Slashdot Mirror
Dell Joins Steam Machine Initiative With Alienware System
MojoKid writes "Plenty of OEMs have lifted the veil on their planned Steam Machine products, but Dell really seems to want to break free of the pack with their Alienware-designed, small form factor machine that they unveiled at CES this week. It's surprisingly tiny, sleek and significantly smaller than the average game console, weighing only about 4 — 6 pounds fully configured. Dell had a prototype of the machine on hand that is mechanically exact, complete with IO ports and lighting accents. Dell also had a SteamOS-driven system running, though it was actually a modified Alienware system powering the action with Valve's innovative Steam Controller. In first-person shooters like Metro: Last Night that Dell was demonstrating, the left circular pad can be setup for panning and aiming in traditional AWSD fashion, while the right pad can be used for forward and back movement with triggers set up for firing and aiming down sights. You can, however, customize control bindings to your liking and share profiles and bindings with friends on the Steam network. What's notable about Dell's unveiling is that the Steam Machines initiative gained critical mass with a major OEM like Dell behind the product offering, in addition to the handful of boutique PC builders that have announced products thus far."
Dell is actually going to offer an OS that isn't from Microsoft? Yes, yes, they've offered Ubuntu and RHEL I believe, but those are hard to get from Dell and the computers are sometimes more expensive than the Windows alternatives.
This is a noteworthy break in "tradition". Let's hope that this is the first step towards more OS opportunities from major hardware vendors.
I wonder if MS had to bless the SteamOS cert for 'secure boot' to work?
Can we stop putting unnecessary lights on everything, it's gotten tiresome.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
Prolly because Dell - estimate is all mine, YMMV - gets > 98% of its revenue stream from selling grey / black boxes to enterprises with deep pockets, NOT from peddling Alienware stuff.
True, I had an Alienware laptop once, and it was awesome. But still. I never met someone else with an Alienware box. And these are simply *too e x p e n s i v e * for being considered for anything resembling daily prodution use. So this is, quite probably, just muscle-flexing. The future will quite quickly tell us what this is really worth.
Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
the left circular pad can be setup for panning and aiming in traditional AWSD fashion
I'll probably get (rightfully) down-modded for this being off-topic, but it doesn't usually get mentioned at all - WASD is just assumed to be the standard - so I'm using its mention as an excuse to ask: why did WASD "win"? Games used to default to ESDF, and for a while some had a choice of default configurations for ESDF and WASD. I've wondered why this shift happened.
While it's mostly an arbitrary choice either way, ESDF makes more sense to me because you keep your hands on the home row, so it doesn't interfere with typing habits. Also gives you extra bindable keys to the left of A that you won't have if your pinky's sitting on capslock.
Please say yes ! It can't be worse than the copy-paste support robots at Steam.
All this news about steam machines is great, but in the end they will compete with consoles, not with standard PCs.
Higher end of the console market + lower end of the specialist gaming PC market (which is Alienware's arena) sounds like a viable target market to me.
There's probably not enough details of these third party steam machines yet, but in principle they should be more customisable and expandable, with more up-to-date hardware than consoles. Also, (unless Dell et. al. break out the footgun and lock their boxes down), they can double as Linux PCs or dual-boot Windows if you really must.
Plus, there's the potential of a "single market" for content that covers Steam on Mac, Windows and regular Linux distros, commercial Steam Machines and home-brew SteamOs boxes.
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
Not for me, thanks. Two of the things I love about consoles are never having to check "System Requirements" or upgrade to support a new game. If I wanted that, I would just go back to PC gaming and playing the never-ending videocard chase.
To me, the Steambox looks like the worst of both worlds.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
If a tree falls in the woods and no one knows what kernel it's running, does it make a sound?
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
If a tree falls in the woods and no one knows what kernel it's running, does it make a sound?
Since there are cross-cutting concerns between the platforms, the answer is yes. People know that this runs Linux, more people will spend time developing for Linux, some of those developments might have a positive impact on the desktop or people maybe more likely to install it as their desktop.
I guess that in order to please the shareholders and ultimately survive in the business it's absolutely essential for the traditional PC vendors such as Dell to be innovative and seek and try out any possible new revenue streams, markets, and business models due to the terrible shape of the industry... Five years ago the idea of starting to build and offer Linux based gaming boxes probably would've raisen rather unintentionally hilarious sentiments among the senior product management people of a PC vendor if someone would've dared to suggest something like that.
