, which is also missing from the .NET Compact Framework used by XBLIG and WP7.

I saw this earlier and thought it was a joke...

[DarthVain]

I don't see it.

A) What OS will it be running? Linux? Maybe 2012 is finally the year of the Linux Desktop! Or at least the console.
B) An i7 is a 350$ retail chip. Sure you can get value at scale, however only so much, and you have to build the thing, distribute it, advertize it, and a console is a lot more than just a chip. Could be they wait long time till price drops significantly.

Anyway I could go on for a bit, but can't be bothered. I could see Valve making the transition in concert with another party at some point in the future, it just seems premature right now.

I hear they are teaming up!

[DarthVain]

With Phantom Entertainment!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phantom_Entertainment

Phantom 2

[LordZardoz]

I might be overly pessimistic, but I do not think this will happen. Valve is basically talking about entering a mature market with entrenched competitors which also has a high barrier to entry. They do have one potential advantage, that being (presumably) an emphasis on streaming / downloading the content. However, that advantage is one that could be erased pretty easily if any of the other console makers adopt a similar distribution approach.

They are basically taking another crack at making the phantom. I cannot say that my confidence in them would be high.

END COMMUNICATION