Two of the things I love about consoles are never having to check "System Requirements" or upgrade to support a new game.
Offset by 10 of the things I hate about consoles:
1) completely locked down
2) loaded with ads
3) games that are substantially more expensive
4) charge premiums for access basic features (e.g xbox gold)
5) artificial roadblocks to indie developers
6) artificial roadblocks to mods
7) demanding I have the disc in the drive, despite installing it to the hard drive
8) locking my online purchases to single physical console
9) arbitrary limitations on what controllers are available
10) 5 years out of date hardware on launch day
So, yeah, I can live with checking the box for requirements. To each their own, but I think that's the worst reason going to choose consoles.
For what its worth, I -do- have a Wii and WiiU, and I like them. For the last several generations now, Nintendo has had the least idiotic restrictions, and its relatively unique games library, and local multiplayer options have won me over my complaints. But the last playstation I owned was the PS1, and I've yet to have any interest in an xbox.
PC gaming had a rough batch of years for a while after the collapse of the retail market for games (when eb / gamestop etc all reduced their PC offering to one tiny shelf with some overpriced obsolete PC titles in beat up boxes).
But now, between Steam, GoG, Desura, Humble bundles, and the levelling off of the pc performance curve enabling gaming rigs to go for years without needing hardware to play ... the selection of games is enormous, and the prices are stupidly low.
Add in the maturity and ease of use of voice chat, readily available game servers etc. PC Multiplayer still lags behind consoles in terms of user friendly ... but its no longer anywhere near the chore it once was to setup.
Right now we are in a new golden age of PC games!
Now just give me a good joystick Space Sim in the vein of Privateer!
This is a paid story. Everyone knows that and Dell was the only company which did *not* reveal its hardware specs. This is ridiculous. Please talk about the other 13 Steam boxes.
Agree with everything... Though, who actually checks system requirements these days unless you know your machine is so marginal that it isn't even funny. I'll grant maybe I'm not the average, maybe I'm blinded by my own experiences and resources, but unless you're wanting to play Crysis at won't most people's normal machines handle the vast vast majority of games without even blinking?
Am I wrong here?
I was raised on the command line, bitch
"Nemo me impune lacesset"
That hasn't been a serious thing in years. If you bought a decent gaming PC in 2006 you'd still be playing new games on it today.
-- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
games that are substantially more expensive
In my experience, one copy of a console game that allows up to four players in one household is cheaper than two to four copies of a PC game that requires a separate PC per player.
artificial roadblocks to indie developers
The roadblocks were put in place because in 1983, a flood of me-too titles from startup developers was causing the median quality of Atari 2600 games to become unacceptable. Retailers were discontinuing video games in their stores citing end user dissatisfaction. Nintendo couldn't even get its console into stores in 1985 without finding some cryptographic way to assure retailers that their valuable shelf space wouldn't be filled with crap. How would you propose to improve median game quality while still allowing indie developers?
7) demanding I have the disc in the drive, despite installing it to the hard drive
8) locking my online purchases to single physical console
Other than by using the disc or the console as the root of trust, how would you propose instead to verify that a single purchased copy of a computer program isn't being used on more offline machines than for which it is licensed? Armed service members who are deployed often don't have Internet access to phone home daily (as in the original Xbox One plan) or even monthly (as in Steam).
9) arbitrary limitations on what controllers are available
As opposed to PC games, many of which impose arbitrary limitations on how many controllers a game recognizes at once as a way to sell more copies. Few PC games allow split screen. I've also noticed a disturbing trend of games using only XInput and ignoring DirectInput, which ends up allowing only Xbox 360 controllers, not USB HID joysticks. Microsoft in fact requires games to be XInput-only if they're made for Windows RT or otherwise sold through Windows Store because the Windows Runtime does not support DirectInput.
10) 5 years out of date hardware on launch day
The hardware in the Game Boy Advance and Nintendo DS was 10 years out of date, being roughly equivalent to a Super NES or Nintendo 64 respectively. They won on battery life.
Two of the things I love about consoles are never having to check "System Requirements" or upgrade to support a new game.
Let's say you own a PS3. You see a game, but the front of the box says "System Requirements: PS4". Too bad. Requirements creep in PCs is more gradual than in consoles, where some console makers were quick to drop their previous platforms. For example, good luck finding new games for the original Xbox in 2006 after the Xbox 360 had just come out. And just as many Game Boy Color games could fall back to the slower CPU and monochrome screen of the original Game Boy, many PC games can fall back to lower detail settings.
" but in principle they should be more customisable and expandable, with more up-to-date hardware than consoles. Also, (unless Dell et. al. break out the footgun and lock their boxes down), they can double as Linux PCs or dual-boot Windows if you really must. "
No. being all identical is what makes consoles perfect for gaming (I'm saying that as a PC gamer, the only two consoles I ever had are a NES and PS2). That means a game made today (FIFA 2014 for PS2) *WILL* run perfectly on my console, launched in March 2000. Try running a modern game on a 14 year-old PC. That may well be why the Steambox fails.
I've got better things to do tonight than die.
The problem with TFGH is that "ergonomic" keyboards with a big gap between TGB and YHN were popular when the first-person shooter genre conventions were becoming standardized. I had to switch to RDFG.
a regular PC for the same price is just better in every way than most of these
I don't see how. For one thing, "a regular PC" likely comes in a big noisy tower that doesn't look good in a living room because it's even more XBOX HUEG than the original Xbox. For another, the maker has to skimp on GPU to pay for the Windows license. Switching to SteamOS, which Valve offers for zero royalty, diverts money away from Microsoft and toward a GPU and industrial design.
If a tree falls in the woods and no one knows what kernel it's running, does it make a sound?
Not if it's running pulseaudio.
All Call of Duty games that I've seen played on my cousin's Xbox 360 console support 2-player split screen. Screen-peeking is desirable in co-op.
You treat customers like you want their business.
So how should a publisher treat its customers like the publisher wants its customers' business but doesn't want the customers to compete with the publisher itself? If console games could be installed to a hard drive with no digital restrictions management, then the publisher could sell only one copy of the game in an entire city because everyone would be installing off the same disc and returning it to the store.
[Dedicated handheld video game systems] aren't consoles.
They are unlike consoles in some ways (being battery-powered and pocket-sized with an internal display) but like consoles in others (cryptographic lockout of homemade games). In any case, console hardware is somewhat out of date at launch because out-of-date hardware fits within the cost and TDP expectations of console buyers.
I think I remember this movie. It had Rob Lowe and Demi Moore in it.
I think it was the Wikipedia article that pointed it out. You can't make a hardware standard like you can for DVD players and CD players because the tech in game consoles is too pricey. You need to loss lead or you can't compete.
Now, if they games were $30 instead of $60 they might have a value proposition. But most big budget titles (Call of Duty, Skyrim, Assassin's Creed, etc) launch at $60.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
The never ending video card chase ended after the 8800 GTX. Any mid to top range card will last AT LEAST 5 years.
Good-bye
This just in: Alienware machines are overpriced.
Details at 11
Goddammit just when I get my first +5 the Beta rolls out and kills everything
The hardware makers have to make money on it.
Traditional game consoles are subsidized. When they launch they are sold for a very thin profit at most, and generally are sold for a loss (sometimes a fair sized one). The money is then made up on games (each game sold pays a license fee to the console maker).
That's not the case with Steam boxes. Valve isn't subsidizing it, they aren't even participating the the building. They are having others do it. Well Dell doesn't mind, they are open to sell PC hardware anywhere they can. But they require a profit on it. They aren't going to take a loss, because the only money they'll see from it is the up front sale.
Also, something that does help the consoles price wise this generation is the AMD chip. Their GPU and CPU is one unit. That costs less than two separate units. Also AMD is giving the makers a very deep discount to win the contract.
Hence, it is gonna be more expensive. That is one of the major problems a Steam box will have: It'll cost more than a console of roughly equal performance.
You might, but then again you might on consoles too. Games cost full retail on Steam. Assassin's Creed 4 is $60, same as for the PS4 and the Xboner. It is, in fact cheaper for the PS3 and 360, only $50. Now, it was on sale for a day on Steam's winter sale for $45 (still more expensive than the Wii U version now) but only for that short sale. If you want it now, $60 it is.
What about older titles? Say, Crysis 2. Only $30 in the Steam Store now. From Amazon? $20 for the PS3/360.
Yes Steam has sales, but they are limited time only sales. Guess what? Amazon, Gamestop, etc all do that too. If you shop sales, and if you buy older titles, you can have games cheaper. You want the newest titles around release? You are paying $50-60, regardless of platform.
Don't get me wrong, I love Steam, I'm a PC-only gamer, I have 200 games in my Steam library. However don't kid yourself in to thinking you spend more getting a Steam machine and the save money on all games. No such luck.
In fact, I'd hazard a guess that on the old generation consoles, you could spend even less if you stuck strictly to older games, because used is an option. Like again take Crysis 2. If you buy on Steam, you pay Steam's price, period. $30 right now, and even assuming a big 75% sale $7.50. Right now Amazon has used copies for sale for $5 for the 360. There are never any used Steam games, since you cannot resell them.
So sorry, but for most consumers it isn't going to equal some amazing cost savings, unless Valve drops their prices a lot. They can't do that though, because they let publishers set the prices and the big publishers require agency pricing anyhow.
Or which platform is the best in terms of supporting indie developers creating games designed around local multiplayer? [...] PC with or without steam is probably the best.
This is what I meant. So as I understand it, the route to market is to start on PC without Steam, then submit games to Greenlight once they gain traction, then try consoles. Am I right? But several Slashdot users have repeatedly told me that nobody other than a hardcore geek wants to connect a PC to a TV to play local multiplayer games. To me, the Steam Machine (a Linux PC designed for set-top use) appears to be the most viable way to turn this around.
And windows RT isn't a PC.
Someone should tell that to whoever manages Microsoft's web site. I too was surprised when Microsoft described RT tablets as Windows RT PCs.
they are replacing that all with levels 1,2,3,4,5.
each level will speciy video card, ram, cpu, etc..., like kind windows 7 does. lowest rating is overall rating.
So if you have a level 3 game, you need a level 3 or better machine. fucking simple.
Agree with everything... Though, who actually checks system requirements these days unless you know your machine is so marginal that it isn't even funny. I'll grant maybe I'm not the average, maybe I'm blinded by my own experiences and resources, but unless you're wanting to play Crysis at won't most people's normal machines handle the vast vast majority of games without even blinking?
Am I wrong here?
Considering Crysis came out in 2007... OK I'm being pedantic :)
I agree with your point, the only problem you have is people who dont play games, buying games. Little Johnny's dad buys him Call Of Repetition 46, Dickwolf Ops on PC, he doesn't know or care if it would work in the ancestral family computer. Consoles do eliminate this problem, but introduce dozens more as the GGP pointed out.
The solution is for the people wanting to play the game, becoming involved in buying them (system requirements are published these days, a quick Google will tell you more than the back of the box ever will) otherwise they will remain chained to the console. Some will even begin to like it with some form of Stockholm Syndrome, not only accepting and liking the abuse, but also inflicting it on themselves and others.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Actually I thought we were already past the age of steam machines, and all those steam punk stories were science fiction. ;-)
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
Maybe.... but only if you spend >$500 on the video card.
According to Tom's Hardware guide in 2006 they were recommending the Radeon X1950 XT in the $270 range. For the $340 range they suggested dual X1950 PROs or dual GeForce 7900 GS. For $460 they recommended the Geforce 8800 GTS.
The 8800 GTS is the minimum requirement for Assassin's Creed Liberation and is below the requirement for Batman Arkham Origins. So, maybe a dual 8800 at $920 would do okay.
I would add Multiplayer as a big thing. First off it is more and more a primary component to a game. Second consoles are moving in the always online direction. Consoles generally speaking do not do MMO's at all really. Finally the games that are out there, you are limited at best to about 16, usually 8-10 (with a few exceptions). Compare that with PC, and it is no contest. I was playing in 64 player games well over a decade ago.
Even with the new "cutting edge" consoles I have heard of nothing that addresses any of that, and is mostly an issue on the back end structure (or lack thereof) of these games. Everything is distributed off the client consoles. Either they don't want to run servers or have DRM issues. I don't see why MS or Sony doesn't just build some capacity and then rent it out to developers to use. Cost probably.
I have heard of games like Elder Scrolls: Online, but then hear rumors that it is really more like you will be able to play with 3 of your friends online like an updated version of Gauntlet or something...